If Racism Makes a Comeback (John McWhorter & Glenn Loury)

[Bloggingheads]

[chamblee54]

Mr. McWhorter talks about a young person coming of age in the sixties, when so many of the social norms were turned upside down. The person he used as an example was Julian Bond.
Mr. Bond was a member of the Georgia Legislature during the Vietnam War. He denounced the war from the floor the legislature, and in turn, the legislature tried to take his seat away.
Being an elected official is not the same as being a young man coming of age. There are lots of other people he could have used as an example.
Tonight, while listening to this dialog, I was editing pictures that I took on a walk in my own neighborhood, just outside Atlanta. I will be posting them sooner or later to Chamblee54. Last night I sat through several dialogs while assembling a collection of soldier pictures for Confederate Memorial Day.

[ohreally]

McWhorter's summary of Wax's book connects dots that do not connect. He starts with Wax's (or Loury's) metaphorical premise: (A) The truck driver can't make the injured party walk again but he can provide the financial resources to facilitate the recovery.

But then McWhorter says that Wax, on the basis of (A), recommends (B): "letting go of all government programs to help black people."

Trouble is, (A) in no way, shape, or form, implies (B). In fact, if anything, it implies (not-B).

So what's Wax's argument?

[uncle ebeneezer]

Nice to see John and Glen again. I wonder if these guys are dark enough to be allowed to discuss race on bhtv.

[graz]

Originally Posted by ohreally

So what's Wax's argument?

Haven't read it, but I heard John suggest:

Trouble is, (A) in no way, shape, or form, implies (B). In fact, if anything, it implies (not-B).

It does if (B) disallows the self-reliance that walking again entails. I offer that just to clarify, not knowing the source material, so it's not a defense. But the simple point that both speakers made rings true. With or without the outside help, government perhaps, the agency for "walking" is inherent, not outer directed.

[graz]

Originally Posted by uncle ebeneezer

Nice to see John and Glen again.

Yes. Looking forward to the continuation.

I wonder if these guys are dark enough to be allowed to discuss race on bhtv.

That's just silly. Care to elaborate?

[look]

Originally Posted by uncle ebeneezer

Nice to see John and Glen again. I wonder if these guys are dark enough to be allowed to discuss race on bhtv.

Yes, they're dark enough, but McWhorter talks too white.

heh...love ya, John and Glenn.

[Unit]

You can tell Glenn is in a zone when he looks up at some wall and starts talking like he's reading straight out of his mind.

[uncle ebeneezer]

Graz, see here. And the ensuing discussion in the current comment court.

[Sgt Schultz]

Did these two deeply reasoning and usually reasonable guys just claim to know a trapped in amber politician who has no possible motive to perpetuate a lie?
Blind spot.

[graz]

[ohreally]

Originally Posted by graz

Haven't read it, but I heard John suggest:

It does if [government help] disallows the self-reliance that walking again entails. I offer that just to clarify, not knowing the source material, so it's not a defense.

I agree. But the metaphor is the wrong one then. In our ueber-litigious society, that truly will be the day when a judge denies a hit-and-run victim compensation "because it might hamper the self-reliance needed for the victim's recovery." So Wax and McWhorter have to be more careful with their metaphors.

[sapeye]

Glen, please stop jiggling your camera. I'm feeling motion sick watching you.

As per usual, interesting conversation.

[look]

Originally Posted by Sgt Schultz

Did these two deeply reasoning and usually reasonable guys just claim to know a trapped in amber politician who has no possible motive to perpetuate a lie?
Blind spot.

Or more likely, he imaginined it. I'd still like to know why the Black Caucus and Pelosi felt it necessary to take a detour through the crowds.

[look]

Originally Posted by ohreally

I agree. But the metaphor is the wrong one then. In our ueber-litigious society, that truly will be the day when a judge denies a hit-and-run victim compensation "because it might hamper the self-reliance needed for the victim's recovery." So Wax and McWhorter have to be more careful with their metaphors.

Yes, 20 lashes with a wet noodle for using a simple metaphor.

The racism card is the greatest tool of the left. It is their great tool for shutting down debate. If your white your guilty until proven innocent when it comes to race. Your a inherent racist and you must prove your not racist by voting for Obama and calling white people "racists" for talking about immigration.

Wanna talk about whether mass immigration is good for the nation?
NO, YOUR A RACIST!

Wanna critize Obama as a white person without the requisite yuppiness?
NO, YOUR A RACIST!

Wanna talk about legalized anti-white racism (aka affirmative action & racial quotas)?
NO, YOUR A RACIST!

Wanna have a protest without "enough" black people?
YOUR A RACIST!

Americans are getting desencetized to the racism card. YOUR TRICK FOR SHUTING DOWN THOUGHT AND DEBATE DOESN'T WORK ANY MORE, LEFTISTS!

p.s.

I don't accuse Glenn or John of using this card.

[breadcrust]

Here's the actual video from a couple sources showing how the CBC members were "rushed," threats were made, and a bunch of racists screamed "n*gger" over and over. Oops... maybe John Lewis was lying.

[listener]

Great diavlog. Thoughtful, clear-headed, insightful and unblinkered. Looking forward to Part 2.

[listener]

Originally Posted by dkschwartz

The racism card is the greatest tool of the left. It is their great tool for shutting down debate. If your white your guilty until proven innocent when it comes to race. Your a inherent racist and you must prove your not racist by voting for Obama and calling white people "racists" for talking about immigration.

Wanna talk about whether mass immigration is good for the nation?
NO, YOUR A RACIST!

Wanna critize Obama as a white person without the requisite yuppiness?
NO, YOUR A RACIST!

Wanna talk about legalized anti-white racism (aka affirmative action & racial quotas)?
NO, YOUR A RACIST!

Wanna have a protest without "enough" black people?
YOUR A RACIST!

Americans are getting desencetized to the racism card. YOUR TRICK FOR SHUTING DOWN THOUGHT AND DEBATE DOESN'T WORK ANY MORE, LEFTISTS!

p.s.

I don't accuse Glenn or John of using this card.

Hint: using all caps doesn't encourage other people to take you seriously. Also, those squiggly red lines appear under certain words for a reason.

[Wonderment]

"You're" not "your. "

I would have let it slide the first five times, but it got really annoying by the middle of the post.

[rcocean]

Originally Posted by dkschwartz

The racism card is the greatest tool of the left. It is their great tool for shutting down debate. If your white your guilty until proven innocent when it comes to race. Your a inherent racist and you must prove your not racist by voting for Obama and calling white people "racists" for talking about immigration.

Wanna talk about whether mass immigration is good for the nation?
NO, YOUR A RACIST!

Wanna critize Obama as a white person without the requisite yuppiness?

The deliberate misspellings and ALL CAPS - nice Moby Touch.

[breadcrust]

Additionally, the title idea was better covered on 30 Rock recently.

[Ocean]

Originally Posted by ohreally

So Wax and McWhorter have to be more careful with their metaphors.

Yes, that's the problem with metaphors. There may be some overlap in meaning between the argument that wants to be made, and the message illustrated by the metaphor. However, both are not identical. One could argue that the injured person needs medical attention (government programs) to bring them back to a state of health that would allow walking. Metaphors are just metaphors.

[Ocean]

This was a very interesting conversation. I was left suspecting that there is an internal struggle that both John and Glenn experience when they discuss this topic. The central topic is "Is racism over or is it not?" Here we have two accomplished scholars who are black. One would think, on surface, that they represent the best example (not to talk about Obama again), of the triumph of the civil rights movement. The problem is that academics (of any race), don't represent the rest of the population.

The diavloggers explore the definitions of racism from the more extreme forms of the last century to the more subtle ones. It would be helpful to know whether the subtle forms are just the tail end of racism, or whether they could represent, if unchecked, the seed for a return to more malignant forms of racism. Monitoring public opinion, and the emergence of political or social movements that are rooted in some racial idea are important parameters. I find that public displays of racial comments, and the emergence of white pride (which appears to be a concealed form of white supremacy) are disturbing. Are these a passing, self limited reaction to having a black president? Are these politically manipulated rancors? Or are these the incipient seeds of a dangerously regressive movement?

Looking back at history, it seems that we are not particularly good at predicting nefarious outcomes as they develop. A quick review of the emergence of the Nazi movement, the emergence of Al-Qaeda, or even the financial crisis are good examples. Without being an alarmist, a monitoring eye and an attitude of caution seem to be in order.

[look]

Originally Posted by Ocean

Yes, that's the problem with metaphors. There may be some overlap in meaning between the argument that wants to be made, and the message illustrated by the metaphor. However, both are not identical. One could argue that the injured person needs medical attention (government programs) to bring them back to a state of health that would allow walking. Metaphors are just metaphors.

I think that was Glenn's original point. The truck (representing slavery) driver's insurance (representing government programs to try to help even the field), can all be present, but it's up to the victim (representing some blacks who eventually have to get up and walk/take responsibility for the consequences of their actions, e.g., out-of-wedlock birthrate, etc.)

[ohreally]

Originally Posted by Ocean

Yes, that's the problem with metaphors.

Commenter 'look' above mistook my point as nitpicking. The issue is not whether the metaphor is perfect. It is that the metaphor infers exactly the opposite of what the speaker is trying to say. So, without an argument behind it, McWhorter's "virtue ethics" approach to the ghetto rings hollow and facile.

[Stapler Malone]

Originally Posted by dkschwartz

Americans are getting desencetized to the racism card. YOUR TRICK FOR SHUTING DOWN THOUGHT AND DEBATE DOESN'T WORK ANY MORE, LEFTISTS!

desensitized also, it would seem, to the "spelling" card. NO LONGER WILL MY LACK OF BASIC MIDDLE SCHOOL WRITING SKILLS SHUT DOWN MY THOUGHT AND DEBATE LEFTISTS.

[ohreally]

Excellent suggestion by Loury. Can't wait for the forthcoming TNR piece in which a finger-wagging McWhorter compares Israel to a hit-and-run victim and demand that, for the sake of self-reliance, it let go of all US support. I'm sure that Marty Peretz and the 4 other readers of TNR will be cheering.

[nikkibong]

I always love hearing Black Nerd John McWhorter discuss race.

[look]

Originally Posted by nikkibong

I always love hearing Black Nerd John McWhorter discuss race.

That's white***** Black Nerd, to you.

He is so charming when he says things like, hey, if you're angry enough about something, and you call a black person n***** that does not make you a racist. It's reminiscent of the time during the campaign he said he really couldn't hold anything against country folk in West Virginia for being simple, or having their views, or some such.

There's an air of sweet good will about him.

[badhatharry]

Originally Posted by Ocean

Yes, that's the problem with metaphors. There may be some overlap in meaning between the argument that wants to be made, and the message illustrated by the metaphor. However, both are not identical. One could argue that the injured person needs medical attention (government programs) to bring them back to a state of health that would allow walking. Metaphors are just metaphors.

Steven Pinker has lots to say about metaphor in his book. The Stuff of Thought.

"But that presupposes that the mind itself works metaphorically, that we see the abstract commonality between argument and war, between progress and motion. And it presupposes that the mind, at some level, must reason very concretely in order that these metaphors be understand and become contagious."

[badhatharry]

Originally Posted by dkschwartz

The racism card is the greatest tool of the left.

If I'm not mistaken, Baltimoron pointed this out in a thread a while back. (looked, but can't locate it) But he had another take on it. He said that the left's epistemic closure is political correctness.

So maybe it follows that one side will attack the other side with the thing that they are most closed minded about.

Or something like that......

[badhatharry]

Originally Posted by nikkibong

I always love hearing Black Nerd John McWhorter discuss race.

As if he's not entitled to? Does that extend to the black nerd Obama?

[Ocean]

Originally Posted by look

There's an air of sweet good will about him.

Or denial.

[nikkibong]

Originally Posted by badhatharry

As if he's not entitled to? Does that extend to the black nerd Obama?

Obtuse Honkey badhatharry -

please see here
http://bloggingheads.tv/diavlogs/276...5:51&out=17:27

[Ocean]

Originally Posted by badhatharry

Steven Pinker has lots to say about metaphor in his book. The Stuff of Thought.

"But that presupposes that the mind itself works metaphorically, that we see the abstract commonality between argument and war, between progress and motion. And it presupposes that the mind, at some level, must reason very concretely in order that these metaphors be understand and become contagious."

I have "The Stuff of Thought" right behind me in my bookcase, waiting for a better time, when I can concentrate in long reading. I usually like to read for hours uninterrupted.

Metaphors, when well used, capture the essence of an idea in a way that literal words or descriptions cannot. However, if the metaphor is ambiguous, it can be dissonant to those that capture the opposite view contained in it. This was the case for the metaphor used here, it leaves gaps that can be easily filled by its counterargument.

[bjkeefe]

Originally Posted by badhatharry

If I'm not mistaken, Baltimoron pointed this out in a thread a while back. (looked, but can't locate it) But he had another take on it. He said that the left's epistemic closure is political correctness.

You are mistaken. It was BornAgainDemocrat.

Baltimoron would not say something so stupid.

[bjkeefe]

Originally Posted by Ocean

Or denial.

To his credit, he acknowledged that possibility, up front.

[Ocean]

Originally Posted by bjkeefe

To his credit, he acknowledged that possibility, up front.

Yes, that's why I noted elsewhere that it seemed like to some extent both had an internal struggle about how to interpret the current state of affairs. And I don't deny John's sweet good will at all.

[look]

Originally Posted by Ocean

Or denial.

Or a commonsensical Middle Way approach.