There are 8 comments.

Become a member to join the conversation. Or sign in if you're already a member.
  1. colleenb Member
    colleenbJoined in the first year of Ricochet Ricochet Charter Member

    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. 

    • #1
    • September 18, 2020, at 11:45 AM PDT
    • Like
  2. ericB Lincoln

    One of the most helpfully informative guests so far. In love, some questions for my brother.

    “In 1868, the national ticket … was Horatio Seymour and Francis Blair. And their motto … their campaign slogan was “This is a White Man’s Country, Let White Men Rule”.”

    Why omit “the national ticket of the Democrat Party…”?

    “They’re trying to recreate white supremacy in a post emancipation reality.”

    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”?

    “First of all, both parties have problems because the party in power made those concessions…”

    That party in power making the concessions was the Democrat Party, not the Republican Party.

    “Secondly, you’ve got another party that’s saying basically you need to let us keep power as white people…”

    No, that wasn’t “another party”. They were southern Democrats. Why not tell the facts of Democrat Party plainly?

    “So who are you going to vote for?”

    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.

    “Moreover, given the way minorities are poorly served by the status quo, school choice should be the civil rights issue of the 21st century.”
    -Dan Mitchell. See Evidence for Charter Schools. Also here and video.

    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?

    • #2
    • September 21, 2020, at 8:29 AM PDT
    • 3 likes
    • This comment has been edited.
  3. Antonia Okafor Podcaster

    colleenb (View Comment):

    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.

    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. 

    • #3
    • September 22, 2020, at 9:19 AM PDT
    • 2 likes
  4. colleenb Member
    colleenbJoined in the first year of Ricochet Ricochet Charter Member

    Antonia Okafor (View Comment):

    colleenb (View Comment):

    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.

    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. 

    • #4
    • September 22, 2020, at 11:52 AM PDT
    • 2 likes
  5. ericB Lincoln

    colleenb (View Comment):
    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.

    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.

    • #5
    • September 22, 2020, at 5:56 PM PDT
    • 2 likes
  6. colleenb Member
    colleenbJoined in the first year of Ricochet Ricochet Charter Member

    ericB (View Comment):

    colleenb (View Comment):
    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.

    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.

    • #6
    • September 23, 2020, at 3:03 AM PDT
    • 2 likes
  7. ericB Lincoln

    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:

    “And so what I am pushing for, in terms of what do we do, is recognizing that we have to be actively anti-racist. You can be actively racist, passively racist, or actively anti-racist and there’s no in-between.”

    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.

    • #7
    • October 3, 2020, at 10:35 AM PDT
    • Like
    • This comment has been edited.
  8. ericB Lincoln

    ericB (View Comment):
    For examples, see You Will Be Re-Educated.

    p.s. Sorry. For those who do not have access, here are some excerpts.

    The goal is no longer to supplement existing pedagogy or policy with new views on race and diversity; it’s to repeal and replace those policies with the new ideology of anti-racism. As critic Wesley Yang has noted, the power of this effort “rests in its capacity to define what it attempts to unseat as ‘white supremacy culture,’ winning by default over what has been morally anathematized.” And “white supremacy” has been applied with broad brushstrokes. In Dismantling Racism: A Workbook for Social Change Groups, Kenneth Jones and Tema Okun include among their “characteristics of white supremacy culture” such things as “worship of the written word,” “individualism,” and “objectivity.” This is being put into practice in many institutions in ways large and small already. In July, in response to the many Black Lives Matter protests across the nation, KIPP, the country’s largest public charter-school system, changed its slogan, “Work Hard. Be Nice” because, as the school’s equity programmer said in the announcement of the change, “the slogan passively supports ongoing efforts to pacify and control Black and Brown bodies in order to better condition them to be compliant and further reproduce current social norms that center whiteness and meritocracy as normal.”

    and

    Among the examples of prohibited microaggressions were statements endorsing a colorblind standard of equality, including “America is a melting pot” and “There is one race, the human race.”

    and

    A Whitesboro, N.Y., high-school teacher who said “all lives matter” during a virtual school ceremony in June was required to make an apology that reads like a forced public confession.

    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.

    • #8
    • October 12, 2020, at 10:22 PM PDT
    • 1 like