This week, John and I are talking about the ten-year anniversary of the Trayvon Martin shooting, one of the most politically consequential events of the 2010s.
Hey all. This is the first episode of the podcast that is hosted entirely through Substack, without using the infrastructure of Bloggingheads. It shouldn't be noticeable for you: no matter how you've subscribed to the podcast originally, the episode should be in your feed.
If you subscribe to the podcast but are NOT seeing this episode in your feed, please let me know or at nikita.s.petrov@gmail.com.
One thing that I think would be useful to be aware of, but that sadly wasn't mentioned at all during the show, is that Wikipedia, through the nature of how it works, tends to have accounts of such events that hew very close to the factual, and do not venture into unsourced opinion territory. (At any given time, there may be non-factual statements, or unsourced opinions, but the community editing process will pretty reliably weed those out, typically quite quickly.)
This may be frustrating for those who want to be served with a conclusion they can then adopt for themselves, but can be quite refreshing or even eye-opening for those who'd prefer to be served the facts and then come to their own conclusion. In this regard, the Wikipedia article about Trayvon Martin's killing (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Killing_of_Trayvon_Martin) is a showcase. One needn't watch a documentary of someone whose other works and affiliations may raise questions about whether and how much they've had an agenda when making that documentary. Simply consulting the Wikipedia article, especially after some time has passed (so that enough different people have been able to contribute), can reveal a very rich resource for thinking for oneself (and, indeed, that things are far from black and white as media actors like to depict them). The same, BTW, is true for the Wikipedia article about Michael Brown's killing (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Shooting_of_Michael_Brown). This is all available for free, for everyone with an internet connection, and if one feels some fact is missing, one can immediately contribute to making the article more accurate.
It seems sometimes that consulting an encyclopedia is the last thing that comes to mind when trying to get as complete as possible a set of facts about some contemporary event. In the age of the Encyclopedia Britannica print edition ruling the field, this was arguably well justified, given the amount of time it would take for any contemporary event to be covered there, and the amount of time and effort it would take to actually avail oneself of it. But Wikipedia has completely eliminated all these barriers. If one so desires, one can even see the entire history of edits that brought an article from its inception to the shape it's currently in.
I rarely have the chance to listen to a conversation that both informs and entertains me. I like these two men. I know that I can't say that these men are smart, articulate and informed w/o running the risk of committing a micro-aggression so I won't. With regard to the question of what do old white guys owe regarding race in America, I welcome the perspective that we aren't a monolithic group committed to keeping blacks subordinate. The ending with a palate cleanser brought back childhood memories. My father was into Scott Joplin. Sunday mornings with ragtime in the background. A big shout out for John's labeling him the African Chopin. Right on! I wonder if I can count this as "having black friends"?
Prof. Loury and Prof. McWhorter, great episode as always. Admittedly, I had been thinking about the Zimmerman and Martin incident for this very reason. Ten years on, how would the event be remembered? I was surprised to see virtually nothing about it, and only through this episode did I know the NYT's had created a mini-documentary. In my current commentary on race (which one can read on my Substack page...shameless plug), I am writing the conclusion in which I compare Zimmerman's trial with the trial of Lindsay Smith. In June of 1947 Lindsay Smith a black man in Williamsburg, VA shot and killed a white military officer. Cooperating with law enforcement, Smith turned himself in to the authorities and stood trial, claiming self-defense. Strikingly, after a jury convicted him of voluntary manslaughter, Smith was altogether exonerated by the judge and in December of 1947 was freed. Obviously, the fact that the legal system, routinely dismissed as corrupt and racist, functioned perfectly for Smith begs the question if there are other incidents similar to Smith's during the period of oppressive Jim Crow discrimination. Most importantly, though, is the fate Smith suffered when he returned to a society structured in White Supremacy. Although the media story around Smith goes quiet at this point, the story regarding Smith in the black community of Williamsburg is that the daily onslaughts of verbal and physical abuse from white society resulted in Smith being institutionalized. Similarly, Zimmerman, innocent in a court of law, has suffered from the judgment of our contemporary society condition to new form of race essentialism. The stigma of social pariah placed on Zimmerman accounts for his self-abasing behavior, namely auctioning off the gun he used to shoot Martin. Glenn, to your question about how to address the narratives surrounding the deaths of Martin, Michael Brown, etc., might benefit from a parallel analysis regarding the way White Supremacy constructed a narrative around black men raping white women. This canard justified the ritualized violent lynchings endemic within White Supremacy and in my mind is not that far from the current justification surrounding the ritualized rioting we have seen after the deaths of Brown, Freddie Gray, and George Floyd. The current narrative is that racist police officers are killing black men. Sadly and most disturbingly, I have concluded what I believe John mentioned: erring on the side of the feel good narrative instead of the bitter truth will create an inevitable backlash that will then be weaponized as an example of continued White Supremacy-racism. This keeps American society fettered to what I call the möbius strip of racism. My solution (as I have indicated before) is weaning our society off of race no matter how ingrained and entrenched the social construct may be, and in many ways this will have to start on the Federal level. The soft bigotry within poor white communities stems from this notion that the Federal government shows favoritism to blacks and other ethnic minorities. (see Isenberg's White Trash, The 400-Year Untold History of Class in America and Hochschild's Strangers in Their Own Land)
Another point I thinks is imperative to consider is how Dylann Roof's 2015 deplorable, gut-wrenching act in the name of White Supremacy was spurred by the public condemnation of Zimmerman. Roof, a young man with serious psychological issues, did the exact thing you have warned about, Glenn, when he looked up the race of violent crime offenders in the United States. The fact that his Google search directed him to the homepage of a White Separatist group is not an indication that algorithms are inherently a from of White Supremacy, the actual topic of a news article featuring a scholar writing a book with that thesis (I'm not making this up.) What Roof's search does indicate is that crime data by race is already fueling White Supremacy, and more importantly, Roof used this data as a form of self-radicalization. This is perilous for our society, and I contend that calling out the narrative as specious and deleterious must be coupled with the de-racialization of crime and poverty statistics. Framing the homicide rate and out-of-wedlock birthrate as "black" problems reinforces the idea that there is something wrong with black people that only black people can solve. Such ignorance generalizes poverty and unwed birthrates as conditions somehow not affecting white people. These are fundamentally American problems plaguing American citizens, and reframing these problems as American, irrespective of race, is an essential step forward off the möbius strip of racism.
Finally, to your point John about Michael Brown's body lying in the street for four hours, this la times news article from 2015 explains that every time the Ferguson coroner and forensics team went to collect Brown's body, the sound of suspected gunshots forced them to retreat. Additionally, the public outcry against Brown's death had made the scene on the ground untenable and hostile for forensics to do a thorough job.
I haven't finished the entire episode, but I'm about to reach the section in which John discusses Scott Joplin, a very welcomed palate cleanser. Thanks as always, Glenn and John (aka Sages for the Ages)
John, thank you for bringing up immigrants from West Africa and the Caribbean; their perspective, essential because they are racialized as "black" and some of whom are descendants of the Black Diaspora, is rarely included in the discussion about racism. One of my best friends is from Sierra Leone, and she has shared with me the unsavory view people like her have about black Americans. I'll refrain from detailing it here, but one aspect of her criticism involves work ethic, which I contend is a general problem amongst all Americans, who are not immigrants. When I look at how my friend applied her work ethic in the industry where we met back in 2017 to reach the success she has today as someone who is top of her field making six figures, I am ashamed of my own lackluster work ethic.
Glenn, maybe you could host an episode, which features this perspective? I know Thomas Sowell has written about it. Shirley Chisholm oftentimes referenced how black Americans have this strange fear of white people that Caribbean Americans don't have; hence, why she thought her bid for the Presidency in 1972 was not itself a matter of great achievement. It seems this viewpoint is a missing piece in our ongoing and rather laborious discussion over race and racism.
That article contains many more details showing that Zimmerman is a truly loathsome human being. He's been arrested multiple times for assaulting and threatening people since he killed Martin.
John's take is frustrating because it takes Zimmerman's story as true even though there is good evidence Zimmerman is a violent psychopath. And of course Trayvon can't give his side of the story because Zimmerman killed him in cold blood.
Actually Nathan, every example you provide to confirm Zimmerman is a racist occurred after his acquittal. Even though a court of law found him innocent and the US Government's Attorney General Eric Holder found he had not violated Martin's Civil Rights, the public condemnation of Zimmerman in the media and his status as a social pariah explain his less than stellar behavior. In effect he is a racist because society will not let him be otherwise. Using evidence of his behavior post trial and planting it on him to explain why he shot Martin is contemptible and quite evident of the sickness pervading American society.
As I understand it, Glenn was asking John for advice on how to respond to students who criticism him for contradicting the conventional understanding about the deaths of Trayvon Martin and Michael Brown because doing so provides ammunition for right wing demagogues. Perhaps you could compare that criticism to criticism of a Catholic exposing child sex abuse cover ups because of how doing so would damage the Church's reputation. It was the cover ups that damaged the Church's reputation and until the reality was exposed it would be impossible to fix the problem.
What gives ammunition to right wing demagogues? Is it being honest about the reality of what happened in Ferguson or Sanford? Or is it the demonstrably false narratives that are proclaimed by activists and their supporters in the media? It is a given that America has racial problems. But how can those problems be fixed without examining the reality of the problem(s).
In case anyone is interested, What Killed Michael Brown? Is available to stream for free (with ads) on Tubi and IMDB TV. It is available to stream for free on Kanopy. Or at least that is what the “Just Watch” website says. Kanopy is a very cool streaming service but is only available if your local public library subscribes.
Just a two comments. One, Zimmerman was never told not to exit the car. That was incorrect. And the Rest in Power Series was a complete hack job that was purposely deceitful.
Wow. I'm familiar with the Michael Brown documentary, but I've never heard the counter-narrative about Trayvon Martin. This podcast arguably entertains the most dangerous set of ideas I've ever heard uttered by Glen and (more so) John. I've often wondered what might be a cancellable offense for these men, and I think for John at least, his willingness to entertain and even advance a counter-narrative about Martin's death is it. His colleagues at the NYT are going to call for his head for this.
Oh man, if you want your mind blown you should try and track down the old Glenn Show episodes from a couple years ago called "Revisiting the Trayvon Martin Case", pts. 1 and 2. You can even still find the 2 hour film by Joel Gilbert from which Loury/McWhorter draw their takes on YouTube - I'm shocked it hasn't been banned yet. It's called "The Trayvon Hoax".
Loved this episode. I purchased and watched the Who Killed Michael Brown story during the time when Eli and Shelby came on the Glenn show back in late 2020. Great documentary!!!
As for the narratives about blacks that keep getting reinforced? It comes down to the audience. It is about the poetic truth. As long as enough blacks believe something, regardless of its lack of credibility, it does not matter. The poetic truth is an illusion trying to connect with the reality of history. It's all part of black culture.
But it comes with a high price. The perception of black culture takes a hit. It can't be taken seriously when so many people, including elites, subject it to childish standards. I welcome anyone to agree or disagree.
“The poetic truth is an illusion trying to connect with the reality of history.” Not to be confused with the truth spoken poetically, as you just did. Very well written. I agree with you. I’m hopeful that sensible, truthful discussions that include root causes and the catalyst of a shameful history AND the cultural fallout of centuries of abuse, proclivity to behaviors antithetical to good outcomes in a democratic capitalist society can be had. Perhaps Glenn’s rants and Coleman’s stoic philosophical observations and John’s defiance and the resistance of other sensible, reality and evidence-based commentary will continue to gain steam.
Right now the latter half of that is verboten and so taboo it might as well be pedophilia. No progress can come of performative agreement based on fear of loss of livelihood. I fear elections will be an indicator of this and the political majority in at least partial power will only levy the scale too far in the other direction- and still no honest public debate will be had. I hope I’m wrong.
@26:26 Prof. McWhorter: "Some people today think that black woke people are trying to pull one on you because it makes them money or gets them power . . ."
But of course they are - every social advocacy movement runs half on idealism, half on graft.
I work at a strip club. And in the wake of George Floyd's killing, we had an activist come through. He was walking to Minneapolis, and had a large social media profile because of it. I know this because he told us about his million Twitter followers. And yeah, it left a pretty bad taste in my mouth. Here's this rich guy, coming in with his nicely detailed Range Rover that he used as a pace car for his walk. Several times he came close to explicitly threatening us with a social media backlash. He never *quite* crossed that line, but he walked right up to it.
The first night, he complained that none of our girls were hot enough. So we brought girls in for him specifically the second night. Again, they weren't his type - but what that really meant is that none of the girls he propositioned (and he tried almost all of them) would come back to his hotel with him. If he were white, he'd have been banned the first night. We run a clean club and the first time you try and induce a dancer to hook for you, you get a warning. The second time, you get kicked out. We take dancer safety seriously. But in this case, we let this man and his entourage try and badger girls into hooking for them because of wider concerns over becoming the locus of violent protests, which at the time were happening in the downtown area, with fires and destruction rampaging every night.
It just had this very televangelist feel, this rich man using the fervent beliefs of the poor to further enrich himself and to blackmail people into letting him behave how he wanted, using his following as a cudgel. He was a bad man, but we let him walk all over us and our dancers because of his skin color, and that has never sat well with me. I don't want to have to treat people differently based on their looks. I don't want to have to compromise my morals because my skin color immediately raises suspicion in any interaction with someone of another race. And I can see how it would be satisfying for some people, the "aha, now you know how black people felt last century!" But is that progress? Fairness? Even here, in what is a reasonably safe space, I'm hesitant to talk about it. I've bought Woke Racism, I've read professor McWhorter exhortation to speak up, but I'm just not that brave. It could be followed back to my work and the Twitter mob could shut our business down. That hurts me, of course, but it also hurts a lot of other people who have not spoken out, who didn't even work there at the time. And I know that the reality of the situation wouldn't matter. It would matter to the professors here. It would matter to the Coleman Hugheses and to Thomas Sowelles and Roland Fryeres of the world but to the wider populace, the reality would only matter insofar as it advanced the narrative. Here's a white man making accusations of a black man. To most of the population that statement is all they need for them to know in their heart of hearts that I'm a virulent racist and that stamping me out is an act of benevolence to the world.
Apologize I'm behind, and didn't catch the video. Hate to quote the Woke, but only thing I know is to "speak truth to power." And know there's a world of difference between those who *say* they own the truth and those who actually *do.* You may or may not convince many. None if You don't say anything at all, so there is that.
Certainly. I’ll try to utilize some brevity- but it does require somewhat of a verbose explanation. “Speak truth to power” is a phrase that is en vogue for the social justice political movements that are prevalent now. In their contextual usage of the phrase, whether it be LGBTQ activists proclaiming the evil of the CIS-gendered patriarchy, the critical race theorist employing intersectionality to exhibit double victimhood on the account of sexism AND racism, or the pop-up KendiAngeloists wagging their fingers at the original sin of being white and therefore inherently racist, they all imply that there is an intrinsic system built upon unfairly advantaging those that are straight, male, white, etc. And a claim- any claim, drawing attention to this injustice, whether founded in credible evidence or not, is “speaking truth to power”. There’s at least a couple gaping holes in this virtuous victim exclamation. The first is that in order to get people to believe in their tenets, this political sect- the progressives, the far leftists, the social justice crowd- whatever moniker one wishes to apply, they utter again and again things like “black people are being hunted by the police”, and “there is a bias inherent in all police- in the fiber of their being, that causes them to murder blacks people at a much higher rate than their white counterparts”. I have yet to see more compelling evidence and ANY study equal or greater to this one, with regard to careful consideration to controls so as to arrive at granular evidential conclusions, amount of raw data aggregated, etc. https://scholar.harvard.edu/fryer/publications/empirical-analysis-racial-differences-police-use-force
In other words, what they tell anyone that will listen, in order to garner support, isn’t true. Furthermore, it’s all a relatively easily provable lie. We can prove that the more egalitarian a society becomes, the more separation we see between male and female choices with regard to occupational preferences, the preference to work at all vs being a full time parent or caregiver, etc. The more choice and freedom people have, the more contrast between gender. The wokies would have us believe that this separation is based, in this country at least, solely on an unjust system made by and for the benefit of men to keep women subservient, or at least earning less than men. Studies from Scandinavia- largely considered the most peaceful, just and equality focused places in the world has some of the starkest contrasts between genders in a variety of categories.
Again, the theme here is that they need to get people emotionally involved then feed them bullshit in order for their politics to become more widespread- in other words, it’s a lie. It’s gaslighting on a galactic scale.
So, my comment is based on the irony that those who utter the phrase “Speak truth to power” in doing so, are doing the exact opposite, by not even speaking truth.
If you need another reason, and if you know your black (Glenn, if you happen to read this- I’m adopting your policy for lack of capitalization) and Civil Rights history, then you know that Bayard Rustin, Martin Luther King Jr.’s right hand man is the origin of that phrase. He coined it. In yet another ironic twist, many of the things that Bayard Rustin, the originator of the “Speak truth to power” political mantra, believed in, would be in direct opposition with today’s social justice orthodoxy. He didn’t believe it was productive or even true to assume all whites are racist. This is the polar opposite of KendiAngeloism- which, by many is considered the academic height of race-based theory and commentary- chiefly by those that utter the phrase “Speak truth to power.” He also was not in favor of Affirmative Action.
So, modern woke parlance has bastardized a phrase and turned the mantra of a true activist that changed things with nonviolent action and a compelling call to be given the opportunity to earn equal status through performance, rather than be handed it by racial, societal guilt, into a device for displaying hypocrisy. Tragic.
Hey all. This is the first episode of the podcast that is hosted entirely through Substack, without using the infrastructure of Bloggingheads. It shouldn't be noticeable for you: no matter how you've subscribed to the podcast originally, the episode should be in your feed.
If you subscribe to the podcast but are NOT seeing this episode in your feed, please let me know or at nikita.s.petrov@gmail.com.
Thanks!
One thing that I think would be useful to be aware of, but that sadly wasn't mentioned at all during the show, is that Wikipedia, through the nature of how it works, tends to have accounts of such events that hew very close to the factual, and do not venture into unsourced opinion territory. (At any given time, there may be non-factual statements, or unsourced opinions, but the community editing process will pretty reliably weed those out, typically quite quickly.)
This may be frustrating for those who want to be served with a conclusion they can then adopt for themselves, but can be quite refreshing or even eye-opening for those who'd prefer to be served the facts and then come to their own conclusion. In this regard, the Wikipedia article about Trayvon Martin's killing (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Killing_of_Trayvon_Martin) is a showcase. One needn't watch a documentary of someone whose other works and affiliations may raise questions about whether and how much they've had an agenda when making that documentary. Simply consulting the Wikipedia article, especially after some time has passed (so that enough different people have been able to contribute), can reveal a very rich resource for thinking for oneself (and, indeed, that things are far from black and white as media actors like to depict them). The same, BTW, is true for the Wikipedia article about Michael Brown's killing (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Shooting_of_Michael_Brown). This is all available for free, for everyone with an internet connection, and if one feels some fact is missing, one can immediately contribute to making the article more accurate.
It seems sometimes that consulting an encyclopedia is the last thing that comes to mind when trying to get as complete as possible a set of facts about some contemporary event. In the age of the Encyclopedia Britannica print edition ruling the field, this was arguably well justified, given the amount of time it would take for any contemporary event to be covered there, and the amount of time and effort it would take to actually avail oneself of it. But Wikipedia has completely eliminated all these barriers. If one so desires, one can even see the entire history of edits that brought an article from its inception to the shape it's currently in.
I rarely have the chance to listen to a conversation that both informs and entertains me. I like these two men. I know that I can't say that these men are smart, articulate and informed w/o running the risk of committing a micro-aggression so I won't. With regard to the question of what do old white guys owe regarding race in America, I welcome the perspective that we aren't a monolithic group committed to keeping blacks subordinate. The ending with a palate cleanser brought back childhood memories. My father was into Scott Joplin. Sunday mornings with ragtime in the background. A big shout out for John's labeling him the African Chopin. Right on! I wonder if I can count this as "having black friends"?
Prof. Loury and Prof. McWhorter, great episode as always. Admittedly, I had been thinking about the Zimmerman and Martin incident for this very reason. Ten years on, how would the event be remembered? I was surprised to see virtually nothing about it, and only through this episode did I know the NYT's had created a mini-documentary. In my current commentary on race (which one can read on my Substack page...shameless plug), I am writing the conclusion in which I compare Zimmerman's trial with the trial of Lindsay Smith. In June of 1947 Lindsay Smith a black man in Williamsburg, VA shot and killed a white military officer. Cooperating with law enforcement, Smith turned himself in to the authorities and stood trial, claiming self-defense. Strikingly, after a jury convicted him of voluntary manslaughter, Smith was altogether exonerated by the judge and in December of 1947 was freed. Obviously, the fact that the legal system, routinely dismissed as corrupt and racist, functioned perfectly for Smith begs the question if there are other incidents similar to Smith's during the period of oppressive Jim Crow discrimination. Most importantly, though, is the fate Smith suffered when he returned to a society structured in White Supremacy. Although the media story around Smith goes quiet at this point, the story regarding Smith in the black community of Williamsburg is that the daily onslaughts of verbal and physical abuse from white society resulted in Smith being institutionalized. Similarly, Zimmerman, innocent in a court of law, has suffered from the judgment of our contemporary society condition to new form of race essentialism. The stigma of social pariah placed on Zimmerman accounts for his self-abasing behavior, namely auctioning off the gun he used to shoot Martin. Glenn, to your question about how to address the narratives surrounding the deaths of Martin, Michael Brown, etc., might benefit from a parallel analysis regarding the way White Supremacy constructed a narrative around black men raping white women. This canard justified the ritualized violent lynchings endemic within White Supremacy and in my mind is not that far from the current justification surrounding the ritualized rioting we have seen after the deaths of Brown, Freddie Gray, and George Floyd. The current narrative is that racist police officers are killing black men. Sadly and most disturbingly, I have concluded what I believe John mentioned: erring on the side of the feel good narrative instead of the bitter truth will create an inevitable backlash that will then be weaponized as an example of continued White Supremacy-racism. This keeps American society fettered to what I call the möbius strip of racism. My solution (as I have indicated before) is weaning our society off of race no matter how ingrained and entrenched the social construct may be, and in many ways this will have to start on the Federal level. The soft bigotry within poor white communities stems from this notion that the Federal government shows favoritism to blacks and other ethnic minorities. (see Isenberg's White Trash, The 400-Year Untold History of Class in America and Hochschild's Strangers in Their Own Land)
Another point I thinks is imperative to consider is how Dylann Roof's 2015 deplorable, gut-wrenching act in the name of White Supremacy was spurred by the public condemnation of Zimmerman. Roof, a young man with serious psychological issues, did the exact thing you have warned about, Glenn, when he looked up the race of violent crime offenders in the United States. The fact that his Google search directed him to the homepage of a White Separatist group is not an indication that algorithms are inherently a from of White Supremacy, the actual topic of a news article featuring a scholar writing a book with that thesis (I'm not making this up.) What Roof's search does indicate is that crime data by race is already fueling White Supremacy, and more importantly, Roof used this data as a form of self-radicalization. This is perilous for our society, and I contend that calling out the narrative as specious and deleterious must be coupled with the de-racialization of crime and poverty statistics. Framing the homicide rate and out-of-wedlock birthrate as "black" problems reinforces the idea that there is something wrong with black people that only black people can solve. Such ignorance generalizes poverty and unwed birthrates as conditions somehow not affecting white people. These are fundamentally American problems plaguing American citizens, and reframing these problems as American, irrespective of race, is an essential step forward off the möbius strip of racism.
Finally, to your point John about Michael Brown's body lying in the street for four hours, this la times news article from 2015 explains that every time the Ferguson coroner and forensics team went to collect Brown's body, the sound of suspected gunshots forced them to retreat. Additionally, the public outcry against Brown's death had made the scene on the ground untenable and hostile for forensics to do a thorough job.
https://www.latimes.com/nation/la-na-ferguson-police-chief-20150610-story.html#page=1
I haven't finished the entire episode, but I'm about to reach the section in which John discusses Scott Joplin, a very welcomed palate cleanser. Thanks as always, Glenn and John (aka Sages for the Ages)
Just to round out the rest of the episode,
John, thank you for bringing up immigrants from West Africa and the Caribbean; their perspective, essential because they are racialized as "black" and some of whom are descendants of the Black Diaspora, is rarely included in the discussion about racism. One of my best friends is from Sierra Leone, and she has shared with me the unsavory view people like her have about black Americans. I'll refrain from detailing it here, but one aspect of her criticism involves work ethic, which I contend is a general problem amongst all Americans, who are not immigrants. When I look at how my friend applied her work ethic in the industry where we met back in 2017 to reach the success she has today as someone who is top of her field making six figures, I am ashamed of my own lackluster work ethic.
Glenn, maybe you could host an episode, which features this perspective? I know Thomas Sowell has written about it. Shirley Chisholm oftentimes referenced how black Americans have this strange fear of white people that Caribbean Americans don't have; hence, why she thought her bid for the Presidency in 1972 was not itself a matter of great achievement. It seems this viewpoint is a missing piece in our ongoing and rather laborious discussion over race and racism.
Sorry, but the idea that George Zimmerman was "not a racist" has been seriously undercut by his actions since.
He's been kicked out of a bar for using the n-word: https://slate.com/news-and-politics/2016/11/george-zimmerman-kicked-out-of-bar-n-word-used.html
Sold paintings of the confederate flag: https://www.bbc.com/news/world-us-canada-33979927
had his twitter account "suspended in 2015 after he posted semi-nude photographs of his ex-girlfriend. In the captions, he included her personal email address and telephone number and accused her of having sex with a “dirty Muslim.”" And called President Obama a "baboon." https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/morning-mix/wp/2016/05/12/george-zimmermans-many-many-controversies-since-the-trayvon-martin-case/
That article contains many more details showing that Zimmerman is a truly loathsome human being. He's been arrested multiple times for assaulting and threatening people since he killed Martin.
John's take is frustrating because it takes Zimmerman's story as true even though there is good evidence Zimmerman is a violent psychopath. And of course Trayvon can't give his side of the story because Zimmerman killed him in cold blood.
Actually Nathan, every example you provide to confirm Zimmerman is a racist occurred after his acquittal. Even though a court of law found him innocent and the US Government's Attorney General Eric Holder found he had not violated Martin's Civil Rights, the public condemnation of Zimmerman in the media and his status as a social pariah explain his less than stellar behavior. In effect he is a racist because society will not let him be otherwise. Using evidence of his behavior post trial and planting it on him to explain why he shot Martin is contemptible and quite evident of the sickness pervading American society.
"John's take is frustrating because it takes Zimmerman's story as true even though there is good evidence Zimmerman is a violent psychopath."
Legal scholars, logicians... discuss!
As I understand it, Glenn was asking John for advice on how to respond to students who criticism him for contradicting the conventional understanding about the deaths of Trayvon Martin and Michael Brown because doing so provides ammunition for right wing demagogues. Perhaps you could compare that criticism to criticism of a Catholic exposing child sex abuse cover ups because of how doing so would damage the Church's reputation. It was the cover ups that damaged the Church's reputation and until the reality was exposed it would be impossible to fix the problem.
What gives ammunition to right wing demagogues? Is it being honest about the reality of what happened in Ferguson or Sanford? Or is it the demonstrably false narratives that are proclaimed by activists and their supporters in the media? It is a given that America has racial problems. But how can those problems be fixed without examining the reality of the problem(s).
In case anyone is interested, What Killed Michael Brown? Is available to stream for free (with ads) on Tubi and IMDB TV. It is available to stream for free on Kanopy. Or at least that is what the “Just Watch” website says. Kanopy is a very cool streaming service but is only available if your local public library subscribes.
John was perhaps thinking of how Amazon, at one point, refused to offer "What Killed Michael Brown?" for streaming.
Just a two comments. One, Zimmerman was never told not to exit the car. That was incorrect. And the Rest in Power Series was a complete hack job that was purposely deceitful.
Wow. I'm familiar with the Michael Brown documentary, but I've never heard the counter-narrative about Trayvon Martin. This podcast arguably entertains the most dangerous set of ideas I've ever heard uttered by Glen and (more so) John. I've often wondered what might be a cancellable offense for these men, and I think for John at least, his willingness to entertain and even advance a counter-narrative about Martin's death is it. His colleagues at the NYT are going to call for his head for this.
Oh man, if you want your mind blown you should try and track down the old Glenn Show episodes from a couple years ago called "Revisiting the Trayvon Martin Case", pts. 1 and 2. You can even still find the 2 hour film by Joel Gilbert from which Loury/McWhorter draw their takes on YouTube - I'm shocked it hasn't been banned yet. It's called "The Trayvon Hoax".
Loved this episode. I purchased and watched the Who Killed Michael Brown story during the time when Eli and Shelby came on the Glenn show back in late 2020. Great documentary!!!
As for the narratives about blacks that keep getting reinforced? It comes down to the audience. It is about the poetic truth. As long as enough blacks believe something, regardless of its lack of credibility, it does not matter. The poetic truth is an illusion trying to connect with the reality of history. It's all part of black culture.
But it comes with a high price. The perception of black culture takes a hit. It can't be taken seriously when so many people, including elites, subject it to childish standards. I welcome anyone to agree or disagree.
“The poetic truth is an illusion trying to connect with the reality of history.” Not to be confused with the truth spoken poetically, as you just did. Very well written. I agree with you. I’m hopeful that sensible, truthful discussions that include root causes and the catalyst of a shameful history AND the cultural fallout of centuries of abuse, proclivity to behaviors antithetical to good outcomes in a democratic capitalist society can be had. Perhaps Glenn’s rants and Coleman’s stoic philosophical observations and John’s defiance and the resistance of other sensible, reality and evidence-based commentary will continue to gain steam.
Right now the latter half of that is verboten and so taboo it might as well be pedophilia. No progress can come of performative agreement based on fear of loss of livelihood. I fear elections will be an indicator of this and the political majority in at least partial power will only levy the scale too far in the other direction- and still no honest public debate will be had. I hope I’m wrong.
Love your response, Jake. Thanks!!!
I agree that “What Killed Michael Brown?” was very well done. I highly recommend it for those who haven’t seen it yet.
My grandfather had a heart attack when he heard the OJ verdict, and it's what ended up killing him. Weird how many ripple effects things can have.
@26:26 Prof. McWhorter: "Some people today think that black woke people are trying to pull one on you because it makes them money or gets them power . . ."
But of course they are - every social advocacy movement runs half on idealism, half on graft.
I work at a strip club. And in the wake of George Floyd's killing, we had an activist come through. He was walking to Minneapolis, and had a large social media profile because of it. I know this because he told us about his million Twitter followers. And yeah, it left a pretty bad taste in my mouth. Here's this rich guy, coming in with his nicely detailed Range Rover that he used as a pace car for his walk. Several times he came close to explicitly threatening us with a social media backlash. He never *quite* crossed that line, but he walked right up to it.
The first night, he complained that none of our girls were hot enough. So we brought girls in for him specifically the second night. Again, they weren't his type - but what that really meant is that none of the girls he propositioned (and he tried almost all of them) would come back to his hotel with him. If he were white, he'd have been banned the first night. We run a clean club and the first time you try and induce a dancer to hook for you, you get a warning. The second time, you get kicked out. We take dancer safety seriously. But in this case, we let this man and his entourage try and badger girls into hooking for them because of wider concerns over becoming the locus of violent protests, which at the time were happening in the downtown area, with fires and destruction rampaging every night.
It just had this very televangelist feel, this rich man using the fervent beliefs of the poor to further enrich himself and to blackmail people into letting him behave how he wanted, using his following as a cudgel. He was a bad man, but we let him walk all over us and our dancers because of his skin color, and that has never sat well with me. I don't want to have to treat people differently based on their looks. I don't want to have to compromise my morals because my skin color immediately raises suspicion in any interaction with someone of another race. And I can see how it would be satisfying for some people, the "aha, now you know how black people felt last century!" But is that progress? Fairness? Even here, in what is a reasonably safe space, I'm hesitant to talk about it. I've bought Woke Racism, I've read professor McWhorter exhortation to speak up, but I'm just not that brave. It could be followed back to my work and the Twitter mob could shut our business down. That hurts me, of course, but it also hurts a lot of other people who have not spoken out, who didn't even work there at the time. And I know that the reality of the situation wouldn't matter. It would matter to the professors here. It would matter to the Coleman Hugheses and to Thomas Sowelles and Roland Fryeres of the world but to the wider populace, the reality would only matter insofar as it advanced the narrative. Here's a white man making accusations of a black man. To most of the population that statement is all they need for them to know in their heart of hearts that I'm a virulent racist and that stamping me out is an act of benevolence to the world.
Apologize I'm behind, and didn't catch the video. Hate to quote the Woke, but only thing I know is to "speak truth to power." And know there's a world of difference between those who *say* they own the truth and those who actually *do.* You may or may not convince many. None if You don't say anything at all, so there is that.
TY both for *all* You do.
They seem to be a bit confused on the “Speak truth” part.
Sorry. Long day about done. Can You describe who is confused about what? TY.
Certainly. I’ll try to utilize some brevity- but it does require somewhat of a verbose explanation. “Speak truth to power” is a phrase that is en vogue for the social justice political movements that are prevalent now. In their contextual usage of the phrase, whether it be LGBTQ activists proclaiming the evil of the CIS-gendered patriarchy, the critical race theorist employing intersectionality to exhibit double victimhood on the account of sexism AND racism, or the pop-up KendiAngeloists wagging their fingers at the original sin of being white and therefore inherently racist, they all imply that there is an intrinsic system built upon unfairly advantaging those that are straight, male, white, etc. And a claim- any claim, drawing attention to this injustice, whether founded in credible evidence or not, is “speaking truth to power”. There’s at least a couple gaping holes in this virtuous victim exclamation. The first is that in order to get people to believe in their tenets, this political sect- the progressives, the far leftists, the social justice crowd- whatever moniker one wishes to apply, they utter again and again things like “black people are being hunted by the police”, and “there is a bias inherent in all police- in the fiber of their being, that causes them to murder blacks people at a much higher rate than their white counterparts”. I have yet to see more compelling evidence and ANY study equal or greater to this one, with regard to careful consideration to controls so as to arrive at granular evidential conclusions, amount of raw data aggregated, etc. https://scholar.harvard.edu/fryer/publications/empirical-analysis-racial-differences-police-use-force
In other words, what they tell anyone that will listen, in order to garner support, isn’t true. Furthermore, it’s all a relatively easily provable lie. We can prove that the more egalitarian a society becomes, the more separation we see between male and female choices with regard to occupational preferences, the preference to work at all vs being a full time parent or caregiver, etc. The more choice and freedom people have, the more contrast between gender. The wokies would have us believe that this separation is based, in this country at least, solely on an unjust system made by and for the benefit of men to keep women subservient, or at least earning less than men. Studies from Scandinavia- largely considered the most peaceful, just and equality focused places in the world has some of the starkest contrasts between genders in a variety of categories.
https://www.latimes.com/science/sciencenow/la-sci-sn-women-equality-preferences-20181018-story.html
Again, the theme here is that they need to get people emotionally involved then feed them bullshit in order for their politics to become more widespread- in other words, it’s a lie. It’s gaslighting on a galactic scale.
So, my comment is based on the irony that those who utter the phrase “Speak truth to power” in doing so, are doing the exact opposite, by not even speaking truth.
If you need another reason, and if you know your black (Glenn, if you happen to read this- I’m adopting your policy for lack of capitalization) and Civil Rights history, then you know that Bayard Rustin, Martin Luther King Jr.’s right hand man is the origin of that phrase. He coined it. In yet another ironic twist, many of the things that Bayard Rustin, the originator of the “Speak truth to power” political mantra, believed in, would be in direct opposition with today’s social justice orthodoxy. He didn’t believe it was productive or even true to assume all whites are racist. This is the polar opposite of KendiAngeloism- which, by many is considered the academic height of race-based theory and commentary- chiefly by those that utter the phrase “Speak truth to power.” He also was not in favor of Affirmative Action.
So, modern woke parlance has bastardized a phrase and turned the mantra of a true activist that changed things with nonviolent action and a compelling call to be given the opportunity to earn equal status through performance, rather than be handed it by racial, societal guilt, into a device for displaying hypocrisy. Tragic.
https://youtu.be/fybq5UQn8M8
I hope you find this explanation of my comment sufficient.