Dec 28, 2022·edited Dec 28, 2022Liked by Glenn Loury
Glenn's remarks about pride in his people stood out to me this episode. We can look at the accomplishments of black Americans and discuss how incredible they are; we can compare them to the Jews and ask why one group should abandon its identity while the other needn't; we can say that Thomas wants to take something from blacks that he wouldn't take from whites; and listening to Glenn, I completely understand his meaning. I get his desire to be part of a group. I understand that he sees African-Americans as his people. On a visceral level it all makes sense to me.
But I'm a white American. I have an Anglo surname and significant British ancestry. My ancestors came over four centuries ago. I feel no attachment whatsoever to England, or Scotland, or Ireland, or Germany. I don't feel European in the slightest. On my census forms I click 'American.' There is nowhere for me except the US. I'm an atheist, and my family have been atheists for at least 120 years. When people look at me they think 'white,' but I have little more in common with most white people than I do many, say, Chinese-Americans. I would wager, sometimes, even less. What is my 'identity?' What do I have that equates to Glenn's pride in his people?
I have ancestors who fought in the Revolution. They could have been at the signing of the Declaration of Independence. The percentage of Americans who can say that is ever-dwindling. But if I did talk about how I felt pride in that ancestral link, I would probably be called a racist. If I said I felt proud for the accomplishments of my ancestors for settling the frontier, I would probably be called a white supremacist. If I said I was proud of Abraham Lincoln and Edgar Alan Poe and Elvis Presley and any number of other figures with similar ancestry to me, not because they were my countrymen as Americans but because they had my skin color, I would definitely be called a fascist white nationalist evil racist (etc.).
The only real difference I can see, intellectually, is that my 'people's' history in America lacks any memory of oppression. It's the racial identity of a majority group. For that reason, because I'm just 'American,' I am simply not allowed in modern society to feel happy or grateful or proud of my ethnicity. Heritage is slightly different, but I am not permitted to have a racial identity as a person with pale skin (who isn't Jewish). It would be an enormous faux-pas.
'My people' did what Glenn accuses Thomas of asking blacks to do a long time ago--they lost their sense of group identity in favor of something more fundamentally American. My people aren't 'white people;' they're Americans. So maybe I should ask the question back. Why do blacks and Jews and the Chinese and whoever else get to have something I don't? Doesn't Glenn always say that if you keep that kind of thing up for long enough, people will start to notice?
I don't need race. I hope that every new immigrant feels as amazed by and grateful for the Founders as I do. I don't want to own anything because of my skin color. 'My people' are those who share similar beliefs about liberty and freedom and individualism; that is independent of race, and only correlated to culture. If we're trying to move forward, I think African-Americans clearly have to become more like me. The alternative is me becoming more like them--and EVERYBODY, left and right, agrees that that would be calamitous. Except maybe Kanye and Nick Fuentes.
I hope this all makes sense, I'm still not over my Christmas flu.
What I find to be interesting is that this admirably universalist American mindset no doubt born from the specific circumstances of this country’s history isn’t shared in many other parts of the world. When you read books like On China by Henry Kissinger or Has China Won by Kishore Mahbubani, one of the central themes stressed is that of Chinese particularism versus American universalism. Americans believe that the entire world can and should be like us. The Chinese believe that only they can be Chinese. The irony of Amy Wax being condemned for being anti-Asian is that in my opinion she's a lot closer to the Asian mindset when it comes to race and culture than the mainstream American norm.
I believe that this difference in mindset is the source of much contemporary geopolitical tension. By and large China avoids opining on the internal issues of other countries as long as those issues don’t directly touch upon core Chinese interests like Hong Kong or Taiwan. America on the other hand believes that ideals of human rights and freedom are universal. I would argue that American universalism has overreached in past decades, as evidenced by our recent pullout from Afghanistan and the collapse of our regime building efforts there. It’s possible that certain parts of the world don’t possess the requisite cultural capital for American style democracy.
Glenn aptly brought up the importance of nationalism in response to Kmele’s position of racial abolitionism and as a counter to the idea that only the individual matters. If in this country we’re moving past race and ethnicity and towards the idea that we’re really just Americans first and foremost, how do we grapple with the fact that transracial humanism isn’t shared in many other parts of the world and that notions of universalism might impact how we approach the most important bilateral relationship of the 21st century?
I should also point out that Samuel Huntington wasn’t even the first intellectual to predict a clash of civilizations. Racialist Lothrop Stoddard in his 1920 book The Rising Tide of Color prophesized a future where the whites and the yellows would battle for global influence. I don’t know if I would describe the current geopolitical situation as a race war, but it’s certainly a clash between two very different civilizations with very different cultural values and heritages.
Universalism is a nice sentiment, but somehow we always end up being pulled back into the muck of group conflict. As they say, blood is thicker than water.
Glenn's remarks about pride in his people stood out to me this episode. We can look at the accomplishments of black Americans and discuss how incredible they are; we can compare them to the Jews and ask why one group should abandon its identity while the other needn't; we can say that Thomas wants to take something from blacks that he wouldn't take from whites; and listening to Glenn, I completely understand his meaning. I get his desire to be part of a group. I understand that he sees African-Americans as his people. On a visceral level it all makes sense to me.
But I'm a white American. I have an Anglo surname and significant British ancestry. My ancestors came over four centuries ago. I feel no attachment whatsoever to England, or Scotland, or Ireland, or Germany. I don't feel European in the slightest. On my census forms I click 'American.' There is nowhere for me except the US. I'm an atheist, and my family have been atheists for at least 120 years. When people look at me they think 'white,' but I have little more in common with most white people than I do many, say, Chinese-Americans. I would wager, sometimes, even less. What is my 'identity?' What do I have that equates to Glenn's pride in his people?
I have ancestors who fought in the Revolution. They could have been at the signing of the Declaration of Independence. The percentage of Americans who can say that is ever-dwindling. But if I did talk about how I felt pride in that ancestral link, I would probably be called a racist. If I said I felt proud for the accomplishments of my ancestors for settling the frontier, I would probably be called a white supremacist. If I said I was proud of Abraham Lincoln and Edgar Alan Poe and Elvis Presley and any number of other figures with similar ancestry to me, not because they were my countrymen as Americans but because they had my skin color, I would definitely be called a fascist white nationalist evil racist (etc.).
The only real difference I can see, intellectually, is that my 'people's' history in America lacks any memory of oppression. It's the racial identity of a majority group. For that reason, because I'm just 'American,' I am simply not allowed in modern society to feel happy or grateful or proud of my ethnicity. Heritage is slightly different, but I am not permitted to have a racial identity as a person with pale skin (who isn't Jewish). It would be an enormous faux-pas.
'My people' did what Glenn accuses Thomas of asking blacks to do a long time ago--they lost their sense of group identity in favor of something more fundamentally American. My people aren't 'white people;' they're Americans. So maybe I should ask the question back. Why do blacks and Jews and the Chinese and whoever else get to have something I don't? Doesn't Glenn always say that if you keep that kind of thing up for long enough, people will start to notice?
I don't need race. I hope that every new immigrant feels as amazed by and grateful for the Founders as I do. I don't want to own anything because of my skin color. 'My people' are those who share similar beliefs about liberty and freedom and individualism; that is independent of race, and only correlated to culture. If we're trying to move forward, I think African-Americans clearly have to become more like me. The alternative is me becoming more like them--and EVERYBODY, left and right, agrees that that would be calamitous. Except maybe Kanye and Nick Fuentes.
I hope this all makes sense, I'm still not over my Christmas flu.
What I find to be interesting is that this admirably universalist American mindset no doubt born from the specific circumstances of this country’s history isn’t shared in many other parts of the world. When you read books like On China by Henry Kissinger or Has China Won by Kishore Mahbubani, one of the central themes stressed is that of Chinese particularism versus American universalism. Americans believe that the entire world can and should be like us. The Chinese believe that only they can be Chinese. The irony of Amy Wax being condemned for being anti-Asian is that in my opinion she's a lot closer to the Asian mindset when it comes to race and culture than the mainstream American norm.
I believe that this difference in mindset is the source of much contemporary geopolitical tension. By and large China avoids opining on the internal issues of other countries as long as those issues don’t directly touch upon core Chinese interests like Hong Kong or Taiwan. America on the other hand believes that ideals of human rights and freedom are universal. I would argue that American universalism has overreached in past decades, as evidenced by our recent pullout from Afghanistan and the collapse of our regime building efforts there. It’s possible that certain parts of the world don’t possess the requisite cultural capital for American style democracy.
Glenn aptly brought up the importance of nationalism in response to Kmele’s position of racial abolitionism and as a counter to the idea that only the individual matters. If in this country we’re moving past race and ethnicity and towards the idea that we’re really just Americans first and foremost, how do we grapple with the fact that transracial humanism isn’t shared in many other parts of the world and that notions of universalism might impact how we approach the most important bilateral relationship of the 21st century?
I should also point out that Samuel Huntington wasn’t even the first intellectual to predict a clash of civilizations. Racialist Lothrop Stoddard in his 1920 book The Rising Tide of Color prophesized a future where the whites and the yellows would battle for global influence. I don’t know if I would describe the current geopolitical situation as a race war, but it’s certainly a clash between two very different civilizations with very different cultural values and heritages.
Universalism is a nice sentiment, but somehow we always end up being pulled back into the muck of group conflict. As they say, blood is thicker than water.
I hear you loud and clear, my American brother!