John McWhorter – How Should We Memorialize the Past?
Almost as soon as I announced that the political scientist Norman Finkelstein would appear on the show, I began receiving emails protesting my decision. Those emails only increased in volume and length after I released the episode. I understand that Norman’s criticisms of Israel evoke strong feelings in some of that nation’s most ardent supporters, and in fact I do not share or endorse many of those criticisms. But I cannot help but be fascinated by Norman’s persistence in advocating for causes he believes to be righteous. John calls Norman a “happy warrior,” someone who relishes the fight almost as much as the principles behind it. Perhaps there’s something to that. It takes a certain kind of person to advocate for their cause not only despite but because of the resistance they face.
At the time of his assassination, for example, Martin Luther King was not a popular figure. If his causes were as popular then as they are now, if his beliefs about racial equality and justice were shared by as many Americans then as they are now, there would have been no need for a leader such as him. (To be clear, I am in no way equating Norman Finkelstein to Martin Luther King!) What makes a person like MLK or Malcolm X push through persecution and state violence and assassination attempts in the name of a cause they deem to be righteous? For that matter, what makes us want to erase the name of a figure like Woodrow Wilson who, for all his flaws (including deep, visceral racism), did much to improve our country?
History is never finished. We are forever writing and rewriting the past in order to make sense of the present. For example, it now seems unthinkable that we’ll ever see a public monument to Clarence Thomas. But perhaps, in the future, we’ll look back and wonder how even a figure as polarizing as Thomas could be written off so blithely.
This post was released on Monday to paying subscribers and is now unlocked. To receive early access to TGS episodes, an ad-free podcast feed, Q&As, and other exclusive content and benefits, click below.
Featured Content from City Journal
A federal appeals court ruling on admissions at a prestigious Virginia high school could have major implications for future court fights over affirmative action, writes Robert VerBruggen.
0:00 Inside the mind of a crack columnist
4:19 The blowback from Norman Finkelstein’s TGS appearance
15:27 Is it enough to be a “happy warrior” for your cause?
28:45 How did MLK become MLK?
37:37 What’s in a name when that name is “Woodrow Wilson”?
49:10 Glenn: “Clarence Thomas’s name should be on public school buildings”
Recorded May 30, 2023
Links and Readings
Norman Finkelstein’s book, I’ll Burn That Bridge When I Come to It: Heretical Thoughts on Identity Politics, Cancel Culture, and Academic Freedom
Jonathan Eig’s new biography of Martin Luther King, King: A Life
Jonathan Eig’s biography of Muhammad Ali, Ali: A Life
Charles Johnson’s novel, Middle Passage
Charles Johnson’s novel, Dreamer
Reza Aslan’s new book, An American Martyr in Persia: The Epic Life and Tragic Death of Howard Baskerville
PBS’s Frontline documentary, Clarence and Ginni
John McWhorter – How Should We Memorialize the Past?
Dear Glenn and John and Subscribers to the Glenn Show:
In the June 5 episode with John McWhorter, “How Should We Memorialize the Past?” Glenn described the intense pushback he received for hosting Norman Finkelstein.
In this Glenn Show episode, Glenn and John touch upon a crucial question for Glenn and John’s long collaboration: how should Glenn, the producer and director and chief actor of the show, respond to complaints that have come in after discussion of Asian immigration with Amy Wax and after the discussion of Finkelstein’s opinions on Zionism and Israel / Palestine. The complaint might be generalized this way: “Given the fact that you Glenn have full control of the Glenn Show infrastructure, how dare you allow the expression of abhorrent opinions of Wax or Finkelstein?” Those who complain expect that at the least Glenn should 1) offer a full and immediate refutation of their toxic opinions; or, 2) introduce a time delay that would enable the censorial removal of toxic opinions at the time of their publication; and/or, 3) pledge that Glenn will for the future avoid guests who have opinions that will spark disagreement of the sort Wax and Finkelstein have incited. Subscribers to the Glenn Show will immediately see that each of these suggestions would undermine the distinctive features of the Show. Refutations by Glenn would destroy the friendly egalitarian sociability that supports the exchange of diverse opinion; censorship would destroy the trust essential to a robust and open dialogue; and, finally, unwarranted anxiety about the possible fallout from guests' opinions could have the longterm effect of narrowing the Glenn Show to a sclerotic consensus that is just plain boring.
Glenn, those who blamed you for hosting Wax and Finkelstein should be called out for what they are actually doing. They are seeking to diminish “the domain of the sayable” (Judith Butler) on the question of Israel’s policies in Gaza and the West Bank; In doing this, they reject, and attempt to close down the freedom of speech of their opponents. In these attacks, they are exercising what in law is called “the heckler’s veto” (of the free speech of their opponents.) But what is most important for the community that Glenn and John have created: you have modeled a pluralistic ethos of free expression that will not surrender the integrity of carefully developed ideas to the drab orthodoxy that many would impose on you and upon us.
Just keep doing what you've been doing!
Another fantastic show. Very interesting discussion of Robert E. Lee. For what it is worth I think what makes Lee a particularly interesting character is that he wrote as passionately as Lincoln about his feelings against slavery and he was in fact a republican, just as was Lincoln. He was educated alongside the generals who later led the Union army and he was himself offered the command of the Union Army but painfully declined because the Union had declared war on his state. Imagine if Nato declared war on France and expected French generals within NATO to fight on behalf of the invader. This is in no way to justify the "cornerstone cause" of the South's argument, they had built a fragile economy based on 1% of the people owning slaves leading to depressed wages for the population at large, it was an absolute basket-case of an economy and had to end... But Lee was complex and conflicted, he was respected by his foes and "with malice toward none" after a war which pitted family members against one another, which in itself demonstrates that a line could not neatly be drawn across the country as if to say those above are of one mind and those below of another. A statue for Clarence Thomas would likely to be even more controversial which is terrible for a man who has achieved so much from his dirt-poor, Gullah-speaking origins.