I wrote that your comment was snarky. That is not a criticism of you, it is a comment on the words you chose to make your point, which I thought were due to an inaccurate understanding of John's point.
Acknowledging that you have not read the chapter on Indianapolis suggests your comment was more of an emotional reaction than an accurate understanding of John's argument.
John's point is that while everything you write above (and Mr. Wilson writes) is valid and important, it does not provide a sufficient explanation for the phenomena John describes in his books. Glenn emphasized deindustrialization as a significant economic factor. Glenn and John seemed to agree that John's argument is incremental, and (he asserts, and it is important to recognize) almost universally dismissed by academic sociologists. One need not agree with him, but it is important to get his argument correct. Implying that John is insensitive to the plight of those who lost jobs is what led me to comment.
Finally, this is not about who has the "better argument" (either-or); it is "both-and". Both you and John offer important points of view.
John was born into a well-to-do upper-middle-class black family with all expenses paid, free of much worry. He has never gone to bed hungry. John has never worked at a plant or factory. He grew up in a bubble that greatly influenced his thinking (white ivory tower mindset detached).
That sounds like an ad hominem argument, that his socioeconomic position disqualifies his opinion, rather than you engaging and offering a counter argument to his opinion.
Mr. Roscoe's reply to me does a nice job in explaining his different perspective. I agree with him there is room for many perspectives when it comes to policy debates, regardless of where and under what circumstances one was reared.
Thanks for your reply. Please watch the conversation between John and Glenn again and listen carefully to John's assertions from 16 years ago and today.
Just before the three minute mark John from 2007 says that deindustrialization "doesn't seem to explain anything." John from 2023 goes on to say that the best way to account for the effects of deindustrialization is, "It didn't help that low skill jobs moved away." He also asserts if the only issue was that factory jobs moved away that people would have moved or set up businesses the way immigrants from Africa and the Caribbean often do. I listened carefully and offered a different perspective on these things in my post.
As for "emotional" responses, listen carefully to what John said just before the seven minute mark. He doesn't want to believe that people didn't respond well to deindustrialization. He doesn't want to believe that the exodus of the black middle class affected the people left behind. He says around the 7:35 mark that some of his reaction is "visceral."
Listen to the fuller conversation and John says around the 29 minute mark that he spent a year doing an analysis of Indianapolis data but has spent less than three hours there:
There are people who believe they can accurately assess economic and cultural shifts this way. I write from the perspective of someone who thinks you can't know a place or a people unless you spend significant time on the ground. I also explained in my first response to you why I don't think Indianapolis is a good case study if you want to understand the impacts of deindustrialization on Black America.
I've spent time in Akron, Birmingham, Detroit, Gary and Indianapolis. No disrespect to John, but my time in these places, combined with having spent many years in the manufacturing space, gives me a perspective he doesn't have. I shared my perspectives on deindustrialized cities and included data to flesh out my points. There's room for many perspectives when it comes to public policy debates so let folks read both essays and draw their own conclusions.
"I shared my perspectives on deindustrialized cities and included data to flesh out my points."
You did, and you did that very well. I appreciate that.
"There's room for many perspectives when it comes to public policy debates so let folks read both essays and draw their own conclusions."
I completely agree.
I am glad that John's two earlier books have elicited a lively response in these comments. I enjoyed the tightly structured arguments John makes in his writing.
I plan to move on to "Woke Racism" to see what John has to say about more recent developments.
I wrote that your comment was snarky. That is not a criticism of you, it is a comment on the words you chose to make your point, which I thought were due to an inaccurate understanding of John's point.
Acknowledging that you have not read the chapter on Indianapolis suggests your comment was more of an emotional reaction than an accurate understanding of John's argument.
John's point is that while everything you write above (and Mr. Wilson writes) is valid and important, it does not provide a sufficient explanation for the phenomena John describes in his books. Glenn emphasized deindustrialization as a significant economic factor. Glenn and John seemed to agree that John's argument is incremental, and (he asserts, and it is important to recognize) almost universally dismissed by academic sociologists. One need not agree with him, but it is important to get his argument correct. Implying that John is insensitive to the plight of those who lost jobs is what led me to comment.
Finally, this is not about who has the "better argument" (either-or); it is "both-and". Both you and John offer important points of view.
John was born into a well-to-do upper-middle-class black family with all expenses paid, free of much worry. He has never gone to bed hungry. John has never worked at a plant or factory. He grew up in a bubble that greatly influenced his thinking (white ivory tower mindset detached).
That sounds like an ad hominem argument, that his socioeconomic position disqualifies his opinion, rather than you engaging and offering a counter argument to his opinion.
Mr. Roscoe's reply to me does a nice job in explaining his different perspective. I agree with him there is room for many perspectives when it comes to policy debates, regardless of where and under what circumstances one was reared.
Thanks for your reply. Please watch the conversation between John and Glenn again and listen carefully to John's assertions from 16 years ago and today.
https://glennloury.substack.com/p/debating-the-deindustrialization
Just before the three minute mark John from 2007 says that deindustrialization "doesn't seem to explain anything." John from 2023 goes on to say that the best way to account for the effects of deindustrialization is, "It didn't help that low skill jobs moved away." He also asserts if the only issue was that factory jobs moved away that people would have moved or set up businesses the way immigrants from Africa and the Caribbean often do. I listened carefully and offered a different perspective on these things in my post.
As for "emotional" responses, listen carefully to what John said just before the seven minute mark. He doesn't want to believe that people didn't respond well to deindustrialization. He doesn't want to believe that the exodus of the black middle class affected the people left behind. He says around the 7:35 mark that some of his reaction is "visceral."
Listen to the fuller conversation and John says around the 29 minute mark that he spent a year doing an analysis of Indianapolis data but has spent less than three hours there:
https://glennloury.substack.com/p/john-mcwhorter-sixteen-years-of-the#details
There are people who believe they can accurately assess economic and cultural shifts this way. I write from the perspective of someone who thinks you can't know a place or a people unless you spend significant time on the ground. I also explained in my first response to you why I don't think Indianapolis is a good case study if you want to understand the impacts of deindustrialization on Black America.
I've spent time in Akron, Birmingham, Detroit, Gary and Indianapolis. No disrespect to John, but my time in these places, combined with having spent many years in the manufacturing space, gives me a perspective he doesn't have. I shared my perspectives on deindustrialized cities and included data to flesh out my points. There's room for many perspectives when it comes to public policy debates so let folks read both essays and draw their own conclusions.
Mr. Roscoe,
Thank you for your response.
"I shared my perspectives on deindustrialized cities and included data to flesh out my points."
You did, and you did that very well. I appreciate that.
"There's room for many perspectives when it comes to public policy debates so let folks read both essays and draw their own conclusions."
I completely agree.
I am glad that John's two earlier books have elicited a lively response in these comments. I enjoyed the tightly structured arguments John makes in his writing.
I plan to move on to "Woke Racism" to see what John has to say about more recent developments.