Here we go folks. This was actually a lot of fun. Since we were talking about hip-hop it seems like it's appropriate. (Boy I don't look cute in that freeze-frame and John looks like he's about to swing on me. Gotta be scared of those Philly cats.) Full discussion is here.
The Beautiful Struggle: A Father, Two Sons, and an Unlikely Road to Manhood 
Copyright © 2009 by The Atlantic Monthly Group. All rights reserved.
This was fun to watch. The thing about McWhorter that kills me is that he's so friggin' smart and thoughtful that I can't lump him in with all the other out-of-touch black conservatives.
I don't want to like him, but I do.
Off to go watch the rest...
By the way, what did you take away from talking to him?
Smart, nice guy. Thought he was deeply wrong about hip-hop. It's funny, I have the same disagreements with him as I do with a lot of my fellow black lefties--they tend to be too rigid for me.
Together at last!
Regarding the confrontational nature of hip hop - I understand what John is saying about Ms. Jackson, but I think that's more about Outkast's style of rap coming across as quick and confrontational; there are other hip hop artists who are able to strike a different tone (i.e. Tupac - Dear Mama).
By the way, you can perform either of those songs tonight during Hip Hop Karaoke at the Knitting Factory.
http://www.hiphopkaraokenyc.com/
Tangential question: is there some sort of rule that only bloggers with shelves of books behind them are allowed on bloggingheads?
Just listened to it and watched.
You did well, it was really interesting. John McWorther sounded a bit like a teacher, at times. That threw me off. I am looking forward to you talking to Glenn Loury.
Allow me to give you one piece of advice, on a in itself minor point: your lighting was really not good. Your face was in the dark most of the time. John looked great, and I was wondering why, until I realized he had a lamp on his face, really giving him a clear face and beautiful skin colour.(Believe me, I mean no disrespect or anything towards you or John McWorther.) I think one of the reasons John and John Horgan and even Conn Carroll look so good on BHTV is that they have some good lighting going on.
Good point TNC.
I've always disagreed with the notion that hip hop should be responsible for raising the kids in a community. That's not the role of art in society. Hip hop is an art. Art is about expression for its own sake. Its not an organized political movement and shouldn't be. Its wrong to think that because its a black art form it should be a tool to advance the political and economic agenda of the black community.
McWhorter likes to point at everything besides white racism to explain the socioeconomic position of blacks in America. In my mind this idea is just as bad as someone who exclusively blames white racism.
Good stuff. You guys had a really wonderful, civil conversation which I think added some knowledge and perspective to the world.
McWhorter is really interesting to me. There are very few conservatives who come across as reasonable and intelligent which is to say that they express the conservative viewpoint in a way that makes it seem anything other than stupid or insane. McWhorter in on the short list of those who manage to do so very well. That sort of thing is good to see. It makes me feel that half the world isn't completely nuts.
I'm impressed by the genuine civility of tone, at least judging by the first 10 minutes.
Probably because I know absolutely nothing about hip hop, I liked John McWhorter in the first video mainly because he seemed interesting and articulate.
However, I followed the link back to bloggingheads.tv and listened to "Ta-nehisi vs. John on white racism." That is where John ended up losing me. However, he did make one solid point about people "not realizing how hard change is" and he referred back to the civil rights era when black leaders were working on policy and legislation. And, I can see where that would be the conservative view, that change must be legislated. So, if you want change, become a part of that process and be prepared to work long and hard.
That is hard to disagree with, but change that is legislated is partial and incomplete. Real change in the form of a permanent change to the social order cannot be accomplished without widespread social acceptance. And where does that come from? It certainly can't be legislated.
Other than that, Ta-nehisi, I thought you were interesting in that segment. I think that you did a good job explaining why black people who grow up in segregated environments might "not be inclined to give white people the benefit of the doubt," but McWhorter reacted as though he lives on a different planet and that is why he lost me.
Maybe I lost something by watching a segment out of context, but I kind of doubt that I will be buying his book.
Couple of thoughts:
1. Typical conservative in that he seems to think that liberal convictions are pathology and are psychologically explainable. Condescending and self-righteous behind the civility.
2. Manhattan Institute, eh? If he's so concerned about the fate of the black poor, why is he associated with an anti-union organization? A higher unionization rate be the best nongovernmental way of boosting the income of the working poor. Conservatives love to tap dance around this one: the truth is that the rich people who pay the bills don't like unions and want intellectual justification for raw class interest.
Around 25:00, McWhorter says this about why he has a "bone-deep suspicion" of people being indignant "for the pleasure of feeling indignant" and not for any policy-related reason. He says it's due to misunderstanding, for instance, what the Civil Rights Movement leaders actually did. It wasn't just giving great speeches...
"What those guys did was hard, roll up the sleeves work on policy, on crafting their policy so it could get passed, working with legislators, it was about the head, not the gut."
Spoken like someone who's never organized anyone. I can't event express how completely I disagree with that statement is about social change. The challenge wasn't "crafting their policy so it would get passed." It was in building a movement of people who would risk their lives and everything they had in order to win their dignity and rights. It is absolutely about moving people's "guts".
Basically, McWhorter comes off here as someone who has utter disdain for anything that even resembles mass action -- essentially, a died-in-the-wool elitist. I think his underlying agenda is to avoid collective action that could lead to instability. Which is why the creeps who fund the Manhattan Institute pay him.
He also misses Obama's poetry: he really CAN'T see the differences between Obama and Clinton beyond his color. As my dad said: Obama is poetry, Clinton is prose. McWhorter just seems a bit tone deaf.
I'm most of the way through, and I really enjoyed the discussion of hip-hop. I'm with McWhorter in hating the academics who elevate it, but I appreciated your personal perspective and how PE, et. al. gave you aesthetic juice.
But McWhorter was way-the-fuck-off in his comments on Ferraro's line. First of all, he reduces "blackness" to skin color, rather than, as you noted, an existential matter of great complexity that has shaped Obama into a, if I may take the liberty, a "superior" human being (not in any essential sense, but in terms of the context of his intellect, his empathy, his analytical skills, his demeanor, his will to achieve, his familiarity across color lines and ability to transcend some of the obstacles to "cross-cultural" communication that other lesser pols are prone to, his life choices, his ability to take from the best American rhetoricians of recent generations and be authentically inspirational as a speaker - and, yeah John, he's kinda "pretty" if you want to toss that in. It's also a fact that a young African-American is more likely to project serious charisma among American youth of all stripes because of the interesting popular culture we've evolved.
But what makes McWhorter's rationalization of Ferraro more bizarre - and Ferraro's statement even more patently ridiculous and an indictment of her fixation on identity politics - is that Hillary wouldn't have made it as far as she did if she wasn't a woman. More to the point, if she hadn't been a woman married to Bill Clinton. How crazy is that, in the context of Ferraro's bitter spew ? (I'm not saying Hillary couldn't have made it in politics on her own, and maybe become a great Senator. It's just that she wouldn't likely have been running for President, based on her individual political skills and persona, in 2008. She's good, but to be the first woman, I don't think she'd have been that good without being able to hark back to a Clinton-era that looks good compared to the current pig-fuck.)
Anyway, good job. I'm not gonna dissect the hip-hop thing more other than to give you more generational props than I have. I'm still appalled by ivory-tower hacks like Dyson and by the fact that way too much rap music has fallen into the worst traps of American commercial culture and the kind of gratuitious "shock" shit that also gives us Howard Stern and Michael Savage. Black entertainers of yore weren't angels, but I they didn't revel in the worst possible excesses as an essential element of their "art" and public persona. (Maybe some blues guys, but that was an adult, regional and "conneseiurs" taste that didn't get shoved in the faces of 12 year old kids and even at that, they understood nuance.)
I'll also note, to give myself at least some credibility with the younger folks here, I've been telling my wife ever since I first saw about five minutes of an episode of his cable show that Flavor Flav needed to be shot and, guess what, Chris Rock comes out and steals my material, announcing the obvious to the world. So now Chris is cool and I'm an asshole. Whatever...
Thanks to brucds for extending my remarks. :-P
mcwhorter is not as bad as he was a few years ago - it appears that a bit of success has allowed him to think for himself a bit, rather than be a complete lackey for right-wing white folks - but to this observer, he is a prime example of the worst type of self-loathing black man who has sold his soul and can't hide his fear and discomfort with the fact that he knows that everyone else knows it, also.
white folks don't respect him because they know what kind of lackey he is and while they will use him, they don't respect him.
kinda like a guy feels about a hooker.
black folks know exactly who he is and, well, enough said...
that brother needs help.
My biggest problem with McWhorter is that he seems to have this idea that art has some kind of responsibility to be reasonable or even-handed. Since when is art or the artist supposed to be interested in "solutions", he talks about rap like he's been let down that the Wu-Tang Clan doesn't have more nuanced policy positions on tax policy similar to that of the Manhattan Institute or Heritage Foundation.
Art should be dirty, offensive, and yes angry. As Johnny Rotten in Public Image says, "anger is an energy." Confrontation is essential to art, John basically has a very intellectual, and almost too-clever by half method of basically saying, "rap music is too angry, and its conclusions to politically radical or liberal for my liking."
All of his complaints about how people are looking at rap for "revolution" or "solving problems" can be said equally about a Phish-loving drum circle. "This crunchy jam is gonna change the world man!" Its always been a half-baked notion. John's whole problem is no different from almost every other conservative kulture-kampfer: popular music and popular culture are not conservative enough for his taste. If Public Enemy was railing against "reverse racism" or affirmative action, my guess is he would be praising its "confrontational cadence." For a number of reasons, not the least of which is that by definition conservatives are generally not artistically inclined, in the creative world, conservatives are badly underrepresented, and thus don't have any catchy, head-boppin' anthems about the capital gains tax or why we should always trust law enforcement.
At the end of the day, his beef is not that rap is too angry, its just not angry at the people he is.
Well, at least he's not a complete loon. Wrongheaded, imho, but not a crazy.....
First, I can't believe you guys referred to Obama as articulate. That's a sure fire way for a white person to be called racist. You should use eloquent (or least we have to).
Second, McWhorter nails the Ferraro comments. Just as Sarah Palin would not be on McCain's ticket if she were male, Obama got a push due to his ethnicity. It was certainly not the sole factor, or even the most important, but it was a plus in the primaries.
At our caucas here in Juneau Alaska, three times as many people showed up at the democratic caucas as they did in 2004 or 2000 (the numbers at these two were the same, 400 people each time.) The newcomers overwhelmingly voted for Obama, and many of them told me they had come to their first Caucas because it was time for a black president.
dearleader nyc,
Very good points about anger and art. This ties in with what you were saying, Ta-Nehisi, about your personal experience with PE and the hip-hop that you love. At one point, McWhorter asks whether you could have had that spark of inspiration from something else. Well, guess what, Mr. McWhorter, people don't work that way. Ta-Nehisi was inspired by PE. I was inspired more by punk. It's a diverse world -- you can't reduce art to a formula and force-feed it to people to get the ideological outcomes you want.
Kim Gordon is quoted in Greil Marcus's Lipstick Traces saying (and here I'm quoting from memory) that people come to Sonic Youth shows "to watch people believe in themselves." Art doesn't just communicate ideology -- performing arts, in particular, can manifest it. Experiencing belief and self-possession and creativity can be inspiring, and I think McWhorter's objection to hip-hop seems to boil down to a "bone-deep suspicion" of what happens when ordinary people begin to feel and experience their own power.
JimS, i like your first point, but no offense, this is a bogus comparison
Second, McWhorter nails the Ferraro comments. Just as Sarah Palin would not be on McCain's ticket if she were male, Obama got a push due to his ethnicity
Palin was a pick by one person in one instance (same for Ferraro), mainly for one reason (boobs). Obama got millions of votes from different folks everywhere, and probably for a myriad of reasons. I think those millions are more meaningful than one dude's pick.
Exactly Andrew. A Palin-Obama connection is false on its face. A presidential nominee must compete, in that she has to win votes. A VP nominee is picked by one person. You can't compare a unilateral decision with an election. VP nominee's aren't elected, they're picked.
I've had some time to digest this exchange and what still stands out for me about McWhorter is this bizarre invocation of the "confrontational cadence" of rap music as being some kind of negative. Whether you like it personally or not is another issue, but "confrontation" is sort of the whole point of rap music. It is and has always been an aggressive art form--they don't call it "battling" for nothing--its boastful, violent, angry, and at times juvenile and at times transcendent form of expression made by people who are angry and/or full of themselves, its kind of the whole point. Almost every rap song ever made can be distilled to: "I'm the fucking man, you're a fucking clown, I'm the shit, you suck, as I've now just amply demonstrated."
Basically, its like John were on talking about rock music and said, "you know I'm a fan of rock, and I really respect it, but I have a serious bone-deep suspicion of all that electric guitar stuff."
"You know I really love country music, but overall its just a bit to twangy and rural in style and content."
"Punk is great and everything, but would it kill them to play their instruments just a little bit better? It sounds too raw and under-produced for my taste."
"Hey I love classical music as much as the next guy, but why no lyrics? I'm very troubled by this..."
It seemed a bit unfair that after ripping him up, down, and sideways in your blog - and quoting others who did likewise - that you said something to the effect of, "I don't remember that post," when asked to clarify it in person.
I think saying that your post was some simply an objection to McWhorter tilting at straw men is exceptionally generous to you.
"
Megan has this whole thing about being polite to people you disagree with.
...
McWhorter is allowed to be dishonest because, in his circles, he really doesn't have to worry about people calling him out.
...
I have never known how to be polite with bullies. So I'll simply say this: For a young black boy coming up in these times, I would play Illmatic, De La Soul Is Dead, The Infamous, Word...Life five hundred times over before I would offer him a single word written by John McWhorter.
"
I think you have the best of the argument, but on style he has you slammed hands down. McWhorter engaged in an extended conversation with you after you gave him the middle finger. Does that prove his point about where we should learn our thinking?
Marvin Gaye had a great album in 'What's Going On'. Richard Pryor was a very influential comedian. No one was following them in a march on Washington because that's not their role.
TI, summed it up well in a conference not long ago, I'll paraphrase, "I've got 5 kids. Every one of them knows that if they screwed up, I'm gonna whoop their ass." If you are letting TI - the drug dealer turned rapper - raise your kids, its your fault, if they follow that path. It would be nice for WcWhorter to write a book about why so many young black men are drug dealers to begin with. Maybe he would understand the pugnacity he talks about.
You can't childproof the world. Its just not fair to the grown ups and where does it end. At some point, you've got to teach your kids right from wrong, hope they listened, and hope they make the right choices when they are on their own. But, if you go the censorship route, do you start with rap, and then ban the Sopranos, and then ban showings of Scarface?
The other thing is we can't expect blacks to be super human. Its just not fair. I know whites would cringe if they felt they had to apologize for the actions of every white low life that appeared on TV. Flavor Flav was mentioned earlier. I dont think whites feel the need to apologize for Ozzie Osbourne. Nor, should blacks feel the need to present the super human image of their race to society, as if black people never do anything foul. That won't last. Every race has their talented tenth, the people in the middle, and the f ups. Its just human nature.
Brian,
Did you watch the whole thing or are you just making a note on the one clip? That specific post was addressed--very directly--at the end. The "bullies" part I quite literally didn't remember. I probably write about eight or so post a day. The second part, I clearly remembered, and addressed it.
At any rate, to your point, as I said at the end, blogging is emotional and immediate--I sometimes write things that, after some consideration, come off a little harsh. That was one of those cases.If your looking for perfection on that score, you won't find it here. Maybe some of my colleagues always bat 100--not the kid. I'd rather admit it and keep going than be stuck in a pose that I don't think is defensible.
I don't know how to address that last point, as I don't see the logic. I'm sure they're are plenty of assholes who learned critical thinking from Thoreau. Does that mean we should toss out Walden?
"I know whites would cringe if they felt they had to apologize for the actions of every white low life that appeared on TV. Flavor Flav was mentioned earlier. I dont think whites feel the need to apologize for Ozzie Osbourne."
Yeah, but the deal is that black kids have less of a leg up than white kids, don't have so many rich parents, have crappier lawyers to get them out of a jam, are more prone to stereotyping and more likely seen as "destined" to failure, so black people - especially the youth - can't afford as much self-indulgent bullshit.
TNC,
Loved your perspective on hip-hop. I've always thought the same, it makes my soul feel good as Hemmingway does for me, or my wife's sancocho. Its feel good medicine but panacea it is not. Change the world..um, no.
Your man's premise is typical of many of the close-minded, they back into what they want the point to be instead of letting the research lead the way. I find his kind to be the worst kind of racist/classist. But what can you expect from a McWhorter the 5th whose only experience with the ghetto was making sure the skweegy guys didn't smudge daddy's nice car, Stanford/Manhattan Institute hack. What a scrub.
I've only been reading your blog for about 3 weeks, so this is the first time I've seen you. Not who I imagined, although the image was loose and fuzzy; I missed the glasses to be sure. You've got a good face.
I loved your answer to this comment:
"Hip Hop taught you to think....That's just what I am writing against...that kind of thought....Lord forbid someone learns to think from Public Enenmy...I think that kind of thinking creates unfocused cynism that doesn't really give any way of helping poor black people a chance."
The idea of music (hip-hop) as art, as broadening your thinking, opening your mind to new perspectives. One lyric, one song, one artist is not an "end all, be all" where there is a singular "take away" but rather, it is an experience, an opportunity to think differently about things. Growth. Just like the experience of reading a great novel (The Great Gatsby). Totally get what you're saying.
You're a Renaissance Man!
"You've got a good face."
Tessa that is very kind, and all any blogger/writer really wants to hear. You can tell us our work is some of the worst stuff you've ever read. But we all want to know that we have a "good face," as you say.
Coates v. McWhorter. Here we go folks. This was actually a lot of fun. - from 03 Oct. '08. Liberals and conservatives differ both on hip hop and in their dreams.
The following is from www.psycnet.org : PsycARTICLES: Citation and Abstract
View ArticleSleep and dream patterns of political liberals and conservatives.
Bulkeley, Kelly
Current issue feed Dreaming. Vol 16(3), Sep 2006, 223-235.
In this study the author examined the dreams of American liberals and conservatives to highlight patterns that might correlate with their opposing political views. A total of 234 participants (134 self-described liberals and 100 self-described conservatives) completed a lengthy sleep and dream survey, and their answers revealed several notable patterns. People of both political persuasions shared a common substrate of basic human sleep and dream experience. Conservatives slept somewhat more soundly, with fewer remembered dreams. Liberals were more restless in their sleep and had a more active and varied dream life. In contrast to a previous study, liberals reported a somewhat greater proportion of bad dreams and nightmares. Consistent with earlier research, the dreams of conservatives were more mundane, whereas the dreams of liberals were more bizarre. (PsycINFO Database Record (c) 2008 APA, all rights reserve
Why is it that we never hear outrage about kids having bad role models in Led Zeppelin, Aerosmith, Guns N Roses, AC/DC, or god forbid those crazy druggies The Beatles?
Okay, maybe it's talked about from time-to-time, like when some kid commits suicide after listening to Ozzy, but why is it that the media tries to put the weight of society on the back of Hip Hop artists yet let's rockers just rock?
Or is it just a generational thing? First they hated blues, then Elvis was the devil, then The Beatles, then the Stones, then Sabbath, then G N R...then NWA, Public Enemy, etc etc.
Rap is really the new Heavy Metal? What did Nas says, "this is real hard core, Kid Rock & Limp Biskit's soft."
Maybe it's just that in terms of "real hard core" stuff that will drive parents nuts, the torch was passed from Rock to Rap on that day back in the early 90's when Axl Rose dropped the N-Bomb and the media turned to Ice Cube to respond, and he backed the man up, saying, "express yourself."
You sonned that fool on the real on Geraldine Ferraro and "the essence of racism". The bizarre fixation on race as the singular cause of Obama's ascendance is just that: bizarre.
I like McWhorter on policy, but he's an idiot when it comes to rap. Bloggingheads, if they want to have a conversation about hip-hop, would be better served by having a couple of rap bloggers on (there are many good ones). Or maybe you and a rap blogger.
McWhorter is McWhorter. Whatever. But I'm with W.E.B DuBois on art and its responsibility. The purpose of art is to mine deeper into the human experience. Sometimes that's ugly and dirty and mean and the true artist does not turn away from part of what it means to be human.
But art that is "dirty, offensive and angry" for the sake of being so is so much juvenile, um, self-pleasuring. More to the point about much (not all) hip-hop, art that is dirty, debasing and ugly for the sake of making money is simply crap.
To quote Dead Prez, "Turn off the radio. Turn off that bullshit."
"You're blind baby. You're blind to the facts about who you are because you're watching that garbage [on tv]" - Flavor Flav
"More to the point about much (not all) hip-hop, art that is dirty, debasing and ugly for the sake of making money is simply crap."
I agree by definition that art that is dirty, debasing and ugly for the sake of making money is simply crap, but I have a feeling that you have way too capacious a notion of the dirty, debasing and ugly.
Dude, it was a really nice conversation, I learned a lot. And sure as hell procrastinated an hour from dissertation writing!
I can't tell if I think McWhorter is a prick, or if I kinda really like him. I guess that means he's smart, and touches some important nerves. I dunno. Would love to hear from you.
But what I'd really love to hear from you, as a young man of color who day dreams about how he'll raise kids someday: does your kid get it? I mean, does he get the Cosby Show? Does he shrug you off when you bring up the emotional value of "Ms. Jackson?" Or is it really a point of connectivity?
Cuz I'm kinda concerned that the box set of Cosby Show DVD's I want to invest in is a waste of money (not only because the damn thing is on repeat in syndication everywhere!). And I'm kind of concerned that by the time my kid is ready for what I want to share with her or him in terms of my appreciation of culture... I'll be TOO MANY steps behind.
You know what I mean?
I skipped around a bit, so my apologies if you covered it and I missed it, but you should have asked McWhorter who really wrote Shakespeare?
Two brilliant minds together...
I have to admit that the two of you are my favorite writers...
Anyways, here is what I would like to ask you...
1. How does a white person get the "benefit of the doubt" from you?
2. Why is it so hard to believe that Obama won Iowa? Is it because you think the #1 demographic of people in Iowa is racism?
3. What is the thesis of the "Slavery by any other name" book?
4. Can you give me a couple of bullet points on why you dont like Dr. McWhorter?
As for the preponderance of comments posted on Dr. McWhorter, he is not a "self-loathing" black man who caters to the right-wing. Obviously, your audience does not read him often.
What they dont get is that he is on the side of poor blacks and wants to see life for them change for the better.
Thanks for a great 52 minutes!
@Asher,
I have a feeling there's no life beyond the Milky Way. But that feeling's based on pretty darn scanty evidence -- so who knows if it's true?
I think your comment concerning who won is interesting in itself-the whole idea that someone had to win that is. But since you raised the issue-he clearly won. I think this is partly because he is very clear about who he is, what he stands for, etc., while you are still kind of figuring that out...which is cool.
To say that this was a debate about hip-hop would be oversimplistic; this was a debate about worldviews-the old versus the new. I recently recommended that a few of my 'concious' friends take a look at your blog but with some equivications that I couldn't put into words but that your 'opponent' pointed out in very subtle but nonetheless powerfull ways.
The point is that the poltics of the 60's is old, outdated, conterproductive, reactive, and quite simply simple-minded. I for one don't understand how you,and those similar to your, can be so supportive of Obama when his politics, worldview, and his very candiacy to speak of are antithetical to EVERTHING that is politically important to you.
The point he was trying to make, is that not only is most of hip-hop a degenerative force in our community but that for all of the but more importantly, people who subscribe to the tenents central to its art force are the same people, who like hip-hop, focus on the problem instead of the solution. So as a result, NOTHING CHANGES. Its the one think intellectuals and hip-hop have in common-mental masterbation.
He made sooo many good points. I really liked it when he said something to the effect of "I'm not scared of whtie people" (i.e. fuck them there not important, stop making them your unconcious god, what have YOU (general you of course) done for US lately?)
I like you, your energy, your brilliace, and your depth, but what is YOUR plan for bringing solutions to the myriad problems we face other than discussing the injustices of the past? That in a nutshell is what he was speaking to. Fuck hip-hop, for now its dead.
And, now I'm kind of hype. This is the first time that I have every posted on a blog, so I obviously like you. Next time I will proofread and not post my whole name.
Thanks for the comment Amina. But help me here, where did I reference "who won?"
"@Asher,
I have a feeling there's no life beyond the Milky Way. But that feeling's based on pretty darn scanty evidence -- so who knows if it's true?"
See, I think my feeling's much more strongly based in reality, because I would contend that there are very, very few rappers who are too ugly and degrading to listen to, so few that the ugliness and degradation isn't even worth mentioning. No, actually I don't even believe that it's possible to be too degrading. Three 6 Mafia, for instance, brought us Tongue Ring, Slob On My Knob, Hit A Muthafucka, Tear The Club Up (by tearing the club up they mean killing everyone in it), etc. Any critic who doesn't have their head up their ass will tell you they're an absolutely seminal group.
t-nc,
i congratulate you on the patience of job.
you are much better at dealing with someone like that than i could ever be.
i pretty much agreed with everything you stated in the diavlog.
but mcwhorter revealed, once again, how utterly clueless he is.
he is truly despicable. it's hard for me to even listen to the guy and normally i would not.
the one specific assertion he made that is demonstrably untrue is his contention that there are just as many black folks who agree with him, as there are black folks who disagree with him.
if that were true, why isn't there an entire caucus of black conservatives in the us congress?
why is there not a single black republican in congress?
why was the only recent republican a former football star who represented a white district?
can anyone name one, single black conservative who has been elected by black folks, to represent black folks?
and i'm not talking about michael steele or ken blackwell or some other such person who largely depended on white votes, while getting a sprinkling of black support.
black conservatives like mcwhorter are pink poodles who couldn't get elected dogcatcher in any black city, black congressional district or black precinct.
guys like david duke are more representative of their communities. in fact, a guy like duke almost won the governorship of louisiana and actually held elective office, and i cannot think of ANY black conservative who can say anything remotely similar.
while i wasn't totally shocked by iowa, i was somewhat surprised.
by the way, i lived in wisconsin and iowa is next door and very similar in some ways. i've known plenty of folks from iowa.
both states have a long, proud tradition of very progressive politics. some of our country's most progressive politicians have come from either of those states.
the fact that mcwhorter refuses to acknowledge obama's organizational genius and the other things he brings to the table - and basically attributes his success to an immutable trait - is very revealing.
by the way, i'd have agreed with the line from your blog that mcwhorter quoted and asked about, though. and you were much more gracious than i could ever have been.
Sorry, I was reading your comments about the v.p. debate last night. You said you weren't sure who won and I thought you were talking about the debate you posted today.
Great discussion. McWorther is not only a smart man, but a thoughtful, generous interlocutor.
Damn dude you sound like Chris Rock. And that other dude looks like the Mohammad Atta.
I thoroughly enjoyed this. The fundamental difference between the two of you is that of worldview. (It seems the majority of the respondents also have this difference with McWhorter). McWhorter is operating from a "post-racism" perspective. You are not. This stems from the environments you both were raised in and currently exist in. McWhorter cannot see racism as well because its been too scarce in his experience for him to recognize. Similarly your experiences, mine, and those of many others, lead us to see it easier but also to potentially exaggerate its presence.
However, I found it puzzling that McWhorter refused to acknowledge the complexity of race, specifically in the case of Obama. He attempted to do the same with Hip Hop. How can this guy be so smart/educated and yet so simplistic with something as dynamic and diverse as a musical genre (and arguably a sub-culture)?
I will submit this: Obama's race has helped/is helping him because deep down people love who we can become as a nation if we are actually bold enough to elect a Black man president. People see it as a milestone in our maturing as a nation and are desperately reaching for it. That being said he is the first Black man to seriously run for the office AND have the resume for it.
John McWhorter is on my list of America's 5 smartest black men. Though I have to acknowledge I've started to question my own judgment. I had Stan O'Neal on that list at one point, before he ran Merrill Lynch into the ground.
By the way, T-N C: Your voice reminds me of Rerun's.
OK, just watched the whole thing. Three observations:
1) I've got to read some more of McWhorter to figure out why he's supporting Obama. My guess is that it's because of the centrist/pragmatic pose Obama has taken in the general, but I can't imagine how a conservative would be comfortable with Obama's orthodox left track record, such as it is.
2) T-N C, you are a bright guy, no question. But McWhorter is on a whole other level. Since you are a boxing fan, let me give you this analogy: you were like James Bonecrusher Smith fighting Mike Tyson. You went the distance, and that in itself was a victory for you. Gracious of you to retract your statement against John at the end though.
3) You called Obama "articulate" several times. Remember Biden getting slammed for using that same adjective to describe him? Why was that offensive when Biden said it?
well, it ended on a classy note.
mcwhorter isn't conservative. he's just not liberal.
Yo T,
I have to say that was one of the most profoundly revealing interviews on hip hop and race generally that I've seen recently. It's late, and I'm going to have to watch this again, but I gotta say you've got a knack for this. In any case, good work on keeping McWhorter's quick slights in mind every time that you responded: "Well, first, I gotta go back to what you said..."
Seriously, that was dope.
I'm going to check this out tomorrow and think some more. What I know now is when somebody says, "I'm not trying to sound reductive, but..." some other shit's going on.
One last point, Chuck D may have said hip hop is black America's CNN, but actually, it's music.
Keep it up.
G
Thanks for that excellent diavlog. Lots of good comments, but I can’t resist commenting on a couple of comments:
1.) “Art should be dirty, offensive, and yes angry… Confrontation is essential to art.”
Using the verb “should” after the noun “art” leads one into traps. I can instantly think of lots of art, some of it great, that is none of the above.
2.) “[McWhorter is] a prime example of the worst type of self-loathing black man who has sold his soul and can't hide his fear and discomfort with the fact that he knows that everyone else knows it, also.”
The ad hominem attack doesn’t hold up. McWhorter is unapologetically who he is and who he has been from the start. His Ph.D.-holding mother was a prof at Temple University, where his M.A. father was an administrator. McWhorter was educated at a Friends’ Select school (Quaker), and was accepted into college after the 10th grade. For him to try to hide that highly educated background by retroactively picking up a street accent/ lingo/ cred would be truly self-loathing, no? He is who he is.
Ta-Nehisi is comfortable and unapologetic being who he is, but, please, the same is true of John. I appreciated in the diavlog that while they didn’t shy away from stating their points of disagreement they also didn’t question each others’ ownership of their souls or their attitudes towards their selves.
First, let me say how refreshing it was to see you on Bhtv. Second, let me say right off the bat that I was a little disturbed by the conclusion of the Ferraro-racism segment, that is whether or not Ferraro was being or is racist for saying Obama is winning only because he’s black. I agree with your argument but would add one point. I would argue that in fact Ferraro was only attempting to be racist but sadly fell short and ended up somewhere between stupid and idiotic.
You see I believe we must start to discuss racism as a function of intellect then we can clear away some of the abstractions and come to more definitive claims. John, as smart as he can be, should not be able to get away with saying that her comments weren’t racist because, as he says, they are true. He knows he can’t prove that and you laid out a few reasons why that is, by saying that there were plenty of other [quantifiable] things that could account for his ascendancy. This would only hold some water if for example blacks were a much larger segment of the population and had tended to vote along racial lines in the past. And yet he [John], and many in the MSM, got away with such a claim. The claim is bogus. How can you say that Obama’s race has helped him or is the only reason he’s doing well? You can’t prove that. Where’s the evidence of that? In fact, if one were to make the opposite claim, Obama cannot win because he’s black, you would have an easier time proving it. Both claims, winning because of his race or losing because of it, are hard to make. But at least, the latter does have historical precedents in American politics and may in fact play out in the next few weeks. Had Ferraro said that Obama may be doing well now, but ultimately he won’t win because he’s black, we’d say, “Sure, I can believe that.” Why? When a black candidate runs for public office in America, there are so many people unwilling to vote for them because of racial difference that we have a term for it and statisticians account for this fact when mining polling data. It’s called the Bradley effect? So by this standard, Ferraro’s borrowed assertion, that she delivered in the form of a complaint, is misplaced logic, what Orwell described in 1984 as “newspeak” and designed to confuse an already confused group of people.
It certainly confused John. Listening to his explanation sounded to me like he was projecting. He talks about “not being scared” of white people and often tries to minimize the impact racism has had on his life, but my guess is that he can’t help suspecting that there are in fact certain things he’s gotten in this world only because he’s black. And that annoying suspicion probably bugs him a little. Why wouldn’t it? Does he believe that it can often be the case that one is afforded access to closed communities because of being ‘the other’ as well as meeting a standard? My guess is yes, but I believe when you say that you’re selling yourself short. You are also projecting. I say look a little deeper. Exceptional people often fail to realize that all their effort and sacrifice can in fact result in the very things they are chasing and can undo the shackles that institutionalism’s have put in place. That’s what makes you exceptional, you’re effort and hard work, not your race or gender.
I return to my original thesis on this matter. We should be discussing racism in a much broader way and not just about how and when it manifests or what the emotional costs are. Racism has become a function of intellect. What began, as a strategy to divide, conquer and subjugate people is now, I believe, is a test for whether or not one is able to separate fact from fiction. Just as any self-respecting adult should not ‘believe’ in Santa Claus, it’s my contention that no self-respecting person should be a racist. It’s dumb. How smart are you if you believe that someone’s skin colour can tell you whether or not a person will be able to repay a mortgage, be a good student or make an effective leader? I say not that smart. Granted this is the world we live in today… but perhaps another world is possible.
bd wrote:
"The ad hominem attack doesn’t hold up. McWhorter is unapologetically who he is and who he has been from the start. His Ph.D.-holding mother was a prof at Temple University, where his M.A. father was an administrator. McWhorter was educated at a Friends’ Select school (Quaker), and was accepted into college after the 10th grade. For him to try to hide that highly educated background by retroactively picking up a street accent/ lingo/ cred would be truly self-loathing, no? He is who he is."
as my aunt would say, what does any of that have to do with the price of tea in china?
you are right about one point: he is who he is, and when i employed the terms i used, i was describing him, not attacking him.
i have no desire that mcwhorter pick up street accent/lingo/cred or anything of that sort.
what a strawman! ridiculous.
mcwhorter is rightfully despised and reviled because of the function that he willingly plays in our society. and if he offered his little act while wearing a dashiki and talking as though he came straight out of the bronx, i'd feel the same way about him.
this is why he is rightfully reviled.
right wing political groups in this country, who want to destroy or at the very least severely hamper the progress black folks make in this country, will make certain arguments and as evidence supporting their arguments they will quote, or point to, the work of people like mcwhorter.
they will always say or write something like this:
"well, mcwhorter, a respected black scholar says..."
or some BS of that sort.
it does not matter that mcwhorter has no constituency in the african-american community, it does not matter that most black folks regard him in the same fashion that they regard david duke, it does not matter that his views are so anathma to most black folks that there is not a single elected black official spouting those same views. no, all that matters is that someone who is trying to do great damage to black folks is able to use someone with black skin to buttress their destructive argument and/or policy.
it is a tactic that works and it is employed extensively by republicans. that is the reason television screens are full of "black conservatives" - none of whom has ever been elected by black folks to anything - spewing forth anti-black propaganda that supports a right wing political agenda.
and mcwhorter is one of the prime examples of that type of tool.
now, he gets his reward, as they all do. he gets paid well. he gets a cushy, somewhat respected position in some right-wing think tank, and he stays there, securely employed, pumping out that toxic propaganda, all the while helping to erect and backstop roadblocks that retard the progress for the very same people he should have at least some allegiance to and affinity with.
mcwhorter isn't the only person performing that function. and it, unfortunately, is a role that america has always found some despicable person to fill, throughout its history.
does he know what he is doing?
all you have to do is listen to this supposedly smart person use his expansive vocabulary in support of his tortured theories and ideas - all of which, curiously, end up denigrating and slamming black folks - and then listen to him say some of the dumbest, most dense, things one could ever imagine, in order to find some reason to justify the slams he takes at black folks. amazingly, he often goes from articulate and erudite to sarah-palin-dumb and simplistic in the same sentence.
i always ask a simple question: why is someone like mcwhorter given such a visible platform?
is is because his views represent the views of lots of other black folks?
i'd say, hardly, as our electoral history is totally bereft of anyone with his ideas who has ever been elected by black folks, to represent black folks.
no, he is who he is now - a published author who is allowed to pontificate on all sorts of issues related to black folks - because he serves a useful function for the dominant culture that still wishes to keep black folks under its thumb.
(btw, why isn't someone like david duke, someone with a demonstrated record of broad support in his own community given a similar platform?)
mcwhorter can be who he is. this is a free country.
i can also exercise my right to accurately describe exactly what he is, and exactly what function he is performing in this society.
t does not matter that most black folks regard him in the same fashion that they regard david duke
For real?
All I know about McHorter is watching him on bloggingheads with Glenn Lowry and all through the primaries he was the Obama guy while Lowry bitched and moaned about Obama. Not knowing anything else, I have a good opinion of him. His little fetish for bitching about rap or whatever seems silly to me, but not worth putting him in a box with Duke. Can you point me at something worth getting that mad at him at?
as i said in my original comment on this thread, he is not quite as bad as he used to be. for whatever reason, his radically negative views on black america has been tempered, somewhat.
but i'm sure there are archived videos on, say c-span or youtube, of interviews he's given over the years. he's been appearing on c-span since about 2000 or so - for whatever reason, he's very popular on that station - maybe earlier, and i'm sure there is an extensive archive of his interviews there.
those earlier interviews, especially, are tough to watch, because it is very obvious that he has an almost palpable, deep, deep self-hatred, something that he cannot suppress. his face contorts and he almost spits out sentences as he pins the blame for the plight of black america on the unwillingness of black americans to behave and conduct themselves in ways that he and white folks believe is appropriate. that self-loathing comes through the tv screen as clearly as obama's intelligence screams at you. i've never, ever seen anything quite like it. his description of black folks' plight in this country and his attitude towards black folks, generally, is appalling.
now, i don't read his books and i intentionally avoid listening to interviews he's given, although i've caught at least one of the bloggingheads diavlogs. and i watched that diavlog because i had an interest in glenn lowrey. if it had simply been mcwhorter and anyone else, i would have avoided it.
i'm not a masochist and listening to mcwhorter distort the history - and the present - of race relations in this country is not something i'll willingly subject myself to.
in the diavlog, mcwhorter pulled a quote from something that t-nc had written. the quote was not complimentary of mcwhorter. though t-nc essentially distanced himself from the sentiment expressed in the quote, there had to be a reason he originally wrote what he wrote.
i'd guess that t-nc's reasons for writing that not-so-complimentary sentence about mcwhorter is not too dissimilar from the reasons i - and i'd say most other black folks who are familiar with his past work - have such a low opinion of him.
now, i will say this. i always imagine that people can redeem themselves through personal growth and maybe that is what is happening with mcwhorter right now. maybe he is only now becoming comfortable with his place in the world, as a black man, and his support for obama is reflective of that growth.
maybe.
i don't discount the possibilty that such a thing might happen.
but mcwhorter's record is there for anyone to examine and make decisions about. i've seen and heard enough of his garbage to feel very comfortable with my views on him.
putting mcwhorter in the same box with duke does david duke a diservice. duke's views are much more widely accepted in the white community than are mcwhorter's in the black community.
any comparison concerning how duke is handled by the media is based on this: david duke was an elected representative of a district in louisiana. he ran for the governorship of louisiana and got around 40% of the vote.
there is emperical evidence - his demonstrated record of attracting and receiving votes - that lots of louisiana residents agree with his views. and his history with the klan is and was well-known.
on the other hand, black conservatives like mcwhorter have NO such record of support in the black community.
there is not a single "black conservative" in congress.
there is not a single "black conservative" who has ever been elected by black folks to represent black folks. at least not in recent history.
black republicans like michael steele and ken blackwell acheived electoral support in statewide office by catering to and depending on white support.
my point is simple: so-called experts who held views that so radically diverged from what was acceptable within their community would not be provided a very visible platform, if they were white.
and, in fact, white radicals, like duke, with demonstrated appeal, are not afforded such visible platforms.
why then is someone, like mcwhorter, whose views are obviously shared by only small percentages of black folks - and i gladly await evidence to the contrary - constantly provided such a visible platform to spout views that most believe are destructive to the interests of black americans, the community on which he is allegedly such an expert?
Ta-Nehisi:
Anyone ever mention that you remind them of Ed Robertson of Barenaked Ladies?
(I mean that in a good way).
Deleted.
Shuck and Jive were not the names of an African King and Queen, Fred. I thought you studied history?
Frankie, I don't get your position. You seem to be saying (tell me if I'm wrong) that because he's black, and a vast majority of blacks don't agree with him on race, affirmative action, whatever, he shouldn't be given a platform. That seems like a pretty radical proposition. For example, I'm Jewish. Suppose I thought that Israel had absolutely no right to exist, they came and stole the land from the Palestinians, and so Palestinians are justified in committing terrorist attacks to get this imperialist regime off their backs. Very unpopular position in the Jewish community. But if I can write well, and some liberal thinktank wants to hire me, then what's the problem? Should I be silenced because my views aren't reflective of even a significant portion of the Jewish community? Why should I be reduced to my ethnicity like that? Because you'd grant that it'd be okay if I weren't Jewish, so your position basically comes down to the idea that you can't be given a platform to disagree with a consensus of the rest of your race. Seems like a really essentialist stance.
of course that is not what i am arguing.
the problem is that people like mcwhorter, whose ideas are so out of the mainstream are provided much larger platforms that those whose views are much more representative.
if one only watched television, one would imagine that black conservatives dominated in the black community. one would imagine that their views were widely accepted. unfortunately, individuals whose views are much more widely accepted and representative of thought in the black community are almost invisible in the mainstream media.
that is the problem.
for instance, someone like t-nc has views that are much more representative of thought within the black community, though he is offered nowhere near the exposure that mcwhorter is provided.
he is thoughtful, "articulate" and he has lots to say.
when cable channels and other news organizations are looking for someone to offer a perspective on certain issues, t-nc would be a much better person to offer to an audience.
but instead, the media flocks to black conservatives like mcwhorter, whose views are absolutely outside the mainstream.
to use your example, it would be as if networks and cable news networks would come to a jewish person who espousd farrakhan's view of israel whenever they wanted a jewish perspective on an item in the news.
and then totally ignored views about those issues that were much more representative of mainstream thought.
that does not happen.
in fact, i cannot even imagine it ever happening.
why, then, does the same dynamic occur, almost to the exclusion of any other presentation of opinions, regarding issues of interest to african americans.
as i wrote, mcwhorter is welcome to his views. he is welcome to write whatever the heck he writes. but others should be provided similar platforms. unfortunately they are not.
and they should be called out for exactly what they are: enablers of right-wing propaganda on black communities and issues.
and as i indicated, someone like duke, who's views are demonstrably more accepted within the white community, though he is considered a radical in mainstream thought, is not provided the kind of platform that people like mcwhorter are provided.
why is that?
is it a coincidence?
i don't think so.
You're telling me that Jesse, Sharpton, Cornel West, Derrick Bell, the new liberal Glenn Loury, etc. get no airplay? That whenever the media wants a black perspective, they just call McWhorter or Shelby Steele or Ward Connerly? I don't watch a ton of TV news, but TNC's written articles complaining that people like Sharpton get looked to too often as the representative black voice. And Duke isn't given a platform because he's a bigot.
I think there is something to be said for the comparison drawn between the pugnacity of punk and the pugnacity inherent in hip-hop. Growing up in a small town with a very fucked up and close-minded view of the world, one of the things that taught me a lot about how to approach political and social problems was listening to Bad Religion. Of course, I did not end up a socialist gutter-punk, but the first inclination I had that the people in power do not necessarily deserve unquestioned obedience came from a punk song.
Maybe John McWhorter was born with a knowledge of the pertinent political issues of our time, but for most of us, and I would say especially for white kids in rural areas and minority kids in the inner city, there is not a lot of exposure to healthy and probing intellectual discourse. To me, it is clear that neither agreeing with Public Enemy that the black masses need to rise up and assert themselves into positions of power by force nor agreeing with Bad Religion that all of the world's ills are engineered by the power elite are seriously defensible political positions. Yet you have to start somewhere, and the questions that this kind of music causes people to ask of themselves and of those in power in many cases lead to the kind of intellectual discourse that is the backbone of a functioning democracy.
I remember very clearly arguing with my teachers about things I heard in political music and realizing through the argument that I didn't really agree with the positions I was taking. The more attractive we can make critical thinking and discourse in our youth, the better. To the extent that any pursuit achieves this end, it is worthwhile. I believe a lot of hip hop as well as a lot of punk does so very effectively.
so what if duke is a bigot.
he has demonstrated appeal to white voters.
he represented a district in louisiana.
he got almost 40% of the vote in a governor's race.
obviously, lots of people support his views.
his views are no more radical that mcwhorter's views.
why is mcwhorter provided a platform when someone like duke is not.
(alert: i am being somewhat facetious!)
many, many people believe that mcwhorter's views are as negative and destructive as are duke's.
and again, where is any evidence that mcwhorter's views should be provided any platform? is it the job of the media to provide a platform for right-wing propaganda?
and relatively speaking, no, the views of those listed get nowhere the exposure of "black conservatives".
the fact is that "black conservatives" should get little or no exposure at all, their views are so anathema and divergent from those of the people they are supposed to be discussing.
it's like bringing a hamas representative on to talk about israeli politics.
and i am a news junkie and i would be willing to wager large sums that if media matters or a similar organization did a study they would find that, overwhelmingly, black political faces on tv were "black conservatives".
whether people like sharpton should be looked at as leaders is an entirely different matter.
McWhorter is a freakin' lightweight. His retorts were all canned. It was no different from some White person who had never met a Black person and had formed certain ideas and since he finally had someone Black to aim his ideas at, no matter who you were, no matter what you said, he was going to say the same thing and claim he heard the same thing from you.
Re: McWhorter
Where does he get this "scared" of White people stuff from?
Like you, if you'd asked me a year before the Iowa caucus if Obama would win, I would have no. But unlike you, I grew up in the rural Midwest and have been around White people all my life. By the time Iowa rolled around, I was pleasantly surprised but I also expected Obama to win or have a good showing because, all things considered, I viewed Obama as the better candidate which includes his charisma, statesmanship, civil rights/community organizer grounding, etc.
One thing McWhorter did was decontextualize Ferraro's comments from months-upon-months (at that time) of race-baiting perpetrated by the Clinton campaign. And of course he ignored what Ferraro actually said because it conveniently helped him make a point he himself wanted to make about Obama's race as a plus factor... something that he wavered on in his in one of his late primary diavlogs with Glenn Loury primarily because he wants to believe in the accomplishment of some significant milestone achieved in America's march to racial nirvana but, wait, racism will always exist but the country/White people aren't as racist of most Black people think... or whatever the convoluted bs in his head actually is.
And that's the funny thing... He tries his best to say "that's not racist" or that there is too much focus on race/racism when Black people do it but somehow finds it acceptable, appropriate, germane and functional when he, and in that case Ferraro, does it.
You see, TNC, I wished you wouldn't have backed off of your statement about exposing young Black men/boys to hip hop vs. McWhorter. Whether you went to far in expressing what you felt at the moment or not, I think it would have been more than fair for you to match his 3 or 4 idiotic assumptions about your racial views by expressing what you thought about his.
It's clear he has this thing where he wants to talk about how Black people have it wrong even when he clearly positions himself, as he did with Ferraro, to run interference, etc. when someone White is clearly in the wrong. Given that reflex of his, he must be projecting his own fear of White people.
Beyond that, I'd like for someone to ask him what the hell his "work" does in terms of yielding results like the Harlem Children's Zone. Dude must be ignorant of Geoffrey Canada's ideas which don't align with his. And his lazy assumptions about you were, frankly, insulting.
Surely if his critiques are worth anything, he should be able to deal squarely with what you actually believe instead of reducing them to some convenient racial caricature of what he thinks most Black people think with his lonely ass.
People who have a significant number of people who agree with them typically don't have to make the point that "there are a lot of Black people who think like me out there" and assure themselves (because that doesn't fly with me, for sure) that that is true.
So you're back to saying that black conservatives should get no play because there are very few black conservatives. So if McWhorter were white, it'd be okay. But because he's black, he should be silenced.
Anyone who was surprised that Iowans would vote for a well-spoken black man is ignorant of the racial dynamics in this country. Most media portrayals of blacks are positive, and have been for decades. To the extent that a white person's view of blacks comes from the media, and not from personal interaction, he tends have positive views of blacks. To the extent that he has to deal with surly black female clerks at the local DMV, or worry about his kids getting bussed to a mostly-black school, he probably wouldn't have the warm & fuzzies about a black candidate.
Basically, it works out like this: the fewer blacks where you live, the more likely you are to vote for a black candidate, and vice-versa.
Fred,
I'm confused; you're surly, resentful, appear to be lazy (are you still unemployed), and eager to blame others for your own misfortunes.
You also don't seem very bright.
Does this mean that you're actually black?
Because you seem to attribute all of these characteristics to black people, and none to white.
Are you a self-hating black man? Perhaps you're mixed race, and you 'pass', but you bear some shame.
There's some pathology I'm sure. I can't wait for January 2009. I'm sure you'll be taking bitter to a whole new level.
PS - you've always said the same thing, but recycling whole posts Fred? You said that exactly before it was deleted.
Frankie D,
What is it about you and others in this comment section that are so afraid of what McWhorter says?
Perhaps because what he says makes a great deal of sense...
Is he given a "platform" because the Manhattan Institute is his employer? You know, he also writes for theroot.com.
He has written several books...So I guess publishers should censor black writers who, as you say are "outside the mainstream." Why do you have the monopoly on "blackness?"
McWhorter ain't no lightweight. And it's a truth that the "middle finger" attitude that was key to the 60's isn't going to do it today. But he's oversimplifying hip hop to characterize it as a bunch of people saying "fuck you" in intelligent or unintelligent ways. And it's ridiculous to say that hip hop can't improve the lives of black people without having specific policy proposals embedded in verses. Ta-Nehisi basically got this right. McWhorter's argument is only strong as a refutation of those dudes that think that hip hop verses should be our political tracts and our way to politically unify. Hip hop can still have huge political power if all it does is teach a young generation to think in a new way.
Frankie,
Fair.org did the following survey of 'The Loudest Silence Ever Heard' regarding the overrepresentation of Black conservatives in the media over a decade ago:
http://www.fair.org/index.php?page=1488
At the bottom of the article is a rather revealing table.
"he's oversimplifying hip hop to characterize it as a bunch of people saying "fuck you" in intelligent or unintelligent ways."
That's why he's a lightweight. Not only does he oversimplifies the sum total and essence of hip hop as the middle finger attitude but his idea that hip hop has ever seriously been promoted as the revolutionary vanguard is the intellectually laziness of an intellectual lightweight. Period.
it's ridiculous to say that hip hop can't improve the lives of black people without having specific policy proposals embedded in verses
It's ridiculous to create a ridiculous standard that if can't be said that hip hop has improved the lives of Black people that it is a failure as an art form or has caused some people to believe that it can do something its not capable of. TNC was right to say that it's a ridiculous standard that no other music genre was ever elevated to.
McWhorter, the lightweight that he is, has confused people who have talked about the powerful influence hip hop has or has had and tries to turn that into a nice little strawman argument to fit his curious "I'm one who deals with the problems in the Black community" schtick.
It takes a lightweight to make such ridiculous arguments and McWhorter mentioned the 60's to try to rationalize his weak argument, a non-point really, about hip hop today. Not only did he contradict his own idea by mentioning how people in the 60's doing civil rights work actually committed to and participated in the hard work of improving things but his sorry attempt to wage a war of ideology within the Black community is contradicted by TNC's own stories about his father's esteem of Malcolm X (perhaps the epitome of the "middle finger" attitude) that was in no way incompatible with a serious work ethic, discipline, etc.
But, since McWhorter wants to go there... Where is the evidence that people who hold views like McWhorter, particularly the type of politicized Black conservatives who approach their discussions of race, racism and the Black community... where is the evidence that their attitudes have led to things that improve the Black community?
CORRECTION:
But, since McWhorter wants to go there... Where is the evidence that people who hold views like McWhorter, particularly the type of politicized Black conservatives who approach their discussions of race, racism and the Black community [LIKE MCWHORTER DOES]... where is the evidence that their attitudes have led to things that improve the Black community?
With the nonsense he engaged in during that poverty conference (video below), McWhorter has absolutely no credibility when it comes to the type of attitude someone Black has. (You'll see where this *lightweight* tries to rationalize his own peculiar brand of *victimology* used in his desperate "anything but the racism argument" ploy with his suggestion that "few innocent people could have resisted [the corrupting influence of welfare]." It just happens that the only "innocent people" he ever mentions are the "descendants of slaves.")
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Ys43Scz9Zus&mode=related&search=
asher,
i do not know why you insist on mischaracterizing what i say.
the problem is simply this: instead of providing a platform for views of african-americans who would better represent the views of african-americans, the msm insists on putting black conservatives in the forefront, even though those viewpoints are a miniscule percentage of viewpoints in the black community.
those voices do not need to be silenced. no.
but if they need to be shoved to the far background so that more representative voices can be heard then so be it.
and i certainly am not afraid of voices like mcwhorter's. they are so feeble that they wilt under any sort of scrutiny. the problem is that the media consistently refuses to provide the kind of balance that would lead to that kind of scrutiny.
again, i do not hear any response to my proposition: how about having hamas reps routinely voicing their opinions about israeli politics?
would you be so sensitive to the right of hamas reps to speak their minds?
would there be any concern about silencing the voices of hamas, if jewish viewers argued that israeli voices who better represented mainstream israeli thought be provided a platform. and if necessary, at the expense of a learned, articulate hamas representative who might have lots to say about israeli politics.
see, somewhow, someway, black folks are always subject to a strange standard that no one ever applies to any other community.
nquest,
thanks for the link. very revealing.
i'd bet the numbers were even more lopsided now. if that study was done today, it would show an even greater overrepresentation of black conservative voices.
there is NO constituency for black conservatives in this country. yet, they still receive such consideration.
it is ridiculous.
"You said that exactly before it was deleted."
I don't recall writing the deleted comment. Must have been an impostor (perhaps you?).
Well Frankie, you said this:
"and again, where is any evidence that mcwhorter's views should be provided any platform? is it the job of the media to provide a platform for right-wing propaganda?"
So I take you to be saying that he shouldn't be provided a platform. I think that what you aren't getting is that, when McWhorter's put on TV, nobody says that he's representative of the black community or black sentiment. He's just a conservative on racial issues who happens to be black.
Fred,
I was referring to your earlier post with the 'surly black' and 'getting bussed to a mostly black school' - you've used it before, almost exactly the same.
Do you just cut and paste it, or is your own experience where you went to a mainly black school and somehow were done out of getting an education by the (black) Man the only things you can refer back to?
If you're going to be bitter and resentful, at least be inventive with it.
Ta-Nehisi,
Just watched this and thought you both acquitted yourselves well. Ironically, my viewing comes after seeing McWhorter at a panel during the New Yorker Festival on Saturday night. He, Cornel West and a few others were part of a discussion on race and class, which mostly wound up being about the economic crisis and Obama. I went in expecting West to continue to be a caricature of his former self and expecting to be hella annoyed at McWhorter, whose books I've never finished.
Instead, McWhorter won me over with the same qualities that you saw in your talk. Now, I may not ever wind up at the same places he does in terms of thinking about problems and solutions with regard to Black America, but I can respect how he gets there. And, I gotta say, Cornel's theatricality seemed to be in service of an incredibly ferocious and multifarious intellect. This is just the way dude gets down. It reminded me of why I liked his stuff in college and washed away some of my distaste for his segments as a talking head in various places. Speaking of which, he answered a question as to his comments after Obama's DNC speech. He basically cast aspersions on Obama's progressiveness, saying that MLK is the safest Negro in history and if Barack couldn't mention him, how compromised might he be? MJcWhorter replied with the whole "he's trying to win an election" argument.
Now, I happen to think that the line about "the preacher from Georgia" was more poetic and elliptical than a straight name-check woulda been. It was kinda sly and that makes it more beautiful and transcendently Black than quoting from a King speech would have been.
I missed out on giving you birthday wishes, so I'll just say continued success, dude.
THC,
Another tip, in addition to the lighting. Raise the camera so that it's roughly face-level and perhaps at an angle instead of perfectly centered on you. The current set-up makes the viewer feel like he's on your dinner plate.
Good exchange, though. I'd like to see more.
Well Frankie, you said this:
"and again, where is any evidence that mcwhorter's views should be provided any platform? is it the job of the media to provide a platform for right-wing propaganda?"
So I take you to be saying that he shouldn't be provided a platform. I think that what you aren't getting is that, when McWhorter's put on TV, nobody says that he's representative of the black community or black sentiment. He's just a conservative on racial issues who happens to be black.
again, where did i say that he should NOT be provided a platform?
i don't give a darn what you "take" or what you "think" about what i've written. i've written very specific words and i am very careful about that. apparently, it is tough for you to comprehend the written word, clearly.
it is my opinion that he does not deserve to have one, that there are more appropriate people to assume that position, but i've never said that he should be silenced.
if you bother to actually read what i've written on the issue that is clear.
i posed a question, and invited those who support him to provide evidence that indicates why he should be provided a platform.
that visibility is simply not handed to any homeless person on the street who says that they have interesting ideas to discuss. there has to be a baseline competence on certain issues, some level of credentials and credibility.
and the clear fact is that he would NOT be provided his current visibility if he were not a black man speaking on particular issues of interest to the black community.
he is there because he is black, so the ridiculous argument that he just happens to be black flies in the face of everything he has done in his career.
maybe his mom likes to think that may be the case; the record indicates otherwise.
my point is that people like mcwhorter lack all of those things that would typically place someone in a position where he could pontificate about certain issues. that is if the standard applied to the larger community was applied to those allowed to speak about issues related to black folks.
the only thing that has occurred is that white patrons have put them forward in order to manufacture his leadership persona, for their own political purposes.
no one else similarly has "leaders" and "experts" and "spokespeople" foisted on them in that fashion.
why is that so friggin hard for you to comprehend?
it's pretty doggone basic. for someone with an alleged law school background, your ability to zero in on issues and arguments is remarkable weak.
you completely ignore the facts that i present and instead, like sarah palin, only deal with the ones you want to deal with.
this is friggin boring and i'm through responding to someone who refuses to engage honestly.
i'm more than happy to discuss and argue points, but i'm not going to engage with someone who is dishonest.
have a good day.
James,
You might want to try being a little more inventive yourself -- especially if you're not even going to try to contest the substance of what I write. If all you have is ad hominem jabs at me, at least try to mix them up a little bit. Or maybe you can go back to those sock-puppet posts instead.
You keep asking why he should be provided a platform; the implication is that he shouldn't or at least that he should have less of a platform than he currently does.
And I don't recall ever saying that I go to law school. I go to Duke, and will go to law school. I know a little about Con Law, but that's all.
why should a rap song try to be a soup kitchen? nobody asked Rembrandt to educate poverty-stricken children. Mr.McW is a generous man in many ways but he misunderstands that the artist's allegiance is first and always to the product. And sometimes, in a greater moment, a piece of art manages to liberate the soul. Only a few painters in the grand scheme of things ever nailed that, and only a few rappers/hip hop artists ever will too.
and sometimes art can actualy do a little earthly work as well, like Public Enemy. Again, if a rock critic or just any old white conservative dude concluded that punk rock was no good because it was Aggressive, he wouldn't even be given the time of day.