John McWhorter is back for this week’s episode of The Glenn Show. In it, we discuss John’s new gig writing a newsletter for the New York Times. Anyone wondering whether he’s being stifled by the paper’s editorial sensibilities will be glad to hear the answer is a definite “no.” We spend a while discussing John’s recent piece about
Great episode - just saw this article and would love to hear your thoughts on the quote "The MTA said its Vice President Max Page believes MCAS “does a better job of measuring students’ socioeconomic conditions than their academic abilities.” this seems to be a general method of dismissing standardized tests as useful in any way.
"What if's" -- particularly when we're talking hundreds of years -- are kind of silly. Way too many factors. And when we base the question around something as nebulous as race, it gets even sillier.
It is basically like asking, "What if nobody (from this or that 'race') ever interacted?"
What were the chances of that over hundreds of years--violently OR nonviolently?
At the end of the day, I don't know that any of us care to argue that hundreds of years of dehumanizing oppression--regardless of who you have in mind--is better than NOT dehumanizing and oppressing people for hundreds of years.
Anybody wanna give credit to NAZI Germany for rocket technology?
"Don't they deserve our accolades for that amazing innovation? Why not? Why can't we talk about their good side?" -- said nobody, ever.
Brutality and Betrayal leave deep emotional and psychological scars. Brutality is when a person is treated like an animal or an object. There is no subterfuge to brutality. It is raw abuse. Betrayal comes in many forms. Treating a friend as you would an enemy, or a member of a tribe as an outsider. It is rooted in a lie.
Black Americans have suffered both brutality and betrayal for generations. Generations is the proper unit of measure. The great-great grandparents of most Black Americans were slaves. The grand parents of most Black America lived under Jim Crow laws and the horror of KKK violence. All Black "baby boomers" were born before the civil rights protections of the 1960's.
It will take generations for the wounds to heal. Healing has two steps. (1) Forgiveness, which is unilateral. “To forgive is to set a prisoner free and discover the prisoner was you.” Many Black Americans aren't there yet. (2) The second step is much harder, Reconciliation. Healing the societal relationship, so that Blacks feel they belong, and aren't the "other".
This article from Psychology Today could have been written by a Christian minister 200 years ago. Same principles. Will a movement or leader emerge to move us along this path?
I am a fan of the Glenn and John conversations. So much so that I listen to them on a daily basis. Call it "binge listening!" I even have an iPod archive of them that goes back to the first episode in 2007.
Since the summer of 2020, these men have been killing it. Giving us powerful stuff. And we've watched and listened to some of the best episodes this year. Including the one from three days ago on Labor Day and the April episode-Slippery Slope to Hell. During July 2015, they had an extremely engaging conversation that ranks up with their best.
If you haven't watch it on Youtube, here is the link-https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=nB53SY2iTsA
The study of ancient DNA shows that the world was peopled via genocide, settler colonialism, rape, war, domination, slavery, murder. (David Reich's book on ancient DNA should be read by everyone.)
I have thought about what the Americas would be like without European colonization. Would the wheel and the horse be known in the Americas? Would the Aztecs have continued their cruel predation of tribes in central Mexico for slaves and human sacrifices?
Invariably, the isolation would not have lasted. And the history of meetings between societies possessing highly sophisticated tools and those not possessing them.
In terms of North America, it's important to remember that the tribes, like humans everywhere, were hell to each other. Keep in mind that the people in the Americas called "indigenous" are in fact from Siberia. So, a more accurate term for them would be Siberian-American.
Love the discussion of Moby Dick, easily one of my favorite novels. I read it my freshman year of college, prepared to be bored out of my skull, and was blown away by its inventiveness, humor, characters, and the power and beauty of Melville's language. It does not, of course, hold up to modern identity-based scrutiny, and is "racist" and "sexist" as people say. Still and all, what an amazing piece of work, and one that I reread from time to time for pure pleasure. Glad to hear John enjoyed it as well, and that Glenn recognizes Melville's genius, I would have been so crestfallen if they had felt otherwise!
(1) Consistency is overrated. If we were perfectly consistent, we would not only take down statues, but we would rename Yale University (Elihu Yale was a slave trader), Brown University, Columbus Ohio, Washington State, the District of Columbia, Columbia University, and many other universities, cities, parks and streets named after people who once owned enslaved people. But we don't have to be perfectly consistent. We can change some names but choose to regard other institutions as sufficiently far removed from the source of their names that the names don't need to be changed, or we can decide that the cost of changing some names is just too high. We can stop celebrating Columbus day without having to rename everything with "Columbus" in its name. We can choose to pull down statues of Robert. E. Lee, but not Thomas Jefferson. That's not cherry-picking. That's making reasonable distinctions.
(2) Regarding counterfactuals: for nearly every atrocity in history, you can find people whose descendants were arguably better off because of it. So what? An act needs to be judged by the suffering or benefit it causes at the time, or which can reasonably be predicted to result from it. The slave trade caused unspeakable suffering at the time and for many years after. That doesn't necessarily mean that Black people today can reasonably claim harm from the legacy of slavery (I'm not arguing that either way). It just means that counterfactuals shouldn't have any place in the discussion.
Prof. McWhorter, I hate to get technical with something you said, but if you reduce Robert E. Lee's position as General of the Confederacy to "fighting for enslavement," that is a narrow view of that seismic conflict known as The Civil War. Before I go any further, let me state that I am NOT arguing that Lee did not stand for slavery and thereby, the South as a whole did NOT secede from the Union over the matter. However, as those of us who study that history know, it was FAR MORE complex. We live in an era when the issue of slavery is centered around its morality, and I, for one, am thankful that a previous generation decided the immorality of slavery before I arrived on the scene. Meaning, I do not have to think about the morality of slavery because no one I know and no one in this country knows of anyone who has been a slave. Therefore, yes, Lee was fighting for enslavement, but he was also fighting against a Federal Government that was beginning to mandate the laws of individual States. In this case, slaves were property, and the issue was whether this property was legal and could be transported to other states that had outlawed such property. We still have that issue today with abortion rights, the legalization of marijuana, sanctuary cities, etc. How much power does the Federal government have over the States? Furthermore, Lee seceded with his state, which was Virginia, and Virginia did NOT secede until Lincoln called upon the state militias to put down the insurrection in the Lower South (a form of Lincoln legalize, which by calling it an insurrection, Lincoln was also inferring the states had never seceded.) I suppose as a Southerner, and I consider myself to be an enlightened Southerner at that, this is the rub because we lost that war, and we suffered the physical and emotional devastation of that war. Many men, who never owned slaves and some who hated the institution, fought for the Confederacy over this very issue. They thought they were fighting the Second Revolution. So there is so much more that encompasses a Robert E. Lee statue than just slavery and casually reducing his decision to fight for his state, a decision he labored over, to a grandstand defense of slavery is historically inaccurate and unjust. End rant (now, since you live in New York City, please come see my one man show Shirley Chisholm, Robert E. Lee, & Me, which I will perform as part of the United Solo Performance Festival on Saturday, November 13th at 2:00pm.) :)
"There is no such thing as a cognitively sound, psychologically healthy person, who walks by a rock that got called something one time almost a hundred years ago and feels discriminated against, and senses it as some sort of emotional burden. If that's how you feel walking by the rock under these conditions, you need therapy. You need serious psychological counseling; you should not be taking courses...."
If you want to know more about slavery in Africa and the social context, check out John Thornton's "Africa and Africans in the making of the Atlantic world, 1400-1800"
Thank you John McWhorter at about 10 minutes... straight up calling out the bigotry of the condescension towards black people by the progressive crowd. My progressive and liberal friends are always confused when I call them bigots and racist because they failed to see exactly what you're describing.... It was just a quick line but I heard it loud and clear and thank you for saying it.
Great episode - just saw this article and would love to hear your thoughts on the quote "The MTA said its Vice President Max Page believes MCAS “does a better job of measuring students’ socioeconomic conditions than their academic abilities.” this seems to be a general method of dismissing standardized tests as useful in any way.
"What if's" -- particularly when we're talking hundreds of years -- are kind of silly. Way too many factors. And when we base the question around something as nebulous as race, it gets even sillier.
It is basically like asking, "What if nobody (from this or that 'race') ever interacted?"
What were the chances of that over hundreds of years--violently OR nonviolently?
At the end of the day, I don't know that any of us care to argue that hundreds of years of dehumanizing oppression--regardless of who you have in mind--is better than NOT dehumanizing and oppressing people for hundreds of years.
Anybody wanna give credit to NAZI Germany for rocket technology?
"Don't they deserve our accolades for that amazing innovation? Why not? Why can't we talk about their good side?" -- said nobody, ever.
Brutality and Betrayal leave deep emotional and psychological scars. Brutality is when a person is treated like an animal or an object. There is no subterfuge to brutality. It is raw abuse. Betrayal comes in many forms. Treating a friend as you would an enemy, or a member of a tribe as an outsider. It is rooted in a lie.
Black Americans have suffered both brutality and betrayal for generations. Generations is the proper unit of measure. The great-great grandparents of most Black Americans were slaves. The grand parents of most Black America lived under Jim Crow laws and the horror of KKK violence. All Black "baby boomers" were born before the civil rights protections of the 1960's.
It will take generations for the wounds to heal. Healing has two steps. (1) Forgiveness, which is unilateral. “To forgive is to set a prisoner free and discover the prisoner was you.” Many Black Americans aren't there yet. (2) The second step is much harder, Reconciliation. Healing the societal relationship, so that Blacks feel they belong, and aren't the "other".
This article from Psychology Today could have been written by a Christian minister 200 years ago. Same principles. Will a movement or leader emerge to move us along this path?
https://www.psychologytoday.com/us/blog/in-therapy/201303/forgiveness-vs-reconciliation
To my fellow Glenn Show fans,
I am a fan of the Glenn and John conversations. So much so that I listen to them on a daily basis. Call it "binge listening!" I even have an iPod archive of them that goes back to the first episode in 2007.
Since the summer of 2020, these men have been killing it. Giving us powerful stuff. And we've watched and listened to some of the best episodes this year. Including the one from three days ago on Labor Day and the April episode-Slippery Slope to Hell. During July 2015, they had an extremely engaging conversation that ranks up with their best.
If you haven't watch it on Youtube, here is the link-https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=nB53SY2iTsA
The study of ancient DNA shows that the world was peopled via genocide, settler colonialism, rape, war, domination, slavery, murder. (David Reich's book on ancient DNA should be read by everyone.)
I have thought about what the Americas would be like without European colonization. Would the wheel and the horse be known in the Americas? Would the Aztecs have continued their cruel predation of tribes in central Mexico for slaves and human sacrifices?
Invariably, the isolation would not have lasted. And the history of meetings between societies possessing highly sophisticated tools and those not possessing them.
In terms of North America, it's important to remember that the tribes, like humans everywhere, were hell to each other. Keep in mind that the people in the Americas called "indigenous" are in fact from Siberia. So, a more accurate term for them would be Siberian-American.
Love the discussion of Moby Dick, easily one of my favorite novels. I read it my freshman year of college, prepared to be bored out of my skull, and was blown away by its inventiveness, humor, characters, and the power and beauty of Melville's language. It does not, of course, hold up to modern identity-based scrutiny, and is "racist" and "sexist" as people say. Still and all, what an amazing piece of work, and one that I reread from time to time for pure pleasure. Glad to hear John enjoyed it as well, and that Glenn recognizes Melville's genius, I would have been so crestfallen if they had felt otherwise!
To refer to Larry Elder as a “white supremicist” is slander. (LA Times)
Two comments:
(1) Consistency is overrated. If we were perfectly consistent, we would not only take down statues, but we would rename Yale University (Elihu Yale was a slave trader), Brown University, Columbus Ohio, Washington State, the District of Columbia, Columbia University, and many other universities, cities, parks and streets named after people who once owned enslaved people. But we don't have to be perfectly consistent. We can change some names but choose to regard other institutions as sufficiently far removed from the source of their names that the names don't need to be changed, or we can decide that the cost of changing some names is just too high. We can stop celebrating Columbus day without having to rename everything with "Columbus" in its name. We can choose to pull down statues of Robert. E. Lee, but not Thomas Jefferson. That's not cherry-picking. That's making reasonable distinctions.
(2) Regarding counterfactuals: for nearly every atrocity in history, you can find people whose descendants were arguably better off because of it. So what? An act needs to be judged by the suffering or benefit it causes at the time, or which can reasonably be predicted to result from it. The slave trade caused unspeakable suffering at the time and for many years after. That doesn't necessarily mean that Black people today can reasonably claim harm from the legacy of slavery (I'm not arguing that either way). It just means that counterfactuals shouldn't have any place in the discussion.
Prof. McWhorter, I hate to get technical with something you said, but if you reduce Robert E. Lee's position as General of the Confederacy to "fighting for enslavement," that is a narrow view of that seismic conflict known as The Civil War. Before I go any further, let me state that I am NOT arguing that Lee did not stand for slavery and thereby, the South as a whole did NOT secede from the Union over the matter. However, as those of us who study that history know, it was FAR MORE complex. We live in an era when the issue of slavery is centered around its morality, and I, for one, am thankful that a previous generation decided the immorality of slavery before I arrived on the scene. Meaning, I do not have to think about the morality of slavery because no one I know and no one in this country knows of anyone who has been a slave. Therefore, yes, Lee was fighting for enslavement, but he was also fighting against a Federal Government that was beginning to mandate the laws of individual States. In this case, slaves were property, and the issue was whether this property was legal and could be transported to other states that had outlawed such property. We still have that issue today with abortion rights, the legalization of marijuana, sanctuary cities, etc. How much power does the Federal government have over the States? Furthermore, Lee seceded with his state, which was Virginia, and Virginia did NOT secede until Lincoln called upon the state militias to put down the insurrection in the Lower South (a form of Lincoln legalize, which by calling it an insurrection, Lincoln was also inferring the states had never seceded.) I suppose as a Southerner, and I consider myself to be an enlightened Southerner at that, this is the rub because we lost that war, and we suffered the physical and emotional devastation of that war. Many men, who never owned slaves and some who hated the institution, fought for the Confederacy over this very issue. They thought they were fighting the Second Revolution. So there is so much more that encompasses a Robert E. Lee statue than just slavery and casually reducing his decision to fight for his state, a decision he labored over, to a grandstand defense of slavery is historically inaccurate and unjust. End rant (now, since you live in New York City, please come see my one man show Shirley Chisholm, Robert E. Lee, & Me, which I will perform as part of the United Solo Performance Festival on Saturday, November 13th at 2:00pm.) :)
John McWhorter- congratulations for the New York Times gig. Your audience size will increase and more will be exposed to your work.
"There is no such thing as a cognitively sound, psychologically healthy person, who walks by a rock that got called something one time almost a hundred years ago and feels discriminated against, and senses it as some sort of emotional burden. If that's how you feel walking by the rock under these conditions, you need therapy. You need serious psychological counseling; you should not be taking courses...."
PREACH, Brother John! PREACH!!!!
TYTY.
If you want to know more about slavery in Africa and the social context, check out John Thornton's "Africa and Africans in the making of the Atlantic world, 1400-1800"
Thank you John McWhorter at about 10 minutes... straight up calling out the bigotry of the condescension towards black people by the progressive crowd. My progressive and liberal friends are always confused when I call them bigots and racist because they failed to see exactly what you're describing.... It was just a quick line but I heard it loud and clear and thank you for saying it.
B-
Had Blacks not left Africa, we woud not have Glenn Loury now. Horrible!!!