PDA

View Full Version : Bad Words


Bloggingheads
02-22-2008, 03:54 PM
The first part of this diavlog was lost due to technical difficulties, so its beginning -- including the participants' introductions -- is lost forever. (Fortunately, John McWhorter and Randall Kennedy need no introduction!) We apologize for any inconvenience. -- BhTV staff

bjkeefe
02-22-2008, 04:33 PM
Good stuff, but way too short. Please bring these two back for a full-length discussion.

Wonderment
02-22-2008, 04:35 PM
It's disingenous of John to be shocked that people would be outraged and insulted by being told some of them are "blacker" than others.

Such a judgment obviously threatens people's sense of identity and establishes dubious criteria (established by John) for authenticity.

Trust me, if you pulled this number in the Jewish or Mexican-American communities (of which I'm a part) you'd have a huge friggin' riot on your hands.

bjkeefe
02-22-2008, 04:41 PM
Wonderment:

While I agree with John's thesis (just finished the article) and applaud him for stating it so plainly, you make a good point about his being surprised at the outcry the article provoked. (Good supporting point about other cultures having this same sensitivity, too.)

I don't know that I'd call his reaction "disingenuous," though. That word connotes dishonesty. I take him at his word that he was genuinely surprised at the level of noise, while granting that he had to know he'd provoke at least some.

Wonderment
02-22-2008, 04:43 PM
http://bloggingheads.tv/diavlogs/8892?in=00:20:16&out=00:20:40

A nice summation of Bob Wright's reservations about too much heat generated from the comments section

bjkeefe
02-22-2008, 04:52 PM
Good one, Wonderment. I will admit that both of these gentlemen pinned my guilt meter in this regard.

Eastwest
02-22-2008, 06:10 PM
Re WM's:

Such a judgment... threatens... sense of identity and establishes dubious criteria... for authenticity.

You missed the point:

"Among those of the same race, individuals vary in the degree to which they are wedded to artifacts of cultural expression."

There are no "criteria for authenticity" for "authenticity" is a DNA-level "given."

This is just honest talk based on clear thinking. JM might be naive to assume others would readily follow straightforward analysis, but there's no "disengenuousness" here.

It's essentially a matter of personal insecurity when a person or group so identifies with artifacts of "tribal" expression that clear analysis is reacted to as "fighting words."

But even JM's "conventional-reality-level" analysis is somewhat shallow when considered from a more profound level of perception: The "self" itself has no inherently-existent reality about it (being but an aggregation of subcomponent entities like physical form, sensations, thoughts, processes, and consciousness).

In this it's no different from a "river" or "waterfall" (just drops of H2O, or deeper yet, subatomic particles).

Even less therefore is there any inherent reality to impermanent and ever-changing appurtenances of the self (like these "cultural artifacts.") They are really all just drifting and ever-morphing cultural "clouds."

EW

Abu Noor Al-Irlandee
02-22-2008, 06:13 PM
Of course it's strange that John McWhorter would be surprised that a discussion of "Who's Blacker than who?" would generate a lot of controversy.

I think although Mr. McWhorter tried to present his argument here as a totally innocent statement, he ignited and guaranteed controversy with his claim, "Alan Keyes is blacker than Barack Obama"

I want to make two things perfectly clear: I am more Irish than bjkeefe and more Muslim than Reza Aslan. :)

http://abunooralirlandee.wordpress.com

bjkeefe
02-22-2008, 06:19 PM
Abu Noor:

I want to make two things perfectly clear: I am more Irish than bjkeefe and more Muslim than Reza Aslan.

LOL!

My Irishness definitely took a McWhorter-style turn after I was old enough to go out by myself on St. Patrick's Day.

But in all seriousness:

... he ignited and guaranteed controversy with his claim, "Alan Keyes is blacker than Barack Obama"

You're absolutely right about that. Even if one has no intention to say one side is better than the other, it's just asking for it to compare anyone to Alan Keyes over anything.

Except maybe wingnuttiness.

Eastwest
02-22-2008, 06:27 PM
Oh, yeah, forgot one thing:

We really got short-changed on this DV. They owe us at least another thirty minutes.

Nice taste, but it's sort of like going to one of those "Zen" restaurants where the presentation is lovely, but the portions are, frankly, inadequate to satisfy a grown man's appetite.

Looking forward to more.

EW

bjkeefe
02-22-2008, 06:29 PM
EW:

... one of those "Zen" restaurants ...

Is Zen here synonymous with nouvelle cuisine?

;^)

Abu Noor Al-Irlandee
02-22-2008, 06:36 PM
The Aunt Jemima discussion was giving me flashbacks to an episode of A Different World, the Cosby spinoff.

There will never be another night of television like Thursday nights on NBC during the Cosby reign.

http://abunooralirlandee.wordpress.com

rfannan
02-22-2008, 06:39 PM
I have to disagree with Wonderment's post that a discussion of what constitutes Jewish culture or Mexican-American culture would cause a riot. I'm Jewish by birth and Mexican-American by marriage. I've had many conversations about what Jewish culture consists of and whether I'm a "real Jew" (to quote from Annie Hall) and many discussions,somewhat jokingly, about how "cholo" someone is. To my mind, there are identifiable Jewish, Mexican-American and black cultural elements and there's nothing wrong with talking about them (realizing, of course, that in present day America there is a great deal of interchangeability - I have WASP friends who I consider Jewish and Irish friends who, growing up in East Los Angeles, are definitely cholo.)

brucds
02-22-2008, 06:42 PM
I understand that it was well-intentioned and obviously historically defensible in a broad context, but I was more than a bit stunned when the words "Communists and Jews" spilled out of John McW's mouth as Kennedy was reeling off his specifics on "good white people" who were involved in civil rights activism. After I picked my jaw up off the floor, I started laughing. Another example, imbedded innocently and unselfconsciously in the discussion, of how extremely loaded stereotypes can be, depending on circumstance, proffered as reasonable shorthand for complex matters of history and culture, as mildly offensive half-truths or as toxic invective.

Wonderment
02-22-2008, 06:54 PM
Saying that one is “blacker,” “more Jewish,” etc. than another seems to be more about one's identity than the degree to which one has taken on elements of the relevant culture; and that may be what got some people bothered. Had John stuck throughout his piece to just talking about how “culturally black” people are, rather than how “black” they are (which goes to their identity), he may not have elicited so strong a reaction.

Right. But he didn't. He was deliberately provocative by asserting "...It's perfectly ordinary to say one black person is culturally blacker than another."

The disingenuous part is feigning surprise: "About once a year I write something that I think is very innocent and suddenly I find that people are enraged. ...."

For those who have disputed my choice of words... DISINGENUOUS: "Not candid or sincere, typically by pretending one knows less about something than one really does."

Abu Noor Al-Irlandee
02-22-2008, 07:01 PM
But this is just the point, mvantony, isn't it?

I know Mr. McWhorter thinks saying "culturally Black" is an attempt to move it one step away from authenticity and identity arguments, but to follow up on your example, what is "culturally Jewish"? A religious Jew might think Jewish culture is obeying the commandments. A non-observant Jew thinks Jewish culture is reflected in Woody Allen movies. A political Jew might think that Jewish culture is support for Israel, while a political Jew with different politics might think that Jewish culture involves criticizing Israeli oppression and another Jew could even think supporting Israel is a betrayal of Jewish culture. (I am a big fan of Potok's The Chosen)

I think whenever you try to start applying such analyses to particular people, you are in big trouble and often, even when you're trying not to apply it people are personalizing the general traits or applying them in their mind and you can expect disaster.

So, I might in the abstract say no one could argue that Roman Catholicism, the Pub culture, and resistance to the English are defining elements of Irish culture. But people of other religions as well and anti-clericalism and mistrust of the Catholic church have always been a part of Irish culture as well. At different times, temperance has been a big part of Irish culture. And of course as much as resistance and opposition to the English have been a part of Irish culture, so has English culture been a primary influence on Irish culture (most of us have even been lowered to the state of speaking their language).

So, there is no objective way to talk about culture. Culture is always subjective, more importantly it is always contested and because it relates to issues of identity and authenticity, it is always hotly and passionately contested.

http://abunooralirlandee.wordpress.com

uncle ebeneezer
02-22-2008, 11:10 PM
I found the "dancing" discussion quite amusing.

I play guitar in a blues/funk/soul band that is made up predominantly of older African-American guys. Out of 9 members, only me and the keys player are white. We jam in Compton, and frequently play gigs where everyone in the audience is black. Churches, community fundraisers, you name it. It's a really killer band and all the guys are great guys so it's fun as hell. I can say that I have definitely had experiences that are similiar to the Charlie's Angel scene. There have been plenty of times where I was suddenly called on to play a solo on a super-funky tune or a slow wail in a deep-pocket blues. And I definitely felt all eyes upon me as they asked silently whether I could "get down", or "bring it" or show some "soul". Fortunately, they usually like the way I play (and let me know!), and embrace me, so it's a fun experience that is unlike most of the "celebrational" behavior that I have ever really experienced in white culture (primarily Italian). That's not to say it's more joyous or compassionate or anything, but it's just different. Same idea, different culture. But it is definitely real. I can't remember who said it but there was a great quote (might be from a movie) somewhere that "every person should feel like a minority at some point." It is certainaly a palpable experience to be judged by how well you fit into someone else's culture. Which most African-American's know all too well.

bjkeefe
02-23-2008, 12:53 PM
Wonderment:

For those who have disputed my choice of words... DISINGENUOUS: "Not candid or sincere, typically by pretending one knows less about something than one really does."

Well, that's just it, speaking as one who disputed your choice of words. I did not take him to be insincere in this. I do grant that John should have expected some reaction, and that he's certainly smart enough to know when he's pushing buttons, but I take him at his word that he was honestly surprised at the magnitude of the reaction.

Wonderment
02-23-2008, 05:02 PM
I do grant that John should have expected some reaction, and that he's certainly smart enough to know when he's pushing buttons, but I take him at his word that he was honestly surprised at the magnitude of the reaction.

I see your point, but still think the "surprise" was feigned and sketchy and the shit storm quite predictable.

Your civic comportment grade goes up, however, for giving him the benefit of the doubt. I will reduce "disingenuous" to "a bit naive" in the interests of world peace.

bjkeefe
02-23-2008, 05:57 PM
Wonderment:

Your civic comportment grade goes up, however ...

Thanks! To what, D-?

;^)

basman
02-23-2008, 06:34 PM
Many, many interesting and thoughtful posts as was the diavlog.

Since people are formed out of their experience, their identity, their cultural or social selves, are the ongoing syntheses of a dialectic between distillations of experience and new reckonings. For some identity changes hardly or not at all; for others a lifetime may house radical changes.

McWhorter, I think, is correct to discern a Black culture, and then to discern varying degrees of adherence to it, even if notions of Black culture are themselves fluid and undergo over time radical transformations, the same dialectical process, I’d contend, at the level of the group. Therefore, in relation to groups, since groups must necessarily be definable to be groups, we can speak of those who are deracinated, on the margins of the group, or less identified with the group.

I therefore disagree with the argument that there are no criteria for authenticity, since it “is a DNA-level ‘given’”, although I think that argument needs some parsing. Firstly, cultural identity is borne of the merging of an infinite variety of sources: genetic, historical, circumstantial and so on, even in some cases legalistic, the contingency of which seem eluded by the apparent concreteness and fixedness of identity and of cultural moments.

That, though it’s not the argument as I apprehend it, is only partly rooted in DNA. The assertion is that authenticity is a "DNA-level given". But what can this mean? Authenticity itself, in these contexts, means something like the state of being genuine, and genuine means something like real or actual. Therefore, authenticity here seems to mean being genuine or true to one’s cultural identity, however one genuinely conceives it. So to assume a cultural identity without truly meaning it or being it is inauthentic. I cannot see how such authenticity or inauthenticity has anything to do with what is a “DNA-level given.”

Finally:

One person said:

“…Had John stuck throughout his piece to just talking about how “culturally black” people are, rather than how ‘black’ they are (which goes to their identity), he may not have elicited so strong a reaction…”

To which someone responded:

“Right. But he didn't. He was deliberately provocative by asserting ‘...It's perfectly ordinary to say one black person is culturally blacker than another…’”

As to the first statement, I myself did not hear from McWhorter assertions of varying degrees of blackness as opposed to varying degrees of cultural blackness—Colin Powell as against Jesse Jackson. He may have for shorthand used blacker to stand for culturally blacker, but there is no doubt in my mind he wasn’t positing some ideal of racial blackness or conflating ineffable blackness with cultural blackness. He was to my mind always speaking about and discussing only the latter. But that said, it seems wrong to suggest that the former goes to identity and the latter does not. Surely they both do particularly since so much of identity, cultural identity, is socially constructed.

As to the second statement, the complaint is that McWhorter was being deliberatively provocative by saying that one person is culturally blacker than another. But, firstly, the complaint in the first statement is that McWhorter is to be faulted for saying, which I do not think he does, that one black is more purely black (as opposed to culturally black) than another. And secondly, it was uncontroversial as between McWhorter and Kennedy, and it seems uncontroversial to me, and almost a truism to be able to say, given a particular conception of cultural identity, at least as McWhorter bodies that out, that A is more culturally black, Jewish, Irish, what have you, than B.

moe
02-23-2008, 10:22 PM
I don't understand why this DV has gotten such praise. I've seen McWhorter in much better form. His criticism of the student film concept was an example of much ado about nothing. His outrage really does seem feigned. Parody of political figures and riffing on popular issues is standard fare in movies and TV programming. Seems to me there was no need to criticize the students with the sarcastic "...and they have bachelor's degrees?" The film concept he describes even reminds me of a movie I saw years ago on VHS (remember those?) in which Moms Mabley and Butterfly McQueen threatened and blackmailed a conservative black politician into becoming a progressive.

I think Kennedy's comment on many who use the Uncle Tom putdown is absolutely true. But Aunt Jemima "overcoming?" That was weak. The only overcoming and "making it through" that was done was by the manufacturer of the pancake mix because they are still making a profit while using this image. Kennedy can't come up with a better reason for buying Aunt Jemima pancake mix other than "she's overcome?" But I guess the guy that sees usefulness in the "N" word would find himself "wrestling with" the Aunt Jemima image. I hope Kennedy gives his child a better discussion of this than what he gave in this DV.

basman
02-24-2008, 06:08 AM
mvantony

I just glanced at the short piece by McWhorter you linked to: it is clear to me at least that McWhorter--a fairly careful writer and thinker--was being purposeful in his use of the phrase "blacker than" at his conclusion. My little analysis of that purposefulness is that he made the case that blackness means cultural blackness, and he rhetorically supported that case in his examples by saying than "blacker than", confident that that stood for, exhausted really, "culturally blacker than". Finally for McWhorter, as I read and hear him, save for saying that one's skin colour is darker than another's, he is saying emphatically that "blacker than" can only mean "cuturally blacker than" and that that is a true and benign conception.

basman
02-25-2008, 03:00 PM
mvantony:

Thanks for your interesting further comments.

It’s a 2 page throw away little piece by McWhorter, but, having looked at it again myself, I grant you that he assumes, (to put it I think more precisely than I first did) as you note, without argument that blackness is necessarily but not sufficiently constituted by cultural blackness.

His line of reasoning seems to me to be: there is such a thing as black culture; he then does assert—as noted without arguing it— that the traits of black culture are “what it is to be black”; he then says it must follow that that different people will exhibit them more than others; and therefore, he says, in the sense he is talking about, some people are blacker than others and gives examples.

But that said, I am not following your argument for your distinction, which we should think through, I suggest, before we worry about who may have been offended.

I am not understanding, once the legalistic or foundational requirements for belonging to particular groups are met—a Jewish mother; racial characteristics; whatever—what except for cultural *reality* can comprise the consciousness of belonging to the kinds of groups we are mooting?

Rather than arguing from the notion of natural categories, perhaps the discussion might be helped by a real world, concrete example that would illuminate your distinction.

By the way, I’m with you in liking McWhorter very much.

Bloggin' Noggin
02-25-2008, 03:33 PM
Sorry to jump into this discussion, and I'm not sure whether I'm getting the overall point that mv is getting at, but the distinction makes sense to me in terms of homosexuality (which seems like a possible real-world example).

Someone like Larry Craig, even though he has homosexual desires, is not usually considered to be gay, since "gayness" is supposed to be a matter of how you identify yourself, and clearly Craig doesn't want to think of himself as characterized by his homosexual desires.
There's some kind of gay culture as well, though this is undergoing a lot of changes as gays become more mainstream. Accepting that one does desire people of the same sex and not dissociating oneself from that by regarding it as a temptation from the devil or a bestial desire or whatever, and recognizing that one may have political interests in common with other gay people would be the non-cultural identity question.
Whether one then decides one wants to learn how to dance to house music, be a bar boy or an opera queen -- or whatever is involved in "gay culture" -- is a somewhat separate question.
Because I always felt a little out of it so far as gay culture went, I often used to feel a bit like a gay stepchild.
Though my example is specific, it seems to me that one could make the same distinction with other groups.
Well, I hope this post is of some help -- if I've missed the point just ignore it.

Wonderment
02-25-2008, 04:39 PM
Whether one then decides one wants to learn how to dance to house music, be a bar boy or an opera queen -- or whatever is involved in "gay culture" -- is a somewhat separate question.

Right. So what John has done is take 4 categories he has (arbitrarily?) decided constitute blackness (use of a linguistic variant, food, dancing ability and manner of walking) as constituing blackness.

Likewise, you might say limpwristedness, a lisp, length of time out of closet and a knowledge of gay history are what constitute primary characteristics of male gayness. If I'm not mistaken lefthandedness and a certain hair-direction swirl also correlates, so you might want to throw those in.

Thus, Barney Frank is gayer than Walt Whitman.

Doesn't this strike you as more than a little ridiculous and a lot insulting?

We are not talking about robins here, (the analogy Michael used). We're talking about human beings with a subjective understanding of their fundamental identity. Expecting them not to be outraged when an opinionated professor and journalist comes along and challenges/undermines that identity is, well, disingenuous.

Bloggin' Noggin
02-25-2008, 05:39 PM
Right. So what John has done is take 4 categories he has (arbitrarily?) decided constitute blackness (use of a linguistic variant, food, dancing ability and manner of walking) as constituing blackness.

Likewise, you might say limpwristedness, a lisp, length of time out of closet and a knowledge of gay history are what constitute primary characteristics of male gayness. If I'm not mistaken lefthandedness and a certain hair-direction swirl also correlates, so you might want to throw those in.

Thus, Barney Frank is gayer than Walt Whitman.

Doesn't this strike you as more than a little ridiculous and a lot insulting?

We are not talking about robins here, (the analogy Michael used). We're talking about human beings with a subjective understanding of their fundamental identity. Expecting them not to be outraged when an opinionated professor and journalist comes along and challenges/undermines that identity is, well, disingenuous.

Hmmm...I think I'll speak only for myself. I think it would depend a lot on who said it and what I thought their underlying attitude was. Gay guys are not above teasing each other about who's "nellier" than whom. And when it's pointed out that I'm not much of a dancer or an interior decorator (by gay men who think that's what being gay is all about), I've said, "I guess I'm just not gay." This observation made by some people would be denial or a boast. In my case, it's a rueful acknowledgment that I don't have the aesthetic and rhythmic gifts that are supposed to be my patrimony, and that I'm not even a full citizen of Sodom.
By the way, it isn't a matter of whether someone who says these things is gay or not -- but rather whether they imply that the less gay you are the better you are. So long as it's pretty clear the remark is descriptive, not a value judgment, I would be disinclined to worry about it. In the case of gay men, at any rate, there's such a thing as "gaydar" -- when people use it (fairly accurately), what are they detecting, and how would you compare people who really set off that detector and those who don't set it off very much. Even though all indications are that he's heterosexual, Rick Steeves (the PBS travel guy) sets off my gaydar, and I can easily see someone saying that he seems gayer than Neil Patrick Harris. (Of course, this isn't entirely a matter of gay culture -- it's a matter of various "markers" some of which are more cultural than others.)

basman
02-25-2008, 07:13 PM
Wonderment and Bolggin’ Noggin and Mvatony:

Thanks for your posts. I think they are conducive to clearer thinking on the issues here.

The homosexual example is an interesting one.

Generally, I am, rightly or wrongly, --I thought it was rightly but am keeping an open mind-- trying to proceed from a distinction between the foundational attribute of the group and the culture of the group. It may be, given Bloggin’ Noggin’s example, that my distinction is more elusive than I originally thought. And it may be that distinctions have to be allowed for, given the constituents of particular groups.

Therefore might one want to distinguish for these purposes between, arbitrary, homosexuals and blacks? Unless one can, so to speak, Michael Jacksonize one’s self, being black is inescapable save at the margins of blackness—those who can, as they used to say, pass. But someone might have a homosexual orientation and with varying degrees of *success*--even completely— might suppress it. So if Larry Craig with all his desires lives a heterosexual life, but acts out as he apparently has from time to time, does that pose an example different from someone black who simply does not act black culturally? And even in the latter example, would we want to distinguish between someone who wishes to escape his blackness altogether, to the extent possible, tries to pass, and someone who is simply indifferent to being culturally black, whose racial characteristics are incidental to his sense of himself?

The potential beckoning complexities start to remind me of Sartre’s Anti-Semite and Jew. (There is a whole, undealt with by us, and complicated issue here of otherness.)

But if we can stipulate for the sake of argument that someone is clearly homosexual but totally suppressed it in how he live, what, in the terms we are discussing, can we say about such a man? It seems to me it would be accurate, on what is stipulated, to say that he is gay. Could we say that culturally, in the way he lived his life, he is not gay? Why not? Similarly for the black person indifferent to his or her racial characteristics, who did not at all act culturally black, could we not make a parallel set of statements? That person, we might say, is black but is not culturally black.

Perhaps in some round about way this gets me back to the distinction Mvatony originally posited and then elaborated on, one I think I originally recognized, but did not give much weight to its significance. McWhorter is operating in a tight, and it is important, I think, to note, non-judgmental and unexceptionable analytical circle. Black culture is real; here are some of its constituents; in these terms some are blacker than others. And for myself, after all my meandering, so far I still cannot read the significance of Mvatony’s distinction into McWhorter’s little analysis to get at either that analysis’s frailty, falseness or its, if it properly understood, offensiveness.

I wonder whether Wonderment conflates physical traits—limp wristedness, lisping—with cultural traits in his or her comment. I’d think that the foundation of the class homosexual is homosexuality, and that certain modes of physicality are, where they exist, incidents of that orientation. Here, otherness seems to arise. Bloggin’ Noggin makes the excellent point that the mainstreaming of homosexuality mitigates against gay culture, something to some extent created by social suppression and stigmatizing.

But the more homosexuality is culturally accepted and values neutral the less homosexuals living mainstream kinds of lives seem to be culturally gay. So here again does not the same distinction arise between homosexuality as a foundation for belonging to the class known as homosexuals and the choices homosexuals make as to how to constitute their lives, which is to say, culturally. So that indeed we can say in these McWhorterian terms that A is gayer—more culturally gay—than B, without being judgmental and without giving offense.

Someone black, Jewish, gay what have you might take offense from being told that he or she is less x than someone else. But a lot of that would depend on the intent, approach, tone and style of judgment, other things, of the judgment-maker, and the thick or thin skinedness, the self confidence, self awareness and self possession of the judgment-receiver.

basman
02-25-2008, 07:17 PM
sorry for typos and bad grammar and missed words.

basman
02-25-2008, 07:26 PM
mvatony:

I made my last post and carelessy skipped over yours of 02/25/2008 at 04:58 PM.

Sorry. I may not have been as responsive to your argument as I should have been.

If anythng I just wrote causes anyone to respond which causes me to respond further, I'll try to avert to your post missed by me.

Wonderment
02-25-2008, 07:31 PM
Wonderment, I did want to say (in case it wasn't clear) that I've been agreeing with you in my posts here, at least insofar as I agree with you that John's words could very naturally be interpreted as offensive by those who identify as African-Americans.

Yes, I see we basically agree here.

If there's one thing we Jews have learned from Spinoza to the present, it's that raising these kinds of inflammatory questions is a divisive exercise and almost invariably carries a hidden agenda or ulterior motives.

Hitler, of course, at one point became Europe's leading "expert" on what constituted Jewish identity -- a 1/8 Jew must die while a 1/16 Jew was granted Aryan status and life.

This kind of insanity was also applied to blacks when they were divided into categories like quadroon, octoroon, mulato, etc.

John did not have biology in mind, but in such identity debates nature often overlaps with nurture.

Israel, for example, has a one-Jewish-grandparent rule for admission to the country as a Jew, while the Orthodox rabbinic establishment requires matrilineal descent, which usually, although not always, means biology (the mother could be a convert from Islam or Christianity.)

We just saw in this country a whole debate (among African Americans) about whether or not Obama was "black enough" or indeed, African American at all (white mother and Kenyan father). Fortunately, the debate ended and a huge consensus emerged that Obama was has a completely authentic African American identity.

bjkeefe
02-29-2008, 03:36 AM
McWhorter Fans: Take Note:

John will be on BookTV this weekend. (Details (http://www.booktv.org/program.aspx?ProgramId=9089&SectionName=In%20Depth&PlayMedia=No))

Web version is usually available a short time after the show airs.

Watch it after you watch that day's episode of BH.tv, of course.