Listen now (84 min) | This week’s TGS features two incomparable guests: John McWhorter and Randall Kennedy. John, of course, needs no introduction. Randy is a professor at Harvard Law School and the author of many books, the latest of which is Say It Loud!: On Race, Law, History, and Culture
You, "The Black Guys," is a one-stop shop for informative discussion on race related content. Not aware of another venue that deals w/ these racial issues as well as yours does. You and McWhorter are like two uncle's at the Thanksgiving table that lead the charge over saving the world. One reasonably salty versus the other who, not as convincing, is more palatable/accepting.
Perhaps not fair to drag poor Randall from his university confines as he comes off as conflicted and confused. Doesn't make him a "bad" man(..of course), just conlicted and confused and unmoored from any tenets one might stand by. Too many emotional caveats to negotiate................but did I mention that he seems very nice. ;-)
Your comments section is one of the tops. Not sure whether I feel that way because I lean conservative and perhaps your followers lean like-minded but unlike Randall Kennedy(..sorry Randall!) those posting in your comment section usually present their arguments w/out their emotional baggaage(caveats) outweighing their presented "facts."
Appreciate your work! ..and whoever is helping you on the backend, for your website is easy to navigate and is laid out/presented w/ class.., if that makes any sense.
Continued success(!), to both you, John AND Randall.
From 39:34 to 40:58, John is asking about the source of the Black-White difference in violence perpetration. I suggest looking at "Neighborhood Disadvantage and Verbal Ability as Explanations of the Black-White Difference in Adolescent Violence: Toward an Integrated Model" by McNulty, Bellair, and Watts (2012).
They conclude, "This article integrates an individual difference approach that emphasizes variation in verbal ability with a sociological approach that highlights neighborhood disadvantage, both of which are relevant to explanation of the race difference in violence. Black children are far more likely than their White counterparts to grow up in neighborhoods featuring high rates of structural disadvantage [high poverty, unemployment, and female-headed households], which has repercussions for the acquisition of verbal skills that are crucial for achievement in school and the labor market. Our results show that low verbal ability and diminished school attainment are criminogenic risk factors that are in part outcomes of exposure to neighborhood disadvantage. Verbal ability partly mediates the effect of disadvantage at the neighborhood level and in turn provides a succinct explanation for the racial disparity in violence. Although sociological variables also explain the race disparity, verbal ability in conjunction with neighborhood disadvantage reduces the Black–White gap in violence to zero and is thus part of the explanation" (pp. 14-16).
What's a racist? There is no longer a consensus. So frankly it's kind of pointless to debate over who is and isn't a racist in America.
That said, no one will ever accuse me of being a Trump apologist. Trump makes me sick and Trumpism makes me sicker. But if you asked me, "Is Donald Trump a racist?" I would likely hesitate before answering based on MY definition of the word.
But I wouldn't hesitate for one microsecond over whether or not Donald Trump--at a minimum--winked and nodded at White nationalist themes and perspectives. He did that. NO doubt about it.
If you don't believe that, you're probably naïve about White nationalist themes and perspectives.
And I must insist on clarity here. I did NOT say "WHITE perspectives". Nor did I say "conservative" or "rightist" perspectives. I said "White NATIONALIST" perspectives, which do exist in real ways in the US and throughout the Western World.
People sympathetic to White nationalism were energized by Trump's campaign because of this. He spoke to them in their language and they expressed their excitement and love accordingly. That's just fact.
For what it's worth, I don't think Trump played this card because of his own personal beliefs about race, which may or may not be racist by whatever definition. (Frankly, who knows and who cares?) He did this to become POTUS. That's it.
He saw a market, seized it, and being the self-serving, self-aggrandizing blankety-blank that he is, why choose a higher path?
Having said all of that, if you wanna argue that the time had come for something like Trump to emerge, as a kind of blowback against the maniacal excesses on the left, that's one thing. But to say or think that this **** wasn't going on during Trump's road to the presidency is naïve beyond words.
Curious about this point. I think you’re right many people are unaware of the boilerplate “white nationalist rhetoric.” As such, whatever nods there may have been toward them, how do you divine whether they were intentional or not?
It’s is conceivable to me that you can make an argument that is pro-America, pro-traditional values, etc and have some overlap with whatever points white nationalists might make. Just as you can make arguments critical of the US on race and equality and echo some of the boilerplate BLM and woke rhetoric. Just because there’s overlap or similarity doesn’t mean It’s a direct reference or the now-hackneyed
I think our generalized inability to recognize that extremists on both sides are not necessarily 100% wrong about everything. The issue with extremists and fanatics is the fact that they push both causes and proposed solutions to their absurdist extremes (hence the label).
Anyway, I’m curious how you can KNOW that’s what he was doing. Since I’m totally unaware of what constitutes boilerplate white nationalist rhetoric I wouldn’t know it if it bit me. Based on all available data on these things, I believe that’s true for 95% of Americans.
Great conversation. If willing, would be great to see Kennedy on more, especially to discuss his oeuvre and thoughts on how , “Race, Crime, and the Law” have held up.
Great talk, was not too long.At time 43:00-ish, you three ask the question; “What is the cause of carjacking?” When the answer to that and other questions is “poverty”, does that mean the cause was methodologically explored and determined to be poverty? Or does that mean we decided “Poverty as cause” prior to investigation and then searched for info/data to support that claim?
The issue with Affirmative Action is not only the ethical case for engaging in it as laid out, but even if we agree with the "purpose" as mentioned in the discussion, does A achieve it? to my mind, given the fact that it tends to help (bump) people who by and large would already be well off, which is to say middle class and likely upwardly mobile, and not the most disadvantaged. how often does its use convert someone who would otherwise not even consider going to college, not due to ability but circumstances, into a graduate, rather than merely altering which college an applicant goes to?
This is not only the best episode of the Glenn show I've ever seen, but I'd argue that it's the best, most insightful, honest, complex, and provocative conversations about race in America that I've ever heard. It's also a profoundly necessary conversation at this moment in our history. I'd recommend to Professors Loury, McWhorter, and Kennedy to expand conversation this into a book, a film of some kind, taking this conversation on the road, or find other ways you three together can engage the general American public. All Americans needs to hear this and think about what you've all discussed. While professors Loury, McWhorter, and Kennedy are all brilliant and accomplished scholars, it seemed to me that you all took it up another level. This was like was like watching an All Star game, the best of very best engage each other. I can't express how grateful I am that you recorded it and invited us all to listen. Thank you!!
Love your comment. There were points during the conversation where I shouted, "PREACH!!!" It was because Glenn and Randall were killing it. It was like hearing a powerful score from Hans Zimmer.
Black culture is way too subjective at this point. The culture functions under an umbrella that reads-"One person's ignorance is another person's treasure." Even if something is obviously ignorant, it doesn't matter. If you express that truth, you'll pay the price.
There are enough apologists who support ignorance and have normalized it.
A culture like that cannot be taken seriously!!!! Again, it's it war with itself!!
I find it absolutely hysterical that these two are blaming Trump yet give Biden a pass. Biden has said the most disgusting comments on race - that racial jungle comment was the worst- he didn’t want his precious children going to school w Randy’s or John’s - yet they support him ??? It’s shocking ,, how come nobody ever brings that up !
Really enjoyed the discussion Glenn, although I found some of Professor Kennedy's responses a little underwhelming. But definitely respected hearing his perspective on these matters.
On the subject of crime and how you know it's not because of poverty, I'd just like to reiterate a few observations I made in a prior thread. I'm not an economist so I'm sure my analysis is a bit simplistic, but I noted before that China seems to me to be a clear and obvious counterexample to almost every single left-wing explanation I've heard when it comes to these sorts of discussions.
Given China's current trajectory it's certainly not unreasonable to assume that it could end up joining the league of first world nations as far as per capita GDP over the coming decades, but the fact of the matter remains that for much of the recent few decades it's been a relatively poor country by first world standards. Even today PPP adjusted per capita GDP for China is roughly $19,000 USD. By contrast, according to Wikipedia the per capita income of African Americans was over $23,000 in 2018. I'm sure someone will explain to me how per capita income and GDP aren't quite the same thing and in any case how income isn't the same as wealth. I still contend though that the numbers I'm citing reveal something.
It's universally assumed that somehow poverty is correlated with crime, but that putative correlation let alone any claims about causation doesn't seem to exist when one observes East Asia. According to Wikipedia the intentional homicide rate per 100,000 people is roughly .53 in China. Apart from North Korea and Mongolia, every country in East Asia has an intentional homicide rate per 100,000 people of less than 1. By contrast, I believe the intentional homicide rate per 100,000 people among African Americans is somewhere in the range of 15-20.
If poverty were an insuperable obstacle to progress, it's not clear how one could ever expect countries to lift themselves out of poverty for instance. And yet China has done exactly that over the past few decades, while exhibiting few of the social pathologies that one would normally attribute to relative impoverishment. You can see echos of this in the fact that many of the kids who get into the elite high schools in NYC are from poor immigrant families. Oddly enough you sometimes hear poverty used as an explanation for why certain immigrant groups succeed in America. Their relative impoverishment was a motivating factor for why they strove to excel because they wanted a better life for themselves than what their parents had. I feel like when a single factor can be used to explain anything it ultimately ends up explaining nothing.
The age adjusted homicide rate per 100,000 for african americans hit 30.62 in 2020 (and very likely rose significantly again in 2021) as per the CDC. You were quoting older data about homicide rates being 15 to 20 per 100,000. This was true a few years ago. But sadly no longer. :-(
Non latino African Americans are about 60 times as likely to be murdered as Chinese people who live in China. China also had low crime decades ago when China was a very poor country.
African Americans have arguably been betrayed by the rest of americans (asians, latinos, multi-racial & multi-ethnic, caucasians) and perhaps this rises to the level of a crime against humanity.
To expand upon my prior comment, this might be a bit vague but oftentimes when we look at different ethnic groups or differences among countries we observe some kind of correlation between SES and crime or academic achievement or whatever else. And then we get into discussions about whether correlation necessarily implies causation, etc.
What I have observed though is that these correlations are significantly lessened when you examine people of East Asian descent. I noted above that relatively poor by first world standards China seems to have a per capita rate of intentional homicides comparable to that of wealthier East Asian countries. Likewise China doesn't seem to lag wealthier countries in East Asia when one looks at PISA scores or other sorts of country level measures of achievement. I noted above the prevalence of poor immigrant families among the kids who are testing into the elite high schools in NYC. I'm also reminded of this Guardian article from 10 years ago which I've linked to below pointing out that albeit from a small sample size, the gap in academic achievement between higher SES and lower SES British Chinese pupils was significantly lower than that of other ethnicities in the UK.
I read a "bad review" here before I listened, so I wasn't sure what to expect. Bottom Line: I thought it was fantastic. Maybe people were put off by the early anti-Trump rhetoric from Professor Kennedy, but Glenn could not have had a stronger response. My overall summary: Professor Kennedy would make a typical Woke point, be challenged by Glenn or John, then concede that he agreed. I was left to wonder why he pushes divisive narratives when he apparently has serious doubts. But he was a good guest, a perfect foil for Glenn and John.
Near the end, Glenn made the point that if we artificially promote undeserving people, they are going to reach a point where they are not as capable as their coworkers. The coworkers may not say anything, but they are acutely aware. The Japanese have great terminology for that: "honne" and "tatamae." I think there's a lot more tatamae going on in America right now than Woke politicians recognize.
I feel compelled to comment on Trump/racism thing. The Legend of Trump the Ugly Racist is built on pretty much nothing. Here are just two examples:
1. Trump called a subset of a subset of a subset of a subset of Mexicans "rapists." (Mexicans -> Mexican immigrants -> Mexican illegal immigrants -> Mexican illegal immigrant criminals -> Mexican illegal immigrant criminal rapists.) Yes, Trump was being incendiary, but a politician being incendiary is hardly news. Trump's comment was reported as "Trump called all Mexicans rapists." Silly and childish, but CBS was still claiming that precise thing during 2016 election night coverage.
2. Trump said there were fine people on both sides of the statue debate, adding, "I am not talking about the neo-Nazis, who should be condemned totally." This is reported as: Trump called neo-Nazis fine people.
Those examples and scores of other misrepresentations (i.e., bald-faced lies) are the foundation of "Everyone knows Trump is a racist." It's disheartening when Professor Kennedy buys into that, but far more so when John does. (Although I still hold hope that John's stance is strategic.) Also, as a white Obama voter and then a Trump supporter, the idea that Trump was elected by racists angry over Obama being president is, in my opinion, just plain asinine.
Anyway, I thought this was among the all-time best episodes. John had a strong point re crime reporting (or non-reporting), which to me is often political propaganda rather than news. I'll end with a quote from Glenn:
"I am not offering a defense of Trump to observe that many of the charges against him of racism were instrumental charges seizing upon his vulnerability, with respect to that, to delegitimate the stuff that he wanted to do which people didn't want him to do, for the reasons that they had for not wanting him to do them."
Executive Summary: Democrats will say anything, no matter how false or destructive, to maintain power.
as for trump's comment. i think there is a debate as to whether he said "they are sending their crime, they're rapists" as though to say illegals are by and large rapists, vs "they are sending their crime, *their* rapists", so as to say that rapists are among those crossing the border. to me, he said the latter
I just listened again to an old episode of John and Glenn, "Starbucks and Swimming Pool." If you skip to the 42:00 mark, John describes how he strategically inserts comments in his writing to keep a certain audience from tuning out. He is discussing racism, not Trump, but the idea of signaling in order to avoid being dismissed could apply to TDS as well. If you are addressing liberals and lose all of those with TDS, you aren't going to have much of an audience left.
I'm not in disagreement with you that John probably does have a true case of TDS, but either way, in my opinion, it's likely helpful in reaching his target audience.
By the way, "Starbucks and Swimming Pools" is an excellent episode. I intend to quote elsewhere something Glenn said about narratives.
Thanks for pointing me to "Starbucks and Swimming Pool". I just finished watching it and it was a good one. John comes across as pretty reasonable in that discussion.
Great and Powerful episode. I would love to see them have more guests. I'm glad they went 90 minutes. They should devote at least 90 minutes of time to every guest.
Great insight from Kennedy. Didn't agree with everything. But I love what he said about polity with the 20-22 minute section. There are many blacks who will not give credit for how the country has improved regardless of the many achievements by black people. All of my fellow Glenn Show followers should realize by now that the vendetta is part of black identity. It's baked into the cake of black history.
There will always be black people in every profession-academia, politics, entertainment, and business, who will have a grudge against whites for past grievances. The problem with this type of overgeneralization is that the vendetta will cost blacks and the perception of their culture as a whole.
You can't take a culture seriously when it's at war with itself!!!
All I can say is thank you Glenn for putting this together. It was enlightening and inspiring to listen to the three of you discuss these issues. Not knowing professor Kennedy I was tempted to skip this video because I figured it was just another white liberal that was going to condescend and virtue signal to the black community. I will be buying professor Kennedy's book and thank you for bringing him to my attention.
Good stuff, Glenn!
You keep folks on their toes(..1:09 min.)
You, "The Black Guys," is a one-stop shop for informative discussion on race related content. Not aware of another venue that deals w/ these racial issues as well as yours does. You and McWhorter are like two uncle's at the Thanksgiving table that lead the charge over saving the world. One reasonably salty versus the other who, not as convincing, is more palatable/accepting.
Perhaps not fair to drag poor Randall from his university confines as he comes off as conflicted and confused. Doesn't make him a "bad" man(..of course), just conlicted and confused and unmoored from any tenets one might stand by. Too many emotional caveats to negotiate................but did I mention that he seems very nice. ;-)
Your comments section is one of the tops. Not sure whether I feel that way because I lean conservative and perhaps your followers lean like-minded but unlike Randall Kennedy(..sorry Randall!) those posting in your comment section usually present their arguments w/out their emotional baggaage(caveats) outweighing their presented "facts."
Appreciate your work! ..and whoever is helping you on the backend, for your website is easy to navigate and is laid out/presented w/ class.., if that makes any sense.
Continued success(!), to both you, John AND Randall.
https://thefederalist.com/2021/12/27/its-time-for-the-black-community-to-embrace-a-post-racial-america/?utm_source=rss&utm_medium=rss&utm_campaign=its-time-for-the-black-community-to-embrace-a-post-racial-america&utm_term=2021-12-27
From 39:34 to 40:58, John is asking about the source of the Black-White difference in violence perpetration. I suggest looking at "Neighborhood Disadvantage and Verbal Ability as Explanations of the Black-White Difference in Adolescent Violence: Toward an Integrated Model" by McNulty, Bellair, and Watts (2012).
They conclude, "This article integrates an individual difference approach that emphasizes variation in verbal ability with a sociological approach that highlights neighborhood disadvantage, both of which are relevant to explanation of the race difference in violence. Black children are far more likely than their White counterparts to grow up in neighborhoods featuring high rates of structural disadvantage [high poverty, unemployment, and female-headed households], which has repercussions for the acquisition of verbal skills that are crucial for achievement in school and the labor market. Our results show that low verbal ability and diminished school attainment are criminogenic risk factors that are in part outcomes of exposure to neighborhood disadvantage. Verbal ability partly mediates the effect of disadvantage at the neighborhood level and in turn provides a succinct explanation for the racial disparity in violence. Although sociological variables also explain the race disparity, verbal ability in conjunction with neighborhood disadvantage reduces the Black–White gap in violence to zero and is thus part of the explanation" (pp. 14-16).
New subscriber with a question: why don't we ever hear anything about James Meredith?
What's a racist? There is no longer a consensus. So frankly it's kind of pointless to debate over who is and isn't a racist in America.
That said, no one will ever accuse me of being a Trump apologist. Trump makes me sick and Trumpism makes me sicker. But if you asked me, "Is Donald Trump a racist?" I would likely hesitate before answering based on MY definition of the word.
But I wouldn't hesitate for one microsecond over whether or not Donald Trump--at a minimum--winked and nodded at White nationalist themes and perspectives. He did that. NO doubt about it.
If you don't believe that, you're probably naïve about White nationalist themes and perspectives.
And I must insist on clarity here. I did NOT say "WHITE perspectives". Nor did I say "conservative" or "rightist" perspectives. I said "White NATIONALIST" perspectives, which do exist in real ways in the US and throughout the Western World.
People sympathetic to White nationalism were energized by Trump's campaign because of this. He spoke to them in their language and they expressed their excitement and love accordingly. That's just fact.
For what it's worth, I don't think Trump played this card because of his own personal beliefs about race, which may or may not be racist by whatever definition. (Frankly, who knows and who cares?) He did this to become POTUS. That's it.
He saw a market, seized it, and being the self-serving, self-aggrandizing blankety-blank that he is, why choose a higher path?
Having said all of that, if you wanna argue that the time had come for something like Trump to emerge, as a kind of blowback against the maniacal excesses on the left, that's one thing. But to say or think that this **** wasn't going on during Trump's road to the presidency is naïve beyond words.
Curious about this point. I think you’re right many people are unaware of the boilerplate “white nationalist rhetoric.” As such, whatever nods there may have been toward them, how do you divine whether they were intentional or not?
It’s is conceivable to me that you can make an argument that is pro-America, pro-traditional values, etc and have some overlap with whatever points white nationalists might make. Just as you can make arguments critical of the US on race and equality and echo some of the boilerplate BLM and woke rhetoric. Just because there’s overlap or similarity doesn’t mean It’s a direct reference or the now-hackneyed
Term “dog whistle.”
I think our generalized inability to recognize that extremists on both sides are not necessarily 100% wrong about everything. The issue with extremists and fanatics is the fact that they push both causes and proposed solutions to their absurdist extremes (hence the label).
Anyway, I’m curious how you can KNOW that’s what he was doing. Since I’m totally unaware of what constitutes boilerplate white nationalist rhetoric I wouldn’t know it if it bit me. Based on all available data on these things, I believe that’s true for 95% of Americans.
Great conversation. If willing, would be great to see Kennedy on more, especially to discuss his oeuvre and thoughts on how , “Race, Crime, and the Law” have held up.
A good discussion. Shame is something that should be talked about more in the Black community in USA. It affects many things in the present reality.
Great talk, was not too long.At time 43:00-ish, you three ask the question; “What is the cause of carjacking?” When the answer to that and other questions is “poverty”, does that mean the cause was methodologically explored and determined to be poverty? Or does that mean we decided “Poverty as cause” prior to investigation and then searched for info/data to support that claim?
The issue with Affirmative Action is not only the ethical case for engaging in it as laid out, but even if we agree with the "purpose" as mentioned in the discussion, does A achieve it? to my mind, given the fact that it tends to help (bump) people who by and large would already be well off, which is to say middle class and likely upwardly mobile, and not the most disadvantaged. how often does its use convert someone who would otherwise not even consider going to college, not due to ability but circumstances, into a graduate, rather than merely altering which college an applicant goes to?
This is not only the best episode of the Glenn show I've ever seen, but I'd argue that it's the best, most insightful, honest, complex, and provocative conversations about race in America that I've ever heard. It's also a profoundly necessary conversation at this moment in our history. I'd recommend to Professors Loury, McWhorter, and Kennedy to expand conversation this into a book, a film of some kind, taking this conversation on the road, or find other ways you three together can engage the general American public. All Americans needs to hear this and think about what you've all discussed. While professors Loury, McWhorter, and Kennedy are all brilliant and accomplished scholars, it seemed to me that you all took it up another level. This was like was like watching an All Star game, the best of very best engage each other. I can't express how grateful I am that you recorded it and invited us all to listen. Thank you!!
Love your comment. There were points during the conversation where I shouted, "PREACH!!!" It was because Glenn and Randall were killing it. It was like hearing a powerful score from Hans Zimmer.
Black culture is way too subjective at this point. The culture functions under an umbrella that reads-"One person's ignorance is another person's treasure." Even if something is obviously ignorant, it doesn't matter. If you express that truth, you'll pay the price.
There are enough apologists who support ignorance and have normalized it.
A culture like that cannot be taken seriously!!!! Again, it's it war with itself!!
I find it absolutely hysterical that these two are blaming Trump yet give Biden a pass. Biden has said the most disgusting comments on race - that racial jungle comment was the worst- he didn’t want his precious children going to school w Randy’s or John’s - yet they support him ??? It’s shocking ,, how come nobody ever brings that up !
Really enjoyed the discussion Glenn, although I found some of Professor Kennedy's responses a little underwhelming. But definitely respected hearing his perspective on these matters.
On the subject of crime and how you know it's not because of poverty, I'd just like to reiterate a few observations I made in a prior thread. I'm not an economist so I'm sure my analysis is a bit simplistic, but I noted before that China seems to me to be a clear and obvious counterexample to almost every single left-wing explanation I've heard when it comes to these sorts of discussions.
Given China's current trajectory it's certainly not unreasonable to assume that it could end up joining the league of first world nations as far as per capita GDP over the coming decades, but the fact of the matter remains that for much of the recent few decades it's been a relatively poor country by first world standards. Even today PPP adjusted per capita GDP for China is roughly $19,000 USD. By contrast, according to Wikipedia the per capita income of African Americans was over $23,000 in 2018. I'm sure someone will explain to me how per capita income and GDP aren't quite the same thing and in any case how income isn't the same as wealth. I still contend though that the numbers I'm citing reveal something.
It's universally assumed that somehow poverty is correlated with crime, but that putative correlation let alone any claims about causation doesn't seem to exist when one observes East Asia. According to Wikipedia the intentional homicide rate per 100,000 people is roughly .53 in China. Apart from North Korea and Mongolia, every country in East Asia has an intentional homicide rate per 100,000 people of less than 1. By contrast, I believe the intentional homicide rate per 100,000 people among African Americans is somewhere in the range of 15-20.
If poverty were an insuperable obstacle to progress, it's not clear how one could ever expect countries to lift themselves out of poverty for instance. And yet China has done exactly that over the past few decades, while exhibiting few of the social pathologies that one would normally attribute to relative impoverishment. You can see echos of this in the fact that many of the kids who get into the elite high schools in NYC are from poor immigrant families. Oddly enough you sometimes hear poverty used as an explanation for why certain immigrant groups succeed in America. Their relative impoverishment was a motivating factor for why they strove to excel because they wanted a better life for themselves than what their parents had. I feel like when a single factor can be used to explain anything it ultimately ends up explaining nothing.
The age adjusted homicide rate per 100,000 for african americans hit 30.62 in 2020 (and very likely rose significantly again in 2021) as per the CDC. You were quoting older data about homicide rates being 15 to 20 per 100,000. This was true a few years ago. But sadly no longer. :-(
Non latino African Americans are about 60 times as likely to be murdered as Chinese people who live in China. China also had low crime decades ago when China was a very poor country.
African Americans have arguably been betrayed by the rest of americans (asians, latinos, multi-racial & multi-ethnic, caucasians) and perhaps this rises to the level of a crime against humanity.
:-(
To expand upon my prior comment, this might be a bit vague but oftentimes when we look at different ethnic groups or differences among countries we observe some kind of correlation between SES and crime or academic achievement or whatever else. And then we get into discussions about whether correlation necessarily implies causation, etc.
What I have observed though is that these correlations are significantly lessened when you examine people of East Asian descent. I noted above that relatively poor by first world standards China seems to have a per capita rate of intentional homicides comparable to that of wealthier East Asian countries. Likewise China doesn't seem to lag wealthier countries in East Asia when one looks at PISA scores or other sorts of country level measures of achievement. I noted above the prevalence of poor immigrant families among the kids who are testing into the elite high schools in NYC. I'm also reminded of this Guardian article from 10 years ago which I've linked to below pointing out that albeit from a small sample size, the gap in academic achievement between higher SES and lower SES British Chinese pupils was significantly lower than that of other ethnicities in the UK.
https://www.theguardian.com/education/2011/feb/07/chinese-children-school-do-well
I read a "bad review" here before I listened, so I wasn't sure what to expect. Bottom Line: I thought it was fantastic. Maybe people were put off by the early anti-Trump rhetoric from Professor Kennedy, but Glenn could not have had a stronger response. My overall summary: Professor Kennedy would make a typical Woke point, be challenged by Glenn or John, then concede that he agreed. I was left to wonder why he pushes divisive narratives when he apparently has serious doubts. But he was a good guest, a perfect foil for Glenn and John.
Near the end, Glenn made the point that if we artificially promote undeserving people, they are going to reach a point where they are not as capable as their coworkers. The coworkers may not say anything, but they are acutely aware. The Japanese have great terminology for that: "honne" and "tatamae." I think there's a lot more tatamae going on in America right now than Woke politicians recognize.
I feel compelled to comment on Trump/racism thing. The Legend of Trump the Ugly Racist is built on pretty much nothing. Here are just two examples:
1. Trump called a subset of a subset of a subset of a subset of Mexicans "rapists." (Mexicans -> Mexican immigrants -> Mexican illegal immigrants -> Mexican illegal immigrant criminals -> Mexican illegal immigrant criminal rapists.) Yes, Trump was being incendiary, but a politician being incendiary is hardly news. Trump's comment was reported as "Trump called all Mexicans rapists." Silly and childish, but CBS was still claiming that precise thing during 2016 election night coverage.
2. Trump said there were fine people on both sides of the statue debate, adding, "I am not talking about the neo-Nazis, who should be condemned totally." This is reported as: Trump called neo-Nazis fine people.
Those examples and scores of other misrepresentations (i.e., bald-faced lies) are the foundation of "Everyone knows Trump is a racist." It's disheartening when Professor Kennedy buys into that, but far more so when John does. (Although I still hold hope that John's stance is strategic.) Also, as a white Obama voter and then a Trump supporter, the idea that Trump was elected by racists angry over Obama being president is, in my opinion, just plain asinine.
Anyway, I thought this was among the all-time best episodes. John had a strong point re crime reporting (or non-reporting), which to me is often political propaganda rather than news. I'll end with a quote from Glenn:
"I am not offering a defense of Trump to observe that many of the charges against him of racism were instrumental charges seizing upon his vulnerability, with respect to that, to delegitimate the stuff that he wanted to do which people didn't want him to do, for the reasons that they had for not wanting him to do them."
Executive Summary: Democrats will say anything, no matter how false or destructive, to maintain power.
as for trump's comment. i think there is a debate as to whether he said "they are sending their crime, they're rapists" as though to say illegals are by and large rapists, vs "they are sending their crime, *their* rapists", so as to say that rapists are among those crossing the border. to me, he said the latter
TDS is not strategic on John's part. His hate for Trump was/is visceral.
It will be interesting to see his response when Glenn asks him about the similarities between TDS and Wokeism.
I just listened again to an old episode of John and Glenn, "Starbucks and Swimming Pool." If you skip to the 42:00 mark, John describes how he strategically inserts comments in his writing to keep a certain audience from tuning out. He is discussing racism, not Trump, but the idea of signaling in order to avoid being dismissed could apply to TDS as well. If you are addressing liberals and lose all of those with TDS, you aren't going to have much of an audience left.
I'm not in disagreement with you that John probably does have a true case of TDS, but either way, in my opinion, it's likely helpful in reaching his target audience.
By the way, "Starbucks and Swimming Pools" is an excellent episode. I intend to quote elsewhere something Glenn said about narratives.
Thanks for pointing me to "Starbucks and Swimming Pool". I just finished watching it and it was a good one. John comes across as pretty reasonable in that discussion.
"Where are you on day 300?" <-- powerful words from Kennedy; really awesome guest
this was an amazing discussion (the Glenn rants were absolute fire this episode); thank you for sharing these conversations
This is one of the best of the year!! Next to Slippery Slope to Hell.
Great and Powerful episode. I would love to see them have more guests. I'm glad they went 90 minutes. They should devote at least 90 minutes of time to every guest.
Great insight from Kennedy. Didn't agree with everything. But I love what he said about polity with the 20-22 minute section. There are many blacks who will not give credit for how the country has improved regardless of the many achievements by black people. All of my fellow Glenn Show followers should realize by now that the vendetta is part of black identity. It's baked into the cake of black history.
There will always be black people in every profession-academia, politics, entertainment, and business, who will have a grudge against whites for past grievances. The problem with this type of overgeneralization is that the vendetta will cost blacks and the perception of their culture as a whole.
You can't take a culture seriously when it's at war with itself!!!
All I can say is thank you Glenn for putting this together. It was enlightening and inspiring to listen to the three of you discuss these issues. Not knowing professor Kennedy I was tempted to skip this video because I figured it was just another white liberal that was going to condescend and virtue signal to the black community. I will be buying professor Kennedy's book and thank you for bringing him to my attention.