Charles another interesting essay, Putting aside the Andrew Tate comments—who while popular among some does not appear to be a serious contributor to public intellectual or policy discourse. I thought your interpretation of Glenn Loury’s comment on black history may have missed his point. Professor Loury is an academic and a public intellectual. I think he framed his statement on black history and black studies as an invitation to his audience to debate the question: Is a separate recognition of black history—or for that matter the history of any other identity group—the best way to highlight blacks contribution to the nation’s history? I would take the negative position—that is, we should not have separate a black history month or separate black studies. Why not?
Black history (as well as all other identity history celebrations) seems to have two objectives: 1. It is intended to serve as a kind of apology to blacks for the horrors and abuses of American slavery and the post civil war Jim Crow; and 2. To highlight the specific contributions of blacks to the nation’s historical development. The results should be greater understanding and comity between blacks and other groups. However, does this identity group recognition and celebration accomplish these outcomes?
The celebration of Black history tends to focus on the historical and continuing victimization of blacks throughout American history. It underscores the identity of blacks as a group apart from the American mainstream. It doesn’t emphasize blacks as an integral part of the American experience but as a separate identity group.
Moreover, the many black intellectual, political, scientific and artistic heroes recognized during black history month are primarily characterized by their blackness rather than their social contributions. For instance, the great writers and intellectuals of the Harlem renaissance are contextualized as contributing to black identity rather than as investing in the growth and development of their respective fields and professions.
It also is hard to say that since the introduction of black history celebrations the understanding and comity between races has improved. Obviously, it is not appropriate or accurate to assign a disproportionate weight to black history’s role in resolving racial progress in the USA. However, it is worth noting that the growing recognition of black history has not always been simultaneously accompanied by improvements in race relations.
Black history and other group identity histories seem to be based on the thesis that a nation’s history can be understood as a collection of identity group narratives. This view is in contrast to the idea that a nation’s history is best understood as an assessment of forces, trends, and significant events that have shaped the growth and development of a nation. In this view we would ask about significant nation shaping themes and events. For example, the shaping of America’s democratic republic is an important—maybe even the core—historical theme or principle of USA history.
Framing the issue in that way, we could discuss the black Civil Rights struggle as separate black history, or as a part of the American process of refining and developing the nation’s democratic republic. We would then think of Martin Luther King on par with Jefferson and the nation’s other founders. The Civil War—the struggle to end American Slavery— is part of this democratizing theme. In this light, we should celebrate the end of slavery as an important event in the shaping of American democracy. (By the way, I don’t understand the need for Juneteenth—why not celebrate the date of the Emancipation Proclamation as the formal end of slavery.)
My argument is that rather than promoting a separate black history we should understand how blacks through individual leaders and social movements have contributed to the refining and development of the American democratic republic.
In general, my argument is that we should understand the underlying themes, historical trends and events which shape a nation’s social development and institutions. This in my opinion is a more challenging task then simply promoting—some might say pandering to—identity group narratives. The payoff is understanding history as a—not always progressive or linear—story about the development of a nation’s institutions, culture and political economy. The task is then to better understand the contributions of a wide variety of individuals and groups to this national development story.
By the way, I did not understand equating black history celebrations to Jewish religious holidays. The comparison seems like a category error.
"Is a separate recognition of black history—or for that matter the history of any other identity group—the best way to highlight blacks contribution to the nation’s history? I would take the negative position—that is, we should not have separate a black history month or separate black studies. Why not?"
Answer: Why is it necessary for black history month to be the best way to highlight blacks contribution to the nation before it's considered? This framing of if something is not the best way possible then it should not be done is not realistic. We do things all the time that are not the "best way to do things" it doesn't make those things invalid. I find this line of argument to be a dodge, because when the "best" way to highlight blacks contribution to the nation is found, people will still have issues with it. My other question to you is, what is the best way to highlight blacks contribution to the nation?
"Black history (as well as all other identity history celebrations) seems to have two objectives: 1. It is intended to serve as a kind of apology to blacks for the horrors and abuses of American slavery and the post civil war Jim Crow; and 2. To highlight the specific contributions of blacks to the nation’s historical development."
Answer: While I don't really care about apologies for past wrongs done, apologies don't hurt anyone, America did hurt black people. An apology is not out of place. 2. What is wrong with highlighting the specific contributions of blacks to the nation’s historical development using black history month? If the point is to highlight contributions anyway.
"The celebration of Black history tends to focus on the historical and continuing victimization of blacks throughout American history. It underscores the identity of blacks as a group apart from the American mainstream. It doesn’t emphasize blacks as an integral part of the American experience but as a separate identity group."
Answer: If nothing else, what you stated above is my biggest quarrel with the black history month business, so you are correct in this instance, I have no argument against it. Most of the points you made after this point, I agree with. But I think those who have issues with black history month are making a fuss about nothing. My recommendations would be to ignore, the constant counter provides more fuel for the conversation surrounding black history month and such like which leads nowhere positive.
"By the way, I did not understand equating black history celebrations to Jewish religious holidays. The comparison seems like a category error."
Answer: This is not a category error, I was using it to buttress the point that groups have a right to memorialize significant events in their history in whatever way they choose to and for black people, maybe that's with a history month, so what?
So it's pretty obvious to everyone that Juneteenth was pushed as part of the Summer of Floyd Racial Reckoning. Where all white people were supposed to feel really bad about racism so that they could find it in their hearts to implement a bunch of woke policy prescriptions for how our society operates that were otherwise stalled.
Absent the racial guilt and moral panic, most of these ideas had a hard time making a case because they lacked merit. Only emotional blackmail could get them over the finish line. So I'd say that apologies do sometimes hurt, if the purpose is to browbeat someone into accepting something they wouldn't accept based on reason alone.
We already have a black holiday, MLK day. Which is at least associated with a movement that has more broad based support than something associated with Floyd (who nobody talks about anymore).
The minorities that are doing fine without assistance aren't insisting on making a fuss about holidays for themselves, they are just going to college and paying their mortgages.
I have no idea why white people would feel guilty or offer any apologies for slavery, Jim Crow etc. It is the state, the US government which sanctioned such institutions that bear responsibility for such guilt/apology.
Again, I'm agnostic about these holidays, even if I were American, but, I don't see them hurting anyone except those who want to feel offended in a situation where they could at least ignore.
Charles, thank you for your thoughtful and respectful response! My response may be a bit lengthy so please forgive me in advance.
Let me start by addressing your last point on comparing Jewish religious holidays to black history recognition and celebrations. I continue to assert that comparing religious holidays to identity group celebrations is a category error. Jewish religious holidays are an expression of their recognition and devotion to their spiritual beliefs.
These beliefs have been honed over thousands of years and represent key events in the historical religious life of the Jewish people. To my knowledge, Jews do not ask or expect non Jews to publicly recognize or celebrate their religious holidays. Jewish religious holidays are intimate to their personal and community relationships with God.
Black history is not an expression of religious belief. Being black is not a coherent religious or spiritual experience. Indeed, one might argue that black Americans are a complex, diverse demographic with few universal beliefs or characteristics. While there are some superficial cultural commonalities, being black seems to be defined primarily as not being white. As such, celebrating black history cannot reasonably be equated with a religious holiday for any religious group—whether Jews, Christians, Muslims, Buddhist, Hindu, or other religious group.
Charles your question: Why is it necessary for black history month to be the best way to highlight blacks contribution to the nation before it's considered? Simply put, you’re asking does the perfect have to be the enemy of the good? This is a legitimate question. And you have a point, the fact that identity group history celebrations—such as, black history month—may fall far short of the ideal is not a reason not to have them. However, I would assert that the good enough is the enemy and as such we ought to strive for perfection even if we know we cannot fully achieve it.
I don’t believe that history is best understood as a collection of identity group narratives. I am interested in and advocate for the importance of understanding the complex interplay of forces and events that produce a nation’s history. For instance, Nigeria is comprised of a number of diverse ethnic and religious groups—it is a complex, unique society. It is a nation that is currently struggling with serious issues and challenges, as well as opportunities for the future. The forces that are responsible for shaping Nigeria are more than stories about the nation’s various ethnic or religious identity groups. The same could be said of most other nations.
Unlike many nations, the USA is rooted in some core values and principles and not in race or ethnicity—what some characterize as blood and soil. Understanding our successes and shortcomings in managing and living up to our core beliefs is crucial to understanding the nation’s development. These core values have contributed to our many accomplishments but also highlight our shortcomings and contradictions. Given this framing I ask: how have blacks, either as individuals or as a collective, contributed to the shaping of our nation’s core values and principles as well as to its many accomplishments? This admittedly is a more challenging task, but it leads to a recognition of how blacks have both helped shape and contribute to the nation’s past and its future.
Taking shortcuts like celebrating identity group histories keeps us from taking on the more challenging and more worthwhile national project of understanding our true shared national history. Not embracing the challenge leads to distortions of history such as the 1619 project. More importantly, it reinforces our separateness—it treats blacks (as well as other identity groups) as alienated minorities with separate fates and historical paths that diverge from the interests and fate of the nation’s mainstream. The theory of history that I’m presenting can and should be debated. The point though is that it stands in sharp contrast to seeing history as a collection of identity group narratives.
"Black history is not an expression of religious belief. Being black is not a coherent religious or spiritual experience."
Ans: I ask why is it worthwhile to celebrate "religious" expressions and not ethnic/racial ones? What gives the religious experience more validity than the "black experience?" I did not intend to equate Black history celebration with religious celebration, I merely meant to convey that something both have in common is something significantly shared, for Jews it was surviving religious/ethnic persecution or the rituals associated with the religion, for blacks it was surviving Jim Crow etc.
"While there are some superficial cultural commonalities, being black seems to be defined primarily as not being white"
Ans: Making a comparison with Jews again, Theodre Herzl the spiritual founder of the state of Israel, noted that Jews were just as different and diverse from one another as a Frenchman was from an Englishman and that the thing that bound them together was the shared struggle of antisemitism. Group identities are formed at times as a reaction to external pressure, that is true for Jews and blacks as well. There is often more variability within groups than between groups, it doesn't make group identity invalid.
"Unlike many nations, the USA is rooted in some core values and principles and not in race or ethnicity—what some characterize as blood and soil."
Ans: I totally disagree with this. The US is fundamentally rooted in race and part of the reason we are even having this conversation is because of that. Race permeates everything from politics to anything you can think of. I wish race wasn't so central to the US, but it is.
"Taking shortcuts like celebrating identity group histories keeps us from taking on the more challenging and more worthwhile national project of understanding our true shared national history."
Ans: I'm not advocating for essentializing identity groups, heck, I don't think they are very useful, I'm a very detribalized/deracialized person. I treat people as individuals, not as groups, however, there is nothing that says celebrating group identity cannot occur simultaneously with "taking on the more challenging and more worthwhile national project" it's not an all or none situation, you don't have to choose between both, you can actually do both.
"The theory of history that I’m presenting can and should be debated. The point though is that it stands in sharp contrast to seeing history as a collection of identity group narratives."
Ans: History exists irrespective of "narratives" The history of black people in the US is very real, it is certainly not a "narrative." Can said history be weaponized? Yes, should it be weaponized? No, but the fact that people weaponize it doesn't make the history a narrative or invalid.
Ultimately the point I'm getting at is, while group identity may not matter or be as useful, the arguments against those who choose to identify and celebrate certain aspects of their group identity seems pretty weak to me. I reiterate, you don't have to lose your "black identity" to be American, just as you don't have to lose your Muslim or Jewish or Christian identity to be American. You can be all that and still be American.
Now, I get where your trepidation comes from, the left has and often weaponizes group identity, but it is not the identity that is the problem, it's the politics of it all.
- Tate is not only trash, but that's his job; and unfortunately, his lack of thought/depth and phony machismo has an audience, especially these days.
Not much else to say in his case.
- "Someone...", as far as I can tell, is exactly what you think he is.
- But I think you're slightly off about Glenn. I don't think he's (necessarily) performing for an audience.
Trust me. I get what you're saying. But--and please correct me if I am mistaken--Glenn talked about Black Studies and Black History Month, NOT the celebration of a huge moment in American history.
I can relate to where he's coming from...somewhat. In other words, since African-American history IS American history, why do we need a month to focus on African-American history specifically? Shouldn't we instead insist that ALL history be taught fully and rigorously in context? Presumably then we wouldn't need a month reserved for African-American history, or Hispanic Heritage, or Asian American and Pacific Islander Heritage, etc.
I think it's a fair and interesting question. (And fwiw, I am still grappling with it.)
Similarly, I see no problem in studying Black history, or Black music, or Black literature or fashion, etc. But what is Black or African-American Studies? Everything African-American? There is something odd about that phrase.
Heck, even "American Studies" would need clarification to some extent. It feels a little contrived.
Hi Charles, I try to be as charitable as possible. I've followed Glenn for years and have/had tremendous respect for him. There is a reason I think he's performing. I don't disagree with most of what he's saying. Yes, there's dysfunction in the black community, things that need to be fixed, but Glenn has been talking about these with John ad nauseum for more than a decade and it always takes the form of rebuke of black people. Nobody who doesn't agree with Glenn listens to him, at a point when you've said what you've said, you move on to something else. Maybe its because I hate repetitions or maybe it's because Glenn repeats these things over and over again because he knows that's what his audience loves to hear whether it changes anything or not. From my assessment, it hasn't changed anything.
About why should there be a black history month. Blacks have had a tumultuous history in the US from slavery to Jim Crow to segregation etc. That's not nothing. Does it deserve a whole month, maybe not, but I don't see why it's offensive to have a month to it.
For Black studies, why not, black people even though they are Americans have a unique history in the US and perhaps other groups have too. A study of such history shouldn't be seen as a repudiation of American history. In my country with over 250 ethnic groups, each ethnic group has its own unique history and the studies of these separate history isn't seen as a bad thing. There is beauty in diversity, you don't have to lose your "black" identity to become American, Heck, if white people want a white history month, they should have it.
Two of the earliest leaders of my country were having a conversation and one said, let us forget our differences, to which the other replied, no, let us understand our differences. I am more sympathetic to understanding rather than forgetting differences.
We're kind of talking past each other a little bit, but that's okay =)
Let me start with the easy parts: I have my issues with Dr. G, too. But frankly, those disagreements are relatively tiny. e.g., I will never understand his friendship with Amy Wax. Or his off-the-chain hatred of Obama. Or his flavorless, devil's advocate arguments for Trump (esp. during his presidency). And I can probably think of a few others.
But to address some of your points more directly:
"and it always takes the form of rebuke of black people"
I have been a paid subscriber of Glenn's since 2020--I think?--as well as a consistent downloader of his podcasts during the Bloggingheads years--pre-Obama '08--and I couldn't disagree more.
I can concede this: Glenn rebukes a certain kind of mentality that persists in Black America, especially on the left. (So do I, fwiw.) But that's not the same as rebuking "Black people". (Not to me, anyway.)
At the end of the day, Glenn is pretty Afrocentric. He *doesn't* believe in an unmitigated assimilationist mentality for Black America. He is *quite* proud of our ethnicity. But he's also sick of the bs and those who make excuses for it.
I happen to agree. I also don't know why we should foreclose discussion or criticism of anything if it's still a problem.
As for "performance", who is Glenn performing for when he talks about Israel-Palestine? When John refers to MAGA (basically) as "morons", who are they performing for?
Glenn's podcast has featured people like Daniel Bessner, Briahna Joy, Cornel West, etc. and in most cases, he lets them have the floor with very little (real) pushback. Maybe (and of course I could be wrong here) you are conflating an honest opinion with insincere red meat for the flock.
Glenn's intellect is the type that continuously asks questions. Ergo, at the end of the day, I think he (generally) believes the things he says.
I guess that's why I am willing to give him more latitude.
I'm always open to discussing with anyone, but that's unlikely to happen in this case. Professor Loury once agreed to talk 2 years ago and never returned any of my emails when I reached out.
And my few questions were all covered in this Comment banter… which was also informative and dignified.
I too have followed The Glenn Show for years… and I do believe Dr. Loury has been clear about his distinctions between Black History and Black Studies (which all y’all covered nicely above).
And this thread is yet another example of why I subscribe to you.
There is a consequence of framing Black Studies as a story of victory that would offend Loury's patriotic sensibilities. Victory implies a Good vs Evil struggle... Hopefully you get my drift.
Basically AA Studies as a study of "Victorious-ness" would be MORE anti Founding Fathers than it is now. Sowell Bros like Loury REVERE the Founders and couldn't stomach the idea that First Principles were the "Enemy" to be "conquered."
Charles another interesting essay, Putting aside the Andrew Tate comments—who while popular among some does not appear to be a serious contributor to public intellectual or policy discourse. I thought your interpretation of Glenn Loury’s comment on black history may have missed his point. Professor Loury is an academic and a public intellectual. I think he framed his statement on black history and black studies as an invitation to his audience to debate the question: Is a separate recognition of black history—or for that matter the history of any other identity group—the best way to highlight blacks contribution to the nation’s history? I would take the negative position—that is, we should not have separate a black history month or separate black studies. Why not?
Black history (as well as all other identity history celebrations) seems to have two objectives: 1. It is intended to serve as a kind of apology to blacks for the horrors and abuses of American slavery and the post civil war Jim Crow; and 2. To highlight the specific contributions of blacks to the nation’s historical development. The results should be greater understanding and comity between blacks and other groups. However, does this identity group recognition and celebration accomplish these outcomes?
The celebration of Black history tends to focus on the historical and continuing victimization of blacks throughout American history. It underscores the identity of blacks as a group apart from the American mainstream. It doesn’t emphasize blacks as an integral part of the American experience but as a separate identity group.
Moreover, the many black intellectual, political, scientific and artistic heroes recognized during black history month are primarily characterized by their blackness rather than their social contributions. For instance, the great writers and intellectuals of the Harlem renaissance are contextualized as contributing to black identity rather than as investing in the growth and development of their respective fields and professions.
It also is hard to say that since the introduction of black history celebrations the understanding and comity between races has improved. Obviously, it is not appropriate or accurate to assign a disproportionate weight to black history’s role in resolving racial progress in the USA. However, it is worth noting that the growing recognition of black history has not always been simultaneously accompanied by improvements in race relations.
Black history and other group identity histories seem to be based on the thesis that a nation’s history can be understood as a collection of identity group narratives. This view is in contrast to the idea that a nation’s history is best understood as an assessment of forces, trends, and significant events that have shaped the growth and development of a nation. In this view we would ask about significant nation shaping themes and events. For example, the shaping of America’s democratic republic is an important—maybe even the core—historical theme or principle of USA history.
Framing the issue in that way, we could discuss the black Civil Rights struggle as separate black history, or as a part of the American process of refining and developing the nation’s democratic republic. We would then think of Martin Luther King on par with Jefferson and the nation’s other founders. The Civil War—the struggle to end American Slavery— is part of this democratizing theme. In this light, we should celebrate the end of slavery as an important event in the shaping of American democracy. (By the way, I don’t understand the need for Juneteenth—why not celebrate the date of the Emancipation Proclamation as the formal end of slavery.)
My argument is that rather than promoting a separate black history we should understand how blacks through individual leaders and social movements have contributed to the refining and development of the American democratic republic.
In general, my argument is that we should understand the underlying themes, historical trends and events which shape a nation’s social development and institutions. This in my opinion is a more challenging task then simply promoting—some might say pandering to—identity group narratives. The payoff is understanding history as a—not always progressive or linear—story about the development of a nation’s institutions, culture and political economy. The task is then to better understand the contributions of a wide variety of individuals and groups to this national development story.
By the way, I did not understand equating black history celebrations to Jewish religious holidays. The comparison seems like a category error.
Here are my responses to your well argued points.
"Is a separate recognition of black history—or for that matter the history of any other identity group—the best way to highlight blacks contribution to the nation’s history? I would take the negative position—that is, we should not have separate a black history month or separate black studies. Why not?"
Answer: Why is it necessary for black history month to be the best way to highlight blacks contribution to the nation before it's considered? This framing of if something is not the best way possible then it should not be done is not realistic. We do things all the time that are not the "best way to do things" it doesn't make those things invalid. I find this line of argument to be a dodge, because when the "best" way to highlight blacks contribution to the nation is found, people will still have issues with it. My other question to you is, what is the best way to highlight blacks contribution to the nation?
"Black history (as well as all other identity history celebrations) seems to have two objectives: 1. It is intended to serve as a kind of apology to blacks for the horrors and abuses of American slavery and the post civil war Jim Crow; and 2. To highlight the specific contributions of blacks to the nation’s historical development."
Answer: While I don't really care about apologies for past wrongs done, apologies don't hurt anyone, America did hurt black people. An apology is not out of place. 2. What is wrong with highlighting the specific contributions of blacks to the nation’s historical development using black history month? If the point is to highlight contributions anyway.
"The celebration of Black history tends to focus on the historical and continuing victimization of blacks throughout American history. It underscores the identity of blacks as a group apart from the American mainstream. It doesn’t emphasize blacks as an integral part of the American experience but as a separate identity group."
Answer: If nothing else, what you stated above is my biggest quarrel with the black history month business, so you are correct in this instance, I have no argument against it. Most of the points you made after this point, I agree with. But I think those who have issues with black history month are making a fuss about nothing. My recommendations would be to ignore, the constant counter provides more fuel for the conversation surrounding black history month and such like which leads nowhere positive.
"By the way, I did not understand equating black history celebrations to Jewish religious holidays. The comparison seems like a category error."
Answer: This is not a category error, I was using it to buttress the point that groups have a right to memorialize significant events in their history in whatever way they choose to and for black people, maybe that's with a history month, so what?
"apologies don't hurt anyone"
So it's pretty obvious to everyone that Juneteenth was pushed as part of the Summer of Floyd Racial Reckoning. Where all white people were supposed to feel really bad about racism so that they could find it in their hearts to implement a bunch of woke policy prescriptions for how our society operates that were otherwise stalled.
Absent the racial guilt and moral panic, most of these ideas had a hard time making a case because they lacked merit. Only emotional blackmail could get them over the finish line. So I'd say that apologies do sometimes hurt, if the purpose is to browbeat someone into accepting something they wouldn't accept based on reason alone.
We already have a black holiday, MLK day. Which is at least associated with a movement that has more broad based support than something associated with Floyd (who nobody talks about anymore).
The minorities that are doing fine without assistance aren't insisting on making a fuss about holidays for themselves, they are just going to college and paying their mortgages.
I have no idea why white people would feel guilty or offer any apologies for slavery, Jim Crow etc. It is the state, the US government which sanctioned such institutions that bear responsibility for such guilt/apology.
Again, I'm agnostic about these holidays, even if I were American, but, I don't see them hurting anyone except those who want to feel offended in a situation where they could at least ignore.
Charles, thank you for your thoughtful and respectful response! My response may be a bit lengthy so please forgive me in advance.
Let me start by addressing your last point on comparing Jewish religious holidays to black history recognition and celebrations. I continue to assert that comparing religious holidays to identity group celebrations is a category error. Jewish religious holidays are an expression of their recognition and devotion to their spiritual beliefs.
These beliefs have been honed over thousands of years and represent key events in the historical religious life of the Jewish people. To my knowledge, Jews do not ask or expect non Jews to publicly recognize or celebrate their religious holidays. Jewish religious holidays are intimate to their personal and community relationships with God.
Black history is not an expression of religious belief. Being black is not a coherent religious or spiritual experience. Indeed, one might argue that black Americans are a complex, diverse demographic with few universal beliefs or characteristics. While there are some superficial cultural commonalities, being black seems to be defined primarily as not being white. As such, celebrating black history cannot reasonably be equated with a religious holiday for any religious group—whether Jews, Christians, Muslims, Buddhist, Hindu, or other religious group.
Charles your question: Why is it necessary for black history month to be the best way to highlight blacks contribution to the nation before it's considered? Simply put, you’re asking does the perfect have to be the enemy of the good? This is a legitimate question. And you have a point, the fact that identity group history celebrations—such as, black history month—may fall far short of the ideal is not a reason not to have them. However, I would assert that the good enough is the enemy and as such we ought to strive for perfection even if we know we cannot fully achieve it.
I don’t believe that history is best understood as a collection of identity group narratives. I am interested in and advocate for the importance of understanding the complex interplay of forces and events that produce a nation’s history. For instance, Nigeria is comprised of a number of diverse ethnic and religious groups—it is a complex, unique society. It is a nation that is currently struggling with serious issues and challenges, as well as opportunities for the future. The forces that are responsible for shaping Nigeria are more than stories about the nation’s various ethnic or religious identity groups. The same could be said of most other nations.
Unlike many nations, the USA is rooted in some core values and principles and not in race or ethnicity—what some characterize as blood and soil. Understanding our successes and shortcomings in managing and living up to our core beliefs is crucial to understanding the nation’s development. These core values have contributed to our many accomplishments but also highlight our shortcomings and contradictions. Given this framing I ask: how have blacks, either as individuals or as a collective, contributed to the shaping of our nation’s core values and principles as well as to its many accomplishments? This admittedly is a more challenging task, but it leads to a recognition of how blacks have both helped shape and contribute to the nation’s past and its future.
Taking shortcuts like celebrating identity group histories keeps us from taking on the more challenging and more worthwhile national project of understanding our true shared national history. Not embracing the challenge leads to distortions of history such as the 1619 project. More importantly, it reinforces our separateness—it treats blacks (as well as other identity groups) as alienated minorities with separate fates and historical paths that diverge from the interests and fate of the nation’s mainstream. The theory of history that I’m presenting can and should be debated. The point though is that it stands in sharp contrast to seeing history as a collection of identity group narratives.
A response to your response.
"Black history is not an expression of religious belief. Being black is not a coherent religious or spiritual experience."
Ans: I ask why is it worthwhile to celebrate "religious" expressions and not ethnic/racial ones? What gives the religious experience more validity than the "black experience?" I did not intend to equate Black history celebration with religious celebration, I merely meant to convey that something both have in common is something significantly shared, for Jews it was surviving religious/ethnic persecution or the rituals associated with the religion, for blacks it was surviving Jim Crow etc.
"While there are some superficial cultural commonalities, being black seems to be defined primarily as not being white"
Ans: Making a comparison with Jews again, Theodre Herzl the spiritual founder of the state of Israel, noted that Jews were just as different and diverse from one another as a Frenchman was from an Englishman and that the thing that bound them together was the shared struggle of antisemitism. Group identities are formed at times as a reaction to external pressure, that is true for Jews and blacks as well. There is often more variability within groups than between groups, it doesn't make group identity invalid.
"Unlike many nations, the USA is rooted in some core values and principles and not in race or ethnicity—what some characterize as blood and soil."
Ans: I totally disagree with this. The US is fundamentally rooted in race and part of the reason we are even having this conversation is because of that. Race permeates everything from politics to anything you can think of. I wish race wasn't so central to the US, but it is.
"Taking shortcuts like celebrating identity group histories keeps us from taking on the more challenging and more worthwhile national project of understanding our true shared national history."
Ans: I'm not advocating for essentializing identity groups, heck, I don't think they are very useful, I'm a very detribalized/deracialized person. I treat people as individuals, not as groups, however, there is nothing that says celebrating group identity cannot occur simultaneously with "taking on the more challenging and more worthwhile national project" it's not an all or none situation, you don't have to choose between both, you can actually do both.
"The theory of history that I’m presenting can and should be debated. The point though is that it stands in sharp contrast to seeing history as a collection of identity group narratives."
Ans: History exists irrespective of "narratives" The history of black people in the US is very real, it is certainly not a "narrative." Can said history be weaponized? Yes, should it be weaponized? No, but the fact that people weaponize it doesn't make the history a narrative or invalid.
Ultimately the point I'm getting at is, while group identity may not matter or be as useful, the arguments against those who choose to identify and celebrate certain aspects of their group identity seems pretty weak to me. I reiterate, you don't have to lose your "black identity" to be American, just as you don't have to lose your Muslim or Jewish or Christian identity to be American. You can be all that and still be American.
Now, I get where your trepidation comes from, the left has and often weaponizes group identity, but it is not the identity that is the problem, it's the politics of it all.
Well-done, namesake!
- Tate is not only trash, but that's his job; and unfortunately, his lack of thought/depth and phony machismo has an audience, especially these days.
Not much else to say in his case.
- "Someone...", as far as I can tell, is exactly what you think he is.
- But I think you're slightly off about Glenn. I don't think he's (necessarily) performing for an audience.
Trust me. I get what you're saying. But--and please correct me if I am mistaken--Glenn talked about Black Studies and Black History Month, NOT the celebration of a huge moment in American history.
I can relate to where he's coming from...somewhat. In other words, since African-American history IS American history, why do we need a month to focus on African-American history specifically? Shouldn't we instead insist that ALL history be taught fully and rigorously in context? Presumably then we wouldn't need a month reserved for African-American history, or Hispanic Heritage, or Asian American and Pacific Islander Heritage, etc.
I think it's a fair and interesting question. (And fwiw, I am still grappling with it.)
Similarly, I see no problem in studying Black history, or Black music, or Black literature or fashion, etc. But what is Black or African-American Studies? Everything African-American? There is something odd about that phrase.
Heck, even "American Studies" would need clarification to some extent. It feels a little contrived.
Again, this is a question. Not a statement.
Hi Charles, I try to be as charitable as possible. I've followed Glenn for years and have/had tremendous respect for him. There is a reason I think he's performing. I don't disagree with most of what he's saying. Yes, there's dysfunction in the black community, things that need to be fixed, but Glenn has been talking about these with John ad nauseum for more than a decade and it always takes the form of rebuke of black people. Nobody who doesn't agree with Glenn listens to him, at a point when you've said what you've said, you move on to something else. Maybe its because I hate repetitions or maybe it's because Glenn repeats these things over and over again because he knows that's what his audience loves to hear whether it changes anything or not. From my assessment, it hasn't changed anything.
About why should there be a black history month. Blacks have had a tumultuous history in the US from slavery to Jim Crow to segregation etc. That's not nothing. Does it deserve a whole month, maybe not, but I don't see why it's offensive to have a month to it.
For Black studies, why not, black people even though they are Americans have a unique history in the US and perhaps other groups have too. A study of such history shouldn't be seen as a repudiation of American history. In my country with over 250 ethnic groups, each ethnic group has its own unique history and the studies of these separate history isn't seen as a bad thing. There is beauty in diversity, you don't have to lose your "black" identity to become American, Heck, if white people want a white history month, they should have it.
Two of the earliest leaders of my country were having a conversation and one said, let us forget our differences, to which the other replied, no, let us understand our differences. I am more sympathetic to understanding rather than forgetting differences.
CE,
We're kind of talking past each other a little bit, but that's okay =)
Let me start with the easy parts: I have my issues with Dr. G, too. But frankly, those disagreements are relatively tiny. e.g., I will never understand his friendship with Amy Wax. Or his off-the-chain hatred of Obama. Or his flavorless, devil's advocate arguments for Trump (esp. during his presidency). And I can probably think of a few others.
But to address some of your points more directly:
"and it always takes the form of rebuke of black people"
I have been a paid subscriber of Glenn's since 2020--I think?--as well as a consistent downloader of his podcasts during the Bloggingheads years--pre-Obama '08--and I couldn't disagree more.
I can concede this: Glenn rebukes a certain kind of mentality that persists in Black America, especially on the left. (So do I, fwiw.) But that's not the same as rebuking "Black people". (Not to me, anyway.)
At the end of the day, Glenn is pretty Afrocentric. He *doesn't* believe in an unmitigated assimilationist mentality for Black America. He is *quite* proud of our ethnicity. But he's also sick of the bs and those who make excuses for it.
I happen to agree. I also don't know why we should foreclose discussion or criticism of anything if it's still a problem.
As for "performance", who is Glenn performing for when he talks about Israel-Palestine? When John refers to MAGA (basically) as "morons", who are they performing for?
Glenn's podcast has featured people like Daniel Bessner, Briahna Joy, Cornel West, etc. and in most cases, he lets them have the floor with very little (real) pushback. Maybe (and of course I could be wrong here) you are conflating an honest opinion with insincere red meat for the flock.
Glenn's intellect is the type that continuously asks questions. Ergo, at the end of the day, I think he (generally) believes the things he says.
I guess that's why I am willing to give him more latitude.
You may be right. I may just be unnecessarily critical of Professor Loury
You need to get on the show with @Glenn Loury to discuss!
I'm always open to discussing with anyone, but that's unlikely to happen in this case. Professor Loury once agreed to talk 2 years ago and never returned any of my emails when I reached out.
Great piece, CE.
And my few questions were all covered in this Comment banter… which was also informative and dignified.
I too have followed The Glenn Show for years… and I do believe Dr. Loury has been clear about his distinctions between Black History and Black Studies (which all y’all covered nicely above).
And this thread is yet another example of why I subscribe to you.
Kudos.
Thanks a lot, Joey
It's not only a holiday, it's an extinction event for some.
Could you provide more clarity to this comment?
200 people shot, 50 killed over the father's day weekend with Juneteenth. Check out X if you want to see some of the mayhem.
And that is not including the assaults, robberies, or stabbings.
And these killings and robberies are specifically in celebration of Juneteenth?
More like an opportunity.
I think these killings/robberies happen or would have happened irrespective of the celebration
Many but, throw in a mass crowd, and an extinction event or human sacrifice is almost guaranteed.
Okay
There is a consequence of framing Black Studies as a story of victory that would offend Loury's patriotic sensibilities. Victory implies a Good vs Evil struggle... Hopefully you get my drift.
No, I don't, can you be more explicit?
Basically AA Studies as a study of "Victorious-ness" would be MORE anti Founding Fathers than it is now. Sowell Bros like Loury REVERE the Founders and couldn't stomach the idea that First Principles were the "Enemy" to be "conquered."