Bloggingheads Community

Bloggingheads Community (http://bloggingheads.tv/forum/index.php)
-   Diavlog comments (http://bloggingheads.tv/forum/forumdisplay.php?f=9)
-   -   Black History Edition (John McWhorter & Glenn Loury) (http://bloggingheads.tv/forum/showthread.php?t=6523)

sapeye 02-22-2011 05:53 PM

Re: Black History Edition (John McWhorter & Glenn Loury)
 
Quote:

Originally Posted by bjkeefe (Post 198649)
"Misbehaving" is a little strong.

Since you asked, though, my feeling about wanting to resurrect a previous discussion is that rather than putting up an obviously off-topic post in a new diavlog thread, it is better to either (1) locate the thread (near here) where the discussion last left off, or (2) start a new thread in the Life, the Universe and Everything forum.

Noted

bkjazfan 02-22-2011 08:10 PM

Re: Black History Edition (John McWhorter & Glenn Loury)
 
Quote:

Originally Posted by stephanie (Post 198668)
Quite the opposite, really. It's a silly comparison (the venal/mortal sin one, I mean) but if you want to make it, the definition of mortal sin is that one does a serious act with knowledge and consent.

Byrd's history suggests that he had a background that caused him to have early sympathy with the KKK in the early '40s. That's not admirable, but it's understandable. He later repented. So one could say that he did a serious act with flawed knowledge/understanding.

Lott's comments were made in '02, and contrary to John's apology, I don't think he simply lacked awareness of the significance or implication in them. He went to college at Ole Miss during the era of the Civil Rights Movement (despite at one point denying that there were any problems there). To the extent he made his comments for political gain, I think Glenn's take was correct -- it was knowing, cynical.

I also tend to agree with Glenn's idea that the reaction was overdone, but not because Lott deserves sympathy or was just unthinking.

Anyway, I thought the discussion about Lott was a little weird, because who cares. I guess more people than I thought.

Hello! Your definition of venal and cardianl sins are probably better than mine. However, I don't give Byrd a pass on being in the Klan. It's reprehensible and I don't care where he grew up. So being the Klan and making an intemperate remark are not the same to me. Personally, I'm not a fan of Lott either.

jimM47 02-22-2011 08:15 PM

Re: Black History Edition (John McWhorter & Glenn Loury)
 
Indeed. If this student had been in this professor's class long enough, they might have had a relationship. She might have respected him enough to expect an apology from him she might think he could benefit from apologizing. And if she had the ability to make him learn something from his behavior, why should she be asked to forgo the emotional satisfaction of that? For the stories John tells, yeah, f@#$ that person, you're above that person. But you don't know who this professor is, or what his student thinks of him. Let her demand an apology if that's what she thinks is called for.

bkjazfan 02-22-2011 08:20 PM

Re: Black History Edition (John McWhorter & Glenn Loury)
 
Quote:

Originally Posted by stephanie (Post 198669)
Yeah, I think I agree with this.

When it comes to personal reaction, I tend to agree with John. What we can control is our own reaction, and I'm generally of the view that it doesn't make sense to focus on perceived racism (or, in my case, sexism), but simply to engage with people in as positive a way as possible. I think that avoids playing into the efforts, sometimes, to try and offend people to create a diversion, also, and probably does more to focus your own attention on what you can control and even reaching some people who may have started out with more discriminatory views. I admit that I don't know what it's like to experience racism, of course, so won't judge the reactions of others, but John's approach certainly seems a positive one to me.

Where I think he's wrong is in letting that perception govern whenever it comes to an analytical discussion of what's going on more broadly. You can say it's not helpful to react to someone else by assuming racism without saying that we can't acknowledge that racism plays a role in certain ways in some of that is going on when discussing it, yet he often seems to bring up his personal reactions as a reason to avoid seeing racism or at least acknowledging it. I think he's either being naive or is going too far the other way because perhaps he thinks some see it too easily.

I think you are correct in your assessment of John going too far the other way since he thinks so many see it too easily. I have read one of his books "Losing the Race" and I would put him into the Thomas Sowell camp with regards to race relations. He's the opposite of say someone who thinks racism is lurking behind every rock & corner in this country and the government must use massive social engineering in order to rectify it. He is in my view a very conservative person on matters like this. On these diavlogs he comes across as more moderate but his writings are where you see the real John McWhorter. In fact, I make this same assertion to the few other diavbloggers on here that I have had the opportunity to read what they have written. Diavlogging is different than writing. I get a better feel for where they stand on the issues than by listening to them talk about it.

operative 02-22-2011 08:54 PM

Re: Black History Edition (John McWhorter & Glenn Loury)
 
Quote:

Originally Posted by jimM47 (Post 198719)
Indeed. If this student had been in this professor's class long enough, they might have had a relationship. She might have respected him enough to expect an apology from him she might think he could benefit from apologizing. And if she had the ability to make him learn something from his behavior, why should she be asked to forgo the emotional satisfaction of that? For the stories John tells, yeah, f@#$ that person, you're above that person. But you don't know who this professor is, or what his student thinks of him. Let her demand an apology if that's what she thinks is called for.

It sure sounds like they had no relationship to speak of, and since she was late, I really don't think she respected him.

graz 02-22-2011 09:13 PM

Re: Black History Edition (John McWhorter & Glenn Loury)
 
Quote:

Originally Posted by operative (Post 198722)
It sure sounds like they had no relationship to speak of, and since she was late, I really don't think she respected him.

Glad I'm not in your class perfesser. You're on winter-break right? Well we're gonna have to give you the dunce cap for assuming facts not in evidence -- well the evidence is available in the side bar link -- but then you wouldn't have been able to flex your authoritarian blame the victim routine: http://murrayledger.com/news/msu-pro...cc4c03286.html
Quote:

Arlene Johnson, a freshman from Sikeston, Mo., told the Ledger & Times in a telephone interview that one day in August, she came to class early to find that a film was already in progress. She said that after class, she and another student asked professor Mark Wattier why the film had started before the official start time of the class, and she said he told them that when screening films, he typically started them 10-15 minutes before class.
She wasn't late thug!

Ocean 02-22-2011 09:14 PM

Re: Black History Edition (John McWhorter & Glenn Loury)
 
Quote:

Originally Posted by operative (Post 198722)
It sure sounds like they had no relationship to speak of, and since she was late, I really don't think she respected him.

You didn't listen to the diavlog.

graz 02-22-2011 09:16 PM

Re: Black History Edition (John McWhorter & Glenn Loury)
 
Quote:

Originally Posted by Ocean (Post 198726)
You didn't listen to the diavlog.

And you're to kind to the thug.

operative 02-22-2011 09:30 PM

Re: Black History Edition (John McWhorter & Glenn Loury)
 
Quote:

Originally Posted by Ocean (Post 198726)
You didn't listen to the diavlog.

I heard the account on it, and I also read a few articles on the matter. The two have differing stories and my guess is that the truth is somewhere in between.

graz 02-22-2011 09:33 PM

Re: Black History Edition (John McWhorter & Glenn Loury)
 
Quote:

Originally Posted by operative (Post 198731)
I heard the account on it, and I also read a few articles on the matter. The two have differing stories and my guess is that the truth is somewhere in between.

Link?

operative 02-22-2011 09:37 PM

Re: Black History Edition (John McWhorter & Glenn Loury)
 
Quote:

Originally Posted by graz (Post 198733)
Link?

http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn...021805858.html

Ocean 02-22-2011 09:45 PM

Re: Black History Edition (John McWhorter & Glenn Loury)
 
There are a couple of issues here.

One is one's ability to control one's reaction to statements that are inflammatory or hurtful. Developing that ability is a great tool to protect oneself emotionally and to be able to interact with others more effectively and rationally. This ability is associated with a cognitive frame that emphasizes that the "insult" is more closely related to the person who delivers it than to the person that receives it. The student could have looked at the professor and thought "wow, this dude is stuck with all that racist hatred, poor guy!" But, that would happen in a post racial society where the professor was some sort of aberration and the student was firm in her identity and self esteem.

But, besides one's ability to control emotions and reactions, with the respective cognitive reframing needed, there's also a strategic purpose to one's reaction. People who make hateful remarks need to be called on it so that some corrective action is taken. Even if the you can brush off the remark, it's sometimes one's duty to prevent similar actions that may hurt others.

I wouldn't favor a paranoid stance, or seeing racism everywhere. But when racism is shown, it shouldn't be let go unnoticed. In John's case, I wonder how much of his position is a result of wanting to distance himself from the stereotype of a black person. In some sense, he neutralizes his racial ties by rejecting the sensibilities associated with black people. I'm speculating here because I haven't read his books and I only know him from the discussions he's had in this site.

Ocean 02-22-2011 09:54 PM

Re: Black History Edition (John McWhorter & Glenn Loury)
 
Quote:

Originally Posted by operative (Post 198731)
I heard the account on it, and I also read a few articles on the matter. The two have differing stories and my guess is that the truth is somewhere in between.

Considering how contradictory it is to have made any of the two possible remarks and at the same time say that he respects African Americans, I don't give much credibility to his word, or his version of the story. I believe that he regrets what he said. I don't know whether his regret is about having said something so wrong, or his regret is about not having been able to refrain from saying what he thinks.

operative 02-22-2011 10:01 PM

Re: Black History Edition (John McWhorter & Glenn Loury)
 
Quote:

Originally Posted by Ocean (Post 198739)
Considering how contradictory it is to have made any of the two possible remarks and at the same time say that he respects African Americans, I don't give much credibility to his word, or his version of the story.

Why? I don't see why you're reducing it to either person A or person B. In virtually all situations like this, the actual event isn't quite what either person represents it as (in part due to the imperfect nature of recall, the desire to form one's own narrative of past events, etc.).

He felt compelled to mention slave in relation to an African American student, which is very stupid and yes, does suggest a latent level of racism. That still doesn't cause me to believe that the student's representation was 100%, and it certainly doesn't cause me to believe that this student, who was one of of only two who was not aware that the professor would be starting 15 minutes early (meaning that everyone else in the class, probably over twenty people, understood this), was some sort of stellar student who held him in high regard. I don't know how long you are removed from a university setting, but let me be clear: most undergraduates don't have such a flowery outlook concerning their professors.

Quote:

I believe that he regrets what he said. I don't know whether his regret is about having said something so wrong, or his regret is about not having been able to refrain from saying what he thinks.
I highly doubt he's personally a hardcore racist. He said something very stupid, and it undermined a long (if not particularly remarkable) career. That I am sure he regrets.

Uhurusasa 02-22-2011 10:04 PM

Re: Black History Edition (John McWhorter & Glenn Loury)
 
Quote:

Originally Posted by Invisman52 (Post 198622)
...When Woodson imagined Black History Month,..

well said. actually in the segregated african-american south this was "Negro History Week", a very important element of our education. the month status is an upgrade.

a case in point:

the daughter of some african-american friends in Little Rock, Arkansas, who had gone to an exclusive episcopalian private school, recently was shocked, when i told her about historic african-american figures(people). even in the day of Black History Month, she knew next to nothing about them. everyone who went to our schools back-in-the-day, knew this stuff backwards and forwards.

i think that what most people fail to understand, is that "Black History Month" or "Negro History Week" is not about blackness or whiteness, but about the unique circumstances of the U.S. past(aka/history). the questions that this past raises imho, should never be forgotten, along with the native-american genocide, and the japanese-american concentration camps!! picture this:

http://sunisup.tumblr.com/post/38609...e-shrinkage-of

i think that people should feel free to ignore whatever they want, but let's not stop "Black History Month", but rather let's change it to "African-American History Month". culture should be the issue, rather than "RACE".

and who is the African-American beyond "running, jumping, singing, and dancing!!!???

http://www.ls.cc.al.us/blackhistory/blackhistory.html

i think that the best discussions of the issues of multi-cultural society, are yet to be had, and especially in relations to mass-society!!

Ocean 02-22-2011 10:17 PM

Re: Black History Edition (John McWhorter & Glenn Loury)
 
Quote:

Originally Posted by operative (Post 198740)
Why? I don't see why you're reducing it to either person A or person B. In virtually all situations like this, the actual event isn't quite what either person represents it as (in part due to the imperfect nature of recall, the desire to form one's own narrative of past events, etc.).

I think you need to read my comment again. I said I didn't give much credibility to his version of the story. I didn't say that therefore everything the student said must be exactly accurate. You're creating a straw man.


Quote:

He felt compelled to mention slave in relation to an African American student, which is very stupid and yes, does suggest a latent level of racism. That still doesn't cause me to believe that the student's representation was 100%, and it certainly doesn't cause me to believe that this student, who was one of of only two who was not aware that the professor would be starting 15 minutes early (meaning that everyone else in the class, probably over twenty people, understood this), was some sort of stellar student who held him in high regard.
In addition to my response above, I must say that the last part of your paragraph, about how much regard the student had for him and whether she was stellar or not has no ground on anything that was discussed in this diavlog or in the article that you linked to. It's your speculation only.

Quote:

I don't know how long you are removed from a university setting, but let me be clear: most undergraduates don't have such a flowery outlook concerning their professors.
I've been a faculty member for the last 17 years.

Quote:

I highly doubt he's personally a hardcore racist. He said something very stupid, and it undermined a long (if not particularly remarkable) career. That I am sure he regrets.
I have no information that would lead me to believe he's a hardcore racist. He said something inappropriate and racist. If he's been a professor for a long time. I doubt he's been around making these kind of remarks publicly for years, although we don't know one way or the other. But if he had such a poor judgment to say what he said, perhaps it was time for him to retire.

bjkeefe 02-22-2011 10:17 PM

Re: Black History Edition (John McWhorter & Glenn Loury)
 
Quote:

Originally Posted by graz (Post 198725)
Glad I'm not in your class perfesser. You're on winter-break right? Well we're gonna have to give you the dunce cap for assuming facts not in evidence -- well the evidence is available in the side bar link -- but then you wouldn't have been able to flex your authoritarian blame the victim routine: http://murrayledger.com/news/msu-pro...cc4c03286.html

[...]

She wasn't late thug!

It's not just that the operative assumed wrong. He also ignored what was said in the diavlog. John made this clear: that the movie started early, that the prof hadn't made any announcement beforehand, and when asked why he hadn't, responded with the slur.

bjkeefe 02-22-2011 10:21 PM

Re: Black History Edition (John McWhorter & Glenn Loury)
 
Quote:

Originally Posted by operative (Post 198734)

From your source:

Quote:

In a lengthy e-mail sent to The Associated Press on Friday titled "My Side of the Story," Wattier acknowledged he made a mistake.

[...]

Wattier and Johnson gave different accounts of what happened, but both agreed that the professor made a reference to slavery while admonishing two students to be on time to class.
The rest sounds like Wattier lying to save a little face. That he's leaving tells you what the score was. Well, it tells anyone else besides you, I mean.

graz 02-22-2011 10:28 PM

Re: Black History Edition (John McWhorter & Glenn Loury)
 
Quote:

Originally Posted by bjkeefe (Post 198743)
It's not just that the operative assumed wrong. He also ignored what was said in the diavlog. John made this clear: that the movie started early, that the prof hadn't made any announcement beforehand, and when asked why he hadn't, responded with the slur.

Moreover, in his reply to Ocean he continues to excuse the Professor's behavior and further implicate and indict the victim ... without evidence.

My guess is Liberty University is his home?

TwinSwords 02-22-2011 10:30 PM

Re: Black History Edition (John McWhorter & Glenn Loury)
 
Quote:

Originally Posted by operative (Post 198740)
... this student ... was one of of only two who was not aware that the professor would be starting 15 minutes early (meaning that everyone else in the class, probably over twenty people, understood this)...

What's your source for this claim?

bjkeefe 02-22-2011 10:30 PM

Re: Black History Edition (John McWhorter & Glenn Loury)
 
Quote:

Originally Posted by graz (Post 198748)
Moreover, in his reply to Ocean he continues to excuse the Professor's behavior and further implicate and indict the victim ... without evidence.

My guess is Liberty University is his home?

That's unfair.

To Jerry Falwell.

chiwhisoxx 02-22-2011 10:40 PM

Re: Black History Edition (John McWhorter & Glenn Loury)
 
Quote:

Originally Posted by operative (Post 198740)
Why? I don't see why you're reducing it to either person A or person B. In virtually all situations like this, the actual event isn't quite what either person represents it as (in part due to the imperfect nature of recall, the desire to form one's own narrative of past events, etc.).

He felt compelled to mention slave in relation to an African American student, which is very stupid and yes, does suggest a latent level of racism. That still doesn't cause me to believe that the student's representation was 100%, and it certainly doesn't cause me to believe that this student, who was one of of only two who was not aware that the professor would be starting 15 minutes early (meaning that everyone else in the class, probably over twenty people, understood this), was some sort of stellar student who held him in high regard. I don't know how long you are removed from a university setting, but let me be clear: most undergraduates don't have such a flowery outlook concerning their professors.



I highly doubt he's personally a hardcore racist. He said something very stupid, and it undermined a long (if not particularly remarkable) career. That I am sure he regrets.

why are you making excuses for him? none of us have intimate knowledge of the situation, but I think in general it's a good idea to not give people who say outrageously offensive and racist things the benefit of the doubt.

eeeeeeeli 02-22-2011 11:01 PM

Re: Thought Experiment
 
Quote:

Originally Posted by stephanie (Post 198702)
Are we assuming that they now have their own country? If so, I'm sure they'd celebrate it, and that would be fine, and I expect the US wouldn't, but would probably not care much anymore either. (Assuming that we had friendly relations now and all -- kind of like the US and UK, maybe.)

Or are we assuming that it was something that caused them to leave and that a bloody war was fought over and they subsequently became part of the US again? If so, I think the honor of the cause that led to the leaving depends on what it was about (as others have said) so we don't have enough information. But as for the celebration of fighting a war against the US, I have a problem with that, for people who claim to be patriotic US citizens, no matter what the cause.

My problem with the pro Confederacy stuff, then, is twofold. First, there's a racial element. And it's not just slavery -- the movement to bring back the Confederate battle flag was related to the Civil Rights Movement and anger at uppity blacks and meddling Yankees and the federal government then, it's impossible to say it's all about the right of secession or whether some Confederate general was a brave man or good tactician.

Second, as an American, I wouldn't join in a celebration of people who fought a war against my country, who injured or killed my ancestors who were fighting for the country that we supposedly all live in and love. I find it offensive for people to do that while claiming to be loyal Americans -- there's an inconsistency. It's especially distasteful when it's people who claim to be more patriotic than those of us Americans (the non real ones) who don't celebrate the Confederacy. Just weird.

I'm laughing at myself.... I was agreeing with your points when I realized I had a third reason to object to confederate celebrations. I must really despise them!

Anyway, I guess my other bone to pick is the nationalist element - which I'll admit is a bugaboo of mine. (I'm not sure what you call it when referring to states. ) Maybe it's that is feels exclusionary. Although, I don't have a problem when ethnicities, or historically disenfranchised people do it. And you could make an argument that there's some old class stuff going on, in that the South is trying to hold on to something dignified.

Yet of course, in light of what the confederacy was literally standing for, there doesn't seem to be much dignity there. And maybe that's what really bothers me in the end - a sort of nostalgic embrace, or solidarity around something that is either pointless, or outright undignified. I'm reminded at how I bristle at the obnoxious way in which Texans fellate their own flag.

I know that was a harsh thing to say. And I probably shouldn't have. But it certainly illustrates my feelings on the subject. I suppose I'm a somewhat reserved person by nature, and that might account for my affinity for humility and meekness. I just feel that the world could always do with a bit less self-aggrandizement and macho displays of egotism.

Returning again to the national stage, all of this triumphalist, blathering nationalism seems to do nobody any good. I certainly approve of having values, and standing up for them. In many cases, the very act of proclaiming one's love for this or that flag actively prevents them from being conscious of just what it is they are defending.

I'm always amused when people have the nerve to assume that they are patriotic Americans, and others are not, because they happen to disagree with this or that policy. As if they have a mainline to the "truth" and they are able to judge who is and who is not American! Surely, there are some values that might clearly be considered American. But I'd wager the majority of what we consider uniquely "American Values" is at least debatable. There was enough controversy in the founding documents themselves.

Finally (for those of you still awake), I ask how much of what the confederacy stands for - or ever stood for - is alive in the consciousness of those who supposedly glory in it. Because, simple pageantry without meaning is pathetic enough. But simple pageantry with a meaning that represents such a tragic and horrid chapter in our nation's history seems downright ugly.

operative 02-22-2011 11:05 PM

Re: Black History Edition (John McWhorter & Glenn Loury)
 
Quote:

Originally Posted by TwinSwords (Post 198749)
What's your source for this claim?

http://www.columbiatribune.com/weblo...slave-comment/

operative 02-22-2011 11:08 PM

Re: Black History Edition (John McWhorter & Glenn Loury)
 
Quote:

Originally Posted by chiwhisoxx (Post 198752)
why are you making excuses for him? none of us have intimate knowledge of the situation, but I think in general it's a good idea to not give people who say outrageously offensive and racist things the benefit of the doubt.

I'm not excusing what he said. I'm saying that I do not 100% believe her account of the story.

operative 02-22-2011 11:12 PM

Re: Black History Edition (John McWhorter & Glenn Loury)
 
Quote:

Originally Posted by Ocean (Post 198742)
I think you need to read my comment again. I said I didn't give much credibility to his version of the story. I didn't say that therefore everything the student said must be exactly accurate. You're creating a straw man.

The inference that I drew from your response was that you were essentially choosing to believe her story in its entirety. I don't.

Quote:

It's your speculation only.
You're right, but I know undergrads and particularly undergrads who don't pay close enough attention to come to class at the proper time.

Quote:

I've been a faculty member for the last 17 years.
And your students are all eager little learners who are looking to their professors as role models? Wow, remind me to look for an opening at your university!

Quote:

I have no information that would lead me to believe he's a hardcore racist. He said something inappropriate and racist. If he's been a professor for a long time. I doubt he's been around making these kind of remarks publicly for years, although we don't know one way or the other. But if he had such a poor judgment to say what he said, perhaps it was time for him to retire.

Well, here's his faculty page:
http://campus.murraystate.edu/academ.../mark.wattier/

and here is his rmp reviews:
http://www.ratemyprofessors.com/Show...jsp?tid=341538

And I certainly don't disagree that it was time for him to retire.

TwinSwords 02-22-2011 11:15 PM

Re: Black History Edition (John McWhorter & Glenn Loury)
 
Quote:

Originally Posted by operative (Post 198760)

Sorry, that story doesn't support the claim that the student in question "was one of of only two who was not aware that the professor would be starting 15 minutes early (meaning that everyone else in the class, probably over twenty people, understood this)..."

operative 02-22-2011 11:16 PM

Re: Black History Edition (John McWhorter & Glenn Loury)
 
Quote:

Originally Posted by TwinSwords (Post 198767)
Sorry, that story doesn't support the claim that the student in question "was one of of only two who was not aware that the professor would be starting 15 minutes early (meaning that everyone else in the class, probably over twenty people, understood this)..."

So far as I can gather, two students were late to class. Nothing has said anything about any more than two students being late.

chiwhisoxx 02-22-2011 11:17 PM

Re: Black History Edition (John McWhorter & Glenn Loury)
 
Quote:

Originally Posted by operative (Post 198762)
I'm not excusing what he said. I'm saying that I do not 100% believe her account of the story.

why the hell does her account of the story have to be 100% accurate? so long as the guy said what he said, which no one seems to be challenging, it doesn't really seem relevant what she did or said.

operative 02-22-2011 11:20 PM

Re: Black History Edition (John McWhorter & Glenn Loury)
 
Quote:

Originally Posted by chiwhisoxx (Post 198771)
why the hell does her account of the story have to be 100% accurate? so long as the guy said what he said, which no one seems to be challenging, it doesn't really seem relevant what she did or said.

It is relevant in so far as while both comments are stupid, offensive, and suggesting racial bias, there is still a difference between saying what he claims he said, and claiming what she claimed he said.

Compare these two remarks:
"Man, those blacks just don't know how to behave."
"Man, I hate black people. Don't you wish we could just string them up?"

Both are racist remarks. But the latter is a lot worse than the former!!

Ocean 02-22-2011 11:22 PM

Re: Black History Edition (John McWhorter & Glenn Loury)
 
I'll cut it short this time.

I think we both know what the other is saying. You're simply more sympathetic to the Professor, for reasons that I will leave to you to disclose if you so choose.

The professor retired. He'll get his pension and hopefully will go on to enjoy life without subjecting students to his nasty remarks. The student will have learned, if she didn't know it already, that still there are racists in this country, that some of them are professors, and that some of them say inappropriate things.

The student's standing is completely irrelevant. Even if she was the worst student in the University, the professor's comment would have been inappropriate. Don't deflect attention to an unrelated issue.

And this professor has to go to sleep now.

operative 02-22-2011 11:31 PM

Re: Black History Edition (John McWhorter & Glenn Loury)
 
Quote:

Originally Posted by Ocean (Post 198777)
I think we both know what the other is saying. You're simply more sympathetic to the Professor, for reasons that I will leave to you to disclose if you so choose.

I wouldn't say that I'm more sympathetic to the Professor at all. He was certainly wrong and his remark was certainly suggestive of racial bigotry. I just wish that we wouldn't treat the student's recollection of the event as the definitive account of what occurred. Even in a case where no matter what, we recognize that he was very much in the wrong, we can still be a bit more analytical in how we view what happened.

Quote:

The student's standing is completely irrelevant. Even if she was the worst student in the University, the professor's comment would have been inappropriate.
I don't disagree.

badhatharry 02-23-2011 11:48 AM

Re: Black History Edition (John McWhorter & Glenn Loury)
 
Quote:

Originally Posted by stephanie (Post 198668)
Quite the opposite, really. It's a silly comparison (the venal/mortal sin one, I mean) but if you want to make it, the definition of mortal sin is that one does a serious act with knowledge and consent.

It's venial, people!

Here are the criteria.

Quote:

1.It does not concern a "grave matter",
2.It is not committed with full knowledge, or
3.It is not committed with both deliberate and complete consent.

stephanie 02-23-2011 12:19 PM

Re: Black History Edition (John McWhorter & Glenn Loury)
 
Quote:

Originally Posted by bkjazfan (Post 198718)
I don't give Byrd a pass on being in the Klan.

Oh, that wasn't my point. I was just responding to the comparison based on the framework you suggested. (I'd also say that if Byrd sincerely repented, as the quoted bit suggested, that's not the same as giving a pass. Certainly not from a religious perspective.)

stephanie 02-23-2011 12:26 PM

Re: Black History Edition (John McWhorter & Glenn Loury)
 
Quote:

Originally Posted by badhatharry (Post 198820)
It's venial, people!

True.

stephanie 02-23-2011 12:33 PM

Re: Black History Edition (John McWhorter & Glenn Loury)
 
Quote:

Originally Posted by bkjazfan (Post 198721)
I think you are correct in your assessment of John going too far the other way since he thinks so many see it too easily.

I'm almost wondering if it's a similar issue I see with Douthat (on different subjects), in focusing too much on your own experiences and social circle in drawing conclusions about the world. (And as I've said before, I can relate to the way that Douthat does that.)

Quote:

In fact, I make this same assertion to the few other diavbloggers on here that I have had the opportunity to read what they have written. Diavlogging is different than writing. I get a better feel for where they stand on the issues than by listening to them talk about it.
This is an interesting comment. I'm not sure where I stand -- sometimes I think hearing them talk and respond more off-the-cuff gives me a different sense of where they are coming from, with neither being more informative, just a bigger picture. I read McWhorter's linguistic/rhetoric stuff before his race stuff, though, which is probably more like his persona here, so I think the two (or more) sides of his writing also give a broader picture.

Now I'm trying to think who among the commenters seems most surprising or unlike their writing (for the ones I knew from their writing before).

bkjazfan 02-23-2011 02:47 PM

Re: Black History Edition (John McWhorter & Glenn Loury)
 
Quote:

Originally Posted by stephanie (Post 198823)
Oh, that wasn't my point. I was just responding to the comparison based on the framework you suggested. (I'd also say that if Byrd sincerely repented, as the quoted bit suggested, that's not the same as giving a pass. Certainly not from a religious perspective.)

Ok, I got you.

bkjazfan 02-23-2011 03:41 PM

Re: Black History Edition (John McWhorter & Glenn Loury)
 
Quote:

Originally Posted by stephanie (Post 198825)
I'm almost wondering if it's a similar issue I see with Douthat (on different subjects), in focusing too much on your own experiences and social circle in drawing conclusions about the world. (And as I've said before, I can relate to the way that Douthat does that.)



This is an interesting comment. I'm not sure where I stand -- sometimes I think hearing them talk and respond more off-the-cuff gives me a different sense of where they are coming from, with neither being more informative, just a bigger picture. I read McWhorter's linguistic/rhetoric stuff before his race stuff, though, which is probably more like his persona here, so I think the two (or more) sides of his writing also give a broader picture.

Now I'm trying to think who among the commenters seems most surprising or unlike their writing (for the ones I knew from their writing before).

McWhorter appears to be a prolific author. There are his linguistic and race books plus a myriad of articles for different publications - one of the main ones being "City Journal" on the web put out buy the conservative "Manhattan Institute."

sapeye 02-23-2011 05:38 PM

Re: Black History Edition (John McWhorter & Glenn Loury)
 
Quote:

Originally Posted by Wonderment (Post 198643)
The ending is too good not to repost in its entirety:

Here is Robert Scheer, editor of Truthdig, defending Huffington:
http://www.truthdig.com/report/item/...anna_20110222/

uncle ebeneezer 02-24-2011 08:10 PM

Re: Black History Edition (John McWhorter & Glenn Loury)
 
I only watched part of this diavlog but I wanted to chime in on one particular part. At one point Glenn talked about the way that Confederate celebration can be used by people with racist tendencies to have a chance to get in a little subtle dig against what they see as the constraints of political correctness. John responds with a "meh, I don't see it."

I wonder how thick his blinfold is. John, take just a cursory glance at the comments section here at bhtv once in awhile and you will see MANY examples of this sort of sentiment from right-wing commentors. It's staggering how often discussions of racially-tinged topics like the Civil War go off on tangents about affirmative action and political correctness to the point where the resentment of blacks becomes distressingly apparent.

In another example of how this works, just today a co-worker of mine (white male from relatively upper-middle class family) joyously showed off how he bout a bunch of Negro League Baseball commemorative stamps and thinks it will be funny to use them for mailing in our neighborhood (which is predominantly black). Another co-worker from the Inland Empire (kinda the desert boonies of LA) chimed in and they started laughing about how it's Black History Month, and isn't EVERY month black-history month nowadays, and how "they" want to take EVERY month away from us, and they take over our sports etc. Anyways, this is the kind of less overt racism that I hear all the time, even from people who are not the typical gun-rack truck driving Southern stereotype. It's the kindof sly racism that is even more disturbing to me, and I think presents a much bigger challenge to real efforts at equality.

So while obviously I have been privvy to different things than John McWhorter (this kind of thing would rarely be uttered in front of a black person) I'm surprised at his ignorance to it's existence and his eagerness to write off Glenn's suggestion.


All times are GMT -4. The time now is 02:19 PM.

Powered by vBulletin® Version 3.8.7 Beta 1
Copyright ©2000 - 2020, vBulletin Solutions, Inc.