I’m back with my friend John McWhorter for one of our regular conversations. A lot has happened on the race and politics front over the last two weeks, so we’ve got a full docket of topics to discuss. And speaking of dockets, after overcoming some technical difficulties, we spend a good chunk of time on matters relating to the Supreme Court.
You and John once talked about John’s Munk Debate with Gloria Ladson-Billings where she insisted there was no Critical Race Theory in schools. I came across this talk/lecture of hers where she essentially treats CRT as teaching how racist white people are and what it feels like to be black. https://youtu.be/katwPTn-nhE
When did the Supreme Court picks ever represent the most qualified person? Is Brett Kavanaugh the most talented jurist? Probably not. He has good connections and the right politics for the pick. That’s all well and good until it’s not a white guy. Now I understand that this is the bind created when standards are lowered to increase diversity, but it smacks of racism and sexism when it is *assumed* that standards are lowered if you aren’t a white man. It also conflates merit with class-based access to the “right” credentials. I think the assessment of “well-qualified” along with whatever political calculations that the President and Senate make should be sufficient to accept a nominee and not question their credentials.
Fools rush in. The concept of "race" is equivocal. "Race" can be used in the sense of mid-20th Century physical anthropology to categorize people into groups based on continental ancestry. "Race" can be used in the 19th and early 20th century sense to refer to ethnicity, which includes usually language, culture, religion. For example, in Northern Ireland, you have the Irish Catholics and the Ulstermen, not a lot of genetic distance between the populations, huge cultural distance. The Holocaust was not an action by people belonging to one continental ancestry group exterminating another continental ancestry group, it was between two ethnic groups comprising the same broad continental ancestry group.
It would be helpful in America if people would start distinguishing between race and ethnicity, or "ancestral populations" and ethnicity. As far as genocide, most of your modern genocides are between different ethnicities, not "continental ancestral populations," no doubt in part because most "continental ancestral populations" still live on different continents from one another. I think it is pretty clear what Goldberg was trying to say, notwithstanding the insensitivity of the way she said it.
There is always criticism of legacy admissions when the topic of affirmative action is raised, but isn't one of the prime benefits of affirmative action for a college's bottom line is that it provides legal cover for legacy admissions and "donor-driven" admissions?
On the issue of black intellectuals knowing better than the common person, people like Paul Butler have a motive to come up with reasoning that transfers power to the managerial class (themselves), which is why they shun the input of the masses.
Whoopi apologized then went on a late show that night and doubled down. Then she was suspended. Her apology was dishonest and offensive after she turned right around and said the same damn thing on a last night show. Frankly yes she should be fired .. as ABC set the precedence with others, to crawdad is hypocritical.
These discussions between Glenn and John serve to consistently illustrate the superiority of Glenn's intellect, the thoroughness of his consideration of current issues involving race and his ability to express his views in a coherent and nuanced way.
Whoopi's "suspension" is not going to hurt her. It will probably bring more viewers, especially for The Big Return episode. These type suspensions are like kids being grounded by their parents.
If Whoopi had said "Caucasian" instead of "white," would she have been attacked? Generally, races are divided into three categories: Asian, African, and Caucasian. Here's the formula for outrage these days:
this word thusly + that word thusly + worst interpretation = outrage
It also equals tedious, boring, inane, etc. Even labeling it boring is boring. It's time for recreational outrage to take its place alongside hula hoops and VCR tapes.
Might Whoopi not pose this question upon her return: When bathrooms were marked "Black" and "White," where did Jewish people pee?
FWIW: Wiki points out the term Aryan is "a debunked and obsolete historical race concept."
This was another great episode. It occurred to me while listening that Glenn and John discuss third-rail topics two or three years before Rogan, and five or ten years before the legacy media.
Kendi himself got into the cancel Rogan bandwagon by circulating a clip that had been edited to cut out Rogan's response to a guest's preposterous and racist comment about a gene . Here is what Kendi circulated (BTW, he has not deleted this as of now):
Always, fantastic conversations.....thank you so much!
I have been attempting to follow the Joe Rogan event. Here are a couple of threads that clarify what's going on, I believe......and the bottom line is that this is probably not some sort of groundswell, but something of a political hit job.
And here is a thread about one of the people using the clips to make Dwayne Johnson (The Rock) walk back his having supported Rogan: the writer Don Winslow, who apparently has made very liberal use of the "n" word himself in his writing/novels:
You and John once talked about John’s Munk Debate with Gloria Ladson-Billings where she insisted there was no Critical Race Theory in schools. I came across this talk/lecture of hers where she essentially treats CRT as teaching how racist white people are and what it feels like to be black. https://youtu.be/katwPTn-nhE
When did the Supreme Court picks ever represent the most qualified person? Is Brett Kavanaugh the most talented jurist? Probably not. He has good connections and the right politics for the pick. That’s all well and good until it’s not a white guy. Now I understand that this is the bind created when standards are lowered to increase diversity, but it smacks of racism and sexism when it is *assumed* that standards are lowered if you aren’t a white man. It also conflates merit with class-based access to the “right” credentials. I think the assessment of “well-qualified” along with whatever political calculations that the President and Senate make should be sufficient to accept a nominee and not question their credentials.
Strong words, Mr. McWhorter to close out the show. It was a resounding way to end the show!
Fools rush in. The concept of "race" is equivocal. "Race" can be used in the sense of mid-20th Century physical anthropology to categorize people into groups based on continental ancestry. "Race" can be used in the 19th and early 20th century sense to refer to ethnicity, which includes usually language, culture, religion. For example, in Northern Ireland, you have the Irish Catholics and the Ulstermen, not a lot of genetic distance between the populations, huge cultural distance. The Holocaust was not an action by people belonging to one continental ancestry group exterminating another continental ancestry group, it was between two ethnic groups comprising the same broad continental ancestry group.
It would be helpful in America if people would start distinguishing between race and ethnicity, or "ancestral populations" and ethnicity. As far as genocide, most of your modern genocides are between different ethnicities, not "continental ancestral populations," no doubt in part because most "continental ancestral populations" still live on different continents from one another. I think it is pretty clear what Goldberg was trying to say, notwithstanding the insensitivity of the way she said it.
There is always criticism of legacy admissions when the topic of affirmative action is raised, but isn't one of the prime benefits of affirmative action for a college's bottom line is that it provides legal cover for legacy admissions and "donor-driven" admissions?
On the issue of black intellectuals knowing better than the common person, people like Paul Butler have a motive to come up with reasoning that transfers power to the managerial class (themselves), which is why they shun the input of the masses.
Whoopi apologized then went on a late show that night and doubled down. Then she was suspended. Her apology was dishonest and offensive after she turned right around and said the same damn thing on a last night show. Frankly yes she should be fired .. as ABC set the precedence with others, to crawdad is hypocritical.
These discussions between Glenn and John serve to consistently illustrate the superiority of Glenn's intellect, the thoroughness of his consideration of current issues involving race and his ability to express his views in a coherent and nuanced way.
Whoopi's "suspension" is not going to hurt her. It will probably bring more viewers, especially for The Big Return episode. These type suspensions are like kids being grounded by their parents.
If Whoopi had said "Caucasian" instead of "white," would she have been attacked? Generally, races are divided into three categories: Asian, African, and Caucasian. Here's the formula for outrage these days:
this word thusly + that word thusly + worst interpretation = outrage
It also equals tedious, boring, inane, etc. Even labeling it boring is boring. It's time for recreational outrage to take its place alongside hula hoops and VCR tapes.
Might Whoopi not pose this question upon her return: When bathrooms were marked "Black" and "White," where did Jewish people pee?
FWIW: Wiki points out the term Aryan is "a debunked and obsolete historical race concept."
This was another great episode. It occurred to me while listening that Glenn and John discuss third-rail topics two or three years before Rogan, and five or ten years before the legacy media.
Glenn and John, thank you.
Kendi himself got into the cancel Rogan bandwagon by circulating a clip that had been edited to cut out Rogan's response to a guest's preposterous and racist comment about a gene . Here is what Kendi circulated (BTW, he has not deleted this as of now):
https://twitter.com/DrIbram/status/1490377357722542085
And here is the clip with Rogan's response to the guest:
https://twitter.com/andual88/status/1490204264773263361
Always, fantastic conversations.....thank you so much!
I have been attempting to follow the Joe Rogan event. Here are a couple of threads that clarify what's going on, I believe......and the bottom line is that this is probably not some sort of groundswell, but something of a political hit job.
This is very clarifying:
https://twitter.com/wokal_distance/status/1490220423270699009
And here is a thread about one of the people using the clips to make Dwayne Johnson (The Rock) walk back his having supported Rogan: the writer Don Winslow, who apparently has made very liberal use of the "n" word himself in his writing/novels:
https://twitter.com/wokal_distance/status/1490152386513408004