Will there be no end to this? Can we no longer describe another's distinguishing physical characteristiics, even in a loving manner, without being accused of racism? Is a reference to "chocolate-coloured" skin now an insult? Whatever happened to "Black is beautiful!", which I fully endorse.
Are there no self-respecting people of colour left?
Interesting book recommendations, thanks. I have read a couple of them and one of Sowell's books, too, and found all interesting, too, a much different take. One comment on Dr. Sowell. I saw him interviewed recently on Ben Shapiro and he talked about why he felt affirmative action has unforeseen negative consequences on black people/graduates-- because people/employers might view them as less qualified than others because of affirmative action programs, even if they hadn't personally benefitted from it. Okay. But then he goes on to use the example of someone who graduates first in his class in physics at Harvard as someone who might be tainted by affirmative action. I have to admit, I laughed out loud when he said that, it was so ludicrous. If you graduate first in your class from Harvard in PHYSICS no one is going to question your credentials. Dr. Sowell needs to find a better example. I'm an open-minded person willing to entertain different views on the continued usefulness of affirmative action, but his statement made me wonder about his commitment to reasonable (and well-researched) argument. No need to oversell a good idea.
"It was as if they had looked at all the possibilities Rock had to offer, and built their music out of only the best parts."
That's how Tom Petty & the Heartbreakers made music -- and that's how I'd build a country.
The Right has better ideas on some things and the Left better on others. If I wanted the latter to win the next election, but the former had a solution that would put them in the White House instead:
It would be unthinkable for me to not support it.
If you thought anything remotely like that, it would easy to explain everything I have to say. There's nothing complicated about it. You make it complicated because you refuse to see yourselves in any light other than what you perceive, truth be damned.
To clarify your number two. It should more properly be 2) Trust your emotional response, not trust your feelings. The western world, esp the US is not very clear on the difference between emotions, feeling, and feelings. they are not all the same thing. Feeling can be either a kinesthetic or non-kinesthetic sense, as in the stove is hot or, when going into a new restaurant, this place feels funny, let's leave. Feeling, re the latter aspect, is an evolutionarily developed way to determine the nature of the meanings which we encounter in different circumstances. It is a highly useful faculty that becomes even better when trained over time as a sensing tool, just as mental analysis becomes a better tool over time when trained. Emotions are merely, well, emotions such as mad, sad, scared, glad. They can be generated from a variety of things, including psychological experiences in childhood. They are just information, anger for instance is just energy to solve problems. this doesn't mean the problem actually exists, but that the person perceives a problem that frightens them or offends their sense of morality or dignity. Feelings are something else again, they are often extremely complex aggregates of emotions, feeling, memories, beliefs, and situational demands.
We in the west have become very good at identifying and articulating extremely tiny differentiations in the external world. We are terrible at our understanding of the internal world. our differentiations in that realm are extremely rudimentary, about first grade reading level.
Your analysis here is right on, but number two (there is a joke in here someplace), which we see in practice over and over again, is really just encouraging people to respond emotionally from built up resentments, repressed anger, and old psychological wounds and then insisting that these are legitimate. It is possible to see, however, how numerous people and groups are utilizing such emotions for personal gain, a common human practice.
Another way of putting this is if woke philosophy, commentary, and behavior were a restaurant, as soon as i walked in, i would go, "this place feels weird, let's leave and go someplace else. The food here is certain to be terrible."
"an irritant to the powerful and self-satisfied" -- I like that!
You sound like you have good insight on the subject -- and because of that, I'm wondering if you're willing to consider that the bigger problem is the limited scope of the subject itself.
The Left institutionalizes weakness — and the Democratic Party is notorious for lacking backbone. All this ludicrous lingo and ever-expanding acronyms . . . they are utterly oblivious to the fact that they are weakening the very people they're trying to strengthen . . .
Branding weakness to boot.
And right on cue, the Right kicks the sh*t out of 'em for it. I don’t blame ’em — except for the part about them being weak while branding strength.
The Right delights in ridiculing the Left for burning buildings to further the cause. Yet they went batsh*t crazy after 9/11: Setting the world ablaze — and browbeating anybody out of line in their March of Folly.
And got away scot-free.
The Right doesn't take responsibility for anything -- they're just better at framing the narrative that they are. They get a helluva lot of help from the Left -- along with Loury, McWhorter, and Hughes unwittingly providing endless fodder for the Right.
The increasing and well-deserved attention that Glenn & the Gang are getting -- is an illusion of progress. It's like Black Lives Matter using fundraising and their ever-increasing following as metrics for making a difference.
All Loury, McWhorter, and Hughes are doing is further calcifying the Right and not making a dent in the Left. Until they widen the scope of these conversations -- they have no chance of ever making a dent.
"What a sad era when it is easier to smash an atom than a prejudice." And Einstein's day was nothing compared to now.
*************
"Without Passion or Prejudice" is a relatively short piece that captures what I've been trying to say to all of America -- and it includes my idea for how to turn the tide.
"Without Passion or Prejudice" is a relatively short piece that captures what I've been trying to say to all of America -- and it includes my idea for how to turn the tide.
1. The 2020 riots have burned down many local stores and businesses that they either shopped at or worked at. Thereby creating the very kinds of food deserts that BLM blames on "white supremacy".
2. The police defunding efforts have led to draw downs in police presence in black communities, leading to more crime, especially murder. And unlike BLM's completely bogus claims of an epidemic of police murders of black people, the people murdering black people in horrific numbers is bad black people, who now have free reign in black neighborhoods.
3. "Anti-racism" training at jobs sites and schools has stirred up new racism where none existed before, leading to resentment towards black people from the non-black majority.
From where I'm looking, BLM and the "Anti-Racism" movement seem far more like inventions to harm and isolate US black people instead of helping them.
"Without Passion or Prejudice" is a relatively short piece that captures what I've been trying to say to all of America -- and it includes my idea for how to turn the tide.
Regarding your point #3, it would seem that racial animosity is the point of CRT. It is a power play, not an effort to bring peace and reconciliation. This discord can go in either direction and likely will end up in both directions. The sooner persons of good will reject this perversion the better.
I’m interested in your claim #3. If someone starts resenting Black people for real, just because of anti-racism training, that person probably had some issues to begin with when it comes to group-based prejudice. Hopefully, that persons reads Substack and knows that there afe black and white people on both sides of this anti-racism and CRT debate, like any other debate, and that they shouldn’t let political or cultural disagreements affect their affinity or animous towards entire groups of people based on skin tone.
Another possibility is that resentment will be directed not racially but against the DNC -- James Carville, Charles Murray, Glenn Loury to the same point. When ordinary people feel constant hammering with no glimmer of redemption might they not take it out at the polls?
I await with crossed fingers and bated breath the outcome of the 2022 elections. I think it will be a bellwether for how things will go in the future. Everyone is paying lip service to this ideology publicly but voting is secret and may tell a different tale. It is a space that woke twitter mobs can't reach. TG!
..." I await with crossed fingers and bated breath the outcome of the 2022 elections."
Others aren't waiting--they're busy planning now on how they're going to see to getting the ballots (which they themselves shall arrange to mark for use after poll-closing time) into the boxes. So far, that has relied on corrupt election officials and the state court judges to back them up when motions are filed for legal relief of a defrauded election.
Wow!! What an incredible effort it must have taken - thousands of low-level operatives, working on a tight schedule, in balletic synchronization. I can’t wait until one of them- just one- comes forward to claim their fame, their fortune, their book deal, their appearance on Tucker. Where are they?
The Democrats must be the most efficient organization in all human history to pull this off without a single crack in their armor.
I prefer not to be so cynical. I still have hope because I believe in Americans. I believe that we still have the power to change things and all of this pressure and skulduggery will catalyze the emergence of new coalitions (it already is), movements, and leaders who will arise in opposition. Call me naive if you wish.
How about this? https://bariweiss.substack.com/p/a-witch-trial-at-the-legal-aid-society Maud Maron just killed her career in order to stand up and oppose the insanity. She is one of my heroes. When the inquisition came for her, she did not flinch but stood up and said no. Jodie Shaw, Dr. Tara Gustilo, Dana Stangel-Plowe, Paul Rossi, Gabrielle and William Clark, Stacy Deemar,
In “A Wrinkle in Time” by Madeleine L'Engle, there is a scene where Mrs. Whatsit transforms into a pegasus and flies the children up to the top of a mountain so she can show them “The Black Thing” which blots out all stars and light in the sector of the sky it has overcome. As they watch, a star goes supernova and obliterates it for a time. IOW, it sacrifices itself to obliterate evil. And in her book, she makes it clear that evil as she is defining it is the opposite of love and that LOVE is the cure.
History is replete with the tales of human beings, many with serious flaws, who have gone supernova and performed extraordinary acts of risk and compassion to obliterate evil and keep us on course. US citizens have never failed to rise up and meet challenges, even when the challenges are within the country, not without.
If you immerse yourself in the MSM, you can easily become convinced that all is lost. And that is what they wish you to think. But I know there is a hidden spine and a hidden heart in this country that have not yet revealed themselves. I know that there are others out there who love this country as much as I do — more than they dislike their opposition — enough that they will join together across the divide to take action to break the cycle of unethical behaviors that have brought us to this impasse. I will continue to hold space for this hope and take what actions I can to move things in a better direction.
People are being told they're racist merely for being white (which is racism unto itself); not for any actions that they do or did personally. With that as the criteria, racism becomes a logical defense response because you're being attacked in racist manner. Get it?
"But why, then, does enlightened America embrace the idea that where black people are concerned, living by these three tenets is cognitively healthy?"
I think I can answer that! First, "enlightened America" means well-off people who are emotionally and/or financially invested in Democrats winning elections. Second, black people vote 95 percent for Democrats. If black voters want to hear the moon is made of cheese, they are going to hear the moon is made of cheese.
Sometimes I think John is too soft, but he has one theme I hear literally no one else talking about.
"Exaggeration." I'm fascinated by the DOJ report on the Ferguson shooting. I revisit it from time to time, and now I am always reminded of John's commentary regarding exaggeration when I read about the witnesses who saw nothing whatsoever but went on cable news and told the world they saw Brown "executed." They then told FBI investigators the same thing -- until their stories fell apart under scrutiny.
One such witness was asked by the FBI, after he had recanted, why he had told them Brown was executed. He told them he had "assumed" he was executed based on "common sense" and what others "in the community" had told him.
That person who was 100 years old some years ago when you knew her, was raised in a time when Democrats were the party of anti-Black racism, so it should have been so surprise that she blamed "uppity" people like MLK for "creating problems" where there were none--that was the standard Southern Democratic trope of the 1950s and early 1960s. And, blaming "outside agitators" was a big thing among Northern Democratic mayors during the mid-1960s race riots.
Propriety has always been the vehicle that polite society uses to strait jacket those they wish to control. In fact, I would argue, that this is the very battle we are fighting now. Woke culture is trying to change people's language and actions and define what is proper - a new propriety - that they can use to strait jacket individual expression and all of the other ways that propriety is used to coerce social behavior.
I mostly agree, notwithstanding that sometimes a Republican will say something really bad and the party is slow to call him out (like Steve King until a year or 2 ago). But on the whole I agree with you, the Democrats are worse for Black self-respect, values, and therefore prospects for success--and lately even security from crime, than then GOP. It is a very sad situation, but GOP indifference is probably better than the "tender ministrations" of the Democrats which seem intended to bribe Blacks to stay on the plantation.
Indifference is much to be preferred than the self righteous nannying inflicted by Democrats and Progressives. More harm has been done by busybodies than any other pestilence. Someone will recall the quote regarding the harm done by those afflicting you for your own good.
McWhorter recalls: I once knew a woman of literally 100, white and wealthy, who genuinely thought that race in America had not been a problem until Martin Luther King "stirred things up." I don't know how many times I have seen people on the right claim that the races got along fine until Obama created racial divisions and problems in the country today are all HIS fault!
If you don't hold your own accountable, all that talk about responsibility and accountability — is meaningless.
Not only that, it’s counterproductive to your purpose.
I've yet to see a single supporter even attempt to consider my arguments on Thomas Sowell (they skip that and go straight to defending him).
One guy assumed that I'm out to "discredit ALL of his work." I don't even object it within his wheelhouse.
Making that assumption is a violation of Sowell’s standards — and you should know that.
But on this matter of world-altering consequence, he didn’t follow a single one of those standards — and you don’t know that.
You didn't have to read this. And if you did, you don't have to respond. But if you do -- respond with the standards you claim to hold so dear.
I'm only interested in problem solving through serious-minded discussion. It takes time and effort to digest what I have to say — and I promise you it's in your interests to do so.
If you don't wanna do that, that's fine.
If you're not interested in a healthy exchange of concerns, the least amount of courtesy you can provide is to not enter that conversation in the first place.
"So you’re saying that your plan will elevate Thomas Sowell to worldwide recognition — by holding him accountable?
That if he comes clean — he could be the catalyst to turn the tide?"
Dr McWhorter writes: "I once knew a woman of literally 100, white and wealthy, who genuinely thought that race in America had not been a problem until Martin Luther King "stirred things up" – and she was a Democrat!"
I remember when Dr King marched in the Bridgeport neighborhood of Chicago, and had bricks thrown at him. For those not familiar with the city, Bridgeport is a working-class Irish neighborhood, in which many city workers and lived - as solidly Democratic a ward as you will find anywhere in the country: trust me, the people throwing those bricks at Dr King weren't Republicans!
It does not surprise me in the slightest that a Democrat of her generation would have that attitude. This is the party, remember, of slavery; of the Klan; of Jim Crow; of tooth-and-nail opposition to black civil rights. And now it's pushing CRT. The Democratic Party is the party of racial division, then and now. The lyrics may have changed a bit, but the song remains the same.
Was in Marquette Park, not Bridgeport. My mother, a white woman, was heavily involved in the Civil Rights movement in the 60s and marched with MLK through Marquette Park, said it was one of the few times in her life that she saw hatred become human with regards to those who were throwing bottles and rocks at the marchers. I took a discourse narrative class in college and interviewed her regarding her civil rights experiences so i could turn it into a story, really wish i had kept those cassette tapes as she passed away 3 years ago, spent 53 years teaching for the Chicago Archdiocese, always in the inner city, an amazing woman these CRT d-bags continually denigrate when they say all whites are racist.
Thank you for the correction. I too wish you had kept the tapes; that was a part of our history that needs be remembered.
Your comment reminds me that today (August 3) WSJ has an editorial on the lawsuit "Bishop of Charleston v. Adams", in which a coalition of independent schools in South Carolina, a number of which are black-majority, are seeking to overturn the state's Blaine amendment, which bars state support of non-public schools. (Speaking of bigotry, James G. Blaine was a ferocious anti-Catholic, and the Republican presidential nominee in 1884.) The NAACP attempted to become a party to suit, in defense of the Blaine amendment, and against the independent schools. Of all the issues that affect blacks - and, indeed, all lower-class Americans - it seems to me that education choice is the most important; yet the South Carolina NAACP comes out against it. Am I missing something? Or has the NAACP joined the Elite?
I think of myself as a pragmatist rather than as right or left. I want peace and plenty for all. Doesn’t everyone. The thing that bothers me most about DiAngelo and the gang is that they don’t want us to talk to each other until we’ve been purified by the holy scripture of their books and have attended one or more of their seminars on correct thought and behavior. They counsel us not to question Black people about anything because they are exhausted. One must believe the lived experience.
I have lived experience as well. If I believed it was the truth I would distrust and fear Black people. (I lived in Milwaukee’s Inner Core, we were robbed, friends were physically attacked, housing values dropped to nothing, blah de dah) I got out. I got educated and met people different from myself. Black people come in all flavors just as White people do.
I think the biggest problem is there aren’t enough Black people to go around. There are concentrated population pockets but so much of the country has 5% or less Black citizens. We’ve got to talk to each other, work side by side, make small mistakes, correct each other and argue or laugh it off. Incorporate a little of each other’s slang, enjoy each other’s food and fashion. We can’t do that if we don’t meet and talk.
An aside: the hair touching thing. I know it’s unwanted and I would never ever do that to a Black woman. Among White women however I don’t consider a woman to be a close friend until we have touched each other’s hair. It goes something like this: “Oh I hate my hair, no body” Potential friend reaches over, touches a lock: “But it’s so silky and shiny!” Potential friend leans forward to offer a touch: “Now my hair…” Maybe it’s my social class.
Anyway I don’t think most Black people are separatists who want only stylized interactions with White people. The ones who do, and especially their advocates, are just very vocal. I have no fear, based on skin color, that I will be robbed or attacked but I do fear grievous social error. So I stand back, act stiff. I am part of the problem.
As part of my professional work, I've been in this "multicultural" academy for almost 15 years. I've long been saying to myself that I think all of this critical-theory based work is very interesting, relevant, and at times essential as an academic auxiliary. I see it like, if I add this alternate-assumption based on this critical lens, does this substantially change the model and offer previously hidden insights? For example, critical accounting is a way to highlight how standard business accounting practices may obscure impacts on certain stakeholders.
But, critical theory in-and-of-itself is a poor tool for conflict resolution and improved interpersonal and intergroup relations. In fact, critical theory may very well enhance conflict when applied at the interpersonal and intergroup level, by the very fact that its aim is to objectify and interrogate. It’s wonderful and necessary to objectify and interrogate models and systems. But it is pretty radioactive to do that directly to people and people-groups; it is unlicensed shitty therapy at best and totalitarian thought control at worst. Where it gets a little squishy is when a person’s role is so deeply intertwined with the models and systems...so I do see value in some highly structured self-interrogation IF you are formally in an organizational position of oversight over others. However, system solutions are almost always superior. For example, instituting unanimous team decision making (vs. majority) can improve team inclusivity for women and other underrepresented groups. And that type of system level policy change may be far more beneficial than managerial bias-awareness training.
A simple paradigm I like to fall back on is the notion of I-It (person-object) vs. I-Thou (person-person) relationships, which reminds me a lot of what you’re describing in terms of just getting to know one another at the human level. You just cannot I-It your way to I-Thou, it is impossible. Nor can you reverse who is the “It” and who is the “I” and have that lead to I-Thou.
This is excellent and incisive. Thank you so much. It correctly addresses the disconnect that most people are reacting to. The problem is that CRT proponents are not communicating this effectively, particularly DEI consultants and the press (and also, writers like Kendi and DiAngelo), and this is leading to so much conflict with a concomitant loss of the nuance of the originating idea in the process.
Not only that, but educators at the elementary and high school grade level are getting it wrong. They are indicting people by putting the kids into buckets - oppressor/oppressed - without explaining meaningfully that it's systems and the ways that they make some people invisible/don't factor in some people's needs that are being critiqued. I think that most of this is far too complex for elementary level education and it shouldn't be taught there. It can be introduced, carefully, and with much discussion at the high school level if needed.
None of this means that we shouldn't teach the full history of the US, all warts included, adjusted for grade level comprehension. We should do this. No question.
That said, some are knowingly using CRT or distorted versions of it as a cudgel to score revenge points. And that's never cool, no matter what side it comes from.
I am stealing your comment so that I can use it in my conversations with people about this issue. I think it is brilliant and hits the nail square on the head!
She has a book out as well. Fabulous stuff. Scroll down a few comments for the link.
I think it's so important that we build awareness regarding all of the people who are beginning to stand up, speak out, and fight back. I do this for my own sanity by searching independently and getting on the mailing lists of groups that inspire me like https://www.fairforall.org/ and https://braverangels.org/. If nothing else, it reminds you that other people love our country and are willing to work past their own assumptions and join with others, politically-aligned or not, to fight for a better version of it moving forward.
If what's old isn't working, then we have to create something new. I think we've become a bit moribund over the past couple of decades and this is just the challenge we need to remember who we are and what we stand for. Your comment is a good start. It pierces through what we think we know and asks us to consider a unique perspective that may expand our understanding if we are receptive. Comments like yours are the ultimate antidote to polarized MSM discourse. IMHO.
I really want to be optimistic that views like Monica Harris's will get more mainstream traction, especially at the level of local action. I just signed up for her emails. I myself have to stay anonymous--or at least circumscribed-- with my perspectives, given my professional life. So, it is nice to have these conversations because I don't have much of a chance to have them otherwise. Thank you! And it has been a long and slow process to find a thread of coherence (and yes, sanity!) that allows me to navigate from inside the progressive landscape without feeling like a total cynic. One aspect that I think is missing from McWhorter, Loury, and other heterodox thinkers, is a recognition of the genuine necessity for emotional validation that the Left provides. Though one could also say the Right also offers merely a different flavor of emotional validation. It’s a bit like the Harlow monkey experiment, with everyone just flocking to the side that seems the most comforting to their distress (be it real or anticipatory) rather than addressing their actual needs. Monica Harris seems to be approaching the emotional reality by acknowledging how distraught everyone feels.
Yes. The conversations here are edifying for me as well. Interesting point about emotional validation. The old left vision of "everyone matters and deserves dignity" greatly appealed to me in my youth. It seemed a sound moral foundation.
Alas this is no longer the case. The modern left has fallen for the Elect's pernicious divide and conquer strategy, which stirs up group conflict and pits us against each other in such a way that we dehumanize each other and focus on preferential treatment to balance the scales. And this is the new definition of justice. As Ibram Kendi declared, the only way to battle discrimination is with more discrimination—which of course makes things worse.
And as long as we are focused on this battle, the true elites who quite literally direct policy in the US are free to pillage the commons and impoverish the nation and all of the people in it with impugnity. As Monica rightly points out, most of the group conflict we are dealing with has an economic (not racial) genesis. And she is exhorting us to reach past grievance culture to the universal humanistic principles that drove the civil rights campaign in the 50s and 60s and find common ground—in economics.
I haven't finished her book just yet but it will be interesting to find out what her vision entails and decide whether in a time of extreme polarization, that is fracturing families and whole towns, I think that her solution can succeed. I like what she has presented so far, so I am hopeful.
One other thing that I keep thinking as I read her is when did Americans begin to lose faith in our ability to reimagine the future? Regardless of their numerous flaws, our Founding Fathers went far against the grain of the political zeitgeist of their time to codify our current system of governance. They had to fight our country into being against the protests and machinations of the elites of their day. Have we truly sunk so low that we can't imagine a new and better future for ourselves? That we can't fight for a more perfect union? Is the only way forward truly to submit to this cultural conflict and live at odds with each other in perpetuity? Are the elites that are orchestrating this conflict truly so powerful that they can't be defeated?
They are most certainly masters of human psychology and pushing people's buttons. They have definitely captured corporate America, academia, much of Congress and the press. However, I think there are workarounds still available to us if we have the will and the focus to pursue them. There are many smart people of good heart and good will (like Professor McWhorter) who aren't buying their BS. There is still something within us that screams to be free. Fairforall.org is one group that is trying to "pull focus" as Monica likes to say. I think there is hope.
You might enjoy this: https://medium.com/bigger-picture/the-antiracist-quagmire-27bb4bbc9857 Written by Monica Harris, a black lesbian lawyer, it includes an anecdote regarding a zoom pta meeting where she shocked a mostly white audience with a heterodox view on anti-racism. I love this woman's writing and think you will enjoy it as well. She is a true free thinker.
Thank you for this reference! She asks: "why they [white parents in a school discussion of Kendi] were compelled to embrace the philosophy of one black man but seemed far less interested in the insights and experiences of people of color in their own community." Very good question.
There are many competent and accomplished black men and women who should be celebrated but for the fact that they do not accept the Narrative and are thus an embarrassment to the racialists. Sowell, Thomas, Carson, Douglas come quickly to mind.
Agreed. A few more: Coleman Hughes, Glenn Loury, Shelby Steele, Eli Steele, Larry Elder. The fact that they weren't taken in by CRT motivated me to read some of their books and I am glad that I have. I've read at least 4 of Sowell's books as well. It has enriched me and expanded my universe. I like independent thinkers on both sides.
I even like Senator Tim Scott. I respect his journey (even if we don't agree on several policy issues) and was embarrassed when the Liberal MSM openly called him racial slurs after he expressed the opinion that America is not a racist country. Liberals are behaving so badly at present that I have to call myself an independent.
Fair enough. It's just an easy blanket term and I think most of them think of themselves as Liberals (or Progressives). Perhaps I should have used John's term for specificity: the Elect - but then my last sentence wouldn't make much sense.
LOL! His writings have definitely been distorted although I think his premises a bit naive. I know he meant well and was seeking redress for "the grand inequality" of his time (and one that still persists), but he overlooked the fact that human systems have proven time and again to be resistant to neat little formulas because we are irrational actors. And, he did not factor this in. And on we go...
In this book, she references William Deresiewicz's “Excellent Sheep” which I read 6 years ago at the very beginning of my journey to figure out what was going on with the elites in my country. I feel like I've come full circle after reading her synopsis of this book and how it is impacting the corridors of power in the US and indeed, the globe.
The reason this is signifcant to me is because I walked away from a full, free ride at a sub-Ivy League university many years ago after I realized that it was a portal to a new strait jacket (after having just escaped the strait jacket of my childhood). IOW, I am a shitty sheep because I have pursued independence and free thought over the pat on the head. There are pros and cons to this approach, of course. I don't enjoy as many societal perks but I am also not as beholden to the systemic machine due to the miracles of technology which allow me to make a good living outside of corporate.
In spite of the cost, I am glad I made this choice now, given the tenor of the times. I hope that we can find a way forward from this morass that we find ourselves in and I find much to be hopeful about on these boards. In the meantime, I enjoy your insights and asides. Good stuff!
I think Carson has debased himself while depriving humanity of the able surgeon he once was in order to join the right-wing conspiracy nut faction and anti-truth machine. Thomas is an inspiring life story who seems to have become increasingly radicalized and ideological on the bench. Most white liberals will quickly dismiss these folks as sell-outs in the rawest sense of the word. What is needed is more Black folks who are not Republicans and care about the same underlying things woke liberals care about, but who are willing to call out the nonsensical narratives running around, and willing to stand up for everyone everywhere who believe in critical thinking, on the left and the right, when it comes to matters of race. People like McWhorter and others.
I actually don’t believe in the term or idea of a “sell-out” and think it’s silly, but I do have opinions on who would be the best public messengers against woke excesses, based on my view of what others react to and whom they outright dismiss. And for the record, I don’t put all Black conservative in the same category. I don’t think Thomas Sowell or Glenn Loury are ideological zealots, but actually reasonable, critical-thinking conservatives who can trace their arguments back to careful logic, even if I disagree with some of their viewpoints. Clarence Thomas, on the other hand, is an impressive and smart man, but one too many times, seemed to judge based on his sense of loyalty to Republicans and their pet obsessions, such as in his dubious reasoning on Obamacare. (And don’t get me started on Ben Carson!) Anyway, I do believe Black liberal and perhaps center-right intellectuals are the best spokespeople against the mean and self-righteous wokes who want to impose their own speech codes and orthodoxy on everyone, claim to speak for all right-thinking POC (when they actually don’f), and try to get people fired or outcast for non-transgressions. It’s unfair that Black conservatives are dismissed as sell-outs when speaking their conscience, but I didn’t make the world as it is.
It is interesting that you don’t buy the concept of a sell-out but attribute Justice Thomas’ opinions to loyalty to Republicans. It is not possible for a black man to have convictions contrary to those approved for his race?
I belabor the point because the implications are perverse.
Clarence Thomas’ reactionary conservatism goes way beyond matters of race. I respect many intellectuals who don’t have “approved” positions on race, which is why I pay good money to read John McWhorter’s substack for instance!
Sure, I can’t prove that Justice Thomas’ judgment is tainted by ideological loyalty, that is just my intuition, but I can say that the general perception is that he plays on the Trump team (not just on race, mind you), and that no such person will have any credibility with extreme wokes (who are mostly liberal) when it comes to convincing them to be more self-critical and examine the possibility that some of their thinking on racial justice is filled with holes and self-defeating and some of their
actions cruel in its antagonism and self-righteousness. To wit, this is due to the main three cognitive distortions John brought up at the top of his post.
I don't understand how, if you understand the role of a judge and have spent any time reading Justice Thomas's opinions (including his dissents and concurrences), you can dismiss his jurisprudence as "radicalized and ideological."
virtually every SC justice's legal opinions are "ideological." It's a given. The issues turn around the what and the how of the applications of this ideology. Thomas as a legal mind was generally deplorable--until we came to this bizarre world in which we now live. In this world, his otherwise pedestrian take on legal issues has come to seem positively enlightened. That's not so much a compliment to Thomas's intellect as an indictment of our times and their truly astonishing idiocy.
I cringe every time I read "enlightened America" in this context, because the ideology of "The Elect" or whatever this branch of elites and their followers might be called, is explicitly anti-Enlightenment. Yes, I know the sarcastic "enlightened" here is nothing to do with The Enlightenment, but it still rubs.
I think J. McW. knows this as well as anyone. He might have put "enlightened" between quotation marks or he might have qualified it as "supposedly"... I think we should understand what he means to indicate "the received opinions of the supposedly well/best-educated people." Seen that way, that's nothing to object to in his commentary.
Where it comes to reading J. McW., try asking first something like,
"Is there some rather plausible and reasonable sense in which what's said or written by a quite intelligent person could be interpreted rather than supposing that the comment indicates something surprisingly lacking in insight?"
In this regard I would like to draw your attention to the latest UK author (Kate Clanchy) to be publicly shamed for alleged insults aimed at POC.
https://www.theguardian.com/books/2021/aug/10/kate-clanchy-to-rewrite-memoir-after-criticism-of-racist-and-ableist-tropes
Will there be no end to this? Can we no longer describe another's distinguishing physical characteristiics, even in a loving manner, without being accused of racism? Is a reference to "chocolate-coloured" skin now an insult? Whatever happened to "Black is beautiful!", which I fully endorse.
Are there no self-respecting people of colour left?
I am close to despair...
Interesting book recommendations, thanks. I have read a couple of them and one of Sowell's books, too, and found all interesting, too, a much different take. One comment on Dr. Sowell. I saw him interviewed recently on Ben Shapiro and he talked about why he felt affirmative action has unforeseen negative consequences on black people/graduates-- because people/employers might view them as less qualified than others because of affirmative action programs, even if they hadn't personally benefitted from it. Okay. But then he goes on to use the example of someone who graduates first in his class in physics at Harvard as someone who might be tainted by affirmative action. I have to admit, I laughed out loud when he said that, it was so ludicrous. If you graduate first in your class from Harvard in PHYSICS no one is going to question your credentials. Dr. Sowell needs to find a better example. I'm an open-minded person willing to entertain different views on the continued usefulness of affirmative action, but his statement made me wonder about his commitment to reasonable (and well-researched) argument. No need to oversell a good idea.
"It was as if they had looked at all the possibilities Rock had to offer, and built their music out of only the best parts."
That's how Tom Petty & the Heartbreakers made music -- and that's how I'd build a country.
The Right has better ideas on some things and the Left better on others. If I wanted the latter to win the next election, but the former had a solution that would put them in the White House instead:
It would be unthinkable for me to not support it.
If you thought anything remotely like that, it would easy to explain everything I have to say. There's nothing complicated about it. You make it complicated because you refuse to see yourselves in any light other than what you perceive, truth be damned.
Into the Great Wide Open:https://onevoicebecametwo.life/2021/08/05/into-the-great-wide-open/
To clarify your number two. It should more properly be 2) Trust your emotional response, not trust your feelings. The western world, esp the US is not very clear on the difference between emotions, feeling, and feelings. they are not all the same thing. Feeling can be either a kinesthetic or non-kinesthetic sense, as in the stove is hot or, when going into a new restaurant, this place feels funny, let's leave. Feeling, re the latter aspect, is an evolutionarily developed way to determine the nature of the meanings which we encounter in different circumstances. It is a highly useful faculty that becomes even better when trained over time as a sensing tool, just as mental analysis becomes a better tool over time when trained. Emotions are merely, well, emotions such as mad, sad, scared, glad. They can be generated from a variety of things, including psychological experiences in childhood. They are just information, anger for instance is just energy to solve problems. this doesn't mean the problem actually exists, but that the person perceives a problem that frightens them or offends their sense of morality or dignity. Feelings are something else again, they are often extremely complex aggregates of emotions, feeling, memories, beliefs, and situational demands.
We in the west have become very good at identifying and articulating extremely tiny differentiations in the external world. We are terrible at our understanding of the internal world. our differentiations in that realm are extremely rudimentary, about first grade reading level.
Your analysis here is right on, but number two (there is a joke in here someplace), which we see in practice over and over again, is really just encouraging people to respond emotionally from built up resentments, repressed anger, and old psychological wounds and then insisting that these are legitimate. It is possible to see, however, how numerous people and groups are utilizing such emotions for personal gain, a common human practice.
Another way of putting this is if woke philosophy, commentary, and behavior were a restaurant, as soon as i walked in, i would go, "this place feels weird, let's leave and go someplace else. The food here is certain to be terrible."
Perfect.
"an irritant to the powerful and self-satisfied" -- I like that!
You sound like you have good insight on the subject -- and because of that, I'm wondering if you're willing to consider that the bigger problem is the limited scope of the subject itself.
The Left institutionalizes weakness — and the Democratic Party is notorious for lacking backbone. All this ludicrous lingo and ever-expanding acronyms . . . they are utterly oblivious to the fact that they are weakening the very people they're trying to strengthen . . .
Branding weakness to boot.
And right on cue, the Right kicks the sh*t out of 'em for it. I don’t blame ’em — except for the part about them being weak while branding strength.
The Right delights in ridiculing the Left for burning buildings to further the cause. Yet they went batsh*t crazy after 9/11: Setting the world ablaze — and browbeating anybody out of line in their March of Folly.
And got away scot-free.
The Right doesn't take responsibility for anything -- they're just better at framing the narrative that they are. They get a helluva lot of help from the Left -- along with Loury, McWhorter, and Hughes unwittingly providing endless fodder for the Right.
The increasing and well-deserved attention that Glenn & the Gang are getting -- is an illusion of progress. It's like Black Lives Matter using fundraising and their ever-increasing following as metrics for making a difference.
All Loury, McWhorter, and Hughes are doing is further calcifying the Right and not making a dent in the Left. Until they widen the scope of these conversations -- they have no chance of ever making a dent.
"What a sad era when it is easier to smash an atom than a prejudice." And Einstein's day was nothing compared to now.
*************
"Without Passion or Prejudice" is a relatively short piece that captures what I've been trying to say to all of America -- and it includes my idea for how to turn the tide.
However impossible it may seem -- it can be done.
As Tom Hanks said in Apollo 13 about landing on the moon: "It's not a miracle, we just decided to go": https://onevoicebecametwo.life/2021/08/03/without-passion-or-prejudice/
"Without Passion or Prejudice" is a relatively short piece that captures what I've been trying to say to all of America -- and it includes my idea for how to turn the tide.
However impossible it may seem -- it can be done.
As Tom Hanks said in Apollo 13 about landing on the moon: "It's not a miracle, we just decided to go": https://onevoicebecametwo.life/2021/08/03/without-passion-or-prejudice/
Certainly then, BLM must be protesting daily in Richmond until Virginia Democratic governor Ralph Northam resigns!
No?
how telling
What BLM has done for Black people:
1. The 2020 riots have burned down many local stores and businesses that they either shopped at or worked at. Thereby creating the very kinds of food deserts that BLM blames on "white supremacy".
2. The police defunding efforts have led to draw downs in police presence in black communities, leading to more crime, especially murder. And unlike BLM's completely bogus claims of an epidemic of police murders of black people, the people murdering black people in horrific numbers is bad black people, who now have free reign in black neighborhoods.
3. "Anti-racism" training at jobs sites and schools has stirred up new racism where none existed before, leading to resentment towards black people from the non-black majority.
From where I'm looking, BLM and the "Anti-Racism" movement seem far more like inventions to harm and isolate US black people instead of helping them.
On that note -- you'll see:
"Without Passion or Prejudice" is a relatively short piece that captures what I've been trying to say to all of America -- and it includes my idea for how to turn the tide.
However impossible it may seem -- it can be done.
As Tom Hanks said in Apollo 13 about landing on the moon: "It's not a miracle, we just decided to go": https://onevoicebecametwo.life/2021/08/03/without-passion-or-prejudice/
Regarding your point #3, it would seem that racial animosity is the point of CRT. It is a power play, not an effort to bring peace and reconciliation. This discord can go in either direction and likely will end up in both directions. The sooner persons of good will reject this perversion the better.
I’m interested in your claim #3. If someone starts resenting Black people for real, just because of anti-racism training, that person probably had some issues to begin with when it comes to group-based prejudice. Hopefully, that persons reads Substack and knows that there afe black and white people on both sides of this anti-racism and CRT debate, like any other debate, and that they shouldn’t let political or cultural disagreements affect their affinity or animous towards entire groups of people based on skin tone.
Another possibility is that resentment will be directed not racially but against the DNC -- James Carville, Charles Murray, Glenn Loury to the same point. When ordinary people feel constant hammering with no glimmer of redemption might they not take it out at the polls?
I await with crossed fingers and bated breath the outcome of the 2022 elections. I think it will be a bellwether for how things will go in the future. Everyone is paying lip service to this ideology publicly but voting is secret and may tell a different tale. It is a space that woke twitter mobs can't reach. TG!
..." I await with crossed fingers and bated breath the outcome of the 2022 elections."
Others aren't waiting--they're busy planning now on how they're going to see to getting the ballots (which they themselves shall arrange to mark for use after poll-closing time) into the boxes. So far, that has relied on corrupt election officials and the state court judges to back them up when motions are filed for legal relief of a defrauded election.
Wow!! What an incredible effort it must have taken - thousands of low-level operatives, working on a tight schedule, in balletic synchronization. I can’t wait until one of them- just one- comes forward to claim their fame, their fortune, their book deal, their appearance on Tucker. Where are they?
The Democrats must be the most efficient organization in all human history to pull this off without a single crack in their armor.
I prefer not to be so cynical. I still have hope because I believe in Americans. I believe that we still have the power to change things and all of this pressure and skulduggery will catalyze the emergence of new coalitions (it already is), movements, and leaders who will arise in opposition. Call me naive if you wish.
How about this? https://bariweiss.substack.com/p/a-witch-trial-at-the-legal-aid-society Maud Maron just killed her career in order to stand up and oppose the insanity. She is one of my heroes. When the inquisition came for her, she did not flinch but stood up and said no. Jodie Shaw, Dr. Tara Gustilo, Dana Stangel-Plowe, Paul Rossi, Gabrielle and William Clark, Stacy Deemar,
In “A Wrinkle in Time” by Madeleine L'Engle, there is a scene where Mrs. Whatsit transforms into a pegasus and flies the children up to the top of a mountain so she can show them “The Black Thing” which blots out all stars and light in the sector of the sky it has overcome. As they watch, a star goes supernova and obliterates it for a time. IOW, it sacrifices itself to obliterate evil. And in her book, she makes it clear that evil as she is defining it is the opposite of love and that LOVE is the cure.
History is replete with the tales of human beings, many with serious flaws, who have gone supernova and performed extraordinary acts of risk and compassion to obliterate evil and keep us on course. US citizens have never failed to rise up and meet challenges, even when the challenges are within the country, not without.
If you immerse yourself in the MSM, you can easily become convinced that all is lost. And that is what they wish you to think. But I know there is a hidden spine and a hidden heart in this country that have not yet revealed themselves. I know that there are others out there who love this country as much as I do — more than they dislike their opposition — enough that they will join together across the divide to take action to break the cycle of unethical behaviors that have brought us to this impasse. I will continue to hold space for this hope and take what actions I can to move things in a better direction.
People are being told they're racist merely for being white (which is racism unto itself); not for any actions that they do or did personally. With that as the criteria, racism becomes a logical defense response because you're being attacked in racist manner. Get it?
"But why, then, does enlightened America embrace the idea that where black people are concerned, living by these three tenets is cognitively healthy?"
I think I can answer that! First, "enlightened America" means well-off people who are emotionally and/or financially invested in Democrats winning elections. Second, black people vote 95 percent for Democrats. If black voters want to hear the moon is made of cheese, they are going to hear the moon is made of cheese.
Sometimes I think John is too soft, but he has one theme I hear literally no one else talking about.
"Exaggeration." I'm fascinated by the DOJ report on the Ferguson shooting. I revisit it from time to time, and now I am always reminded of John's commentary regarding exaggeration when I read about the witnesses who saw nothing whatsoever but went on cable news and told the world they saw Brown "executed." They then told FBI investigators the same thing -- until their stories fell apart under scrutiny.
One such witness was asked by the FBI, after he had recanted, why he had told them Brown was executed. He told them he had "assumed" he was executed based on "common sense" and what others "in the community" had told him.
Personal integrity is the foundation of civilization. Culture matters.
That person who was 100 years old some years ago when you knew her, was raised in a time when Democrats were the party of anti-Black racism, so it should have been so surprise that she blamed "uppity" people like MLK for "creating problems" where there were none--that was the standard Southern Democratic trope of the 1950s and early 1960s. And, blaming "outside agitators" was a big thing among Northern Democratic mayors during the mid-1960s race riots.
"creating problems" - translation: broke propriety. Horrors!
Propriety has always been the vehicle that polite society uses to strait jacket those they wish to control. In fact, I would argue, that this is the very battle we are fighting now. Woke culture is trying to change people's language and actions and define what is proper - a new propriety - that they can use to strait jacket individual expression and all of the other ways that propriety is used to coerce social behavior.
the Democrat party is still the party of anti-Black racism. It's sill the party of involuntary servitude.
I mostly agree, notwithstanding that sometimes a Republican will say something really bad and the party is slow to call him out (like Steve King until a year or 2 ago). But on the whole I agree with you, the Democrats are worse for Black self-respect, values, and therefore prospects for success--and lately even security from crime, than then GOP. It is a very sad situation, but GOP indifference is probably better than the "tender ministrations" of the Democrats which seem intended to bribe Blacks to stay on the plantation.
Indifference is much to be preferred than the self righteous nannying inflicted by Democrats and Progressives. More harm has been done by busybodies than any other pestilence. Someone will recall the quote regarding the harm done by those afflicting you for your own good.
McWhorter recalls: I once knew a woman of literally 100, white and wealthy, who genuinely thought that race in America had not been a problem until Martin Luther King "stirred things up." I don't know how many times I have seen people on the right claim that the races got along fine until Obama created racial divisions and problems in the country today are all HIS fault!
If you don't hold your own accountable, all that talk about responsibility and accountability — is meaningless.
Not only that, it’s counterproductive to your purpose.
I've yet to see a single supporter even attempt to consider my arguments on Thomas Sowell (they skip that and go straight to defending him).
One guy assumed that I'm out to "discredit ALL of his work." I don't even object it within his wheelhouse.
Making that assumption is a violation of Sowell’s standards — and you should know that.
But on this matter of world-altering consequence, he didn’t follow a single one of those standards — and you don’t know that.
You didn't have to read this. And if you did, you don't have to respond. But if you do -- respond with the standards you claim to hold so dear.
I'm only interested in problem solving through serious-minded discussion. It takes time and effort to digest what I have to say — and I promise you it's in your interests to do so.
If you don't wanna do that, that's fine.
If you're not interested in a healthy exchange of concerns, the least amount of courtesy you can provide is to not enter that conversation in the first place.
"So you’re saying that your plan will elevate Thomas Sowell to worldwide recognition — by holding him accountable?
That if he comes clean — he could be the catalyst to turn the tide?"
That’s exactly what I’m saying:
https://onevoicebecametwo.life/2021/07/28/echo-chamber-of-affirmation/
In case you're concerned about the .life domain -- this is a WordPress site:
https://onevoicebecametwo.wordpress.com/2021/07/28/echo-chamber-of-affirmation/
Dr McWhorter writes: "I once knew a woman of literally 100, white and wealthy, who genuinely thought that race in America had not been a problem until Martin Luther King "stirred things up" – and she was a Democrat!"
I remember when Dr King marched in the Bridgeport neighborhood of Chicago, and had bricks thrown at him. For those not familiar with the city, Bridgeport is a working-class Irish neighborhood, in which many city workers and lived - as solidly Democratic a ward as you will find anywhere in the country: trust me, the people throwing those bricks at Dr King weren't Republicans!
It does not surprise me in the slightest that a Democrat of her generation would have that attitude. This is the party, remember, of slavery; of the Klan; of Jim Crow; of tooth-and-nail opposition to black civil rights. And now it's pushing CRT. The Democratic Party is the party of racial division, then and now. The lyrics may have changed a bit, but the song remains the same.
Was in Marquette Park, not Bridgeport. My mother, a white woman, was heavily involved in the Civil Rights movement in the 60s and marched with MLK through Marquette Park, said it was one of the few times in her life that she saw hatred become human with regards to those who were throwing bottles and rocks at the marchers. I took a discourse narrative class in college and interviewed her regarding her civil rights experiences so i could turn it into a story, really wish i had kept those cassette tapes as she passed away 3 years ago, spent 53 years teaching for the Chicago Archdiocese, always in the inner city, an amazing woman these CRT d-bags continually denigrate when they say all whites are racist.
Thank you for the correction. I too wish you had kept the tapes; that was a part of our history that needs be remembered.
Your comment reminds me that today (August 3) WSJ has an editorial on the lawsuit "Bishop of Charleston v. Adams", in which a coalition of independent schools in South Carolina, a number of which are black-majority, are seeking to overturn the state's Blaine amendment, which bars state support of non-public schools. (Speaking of bigotry, James G. Blaine was a ferocious anti-Catholic, and the Republican presidential nominee in 1884.) The NAACP attempted to become a party to suit, in defense of the Blaine amendment, and against the independent schools. Of all the issues that affect blacks - and, indeed, all lower-class Americans - it seems to me that education choice is the most important; yet the South Carolina NAACP comes out against it. Am I missing something? Or has the NAACP joined the Elite?
It works best for race hustlers to keep their meal tickets hobbled.
I think of myself as a pragmatist rather than as right or left. I want peace and plenty for all. Doesn’t everyone. The thing that bothers me most about DiAngelo and the gang is that they don’t want us to talk to each other until we’ve been purified by the holy scripture of their books and have attended one or more of their seminars on correct thought and behavior. They counsel us not to question Black people about anything because they are exhausted. One must believe the lived experience.
I have lived experience as well. If I believed it was the truth I would distrust and fear Black people. (I lived in Milwaukee’s Inner Core, we were robbed, friends were physically attacked, housing values dropped to nothing, blah de dah) I got out. I got educated and met people different from myself. Black people come in all flavors just as White people do.
I think the biggest problem is there aren’t enough Black people to go around. There are concentrated population pockets but so much of the country has 5% or less Black citizens. We’ve got to talk to each other, work side by side, make small mistakes, correct each other and argue or laugh it off. Incorporate a little of each other’s slang, enjoy each other’s food and fashion. We can’t do that if we don’t meet and talk.
An aside: the hair touching thing. I know it’s unwanted and I would never ever do that to a Black woman. Among White women however I don’t consider a woman to be a close friend until we have touched each other’s hair. It goes something like this: “Oh I hate my hair, no body” Potential friend reaches over, touches a lock: “But it’s so silky and shiny!” Potential friend leans forward to offer a touch: “Now my hair…” Maybe it’s my social class.
Anyway I don’t think most Black people are separatists who want only stylized interactions with White people. The ones who do, and especially their advocates, are just very vocal. I have no fear, based on skin color, that I will be robbed or attacked but I do fear grievous social error. So I stand back, act stiff. I am part of the problem.
As part of my professional work, I've been in this "multicultural" academy for almost 15 years. I've long been saying to myself that I think all of this critical-theory based work is very interesting, relevant, and at times essential as an academic auxiliary. I see it like, if I add this alternate-assumption based on this critical lens, does this substantially change the model and offer previously hidden insights? For example, critical accounting is a way to highlight how standard business accounting practices may obscure impacts on certain stakeholders.
But, critical theory in-and-of-itself is a poor tool for conflict resolution and improved interpersonal and intergroup relations. In fact, critical theory may very well enhance conflict when applied at the interpersonal and intergroup level, by the very fact that its aim is to objectify and interrogate. It’s wonderful and necessary to objectify and interrogate models and systems. But it is pretty radioactive to do that directly to people and people-groups; it is unlicensed shitty therapy at best and totalitarian thought control at worst. Where it gets a little squishy is when a person’s role is so deeply intertwined with the models and systems...so I do see value in some highly structured self-interrogation IF you are formally in an organizational position of oversight over others. However, system solutions are almost always superior. For example, instituting unanimous team decision making (vs. majority) can improve team inclusivity for women and other underrepresented groups. And that type of system level policy change may be far more beneficial than managerial bias-awareness training.
A simple paradigm I like to fall back on is the notion of I-It (person-object) vs. I-Thou (person-person) relationships, which reminds me a lot of what you’re describing in terms of just getting to know one another at the human level. You just cannot I-It your way to I-Thou, it is impossible. Nor can you reverse who is the “It” and who is the “I” and have that lead to I-Thou.
This is excellent and incisive. Thank you so much. It correctly addresses the disconnect that most people are reacting to. The problem is that CRT proponents are not communicating this effectively, particularly DEI consultants and the press (and also, writers like Kendi and DiAngelo), and this is leading to so much conflict with a concomitant loss of the nuance of the originating idea in the process.
Not only that, but educators at the elementary and high school grade level are getting it wrong. They are indicting people by putting the kids into buckets - oppressor/oppressed - without explaining meaningfully that it's systems and the ways that they make some people invisible/don't factor in some people's needs that are being critiqued. I think that most of this is far too complex for elementary level education and it shouldn't be taught there. It can be introduced, carefully, and with much discussion at the high school level if needed.
None of this means that we shouldn't teach the full history of the US, all warts included, adjusted for grade level comprehension. We should do this. No question.
That said, some are knowingly using CRT or distorted versions of it as a cudgel to score revenge points. And that's never cool, no matter what side it comes from.
I am stealing your comment so that I can use it in my conversations with people about this issue. I think it is brilliant and hits the nail square on the head!
Thank you so much for your kind words! I really enjoyed the Medium piece you posted below too.
She has a book out as well. Fabulous stuff. Scroll down a few comments for the link.
I think it's so important that we build awareness regarding all of the people who are beginning to stand up, speak out, and fight back. I do this for my own sanity by searching independently and getting on the mailing lists of groups that inspire me like https://www.fairforall.org/ and https://braverangels.org/. If nothing else, it reminds you that other people love our country and are willing to work past their own assumptions and join with others, politically-aligned or not, to fight for a better version of it moving forward.
If what's old isn't working, then we have to create something new. I think we've become a bit moribund over the past couple of decades and this is just the challenge we need to remember who we are and what we stand for. Your comment is a good start. It pierces through what we think we know and asks us to consider a unique perspective that may expand our understanding if we are receptive. Comments like yours are the ultimate antidote to polarized MSM discourse. IMHO.
I really want to be optimistic that views like Monica Harris's will get more mainstream traction, especially at the level of local action. I just signed up for her emails. I myself have to stay anonymous--or at least circumscribed-- with my perspectives, given my professional life. So, it is nice to have these conversations because I don't have much of a chance to have them otherwise. Thank you! And it has been a long and slow process to find a thread of coherence (and yes, sanity!) that allows me to navigate from inside the progressive landscape without feeling like a total cynic. One aspect that I think is missing from McWhorter, Loury, and other heterodox thinkers, is a recognition of the genuine necessity for emotional validation that the Left provides. Though one could also say the Right also offers merely a different flavor of emotional validation. It’s a bit like the Harlow monkey experiment, with everyone just flocking to the side that seems the most comforting to their distress (be it real or anticipatory) rather than addressing their actual needs. Monica Harris seems to be approaching the emotional reality by acknowledging how distraught everyone feels.
Yes. The conversations here are edifying for me as well. Interesting point about emotional validation. The old left vision of "everyone matters and deserves dignity" greatly appealed to me in my youth. It seemed a sound moral foundation.
Alas this is no longer the case. The modern left has fallen for the Elect's pernicious divide and conquer strategy, which stirs up group conflict and pits us against each other in such a way that we dehumanize each other and focus on preferential treatment to balance the scales. And this is the new definition of justice. As Ibram Kendi declared, the only way to battle discrimination is with more discrimination—which of course makes things worse.
And as long as we are focused on this battle, the true elites who quite literally direct policy in the US are free to pillage the commons and impoverish the nation and all of the people in it with impugnity. As Monica rightly points out, most of the group conflict we are dealing with has an economic (not racial) genesis. And she is exhorting us to reach past grievance culture to the universal humanistic principles that drove the civil rights campaign in the 50s and 60s and find common ground—in economics.
I haven't finished her book just yet but it will be interesting to find out what her vision entails and decide whether in a time of extreme polarization, that is fracturing families and whole towns, I think that her solution can succeed. I like what she has presented so far, so I am hopeful.
One other thing that I keep thinking as I read her is when did Americans begin to lose faith in our ability to reimagine the future? Regardless of their numerous flaws, our Founding Fathers went far against the grain of the political zeitgeist of their time to codify our current system of governance. They had to fight our country into being against the protests and machinations of the elites of their day. Have we truly sunk so low that we can't imagine a new and better future for ourselves? That we can't fight for a more perfect union? Is the only way forward truly to submit to this cultural conflict and live at odds with each other in perpetuity? Are the elites that are orchestrating this conflict truly so powerful that they can't be defeated?
They are most certainly masters of human psychology and pushing people's buttons. They have definitely captured corporate America, academia, much of Congress and the press. However, I think there are workarounds still available to us if we have the will and the focus to pursue them. There are many smart people of good heart and good will (like Professor McWhorter) who aren't buying their BS. There is still something within us that screams to be free. Fairforall.org is one group that is trying to "pull focus" as Monica likes to say. I think there is hope.
You might enjoy this: https://medium.com/bigger-picture/the-antiracist-quagmire-27bb4bbc9857 Written by Monica Harris, a black lesbian lawyer, it includes an anecdote regarding a zoom pta meeting where she shocked a mostly white audience with a heterodox view on anti-racism. I love this woman's writing and think you will enjoy it as well. She is a true free thinker.
Thank you for this reference! She asks: "why they [white parents in a school discussion of Kendi] were compelled to embrace the philosophy of one black man but seemed far less interested in the insights and experiences of people of color in their own community." Very good question.
Yes. That thought jumped out at me as well.
There are many competent and accomplished black men and women who should be celebrated but for the fact that they do not accept the Narrative and are thus an embarrassment to the racialists. Sowell, Thomas, Carson, Douglas come quickly to mind.
Agreed. A few more: Coleman Hughes, Glenn Loury, Shelby Steele, Eli Steele, Larry Elder. The fact that they weren't taken in by CRT motivated me to read some of their books and I am glad that I have. I've read at least 4 of Sowell's books as well. It has enriched me and expanded my universe. I like independent thinkers on both sides.
I even like Senator Tim Scott. I respect his journey (even if we don't agree on several policy issues) and was embarrassed when the Liberal MSM openly called him racial slurs after he expressed the opinion that America is not a racist country. Liberals are behaving so badly at present that I have to call myself an independent.
Why call them "liberal"? John Stuart Mill was a liberal. Clintons and (fill in the other blanks) are not liberal.
We have bastardized many good words, to the detriment of meaningful communication.
Fair enough. It's just an easy blanket term and I think most of them think of themselves as Liberals (or Progressives). Perhaps I should have used John's term for specificity: the Elect - but then my last sentence wouldn't make much sense.
At one point Marx got so fed up with the people calling themselves Marxists that he fumed: I am not a Marxist. With friends like that . . .
LOL! His writings have definitely been distorted although I think his premises a bit naive. I know he meant well and was seeking redress for "the grand inequality" of his time (and one that still persists), but he overlooked the fact that human systems have proven time and again to be resistant to neat little formulas because we are irrational actors. And, he did not factor this in. And on we go...
BTW, I recommend that you check out this book: https://www.amazon.com/Reality-Bites-Insights-Bridging-American-ebook/dp/B08KHK22YX since you liked the article I linked to upthread. It is illuminating and has acted as a sort of Pan Galactic Gargleblaster on my brain (https://hitchhikers.fandom.com/wiki/Pan_Galactic_Gargle_Blaster). IOW, it has cleared away the cobwebs and conferred a certain lucidity to my cogitations. I also recommend anything by Douglas Adams if you enjoy satire.
In this book, she references William Deresiewicz's “Excellent Sheep” which I read 6 years ago at the very beginning of my journey to figure out what was going on with the elites in my country. I feel like I've come full circle after reading her synopsis of this book and how it is impacting the corridors of power in the US and indeed, the globe.
The reason this is signifcant to me is because I walked away from a full, free ride at a sub-Ivy League university many years ago after I realized that it was a portal to a new strait jacket (after having just escaped the strait jacket of my childhood). IOW, I am a shitty sheep because I have pursued independence and free thought over the pat on the head. There are pros and cons to this approach, of course. I don't enjoy as many societal perks but I am also not as beholden to the systemic machine due to the miracles of technology which allow me to make a good living outside of corporate.
In spite of the cost, I am glad I made this choice now, given the tenor of the times. I hope that we can find a way forward from this morass that we find ourselves in and I find much to be hopeful about on these boards. In the meantime, I enjoy your insights and asides. Good stuff!
I think Carson has debased himself while depriving humanity of the able surgeon he once was in order to join the right-wing conspiracy nut faction and anti-truth machine. Thomas is an inspiring life story who seems to have become increasingly radicalized and ideological on the bench. Most white liberals will quickly dismiss these folks as sell-outs in the rawest sense of the word. What is needed is more Black folks who are not Republicans and care about the same underlying things woke liberals care about, but who are willing to call out the nonsensical narratives running around, and willing to stand up for everyone everywhere who believe in critical thinking, on the left and the right, when it comes to matters of race. People like McWhorter and others.
You perpetuate the slander that a conservative black man or woman is a sellout, an Oreo, an Uncle Tom. As Joe would say, “they ain’t black.”
I actually don’t believe in the term or idea of a “sell-out” and think it’s silly, but I do have opinions on who would be the best public messengers against woke excesses, based on my view of what others react to and whom they outright dismiss. And for the record, I don’t put all Black conservative in the same category. I don’t think Thomas Sowell or Glenn Loury are ideological zealots, but actually reasonable, critical-thinking conservatives who can trace their arguments back to careful logic, even if I disagree with some of their viewpoints. Clarence Thomas, on the other hand, is an impressive and smart man, but one too many times, seemed to judge based on his sense of loyalty to Republicans and their pet obsessions, such as in his dubious reasoning on Obamacare. (And don’t get me started on Ben Carson!) Anyway, I do believe Black liberal and perhaps center-right intellectuals are the best spokespeople against the mean and self-righteous wokes who want to impose their own speech codes and orthodoxy on everyone, claim to speak for all right-thinking POC (when they actually don’f), and try to get people fired or outcast for non-transgressions. It’s unfair that Black conservatives are dismissed as sell-outs when speaking their conscience, but I didn’t make the world as it is.
It is interesting that you don’t buy the concept of a sell-out but attribute Justice Thomas’ opinions to loyalty to Republicans. It is not possible for a black man to have convictions contrary to those approved for his race?
I belabor the point because the implications are perverse.
Clarence Thomas’ reactionary conservatism goes way beyond matters of race. I respect many intellectuals who don’t have “approved” positions on race, which is why I pay good money to read John McWhorter’s substack for instance!
Sure, I can’t prove that Justice Thomas’ judgment is tainted by ideological loyalty, that is just my intuition, but I can say that the general perception is that he plays on the Trump team (not just on race, mind you), and that no such person will have any credibility with extreme wokes (who are mostly liberal) when it comes to convincing them to be more self-critical and examine the possibility that some of their thinking on racial justice is filled with holes and self-defeating and some of their
actions cruel in its antagonism and self-righteousness. To wit, this is due to the main three cognitive distortions John brought up at the top of his post.
We agree on your conclusion, and likely much else. Cheers.
I don't understand how, if you understand the role of a judge and have spent any time reading Justice Thomas's opinions (including his dissents and concurrences), you can dismiss his jurisprudence as "radicalized and ideological."
I repeat:
virtually every SC justice's legal opinions are "ideological." It's a given. The issues turn around the what and the how of the applications of this ideology. Thomas as a legal mind was generally deplorable--until we came to this bizarre world in which we now live. In this world, his otherwise pedestrian take on legal issues has come to seem positively enlightened. That's not so much a compliment to Thomas's intellect as an indictment of our times and their truly astonishing idiocy.
LOL @ "recreational angst" - I love it.
I cringe every time I read "enlightened America" in this context, because the ideology of "The Elect" or whatever this branch of elites and their followers might be called, is explicitly anti-Enlightenment. Yes, I know the sarcastic "enlightened" here is nothing to do with The Enlightenment, but it still rubs.
I think J. McW. knows this as well as anyone. He might have put "enlightened" between quotation marks or he might have qualified it as "supposedly"... I think we should understand what he means to indicate "the received opinions of the supposedly well/best-educated people." Seen that way, that's nothing to object to in his commentary.
Where it comes to reading J. McW., try asking first something like,
"Is there some rather plausible and reasonable sense in which what's said or written by a quite intelligent person could be interpreted rather than supposing that the comment indicates something surprisingly lacking in insight?"
Good advice. It wouldn't be a bad idea to extend it to include everyone's words, written and spoken.