Ricochet is the best place on the internet to discuss the issues of the day, either through commenting on posts or writing your own for our active and dynamic community in a fully moderated environment. In addition, the Ricochet Audio Network offers over 50 original podcasts with new episodes released every day.
Jemar Tisby, the New York Times Best-Selling Author of the critically acclaimed book, The Color of Compromise, joins Shermichael and Antonia to discuss the successes and failures of the Church in regards to racial reconciliation.
Subscribe to Speak-Easy in Apple Podcasts (and leave a 5-star review, please!), or by RSS feed. For all our podcasts in one place, subscribe to the Ricochet Audio Network Superfeed in Apple Podcasts or by RSS feed.
Published in: Religion & Philosophy
I was doing ok until Tom Cotton was declared a radical and, I guess, a racist. Really? Hmmm. I don’t see it but then I’m not black so …. Or is it that I don’t read the NYT’s take on some situation? Sigh. I may try to read more by Mr. Tisby.
One of the most helpfully informative guests so far. In love, some questions for my brother.
Why omit “the national ticket of the Democrat Party…”?
Why omit that “they” were southern Democrats?
About FDR, why omit that he was a Democrat? About his making “a deal with southern Dixiecrats”, why not say more clearly “southern Democrats”?
That party in power making the concessions was the Democrat Party, not the Republican Party.
No, that wasn’t “another party”. They were southern Democrats. Why not tell the facts of Democrat Party plainly?
When Democrats collude with Democrats for power at the expense of blacks, the alternative was to vote Republican.
Regarding thinking about systemic injustice (not just individual racism), education inequities were mentioned (~29:10). That policy injustice could be remedied by giving school choice to parents and making a state’s education dollars equitably follow each child to the quality schools the parents choose.
Teacher unions oppose this by colluding with Democrat politicians for mutual power. In exchange for campaign workers and contributions, Democrat politicians like Biden commit themselves to protecting the union jobs from competition. This preserves the unjust status quo.
When Democrats collude with Democrats for power at the expense of blacks, the alternative is to vote Republican.
How long will black Americans repeatedly wound their own next generation by helping maintain educational slavery instead of voting for educational emancipation?
Hi Colleen,
With Tom Cotton, I believe the big complaint is his policies. Tom Cotton does steer very much so to the old “law and order” side of the Republican Party that isn’t welcoming to the criminal justice reform bent that even President Trump himself is an advocate for. Criminal justice reform has become a topic that both Republicans and Democrats have come to find common ground on. Senator Cotton is also very much on the hawkish side. So in that case, Mr. Tisby is saying that he actually has very different views than him. That because of his policy stances, that are becoming increasingly even less mainstream in Republican circles, that he has different goals, not just different approaches to getting to the goals he agrees with.
Yes but does that make Senator Cotton racist? I can understand it if Mr. Tisby had said I don’t like his ‘law and order’ positions or he’s too hawkish but he basically said that he had nothing in common with the Senator and could not talk with him. Again, ironically for someone who is trying to get us to look at all sides and find new common ground, Mr. Tisby sounds like he is judging the Senator and that’s the end. As I said, maybe if I read more of Mr. Tisby’s writings I would understand him more.
Mr. Tisby was very fact-based with his criticisms of the racist actions and racist policies of the Democrat Party. Even if he repeatedly neglected to clearly identify the Democrats as Democrats, at least he was describing actual events and positions that merited disapproval and rejection.
I agree that this contrasted with how he handled Senator Cotton. It did seem to be implied that Senator Cotton was racist in policies or that his policies were somehow abhorrent to blacks generally (not just to Mr. Tisby personally) — so much so that Mr. Tisby seemed to say it would be hard to be in the same room with Senator Cotton.
Yet it was conveyed largely through hints, innuendo and suggestion, not clear facts that could be examined rationally.
To be fair, perhaps that was mostly a time limitation. Perhaps in another conversation, he might have been willing to take the time to engage in a rational examination based on facts.
Arthur Brooks (possible guest?) is the author of Love Your Enemies: How Decent People Can Save America from the Culture of Contempt. He talks about “motive attribution asymmetry” in which people attribute only good motives to their own side while attributing only evil motives to the other side. I am convinced that productive “tough conversations” have to operate at a level that turns away from attributing assumed motives and toward examining actual policy choices for both intended and unintended effects.
That will be necessary for anyone concerned about institutional injustice — systems that may be unjust even when people as individuals don’t have racist motives on a personal level.
Well said. Much more articulate than I could say. Thanks. And agree that Arthur Brooks would be an interesting guest.
At one point Jemar mentioned “my God-given dignity”, which refers to the Judeo-Christian understanding that all humans bear the image of God. Though God declares it is allowed to kill animals for food, murdering a human is a capital crime because each human bears the image of God.
The spread of that understanding about humans has been transforming western civilization over the centuries. It increasingly became the foundation for recognizing human rights and for opposing slavery, abortion, and racism. It means that all human lives matter, regardless of strength, size, or skin color.
Jemar also said:
For anyone who declares as “anti-racist”, I would want to discuss with them in detail what they think about the anti-biblical form of “anti-racist” ideology that rejects and opposes statements endorsing a color-blind standard of equality, such as denouncing people who declare the biblical position that “all lives matter”. Instead of affirming the biblical position, some regard such declarations as racist microagressions that support “white” culture or “white supremacy”. For examples, see You Will Be Re-Educated.
The Democrat Party has become dominated by those who affirm unrestricted abortion and reject that it is morally wrong. They cannot affirm the biblical position that all human lives matter. Since it would be contradictory to reject this when talking about abortion and then affirm it when talking about racism, that Party is moving away from the biblical foundation and toward an alternate anti-biblical ideology concerning anti-racism.
Jemar talked about people having “different goals” and “we are really striving for different Americas”.
I would want to know if Jemar is striving for the unifying, biblical, color-blind idea that “all human lives matter because all bear God’s image”, or else against that biblical position and for the divisive ideology of anti-racism that emphasizes separate racial identity.
p.s. Sorry. For those who do not have access, here are some excerpts.
and
and
Whenever someone talks about “anti-racism”, it matters significantly whether they mean the inherently uniting approach based on all human life bearing God’s image (black or white, in the womb or out, by God’s design, not a mother’s preferences), or else the inherently divisive replacement ideology that is actively opposed to the color-blind biblical principle.