The Glenn Show: The Unraveling | John McWhorter 

Panel discussion of White Fragility ru-vid.com/video/%D0%B2%D0%B8%D0%B4%D0%B5%D0%BE-eTD5qBDb4TE.html

I TRIED to read "White Fragility" and the gag reflex was nearly constant. I couldn't make it through the first chapter. I think it's an incredibly DESTRUCTIVE book who's only "positive" value is that its author DiAngelo has made a SHIP LOAD of MONEY selling it--& getting more OVER-PRICED contracts to shovel her swill to Corporations' employees

YES!!!

We are - and it isn't new to Millennials. It began in the 1990's. I was in Washington, D.C. then and I can remember reading and hearing panel discussions where people thought all that mattered was expressing their feelings and making someone listen to them on that level ONLY. IMO, this is about a culture immersed in the psychotherapeutic mental and emotional model. If interested, look at a book titled "Failure of Leadership: The Quick Fix in American Politics". Published in the 90's, it deals with this issue.

Toni Stillman What do you think about what they're saying?

I’m so glad to see JASL teachers here!! My mother is studying Japanese heritage language learning after raising me, a second gen America with a hot mess bilingual/multi identity brain

I am getting an MA in Spanish lit and Pedagogy!! Totally agree

So, you are saying "let's pat white America on the back for 'letting' Jackie Robinson etc" have their successes? I don't think Robinson would agree that anyone let him do anything!

​@@johnstewart7025 White America, no. But America, yes. Because it evolved, changing to be truer to its creed. And the success of Africans and all people who come here is a testament to a formula that America has, that other countries do not.

@@DGot14U BUT sooo many black ppl in u$a are suffering bc of their skin color. Why are there riots? For fun? Dig deeper. As tom why success of some Black ppl in u$a, maybe bc they live in an empire that's got its boot on the necks of most other nations???? Panel discussion of White Fragility ru-vid.com/video/%D0%B2%D0%B8%D0%B4%D0%B5%D0%BE-eTD5qBDb4TE.html

@@Brianbeesandbikes many people of different colors are suffering because they are poor. That is much more likely the same for the black people you are talking about. Classism is way more systemic than racism is.

The brainwashing of sub blacks in urban areas (at least) keeps a large portion from even graduating HS. To them it means being "white" and to act white gets them bullied. Civility and success by societal standards are not popular. I have no idea what it would take to reverse that way of thinking but something occurred to make them believe that to start with. American blacks used to fight to get educated. I'd be curious to find out what changed that.

I would too.

You may want to look at the declaration by the Confederates...

also Shelby Steele and follow Coleman Hughes, if you love them

I doubt kendi would ever debate anyone. But I wish!

@@the925lady Kelefe Sanneh's review in The New Yorker of Kendi's book is a brilliant take down of the "anti-racism" dogma of a sham artist. It's shocking that Kendi is in the position of forming vulnerable minds in a university. www.newyorker.com/magazine/2019/08/19/the-fight-to-redefine-racism

I can’t tell if you are supporting the idea of keeping up confederate statues or not. If so, like Glen said, it’s less about morality & more about the fact these statues honor traitors. Those statues should absolutely be removed.

Most monuments pulled down were erected between 1890 - 1920. Many were paid for by individuals or small groups taking donations. The bronze sculptures are highly detailed works of art. There is no one alive today capable of such artistry. History does not belong to us.

I agree with the professors, that there are times where statues can get taken down, and we should decide what's going to be displayed and what isn't. Personally, I'm in favor of removing southern war 'heroes'. But it should be decided on a case by case basis by the community which those monuments belong to. It shouldn't just happen because one afternoon a few people decided it had to go. In some cases, we might consider leaving certain statues up as a reminder of the past, not as a celebration. For example statues of Christopher Columbus, which have recently been targeted. I do understand how the removal of a statue can be a powerful political statement, and an important symbolic gesture, though.

I wondered that myself. I would say that where the US is unique is in fighting a war that was essentially over slavery, and in eliminating slavery so rapidly once they comitted to doing it. In most countries slavery was abolished in stages and somewhat piecemeal. For instance, while slavery was legal in the ancient Roman empire, early Christians used the book of Philemon to argue against Christians owning Christian slaves. Multiple Popes used this reasoning to abolish slavery here or there, which is part of the reason it was pretty much abolished in parts of Europe by the eighteenth century, however many countries that didn't allow slavery in their homeland still allowed it in their colonies -- and some refused to allow Christian missionaries in those colonies, for fear the Pope might pressure them to free the people! An early draft of the Declaration of Independence included a passage condemning slavery, when it said that King George "has waged cruel war against human nature itself, violating its most sacred rights of life and liberty in the persons of a distant people who never offended him, captivating & carrying them into slavery in another hemisphere or to incur miserable death in their transportation thither. This piratical warfare, the opprobrium of infidel powers, is the warfare of the Christian King of Great Britain. Determined to keep open a market where Men should be bought & sold, he has prostituted his negative for suppressing every legislative attempt to prohibit or restrain this execrable commerce. And that this assemblage of horrors might want no fact of distinguished die, he is now exciting those very people to rise in arms among us, and to purchase that liberty of which he has deprived them, by murdering the people on whom he has obtruded them: thus paying off former crimes committed again the Liberties of one people, with crimes which he urges them to commit against the lives of another." The passage was struck from the Declaration in order to unite the 13 colonies, but by 1777 the northern colonies were starting to ban slavery, and of course most of them were free states by the time of the Civil War. Things started to seriously shift in the nineteenth century, and long before the Civil War the US was part of multiple agreements limiting slavery in various ways -- for example, the importation of slaves was outlawed in 1808. In some countries banning the importation of slaves eventually ended slavery, because they were so hard on slaves they mostly died out, and because they didn't import female slaves. In the US most slaves survived and there were plenty of women, so it didn't work out that way. Counties started getting serious about eliminating slavery in the nineteenth century, mostly by gradual means. The UK literally paid off slave owners as the slaves were freed, incurring a debt that lasted into the 20th century. Americans rejected this as a solution, because there were so many more slaves proportionately, but of course the Civil War probably ended up costing more than paying for the slaves would have in sheer money, and was a horrific cost in lives. The US ended slavery decades later than England, but earlier than most places, however once people started abandoning slavery, it was eliminated surprisingly fast. By the end of the nineteenth century slavery was abolished in much of Europe, and early in the twentieth century in China and the Ottoman Empire, however the British allowed slavery in some of its colonies for some time after that, and legal slavery lasted in some countries in Africa until the 1980s (and unofficially exists in a lot of them to this day).

in The Atlantic

It was posted on bloggingheadstv first.

Can't we consider there was a teriffic tenth back then?