Glenn states that,"There are things that don’t get said when we talk about race in America." Glenn, you might want to add that there are races that don't get mentioned when you talk about Race in America! When you mention Race, you clearly only mean ''The Black Race". Just as some people view everything through a racial lens, Glenn and John view the race angle only through a Black lens. Even though Glenn will have the odd Asian or two on his show every now and then, it is clear that serious discussions about Race center about one racial group only. A broader vision of what constitutes a so-called 'disadvantage' in America, and not one that's just race-based, might lead to more insightful discussions.
They may bill themselves as "The Black Guys", but it would be more apt to term them, "The Black Guys who talk about Black Guys".
I would say you talk about what you know. With “Asians” not typically subject to the economic problems of blacks, and large swaths of “Lantinx” (sic) moving to the right, the black monolith is a unique American conundrum. I don’t blame them for their focus.
No it really isn't; Caribbean societies and some South-American countries like Brazil also have significant histories of racialized plantation slavery, and the concomitant large populations of African descent. Similarly, South Africa is an even more extreme example of the "Jim Crow" racial caste regime formerly prevalent in parts of the U.S. There are other examples of non-assimilatory culturally-excluded groups; The Roma/Gypsies/Travellers are one prominent example, ritually-unclean castes across the world (most famously in India, but see also the French "cagots" and japanese "burakumin") are another.
Adam, this is a very popular and recent talking point of leftists today, with an explosion of bestsellers on this subject by liberal academicians who have never set foot in India, yet are self-proclaimed "experts" such as Oprah Winfrey, who even go so far as to link caste with Nazis, so I feel it's incumbent upon me to offer you some background about the "unclean-castes" in India whom you reference, so here goes: Hindus never, ever enter a temple without having had a bath. So, farmers and laborers back in the day working in the fields until dusk, still in their dirt, who did not want to miss the evening prayer service, would stand outside the temple on their way back home, so they could see and hear what was happening (the sanctum sanctorum is always built in a straight line aligning with the entrance so worshipers can see from afar, for this express purpose). This practice of standing outside the temple, if one was 'unclean', proved to be a heaven-sent gift (no pun intended!) to the British (who were being criticized by world media at the time for their subjugation of the Indian sub-continent) who used this fact to whip up a few disgruntled natives (of which there are always a few in every society!) into believing that they were being disparaged. It may interest you to know that the word "caste" belongs to no Indian language and it derives from the Portuguese 'casta". The Brits recreated the European class system in India, terming it the Caste system so that they could justify to the world media that they were actually liberating and enlightening those ''benighted heathens". That narrative took root, and was later abused by unscrupulous people, including Indians, who had their own vested interests in stirring strife and disharmony in the nation, much in the fashion of the woke mob in America today. Hope that clarifies the latest narrative on caste put forth by our "esteemed" omniscient liberals in academia who of course know best about every culture and are ready to inflict their opinions on the rest of us.
Yes, and the prohibition against the burakumin in some cases originated as a sensible precaution about sharing hand-prepared and -eaten food with those who professionally worked with dead or disgusting things (see, e.g., tanners, butchers, night-soil collectors, etc.) That does not obviate the social fact that the evolution of those social rules ossified into much more comprehensive social ostracization, including a prohibition on intermarriage.
The opposite of foolishness is not wisdom, and the opposite of solipsistic conversion of others' cultures into American social orders a la Winfrey is not uncritical acceptance of the opposite narrative. I call the Indian orders "castes" because I speak English, not Hindi, and "caste" is a perfectly good English word. And I compare the American racial system to them not to impose one on the other, or the other on the one, but instead to try and get American commenters here to try and expand their view of our own "racial" divisions through contemplation of other groups which share some (not all) of our history's characteristics.
Whatever language one speaks (or doesn't), knowing the origins, especially when there is a misapprehension and the current word has a negative connotation, is very important, so that proper attribution can be made. Making the distinction between a word of Indian origin and a word of British origin deliberately super-imposed upon a culture, is necessary. For example, currently, there is a democrat-proposed plan afoot to ban all public illustrations of the Swaasthikaa. Even though the original Hindu Swaathikaa is vastly different from the one appropriated by the Nazis, this distinction has been swept aside by the Cultural Supremacists aka the "progressives of the democratic party'. Due to lack of knowledge about the origins of the original Swaasthikaa, the democratic party have been able to convince Semites and many others that this is a good thing and that they are on the side of the good and the just. Therefore, it behooves one to offer background information whenever possible so people get a more complete picture and are able to counter false narratives.
Origins are not useful when there is a clear modern context. It benefits no-one to discourse on swastika v. hakenkreuz when someone who is clearly not a hindu but instead an SS-larper shows up with jackboots. Similarly, etymological quibbles are not useful except as rhetorical smokescreens when there is a clear sociological phenomenon under discussion.
But that's exactly what Glenn says about simply talking endlessly about the "What" of the problem without investigating the uncomfortable "Why", without which no discussion can be meaningful. So, in that context, it might actually help to compare WHY two disadvantaged races had different outcomes in the span of 60-70 years. Such broad discussions happening in the mainstream, might lead to better things all round.
Glenn states that,"There are things that don’t get said when we talk about race in America." Glenn, you might want to add that there are races that don't get mentioned when you talk about Race in America! When you mention Race, you clearly only mean ''The Black Race". Just as some people view everything through a racial lens, Glenn and John view the race angle only through a Black lens. Even though Glenn will have the odd Asian or two on his show every now and then, it is clear that serious discussions about Race center about one racial group only. A broader vision of what constitutes a so-called 'disadvantage' in America, and not one that's just race-based, might lead to more insightful discussions.
They may bill themselves as "The Black Guys", but it would be more apt to term them, "The Black Guys who talk about Black Guys".
I would say you talk about what you know. With “Asians” not typically subject to the economic problems of blacks, and large swaths of “Lantinx” (sic) moving to the right, the black monolith is a unique American conundrum. I don’t blame them for their focus.
No it really isn't; Caribbean societies and some South-American countries like Brazil also have significant histories of racialized plantation slavery, and the concomitant large populations of African descent. Similarly, South Africa is an even more extreme example of the "Jim Crow" racial caste regime formerly prevalent in parts of the U.S. There are other examples of non-assimilatory culturally-excluded groups; The Roma/Gypsies/Travellers are one prominent example, ritually-unclean castes across the world (most famously in India, but see also the French "cagots" and japanese "burakumin") are another.
Adam, this is a very popular and recent talking point of leftists today, with an explosion of bestsellers on this subject by liberal academicians who have never set foot in India, yet are self-proclaimed "experts" such as Oprah Winfrey, who even go so far as to link caste with Nazis, so I feel it's incumbent upon me to offer you some background about the "unclean-castes" in India whom you reference, so here goes: Hindus never, ever enter a temple without having had a bath. So, farmers and laborers back in the day working in the fields until dusk, still in their dirt, who did not want to miss the evening prayer service, would stand outside the temple on their way back home, so they could see and hear what was happening (the sanctum sanctorum is always built in a straight line aligning with the entrance so worshipers can see from afar, for this express purpose). This practice of standing outside the temple, if one was 'unclean', proved to be a heaven-sent gift (no pun intended!) to the British (who were being criticized by world media at the time for their subjugation of the Indian sub-continent) who used this fact to whip up a few disgruntled natives (of which there are always a few in every society!) into believing that they were being disparaged. It may interest you to know that the word "caste" belongs to no Indian language and it derives from the Portuguese 'casta". The Brits recreated the European class system in India, terming it the Caste system so that they could justify to the world media that they were actually liberating and enlightening those ''benighted heathens". That narrative took root, and was later abused by unscrupulous people, including Indians, who had their own vested interests in stirring strife and disharmony in the nation, much in the fashion of the woke mob in America today. Hope that clarifies the latest narrative on caste put forth by our "esteemed" omniscient liberals in academia who of course know best about every culture and are ready to inflict their opinions on the rest of us.
Yes, and the prohibition against the burakumin in some cases originated as a sensible precaution about sharing hand-prepared and -eaten food with those who professionally worked with dead or disgusting things (see, e.g., tanners, butchers, night-soil collectors, etc.) That does not obviate the social fact that the evolution of those social rules ossified into much more comprehensive social ostracization, including a prohibition on intermarriage.
The opposite of foolishness is not wisdom, and the opposite of solipsistic conversion of others' cultures into American social orders a la Winfrey is not uncritical acceptance of the opposite narrative. I call the Indian orders "castes" because I speak English, not Hindi, and "caste" is a perfectly good English word. And I compare the American racial system to them not to impose one on the other, or the other on the one, but instead to try and get American commenters here to try and expand their view of our own "racial" divisions through contemplation of other groups which share some (not all) of our history's characteristics.
Whatever language one speaks (or doesn't), knowing the origins, especially when there is a misapprehension and the current word has a negative connotation, is very important, so that proper attribution can be made. Making the distinction between a word of Indian origin and a word of British origin deliberately super-imposed upon a culture, is necessary. For example, currently, there is a democrat-proposed plan afoot to ban all public illustrations of the Swaasthikaa. Even though the original Hindu Swaathikaa is vastly different from the one appropriated by the Nazis, this distinction has been swept aside by the Cultural Supremacists aka the "progressives of the democratic party'. Due to lack of knowledge about the origins of the original Swaasthikaa, the democratic party have been able to convince Semites and many others that this is a good thing and that they are on the side of the good and the just. Therefore, it behooves one to offer background information whenever possible so people get a more complete picture and are able to counter false narratives.
Origins are not useful when there is a clear modern context. It benefits no-one to discourse on swastika v. hakenkreuz when someone who is clearly not a hindu but instead an SS-larper shows up with jackboots. Similarly, etymological quibbles are not useful except as rhetorical smokescreens when there is a clear sociological phenomenon under discussion.
But that's exactly what Glenn says about simply talking endlessly about the "What" of the problem without investigating the uncomfortable "Why", without which no discussion can be meaningful. So, in that context, it might actually help to compare WHY two disadvantaged races had different outcomes in the span of 60-70 years. Such broad discussions happening in the mainstream, might lead to better things all round.