McWhorter didn't think Loury should dignify Carlson with his presence, but Loury thought he should go on the show — "Tucker Carlson Today" (paywalled here) — to reach Carlson's audience. He was wary that Carlson might try to use him as a tool but felt he could defend against that, and in the end Carlson was actually a good listener. Carlson interviewed him the way Oprah would, Loury says.
The conversation between McWhorter and Loury develops into a question I've been interested in for a long time. It's something I once asked and got vigorously shamed for even asking. "I can't believe you asked that question!," said the black female law professor, in a tone that seemed to say: I will not remain friends with —or even remain in the presence of — anyone who would ask that question. It happened in the 1990s, a time of Critical Legal Studies, Critical Race Theory, and Radical Feminism at my law school (Wisconsin).
I won't try to quote exactly how I phrased the question back then or do a transcript of what Loury and McWhorter say. This is my attempt to frame the question now: Doesn't the demand to think of everything in terms of race risk causing white people to think of themselves as a distinct interest group and to pursue their own interests?
As Loury points out, white people are [going to remain] the largest racial group in the United States — [even if we slip below the majority to] 45%. Black people are only 13%. Hispanic people, maybe 17%. McWhorter states that the white people he knows don't think of themselves as a race and suggests that black people are better off not stimulating consciousness of whiteness.
If, under Critical Race Theory, white supremacy finds its way into every institution of American culture, then, by its own terms, our embrace of Critical Race Theory is — right now — reinforcing and advancing white privilege. How could it not? (If the theory is correct.)
पोस्ट्स
१९ टिप्पण्या:
Dave Begley writes:
If Rush were still alive, he’d talk today about the question you pose about Whites as a new racial interest group. It’s a logical question if CRT is now US policy.
If Tucker was smart, he’d have Ann Althouse on one of his shows.
Thanks, but I would suck so bad on the Tucker Carlson show.
MartyH writes:
You were shut down for asking the question, “Doesn't the demand to think of everything in terms of race risk causing white people to think of themselves as a distinct interest group and to pursue their own interests?”
The reason her response was so viscerally negative is because the answer is self evidently “Yes.”
There is a sign in my neighborhood that says, “Racism is a sin; Black Lives Matter.” Both ideas cannot be axiomatic to one’s belief system; there is an inherent contradiction that can only logically be resolved by making one principle subordinate to the other.
It can be emotionally resolved, however, by stating that White Lives Matter.
That is the only possible result of CRT. CRT is self-contradictory; as it expands further into the general populace its consequences can only become more destructive.
K writes:
Can critical race theory be a tool depending for its effect on who is using it and for what purpose or will it always and solely work against "white supremacy?" What an interesting question.
At present white voters are a plurality in the country but their votes are split as they have been throughout American history between two parties. If white voters see CRT as deliberately shaming their children and deliberately voiding their education of content, then they will unite behind the party that opposes CRT. But that won't be "white supremacy" since Asian-Americans and a large contingent of Hispanics will join them because they also don't want their children's education hollowed out by 24/7 CRT. Moreover, in September we will finally see how the teachers union will handle the enormous block of African-American children who have been excluded from school since March of 2020. They will do it badly. That is what I think is reality.
But in the echo chamber one must ask when was CRT brought forward and whose interests does it serve? It came forward in the Nineties and it serves the interests of foreign enemies of the US because it is divisive and divide and conquer has been a standard operation in foreign policy in all countries at all times. So CRT in the hands of foreigners does not serve the interests of African-Americans; it merely uses images from their tragic history for iforeigners' own goals. It is effective for its backers' purpose if it weakens the USA. This would explain why BLM and other CRT tools have totally ignored the damage to the black community caused by school closings, to say nothing of lack of vaccinations and immigrants taking jobs.
It's my opinion that CRT won't work as its foreign backers and their paid US helpers expect. "White backlash" will appear but it will never turn against the black community as such because of the huge increase in cross-racial marriages. By now, there are children out there, children of color, if you will, related to the entire "white" population. This is why I believe the war on CRT, the "white backlash" will expend itself on children's education. For, thanks to the teacher's unions' love affair with CRT, the "white backlash" can go beige and expend itself righteously, fighting for grandchildren and great nieces and nephews and their education.
Read about the Wilmington Riot.
Peter writes:
Your question, and Loury's, about CRT has always bothered me about postmodernism as a basis for political activism (as distinct from a theory of "how the world is"). If every relationship is based on power, and as a white man I have the power, then why on earth would I give any of that up? It has always struck me as bizarre to be taught that "all is power" and simultaneously "you need to give other people your power." I think postmodernism and CRT and the like survive as bases for political activism because advocates never bridge the gap between the two statements. They just get angry and tell you you're a bad person for asking.
"They just get angry and tell you you're a bad person for asking."
And yet, they also claim that their theory is not about whether anyone's a bad person, that the white privilege is manufactured by the system even if everyone is perfectly nice and trying their hardest to be good as good can be.
MikeR writes:
Wow, I'd love to hear that full interview, though I can't bring myself to pay for it. Loury is the best.
As for building white supremacy, I think we saw a good case of that in Europe. Neo-nazi parties made incredible gains recently, partly because tone-deaf elites turned on white people.
'Course, there was a very powerful factor there of admitting huge numbers of scary immigrants. Honest-to-goodness scary; no real parallel here to that.
Amadeus 48 writes:
I am amazed at the complaisance that John McWhorter, who otherwise seems to be a lovely man, expresses in confidently putting “Republicans” into the box of the not quite socially acceptable. I suppose that reflects the world that he inhabits, where there are presumably no Republicans. I could assure him that where I grew up, in west Michigan, there were no socially acceptable Democrats. And yet, having lived in Chicago for 50 years, I know lots of wonderful people who are Democrats and lots of wonderful people who are Republicans, with the Democrats of today as a group being slightly more moralistic and condemnatory of those who disagree with them. Well, it takes all kinds to make a world. My wife’s grandparents, who lived in Minneapolis, wouldn’t let the folks next door onto the porch because they had voted for Franklin Roosevelt in 1932.
JPS writes:
Your question, regarding the Loury/McWhorter discussion, reminded me of a tweet I’d saved from late 2016. Brendan O’Neill, from Spiked, put it this way [quotes within the tweet]:
“You are a white man. Your whiteness defines you. Everything you think is because you’re white, everything you say is because you’re white. Don’t try to be post-white. Don’t try to be colorblind. Don’t say you are ‘over race.’ You’re white, own it and deal with it.”
“Really? Oh. Okay. I identify as white.”
“FASCIST!”
__
More than four years on, I would just change that last retort to, "White supremacist!”
Rob writes:
“Thanks, but I would suck so bad on the Tucker Carlson show.” Heh. I know how hard won this realism about one’s own strengths and weakness is. Reminds me of my favorite Clint Eastwood movie quote: “A man’s got to know his own limitations.”
Lucien writes:
Your comment at 8:24 gets at an issue I think should be more salient: a distinction between racism on the part of individual humans, and on the part of inanimate entities (like a criminal justice system). For entities, those who say they are anti-racist claim that entities that predictably result in outcomes that are disproportionately worse for some racial groups than whites are structurally or systemically racist even if their operations do not depend on any contemporaneous conduct by any racist individuals. Often the racism of past individuals is supposedly baked into the cake.
For individuals, racism can be (for the anti-racists) based on attitudes about race, or on other markers, too numerous to mention.
A traditional (as I see it) view of racism by an individual is a belief: a) that race is a real thing, and b) that one’s race has something to do with the kind of person one is (as opposed to one’s susceptibility to tay-sachs, sickle cell, etc.) A more restrictive view would add: c) that some races are therefore better than others.
For anyone with something close to a traditional view, calling a dangerous disease “kung flu” is not racist at all, but just whistling past the graveyard. The speaker doesn’t express a belief that Chinese people, or East Asian people, or all asian people including Indians are somehow different or inferior. (Similarly, I can’t figure out how someone in an elevator saying “third floor, lingerie” is offensive in any way.)
And I don’t think you would suck on Tucker Carlson’s show, if the topic were your critical views on the media (including Fox), or events occurring in Madison; but your blog stance is to avoid taking sharply defined partisan positions.
The main reason I believe I would suck is that I don't like to take a strong advocacy position and state it clearly and defend it. It's not the way I want to live and I could do it if I made a practice of it, but I don't want to.
Che Dolf writes:
What Althouse thinks Loury said: "As Loury points out, white people are the largest racial group in the United States — 45%."
What Loury actually said: "[They add up all the non-white groups, and] they find a number that's bigger than 50%, *soon enough.* And then they declare white people are gonna be in a minority... [If white people start self-consciously thinking of themselves as a race], they're gonna be the largest of the groups, by far. Even when they're less than 50%, they're still 45%."
I don't get how it's possible that someone like you who writes about politics nearly every day is unaware that most Americans are white. (60% if you exclude Hispanics, 72% if you include Hispanics who identify as white.)
Loury knows this because he's not an idiot. What do you think he means when he says non-whites will add up to more than 50% of the population "soon enough"? That's where the demographic trend is headed, but we're not there yet. When Loury says, "when they're less than 50%, they're still 45%," he doesn't mean that whites are a minority today.
Yes, I wrote "are" where I should have said "are soon to be."
I'll tweak the text to fix that mischaracterization.
Daniel writes:
Wanted to share a couple of thoughts, as I read your post and the comments.
1) From my perspective (super left, in shorthand terms), I'm fascinated that CRT now seems to be referenced much much more by people on the right than on the left. This is partly because it's become shorthand for wokeness, and partly because the right sees it as a useful foil. The most recent parallel I compare it to is Saul Alinski's Rules for Radicals, a rather obscure text (at least since the 1970s) that became the go-to reference on the right maybe 10 years ago (and very heavily in your blog comments), first to caricature the left (which at the time wasn't really at all focused on it) and then to actually start using some of its techniques! My perspective on the left's approach on race has been a balance between BLM protests, concerns about structural racism as distinct from the common perception of racist individuals (which does link strongly to CRT), and then of course the center left woke industry that I think many people other than corporate execs looking to check a box absolutely (and in my opinion correctly) detest.
2) This concern about a heavy discussion on race activating white racial identity is not new and is a serious one. I can't find the link but I remember maybe a two years ago Richard Spencer saying a strong race lens was the best thing that ever happened to his white power agenda, for instance. I think this is a very legitimate concern that is not addressed by not talking about race. Maybe I'm being a touch sensitive, but there's a bit of a threat embedded in the comments to this post, along the lines of: Oh so you want to talk about race? Fine then, I'll be a white supremacist. Maybe you think that's not fair. But somehow we need to be able to talk about the situations that non-whites face in this country without everybody getting so threatened and reacting so defensively.
One example: "If every relationship is based on power, and as a white man I have the power, then why on earth would I give any of that up?"
Maybe because you should and you know it but don't want to? This is not some kind of world ending paradox. People can be nice and good (and generally are) and don't have to reinforce every power structure simply because someone else identifies that power structure.
The one thing that really resonates from that otherwise terrible book and movement by Robin Diangelo is when she says that there is no way to talk about race with white people in a way that doesn't trigger them. Snowflakes! As Bill Burr would say, take your talking to.
I think the percentage of nonHispanic whites is 60, and less than half of children under 15 are white.
Mrs. X writes:
Daniel says “Maybe because you should [give up your power] and you know it but don't want to?”
Who is “you”? Is it only commenter Peter or is he a synechdoche for all white commenters or even for all white people who don’t subscribe to Daniel’s opinion? It seems to me that the white people who most loudly cry “racist!” are doing it as a kind of inoculation, a vaccine, if you will, against having to give up even an iota of their own power.
Ken B writes:
I think I agree that today white people do not think of themselves as a race, but mostly because it has become a taboo. They certainly did when I was a child (I am in my 60s). I even recall one girlfriend, ostensibly liberal and tolerant, who said one time that she thought white women who got pregnant by black men were “traitors to their race”. That was around 1990. Taboos can dissolve easily. Around 1990 gay marriage was still unthinkable.
R.T. O'Dactyl writes:
Commenter Daniel wrote:
> One example: "If every relationship is based on power, and as a white man I have the power, then why on earth would I give any of that up?" Maybe because you should and you know it but don't want to?
I think a better way to frame the question would be: "If every relationship is based on power, and right or wrong per se are irrelevant, then why on earth would I want to give up any of my power to someone who holds the same belief?"
Daniel writes:
Doubt you want to get into a back and forth, but:
"It seems to me that the white people who most loudly cry “racist!” are doing it as a kind of inoculation, a vaccine, if you will, against having to give up even an iota of their own power."
I could not agree with this more. Well said.
"Who is “you”? Is it only commenter Peter or is he a synechdoche for all white commenters or even for all white people who don’t subscribe to Daniel’s opinion?"
You is Peter and anyone else who seems to recognize the power and then argues that it's irrational to give it up. If you don't agree there's a power differential embedded in our system, fine. We can discuss that and should (but look out for those absolutely determined not to see any power differential, who are kind of the complement to Mrs. X's white people who loudly scream racist).
George Washington had the ability to take permanent power and refused. People give up power, when they know they should. It's embedded in our democracy, in our relationships, in our ability to be social creatures. Let's not pretend otherwise, like we're all automatons out to maximize our relative power over others.
टिप्पणी पोस्ट करा