Black intellectuals you should be following (update in latest post)

(no message)

quote:

---

John McWhorter

---

quote:

---

articulate

---

lol u racist

quote:

---

I understand why you didn’t do it, but a few words about how you interpret their political leaning would be helpful

---

I don't know if I even know their party leanings, but their views on race amount to extraordinary contrarianism with regard to current orthodoxy.

e.g. In that 5th Column podcast, Loury asserted that in the Arbery case that we should also consider the impact of black biases. So, he states that a black guy facing a "citizens' arrest" from the baws might have an entirely different reaction to a citizens' arrest in the hood. We can't just consider one-way racial biases.

Hughes makes the observation that everyone is constantly chided to be completely and utterly dismissive of a middle class white person being scared of Islamic terrorism or a raping Mexican illegal because of statistics, but that black people are encouraged to take outlying events (like Arbery) and fully extrapolate them to "you should definitely tell your children to be terrified of jogging while black" despite paltry evidence in support of such fears.

NOW you're talking.

Thanks. These guys are fantastic.

quote:

---

Black intellectuals you should be following

---

While those are good choices, it's honestly a waste of time.

You can predict what a black person will do politically by simply finding out he's black with a greater reliability than you could pick the easy girl at a strip club.

Black intellectuals, for all practical purposes, don't matter at all in the American political and philosophical landscape.

Black people dismiss them and white people have been taught to be afraid to even bring them up lest it be referred to as tokenism.

That's just reality. It's not going to get better. It's going to get worse.

Glenn Loury has penned a devastating response to Brown University:

quote:

---

I was disturbed by the letter from Brown’s senior administration. It was obviously the product of a committee—Professors XX and YY, or someone of similar sensibility, wrote a manifesto, to which the president and senior administrative leadership have dutifully affixed their names.

I wondered why such a proclamation was necessary. Either it affirmed platitudes to which we can all subscribe, or, more menacingly, it asserted controversial and arguable positions as though they were axiomatic certainties. It trafficked in the social-justice warriors’ pedantic language and sophomoric nostrums. It invoked “race” gratuitously and unreflectively at every turn. It often presumed what remains to be established. It often elided pertinent differences between the many instances cited. It read in part like a loyalty oath. It declares in every paragraph: “We Hold These Truths to Be Self-Evident.”

And just what truths are these? The main one: that racial domination and “white supremacy” define our national existence even now, a century and a half after the end of slavery.

I deeply resented the letter. First of all, what makes an administrator (even a highly paid one, with an exalted title) a “leader” of this university? We, the faculty, are the only “leaders” worthy of mention when it comes to the realm of ideas. Who cares what some paper-pushing apparatchik thinks? It’s all a bit creepy and unsettling. Why must this university’s senior administration declare, on behalf of the institution as a whole and with one voice, that they unanimously—without any subtle differences of emphasis or nuance—interpret contentious current events through a single lens?

They write sentences such as this: “We have been here before, and in fact have never left.” Really? This is nothing but propaganda. Is it supposed to be self-evident that every death of an “unarmed black man” at the hands of a white person tells the same story? They speak of “deep-rooted systems of oppression; legacies of hate.” No elaboration required here? No specification of where Brown might stand within such a system? No nuance or complexity? Is it obvious that “hate”—as opposed to incompetence, or fear, or cruelty, or poor training, or lack of accountability, or a brutal police culture, or panic, or malfeasance—is what we observed in Minneapolis? We are called upon to “effect change.” Change from what to what, exactly? Evidently, we’re now all charged to promote the policy agenda of the “progressive” wing of American politics. Is this what a university is supposed to be doing?

I must object. This is no reasoned ethical reflection. Rather, it is indoctrination, virtue-signaling, and the transparent currying of favor with our charges. The roster of Brown’s “leaders” who signed this manifesto in lockstep remind me of a Soviet Politburo making some party-line declaration. I can only assume that the point here is to forestall any student protests by declaring the university to be on the Right Side of History.

What I found most alarming, though, is that no voice was given to what one might have thought would be a university’s principal intellectual contribution to the national debate at this critical moment: namely, to affirm the primacy of reason over violence in calibrating our reactions to the supposed “oppression.” Equally troubling were our president’s promises to focus the university’s instructional and research resources on “fighting for social justice” around the world, without any mention of the problematic and ambiguous character of those movements which, over the past two centuries or more, have self-consciously defined themselves in just such terms—from the French and Russian Revolutions through the upheavals of the 1960s.

My bottom line: I’m offended by the letter. It frightens, saddens, and angers me.

Sincerely,

Glenn

---

LINK

Here's a real black intellectual you "Big" guy

quote:

---

Here's a real black intellectual you "Big" guy

---

Yes, I have loved Sowell for decades.

Umm I think you forgot Candace Owens