Great debate. I found myself persuaded by each of them at different moments. My biggest takeaway from the debate was that a refocusing on the responsibility of the individual, rather than arbitrary identity groups, is key to societal progress.
I couldn't agree more, and couldn't help but point out that Adanar's first move is to normalize and perpetuate arbitrary grouping by identity. Before he even proposes a solution, he exacerbates the problem by continuing to produce the social construction of race. Glenn later makes the same mistake even though his own argument against segregation in rhetoric was the key takeaway of this discussion.
Thanks to you, Glenn, I experienced for the first time the term "collective responsibility" as more than just the onus of white America, which includes stoop-shouldered little me, but as a weight borne by ALL of us. All of us, as countrymen of all colors, need to work together to transcend this "AMERICAN tragedy." I'm on the brink of tears; Glenn, you rule!!
@@JohnSmith-hs1hn I think Glenn was saying that blacks had to take some responsibility for where the inequities of the past find them today. An adult who has been warped by a rotten childhood must sooner or later "rise above his raisin.' " More importantly, Glenn was calling for the setting aside of the "us and them" mentality that stubbornly persists between groups of people in this country. It requires a fleeting flash of insight to do this; I've lost it already. 😔
I am looking at the chart at 39:30 in the video addressing the theory that black Americans behave in inequality-promoting ways. The chart... N-3; "Black Americans are not responsible for past and present discrimination", N-4: "Because of N-3, black Americans are not responsible for their inequality-promoting behavior", N-5 "Because of N-4, black Americans are not responsible for persistent black-white inequality." The premise is that there are factors that shape all societies and cultures, factors that are (or were) beyond the control of those populations. So I would ask, are white Americans responsible for their behavior towards other racial demographics? I would also ask, it this about blame or is it more about presenting explanations.
Well put. Admonishions to behave in responsible ways are just an example of a cultural incentive, so if you accept even that culture is a proximate cause of dysfunction, you implicitly accept the need to assign responsibility insofar as doing so is necessary to improve the incentives in question.
As Glenn speaks around 13 - 15 minutes in, he is giving deep truths about what, in part, can keep a race from moving ahead. Parents, community and school are largely responsible for building resilience, curiosity, enthusiasm, team spirit, and a willingness to learn in their children. This is not to say there is not injustice. At around 25-27 minutes he talks about our collective responsibility for each other as Americans, and this being an "American tragedy." So true.
@Mitch Lang do you think all these problems would go away if you improved the material conditions of people? Because I live on Detroit’s East side and I don’t think money will fix these problems
@Mitch Lang material conditions are a key part of the story, but you can't just dismiss culture in comparison without evidence. I suspect if you control for material conditions you'll still find a huge disparity in out-of-wedlock births between cultures with strong aversion towards single motherhood and cultures obsessed with the nuclear family.
@@Stumashedpotatoes This right here. Literally EVERY other race in America does exactly this. To even be fair blacks do the same thing. This is why the conversation tends to be a boring one. It is really a conversation of what to do with the lower class to bringing it into the middle class or higher. As if it is something most actually want and are willing to do what needs to be done to get out of the lower class. You see so many examples of people doing it that people assume that is something others WANT to do it and put in the effort to do so. I give one simple example even though I can give many. I hear many times that people in the inner cities don’t have a choice and can’t go anywhere. Yet people without a dime to their name, barely if at all can speak the language and only the clothes on their back come thousands of miles and become part of the middle class within 3-10 years. Yet because someone has a certain amount of melanin in their skin and the history of being black in America they can’t get in their car or get a bus ticket and go somewhere else that might be bette suited for prosperity? That could not be any more nonsensical.
Great discussion on both sides, and it's a privilege to listen to a debate about a polarizing issue, yet come away feeling LESS polarized. These guys are deep thinking, heavy intellectuals and the country would be well served to have gentlemen like them in leadership positions. The internet (youtube, podcasts, etc) is doing a good job in providing a platform for these kinds of discussions and debates, but I would strongly suggest the White House and Congress (regardless of party in power) organize, promote and present panels of discourse like the one to the country, It would help bring our citizens together.
Well said Mr. Loury. It's about a balanced approach to our black community's issue. Culture matters greatly and needs to be a large part of any viable solution. Thank you also Mr. Usmani as well. Love the open, honest, thoughtful and respectful debate.
Excellent! I just want to add as Glenn said, saying someone is responsible is not blaming the victim. There were two main questions of Russian intelligentsia:"Who is guilty?What is to do?". The conservative American thinking is not to ask "Who is guilty?" But to ask "Who is responsible?". The guilt view is view of the past, it has no power except moral and except to another human being. There is no guilt for any social institutions, they don't have moral imperative, each of single person has. Were is question "who is responsible?" is forward looking, actionable question. Even if institution, or culture or nature pushed you to unfortunate situations, you still have some responsibility to deal with it.
I would be interested in hearing Adaner talk about the flourishing of American Jews, directly in the wake of the Holocaust, in light of the thesis he advances here.
@Mitch Lang Yeah, unfortunately, the Ashkenazi population is not a clear-cut natural experiment for the reasons you listed. Maybe a better natural experiment is the recent paper Persistence through Revolutions www.nber.org/papers/w27053 (which seems to at least falsify the idea that all disparities between distinct groups of people are ultimately due to past discrimination, and it suggests an explanation based on cultural values). Ultimately, the theory of structural racism (as your comment indirectly shows) has very little predictive power. It explains too much -- both how some groups are less successful and how some groups are more successful. It doesn't really give unique explanations for any particular stylized facts (unless you count the findings in, say, the economic literature on persistent negative effects of slavery across countries on things like development, but that isn't really what people are arguing about in 2020). It's hard to find any clear-cut natural experiment to test it -- it's sufficiently flexible that it leads to enormous identification problems.
A group doing well does not mean there is no substantial racism, and takes away from that group's own ingenuity. It is totally possible to live in an environment with pervasive racism, while still succeeding, so that argument can also be made.
@King Kong That's a strawman and a kafka trap. We could talk for hours about the racism that affects people today that has nothing to do with what happened centuries ago. You cannot use personal responsibility as a cudgel to deflect from race issues; personal responsibility and race issues are two entirely different things, and someone isn't a "victim" for wanting to stop the oppression or perceived oppression against them. That'd be like saying that a woman just has a "victim complex" because she wants the guy that rapes her everyday before work to stop his behavior.
@@Stumashedpotatoes he is an ideologue not arguing in good faith nor seeking productive discussion. He literally invalidated my experience and called me a liar at the same time after asserting directly contrary to fact that segregation has defined my entire existence, yet my parents overcame segregation to bring me into the world. Fuck that guy
On the black child/ Asian child thing. The difference between the two is that even though both receive cultural pressure, the outcome of the Asian pressure has a positive outcome for the Asian child. There is no positive outcome for the black child if they succumb to their cultural pressure.
3 objections for Adanar that Glenn didn't make: 1) aren't we enabling bigotry by normalizing segregation by racial identity in both the formulation of the problem and the solution? Let's not cause unnecessary division but solve national problems as a nation, regardless of what the people affected by or contributing to the problem look like. 2) can't a group's behavior be a rational cause of discrimination towards that group? Police are more cautious around men than women, for example, without being sexist or irrational in light of the behavior of men vs women. 3) can't all arrows in the clarification at 34:43 be bidirectional, and isn't a vertical link between inherited inequality and discrimination also missing?
@Mitch Lang wrong. For example, perhaps it's wrong to stereotype certain subgroups of women as promiscuous in an essentializing and limiting way (as Jesse Lee Peterson does by labeling any woman who has sex outside of marraige a slur). Even so, if your goal is to get laid as readily as possible, it's quite rational to direct your efforts towards women who are often stereotyped in this essentializing way rather than towards women who rarely or never are.
"aren't we enabling bigotry by normalizing segregation by racial identity in both the formulation of the problem and the solution" But the races are already segregated. It is a matter of fact. You yourself live a life than is entirely segregated on the basis of race. Most Americans are, even in the most diverse cities in America. "can't a group's behavior be a rational cause of discrimination towards that group? " You just contradicted your first point . If you are saying that a person should be targeted based on the behavior of someone else in their group, that is promoting racism and segregation and far worse than the notion of simply classifying and analyzing groups, that you previously just decried. What you just expounded on is the very definition of racism.
@@JohnSmith-hs1hn I don’t believe that is at all promoting racism. If you take racism to be inherent characteristics based upon a persons race so as to sort them into inferior and superior hierarchies, then simply acknowledging differences is not racism. It is not sexism to understand that men are considerably more aggressive and prone to crime than women. Or take Latin America for example. Latin America makes up 8% of the worlds population, yet makes up around 38% of the homicide rate worldwide. And 80% of those murders in Latin American cities occur on 2% of the streets. Is it racist/sexist to focus police attention on that 2% street area? Isn’t it worse to simply ignore reality and lower standards for certain groups of people, sort of a soft bigotry of low expectations type of deal?
@@NotoriousMinion All the examples you just listed definitely meet the definition of racism and sexism. If I said that most white people are racists, it would immediately be deemed racist and I'd be canceled . You cannot change the definitions of words to fit your narrative nor what most people perceive to be racism.
Glenn, I had no idea you coined the term social capital. I had lazily thought it was Putnam. I would give you the economics Nobel for that, even though it is not a "real" Nobel.
There's a serious flaw, which Glenn alluded to, in Adaner's thought experiment at 43:06 about the hypothetical Asian and black student. He imagines the two distributions of responses to more or less benevolent environments, and concludes that the disparate outcomes are predictable and inevitable on the group level. This neglects all the feedback one receives from outside one's "cultural universe" and the rewarded actions within it. Not least is the exacting feedback from reality, in which one's income, security, life satisfaction, etc. are substantially influenced by one's own efforts and decisions. If one's cultural reward system is observably leading to poor outcomes, *this is feedback as well!* Put most concisely, a theory which imagines that people are obliged by their cultures to behave in certain ways is an overly narrow conception of the feedback to which people can respond. External social influences and harsh reality remind us what needs to change.
@Mitch Lang Glen points out from the start that race is socially constructed and we are producing it continuously. Adanar unfortunately defaults to producing more of it by neglecting to even question the appropriateness of participation in racial subcultures, which, in my view, must be disrupted, downplayed or eliminated immediately lest we enable more bigotry by making arbitrary categorizations more salient in our rhetoric and behavior. Adanar exacerbates the very problem he tries to solve before he even sets upon a solution
Finally someone explicitly referencing metaphysics. That's the bottom level of the issue; Free will. It is not scientific no matter what people say, it's metaphysical, so whatever stance you take will always be unfalsifiable and presupposed. But, determinism will lead to Fatalism (and removes accountability) and agency will lead to hope. You can see what internalizing each narrative does to people.
Where can you see such a thing? I'm not sure I can mind-read who believes in agency versus determinism, except to say you appear to look down on the latter
@Mitch Lang Such a love-letter to hegemony! And such a celebration of White Supremacy, Mr. Lang! with all of that materialism in the one hand, and saviorism in the other...and through your rationalism and measurements, you're going to decide how your fellow humans (a/k/a "those poor dumb brutes") shall live and thrive, becoming healthier and healthier, until you've finally bred out all the hatred, wrath, greed, and sloth, and bred in nothing but meekness, mercy, and forgiveness. Thank goodness you've volunteered to be Humanity's overseer, teacher, and guardian...will you be keeping your human subjects on a ranch somewhere? Or maybe an island plantation, where you can control their education and meals, too...and help them make healthy choices about mating?
@Mitch Lang Well you can't determine if something metaphysical is real, you have to presuppose it, and you just said you believe in agency, so what's your point? I don't believe you can will anything and everything into being, but you have a choice, if you didn't you wouldn't have accountability. Determinism is for people running away from responsibility, that's the "freedom" you're talking about, only romanticized.
@@highneedforcognition9660To say that your disposition was caused by history and that you can't escape it unless some outside force intervenes is what? To say that "education" will set you free, that the right inputs will produce the right outputs is what? Black people can literally do anything and people will say "well I can't blame them for lashing out at what we've done to them." This guy isn't as bad but he's still saying the same things. More "education" throw more $$$ at the problem. If you don't fix the consciousness first, you'll never solve it. I.g. if they are cynical (this intersectional epistemology big "nobody can understand my lived experience") and fatalist then no amount of money will solve the problem.
One question that emerged for me while watching had to do with Dr. Usmani's note that perhaps he and Dr. Loury are addressing different audiences and, later, that he accepts that Mr. Loury's "exhortation" at the level of the individual, but that different principles applied to the collective. My question, which I wish I could ask our scholars, is to what extent has this become an unforeseen complication as history and technology have moved toward greater and greater individual involvement in protest movements and political activism? That is, if someone for example claims "the personal is political" and simultaneously canvasses to assist with voter registration in empoverished neighborhoods, how does one prevent the social message from becoming confusingly expressed amidst the individual ethic, and has this problem become greater after the second half of the 20th century as communications technology have to accelerated in evolution year after year? More and more people respond to tweets or tiktok vids for inspirations into political activism, and I don't quite see Dr. Usmani's distinction being tenable or sustainable.
South Africa is 80% black and has been under black rule since 1994. But the black/white disparity hasn't changed much. How do you explain it, Prof. Usmani?
South Africa actually provides even stronger evidence in support of Adaner's argument, which is primarily about economics and effects of past discrimination. Apartheid only ended in 1994, and in the absence of massive social democratic redistribution his argument would predict the emergence of a small black elite along with the white elite, and middle class blacks but not poor blacks benefiting from the end of formal racial barriers. That is exactly what happened.
@@beyondaboundary6034 Simple rules from Brookings to join the middle class: at least finish high school, get a full-time job and wait until age 21 to get married and have children. For a household with 2 adults, even if they work for Amazon warehouse, Walmart, Costco, Home Depot, as Uber driver, 2 incomes pooled together, you shouldn't be in poverty. Another option is to join the military, then everything is paid for including college education. What racism/discrimination prevents you from doing these things? Military, many companies and colleges bend backwards to hire/admit blacks.
FYI, the audio on this video is suffering from very irritating lower frequency booming that could significantly improved with a little audio processing.
If 70 % of African American families have no father influence,father love and discipline, the other 30 % of families are thriving. What are those families doing differently? They have 2 parents? Parents encourage children to study and achieve? Do these parents love, educate and discipline? To promote responsibility
that 70 percent number is over exaggerated. All that tells you is marital status at the time of birth. Many out of wedlock parents co parent just like divorced parents
@@michaeldavis2135 but isn't it good news that it's down from a high of 90% in the 90s? And isn't it bad news that it's up from what was at the time a concerning 25% in the 60s? Also there's some other rather convincing data on the prevalence of fathers in a community being more determinative than whether or not a specific child has a father in the home
The one good point Usmani made was to ask for an example that encouraging successful behavior and discouraging destructive behavior works. I would argue there are plenty of examples. Glenn being one. But Glenn didn’t give an example, so to the casual observer, that was a point in the favour of Usmani. But I would say, Glenn just being a brilliant and successful human, whilst black, is enough retort. 🙏
A problem which the end of the video reminded me of is that too many people talk about how well various social welfare style policies are working in countries with a fraction of the population of the US, without considering the problems involved in managing hundreds of millions of people scattered over 3 million square miles. For example, when they talk about single-payer healthcare, they never mention China.
The PRC has nothing comparable to single payer healthcare. Its healthcare system is based on hukou and subsidized private hospitals and public hospitals and clinics for rural peasants
Wonderful exchange of ideas! Especially appreciate the organization of the video. Glenn's affirmation of Black people's agency is passionate, thoughtful, and necessary, especially in the face of race-essentialist narratives that elevate white supremacy as our supreme social malady. It was also great to see that Adaner's prescription of universal policies (increased social spending, healthcare for everyone, universal child care, more financial support for families of all races) was supported by Glenn. But Glenn doesn't adequately address the issue of how much capitalism, and specifically America's system of political economy, promotes racial inequality by actively working to squelch attempts at creating more robust, universal social programs (through the American Legislative Exchange Counsel, The American Enterprise Institute, the Republican majority in the U.S. Senate, the massive coordinated opposition to health care reform, increased minimum wages, more gov't bargaining in the health care industry on behalf of poor citizens, etc.). While it is true American capitalism may give lip-service to racial justice movements, this is far from challenging the structural conditions that pit precarious workers, already at unequal starting points, against each other. One example of how capitalism can exacerbate racial inequality is the attempt of Republicans--under the guise of privatization--to gut funding for programs like the Social Security Administration, the USPS, HUD, FDA, EPA, and other government agencies that disproportionately employ African Americans.
At 1:13:00 is exactly the point that's always missed: different messages are appropriate for different contexts, and the key is to direct the right messages the right ways.
From an analytical perspective, you can always go back one step further and assert that this step is due to structured racism like one-parent families, violent behavior, etc.
The role of racial discrimination vs the role of harmful counterproductive pattern . Two question. Are these factors independent from each other? And is the prevalance of these harmful behaviuor patterns higher among Afro American?
I think the biggest thing we should look at when deciding on whether America IS racist rather than WAS racist is how well Nigerians, black South Africans, Koreans, Indians , Chinese do when they immigrate to the US. If it was just some 1920s style racism I don't see how all races are doing better than poor whites and poor blacks with long ancestral history in America? I think it's Cultural. Immigrants are usually extremely driven and ambitious people. This is reflected by how much more wealth is handed down to second generation immigrants of any colour. The old guard who have lived in poverty for generations, mostly white but also a reasonable chunk of African Americans, remain in poverty and trodden on by authority.
1:02:00 very good point! Most people understand that few individuals are actually overtly racist, yet they speak as though there's this High Council of Secret Racists pulling the strings to keep certain groups underprivileged while granting others all the power from on high. It's a completely reductive mindset that does nothing but cause division and bitterness which makes it impossible to create positive change or help anyone in need.
Thanks for posting this. Glenn, hope you read this. I’ve been following you since 2016 (have read the transcript from your lecture relations before transactions and have a copy of Anatomy of Inequality). It was shocking to me, though, that when it was pointed out that your normative claim reads as finger wagging, you stated that that’s not what you intended. Unfortunately that’s how you come off in your videos and posts. I’m glad you clarified your position but your content tends to feed into political tribalism (see the commenter below who said “you seem liberal at spots”). Hoping to see more content like this.
There is little or no "structural racism". Show me an institution or orgainzation in 2020 that is dedicated to racism--I'll wait. There are racists in some institutions, and some of them are no doubt in positions where they can act in a racist manner. That is a serious problem, but it is not the same thing.
@Mitch Lang "Structural racism" was called "neo-imperial racism," a kind of racism both invisible and intangible, but which certainly existed -- indeed. once discovered, half the rulers and learned men did nothing but marvel at the intricate detail, design, and sinister-though-unseen effects caused by the neo-imperial* racism. ------------ * In 20th-Century Eurasia, it was also named "creeping racism," and most often was found in political dissidents.
@Craig Jones as far as I know it was never broadly present in Chinese restaurants. Where else do you perceive it? Let's discuss on a case-by-case basis. Two of the best arguments for presently existing cases are the crack vs powder cocaine sentencing disparity and the tendency of court stenographers, regardless of their background, to mistranscribe so-called "black English" in ways that tend to hurt the defendant
Adaner, work with some computer scientist who’s an AI expert. Analyze big data going back to 17th century until today. It’s not too hard to find out how much slavery, Jim Crowe, war on poverty, war on drugs, etc. contribute to the disparity today. My guess is discrimination would contribute to < 10%.
Exhorting people to do better absolutely has positive change. Social policy, on the other hand, is one of the main causes of poverty and crime in these communities. It seems crazy to think that “this time it’s different” and the government will solve everyone’s problems
I agree you shouldn't blame individual blacks for the culture they're born into. On the same vein, one should not blame an individual white for the action of other whites in the past, who aren't in most circumstances, aren't even their ancestors.
24:00 - Powerful. "This is us", when 'us' refers to all Americans. This contrasts with James Baldwin's "I" in his famous "I was there" (during slavery), as if he experienced the horrors of slavery personally.
Great discussion between two knowledgeable and reasonable people. I think Adaner makes the stronger argument, and he gets to the heart of the matter around the 1:09:00 mark. Whatever we may say about individual behavior, catching up with our peer nations in social spending would do far more to fix the problem than exhorting kids to behave better (not that there is no place for that).
A fantastic discussion between two great minds. I have to say that I take the most issue with Usmani's theory of blameworthy and praiseworthy behavior. To give an obvious example: I can fully understand why someone might steal food from someone else if they were starving. I would probably do the same thing in their position. The act of stealing is still wrong. It is still blameworthy. The thief still deserves to be punished.
I fully agree. I also think he's refusing to assign responsibility for convalescence to all involved parties. If a driver crashes into my leg he must be held responsible, but no one can do the required physical therapy for me.
The main factor in the acquisition of wealth is culture first; opportunity secondly. Chinese, Indian, Russian and Jewish people in the US do not have the greatest opportunity built on a legacies of evil. Instead, they work hard, have good intact families with a husband and wife, they pursue college and are good at saving money.
@1:09: Wow, I thought Adaner was being very reasonable until we got to this subject (of policy) and as an Economist, Glen should have ATTACKED this head on. Welfare and affirmative action have had no positive effect on the whole. To redouble a 0 effect is 2x0...=0. Many would even argue that the effects have been deleterious. Any policy that seeks to benefit any portion of society (albeit based on race or economic level) has a COST to those non benefactors. Yet, this being the case, white people have voted in favor of such policies and white people put Obama in the White House under no duress. P.S. I am a die hard IDW Liberal who voted for Obama and now Biden...just in case someone misreads my factual statements as political discourse.
The assertion that welfare has had no positive effect on society is such an extreme statement it’s hard to take you seriously. Glenn is an advocate for the welfare state as are most economists because of the overwhelming historical evidence demonstrating its positive impacts on society starting in the late 19th century. It was created by liberals who recognized its importance in stabilizing society and thus allowing capitalist economies to function much better. Even in this conversation Glenn references the obvious need for welfare state redistributive action to improving society. If you are an IDW devotee you must know Eric Weinstein also recognizes the need to massively expand the welfare state in the coming years? He wants to expand welfare to everyone - UBI. He has said we need a hybrid model which has capitalism alongside radical redistribution which will be “even more socialistic than our communism of yesteryear.” The certitude with which you assert zero benefit of welfare is concerning. Making arguments about changing current policies on how welfare operates and the emergence of negative behavioural incentives is fine. But that’s about how welfare is implemented, not about its very existence.
Don't you need to have an arrest, an apprehension, a stake out, an officer on the beat, a conviction, before you have any way to measure offending? What if you could measure offending without the need for justice system statistics, would you then have similar offending statistics to that provided by our justice system? Weren't native people "offending" when they were playing the drums? After the civil war, weren't black people offending by behaving like a free person? Using the justice system as the only way of knowing about civil society offensiveness is like asking a slave owner circa 1820 what race is morally superior. "Well according to statistics, it's white people". That white slave owner has no reservations about the status quo. He assumes that if the law, the congress, the executive, the business community, the stock market, the courts and unfortunately academia are all fully aligned and in full sympathy with the legal structure and power balance of the current system then it is above reproach. It is good. And defending it, making money off it, supporting it, accepting it and adjusting to it, taking it for granted in other words is also above reproach. I don't want these kinds of automatic assumptions and the mindset that power balance status quos should be programmed into the new army of algorithms that will be behind the auto pilot ordering of society and economy in the near future. And lets step back. Similar to one of the biggest slave economies ever which was above reproach by most in power, in the courts and law enforcement, in academia, in business/Wall St. in congress and the executive, is not our foreign presence, foreign aggression, intimidation, sanctions and war waging also? How about related co-belligerents for instance, big tech, the surveillance state soft power propaganda warfare which is very mixed with regular media for consumption by the the American consumer and peasantry. How big is the US military? How much of that is basically private? How much of it must include an astronomical corporate profit tax for the production and maintenance of it? That's just the military. What about the wealth and economic control that manages Washington? In other words big energy, Wall St./finance and foundations and multi-nationals. My long and laborious point is that, despite the relentless and very successful propaganda messaging through media worldwide especially domestically, the war waging business is as unscrupulous as can be gotten away with. Now we would like to think that it can't get away with much because we are a democracy and we have a free press and it's closer to heaven on earth than any place ever was. Hey I'm not being sarcastic, state religion is real religion, it isn't a Christian Judeo Islamic religion but it is as powerful or more powerful. In my opinion, our style of state religion is centered around economic beliefs and precepts. Religion has always been universally powerful because it was monopolizing the populations side by side with the kingdom and government for centuries and centuries. What I am saying is that despite the cover and legitimacy we eagerly volunteer for it, despite it's official legal status, despite it being the official state position that all of this is above reproach, it is not that good. It is not improving or making positive contribution to the world community. It is exploitation, it is economic terrorism, it is amoral. Even though this is pure capitalism it is not good Though we would like to think that the nature of man is now more enlightened and is not as ruthless and hungry for power as it used to be. We like to think that man and womankind is, by virtue of its political correctness not as crude and cruel, not enslaving and exploiting weaker more vulnerable populations and continents. Well it is and it does, it just does it in a much more deceptive and clever way with very sophisticated, subtle and mysterious administration and extremely massive unending electronic media propaganda wars. I give this perspective because I am pointing out that our current system doesn't just have some nagging problems that need to be tweaked. To say that it is not above reproach is a huge understatement. WARNING: thought provoking questions ahead One might say, why go into this argument? This argument that is probably shared by many and is potentially controversial for others and possibly taboo for some? Well I do it because it seems that the black offender has some pretty big marks going against him, those being a higher rate of committing violence and murder. Not things that can be easily forgiven and forgotten. Despite the reality that violence and murder cannot be allowed to occur without redress, I would like to take a wider view and ask: If you had to identify the biggest terror threat in the world, who would it be? Was the biggest institutional slave economy in the world terrorism? If it was, did the US simply stop being the biggest terrorist in the world overnight? Was it a threat to the world or just a threat to insignificant people? Does the US global presence ever intentionally provoke violence among third party actors as a strategy? Does the US global presence ever deceptively provoke other countries or factions into violence for the sake of blaming its own attacks and invasions on the victim? Does the US global presence simply launch unprovoked attacks on complete non-offending nations simply because there is a significant economic incentive? Does it then use its vast intelligence/human rights apparatus institutions to distract, confuse and justify it in any way possible? (How is the latter related to the media?) Does the US global presence ever launch unprovoked attacks on non-offending countries simply to cripple their economic advancements? Can all of this be ignored, distorted and or justified simply by the production and broadcast of TV shows and co-belligerent reporting? Can great performances by "news" actors and "news" directors and producers be viewed more like Hollywood movies then journalism? Are these productions exquisitely skilled at the Hollywood art of inducing the suspension of disbelief of the viewer? When protestors are protesting police force murder and are chanting "I can't breathe", is the double meaning of that statement instinctually understood by the vast majority of human beings regardless of their level of sympathy or views on police misconduct?
Yes there is racism today and it is likely distributed mostly evenly however, given that the power structure is mostly white and since the majority of the population is mostly white, said "racism" likely has a net negative effect on all minorities (not just black people). That said, this is a 3% problem. The problems being ignored by the media, by BLM and by universities and corporate America (et. al.) is the income gap, the violence gap and the control gap. The gaps are not (necessarily) structural or the result of some conspiracy or structural (racial) intent (in my view). They, instead, evolve as a matter of many many socio-political and economic factors. The first and most prominent being that the HAVES always have more and continue to get more until there is a revolution. That the wealth and income gap continues to widen is not one of uniqueness to our culture or our nation. Some countries have done a better job of slowing this disparity than others. The fundamental problem I have with BLM and many on the "progressive" Left, is the victim narrative defined in large part by racial identity and motive. This is absolute BS and this life-long LIBERAL will not tolerate it one bit!
I would find Adaner's argument 100% persuasive if there wasn't stark contrast to the African American culture of 1940-1950's vs African American culture of the 1970-1980's. It is my understanding that there was no concept of doing well in school or getting a good education in the 1940-50s as being "white" and thus not black which follows something you don't want to emulate as an African American. It is my understand that this attitude arises in the late 60s to early 70s. If this is true can this be blamed on past injustices when we see great stride made with civil right in the mid 60's? If past injustices where to blame then wouldn't these attitudes have manifested earlier? I think blame is the wrong approach anyway, when know there are significant metrics that show success finishing high school, getting married, not having children out of wedlock and obtaining full time employment. Does doing these things create successor not doing these things create failure? No. But these metrics show that doing these things seem to create patterns of behavior that promote success. Shouldn't we be promoting behaviors, regardless of who is to blame, because success is more important than who is to blame. Shouldn't we show people how to succeed giving them the tools?
Dr. Usmani "The rare child who does his homework despite his peers saying he shouldn't" - well, that's a racism statement. So where is the parent's influence? And Adaner's assumption that the response to past discrimination is negatively related to successful behavior? Much evidence is that a reaction to discrimination is often positively related to successful behavior. If people still hold the goal of wealth accumulation, then any barriers will just cause actors to change behaviors to hurdle over them rather than stop in front of the barrier and give up.
I am at 43:00 or so now. Usmani is arguing hard that black dysfunctional behavior is not black people's fault, that it's all a result of historical determination. It seems to me that this argument has huge policy significance, and I wonder if he's going to get to it. To wit: if much of it is black people's fault, then they have to change their behavior if they want to improve. If, on the other hand, as Usmani is saying, it isn't their fault, that makes a strong case for reparations. And now he's using hypothetical people to excuse anything people do under stress. . . .sigh. And he is arguing that dysfunctional behavior among black people is "average," which is NOT what Glenn has said, and which is not in evidence.
I'm just a dumb nurse with an AA degree, but it sounded to me as if the sociologist was saying black people (at least in groups!??!) don't have the free will to behave in their own best interest but, I guess, white people (and of course academics!) do... so whites and academics are free - and wise! - enough to decide how to raise up those poor black folk. "Pass the money over to us - we know what to do with it! We're sociologists!!" I say, defund the universities - at least the sociology departments... and use that money for these ongoing experiments. The US has been throwing money at poverty for many decades now and things have only gotten worse. How in the world does it makes sense to say the lack of fathers in the American home is due to immigrants getting the good jobs during the Industrial Revolution, by the way? The black family - and the white! - started failing in the 1960s!! At exactly the same time as the money started being lobbed! My brother worked as a social worker in the early 60s and he verifies there was a night shift of social workers going into poor homes to make sure no man (aka father) was there! And the sociologists still haven't added two and two together?? End the minimum wage so young people, felons, etc., can more easily get jobs. People - esp. men - need jobs to have self-respect. You get the opposite from hand-outs.
Usmani's argument about immigration taking the industrial jobs so Blacks couldn't get them as agriculture gave way to industry, is only good up until about 1914, when WW1 and then the Immigration Acts choked off immigration for 50 years, while industrial jobs multiplied hugely.
The ironic part is, segregating people into racial groups is a form of "discrimination" and the persistence of these social constructs contributes to an inherited inequality between divided groups. So let's add a vertical arrow on the left in of the clarification at 34:43, and make all arrows bidirectional. It would be very useful to separate the discrimination box into three different boxes (rational types 1a and 1b, and objectionable type 2 animus).
no, but it strangely implies that the oppressors are (and will ever be) almighty. Which is an absurdity, since if it is so, nobody would single out the oppressors.
I'm unconvinced by Adaner's main argument, but he argues his views very compellingly, and much better than Glenn's dry reading of his pre-prepared comments.
The two speakers agree that some aspects of Black behavior or culture constitute one of multiple causes of Black disadvantage, but Usmani distinguishes his view from Loury's by holding that even this cause is not the fault of Blacks. I don't disagree with him. BUT whether you believe all individual choices are predetermined or that all humans, regardless of their lot in life, can always exercise freewill, shouldn't this cause of Black suffering be addressed by every means possible, just as the other causes needed to be addressed? It's important to Usmani who is and isn't to blame, but his distinctions don't change what should be done.
Adaner, the policies based on your line of thought has been failing lower class AAs for 50 years. Yet you are basically playing an intellectual game to defend it. I thought a Harvard scholar should know better than that.
The form of Adaner - the speed of speech and the energetic commitment to the ideas - is very strong but the content, the actual ideas, are far in between and quite weak. In him the form wins over function (of sharing good ideas).
The Blame and Praise argument made by Adaner is clearly a context shift. It attempts (cleverly) to shift from a context of Objectivity and Generality to one of Subjectivity and Specific instances (as if Glen is claiming that all features (vs. acts) of a given culture (in this case African American) are categorically collectively worthy of praise or worthy of condemnation). Clearly this wasn't Glen's point. Secondly, Adaner's points on praise and condemnation are obvious in the subjective context. Every rational and reasonable person judges individual acts based on their subjective understanding of the facts and weighs it against what they would do (this is known as morality). This is not a position that Glen is speaking against. There is value in collective praise or condemnation. For example, it is fair to say that the fact that 70% of African American children live in single parent homes is worthy of condemnation. It is a poor cultural norm and certainly worthy of condemnation. It is clearly associated with the cultural values. However each circumstance is worthy of review and until understood, judgement should be withheld because there are exceptions to every normal distribution. A culture who puts children first would not have the same result and we know this from observing much poorer cultures (like in India and yes, most of Asia) that this can't logically follow from economic plight...and even less so from economic opportunity for African Americans vs most of the Asian population who live in abject poverty but somehow manage to preserve familial structure. If anyone wants to blame this on American racism, this will have to be quantified and justified. In summary, it is completely reasonable to condemn African American cultural norms which have obvious deleterious effects without condemning the individual circumstances of any single person or the people within said culture. If this isn't clear, please re-read my explanation.
Great points. "Cultural norms currently common among American Americans" might be a less essentializing phrasing than "African American culture", which makes the pathologies seem more permanent than they have been or need be
Adaner talks about the reasonableness of calling out behaviours of individuals in a group, but the unreasonableness of calling out the group as a whole. I accept that, but isn’t that happening because the US is obsessed with talking about its citizens in terms of the identity groups within it. If the US stopped framing its discussions about identity groups, as Glen suggests, and starts talking about groups without identity markers, like, for example, the group “poor” or “working class” behaviours of individuals could still be called out, the collective poor and working class would get the help they need, and the US may finally be able to move on from obsessing about using identity group categories and start seeing everyone collectively as Americans.
I agree, and Adanar exacerbates the very problem he tries to solve by framing it in terms of identity groups before even offering solutions. American history has taken a clear stance against segregation. It's time we disrupt segregation in rhetoric as well.
Does structural racism exist? I'm always suspicious of titles like that. I heard that Charles Koch once wanted to have a program on PBS called "Does climate change exist?" If Charles Koch ever made that show do you think it would be supporting the evidence that climate change exists? I'm one to simply let structural racism itself answer the question of whether it exists or not. And if half of us aren't sure if we should acknowledge it, that sure makes it hard to address. If these guys keep having debates maybe it will evolve into a debate about whether racism exists. What, did a bunch of social workers hire a big PR firm to push Clinton's welfare reform through? eye roll. I agree to most of what comes out of Glenn's mouth but when it comes to his ideas for remedies or fixes it sounds to me like he got it from a FOX news talking point. And he makes me think. I imagine Glenn might think that fostering and encouraging personal agency and the strengthening of individuals is far better and more effective than punitive hand outs, like a disability for being black is an institutional framework that is counter productive. Usually when I hear people say that needy or suffering people don't deserve cash assistance or food assistance or any kind, I instinctually hear an argument that I suspect has been fostered by the corporate Libertarian movement against big government that successfully recruited many a conservative mind to believe regardless of their income level that government providing social assistance is bleeding them dry. Lower and middle income people all over the nation still believe this and it is still driven home. Can we see the books? I doubt it. But if people really believe that the cost of welfare and assistance to the needy is a big strain on their budget then I think they are duped. 4 trillion or more for Wall St and the stock market and any corporation that might have lost a customer during covid, but if these kids aren't getting food and cloths they must not be trying hard enough. What I am trying to say is that I think Glenn's arguments come from a good faith interest and not a deluded covetous motivation.
I’m not going to watch a 2 hour video where no one presents any evidence at all that racial inequality exists. If evidence were presented, this could be discussed or validated or challenged, but no evidence whatsoever regarding racial inequality will be presented.
Is Adaner a moral relativist? A determinist? Probably not the former, but the latter he comes across as. I agree with a great deal of what he has to say up until the point where he seems to cross the threshold into full-throated determinism (he is a historical materialist, yes?), and there I cannot follow him. Its imo a grim outlook on human beings, Alan Watts called it the fully automatic model. And it really is akin to a difference in spiritual belief. Between whether the universe is a discrete and definable chemical formula playing itself out exactly as the conditions of reality allow it to, or if there is an inescapable element of chaos and unpredictability in the unfolding of things where something like agency might live. I suspect this is the bedrock philosophical disagreement between he and Glenn.
Which of his arguments seems deterministic to you? I am a determinist yet I disagree with Adanar's overall point (that it's wrong to find fault with behavior rather than the system that led to it) and agree more with Glenn, although both make the fundamental mistake of normalizing categorization by race, which enables bigotry
@@highneedforcognition9660 I disagree with his overall point as well. I dont think there's such a neat 1:1 ratio between the material conditions of a group, historical and contemporary, and their behavior, which is the crux of his argument about blame. This is what seems deterministic to me as well. Maybe he doesnt actually think its a 1:1 input to output, and he just thinks its more useful to think in these terms for the sake of devising policy, which is fair. Still, the deeper philosophical implications are what give me pause. And to me he seems almost to contradict himself on this point, or maybe just doesnt address an obvious tension in his argument. He will admit that on an individual level of analysis praise and blame are perfectly fine and good and rational, but scaled up to group is where he thinks one can't due to his point about what an average person would do in the same circumstances. Groups are just collections of individuals. They dont disappear in the aggregate. To be sure aggregates like demographics are abstract approximations, and again I think this may be his emphasis on policy guiding him. Still it's something obvious that I believe he ought to have addressed.
Also towards the end of the discussion Adaner says that he does believe American history could have "only gone one way." So I do feel its fair to characterize him as deterministic. Honestly I was for many years myself and have friends who still are so its not a pejorative observation by any means.
Blame and praise at the group level is a category error. Modeling successful and rejecting the destructive behavior doesn’t require blame. Just a realization that (for instance), the Asian approach of pushing for success within the system works, the black approach of trying to game or overturn the system, doesn’t. No need for blame, collective or otherwise.
Who's to say that those approaches are typical of those groups, and/or that members of each of those groups don't do each of those things? Your point might be better served by taking race out of it entirely and not caring what type of person performs what behavior at what frequency so much as about reducing the frequency of maladaptive behaviors and increasing the frequency of better ones in the entire population
Well technically, blacks are far better off today than they were during the height of white American identity politics and racism. It would be foolish to say that no gains were achieved, in fact, it paved the way for Asians and other minorities to be able to succeed.
@@JohnSmith-hs1hn Agreed. Glenn and Coleman Hughes often talk about the phenomenal success of black America. The problem is, the grievance industry isn’t interested in that success, it’s interested in whether that success is on line with white performance. And it isn’t, therefore the BLM types, not Glenn, dismiss the success
@@honestjohn6418 but you just said they are doing worse now, therefore racism isn't the issue. Btw that is a presupposition, you'd have to actually prove how racist we are or aren't right now.
His argument lacks depth of analysis. I can't believe he's employed at Harvard. When one begins with ideology rather than a quest for facts, then confirmation biases are sought which stifles true analysis. Cultural Marxism Teaching external locus of control is crippling for any person/persons caught in a destructive cycle. Adaner was respectful and attentive which is to his credit.
Rational adoptions to circumstances. “We can will a different response.” The conditions are created by liberal policies which, in effect socially engineered (cultural complicity), derelict behavior within the culture of the effected community. Glen is using the example set be the anomaly, or the exception to the rule, to place to onus for change on the individual. While at the same time identifying structural policy and liberal changes in the general culture as the actual culprits. He wants to blame the victim for refusing to push a boulder up hill.
@@americanbeanpiecompany7886 it seems he wants the victim to stop seeing himself as the victim and the tunnel vision to the end of his life, to take of his blinders put himself out there avail to the opportunities that are in place big or small or back to the corner for some more of the tunnel
FInally help on the way. DR Loury hang in there ...200 CEO are keeping the word to turn it around now need the churches. black and white to put together a ten year plan . gone are the unequal treatment set for 30 years gone for 65 years..it is easy to make men into slaves hard to make slaves into men...hang in there...goid debate
![What Killed Michael Brown? | Glenn Loury & John McWhorter [The Glenn Show]](http://i.ytimg.com/vi/5mNfxayyNfk/mqdefault.jpg)
![What Killed Michael Brown? | Glenn Loury & John McWhorter [The Glenn Show]](/img/tr.png)
Great debate. I found myself persuaded by each of them at different moments. My biggest takeaway from the debate was that a refocusing on the responsibility of the individual, rather than arbitrary identity groups, is key to societal progress.
I couldn't agree more, and couldn't help but point out that Adanar's first move is to normalize and perpetuate arbitrary grouping by identity. Before he even proposes a solution, he exacerbates the problem by continuing to produce the social construction of race. Glenn later makes the same mistake even though his own argument against segregation in rhetoric was the key takeaway of this discussion.
Thanks to you, Glenn, I experienced for the first time the term "collective responsibility" as more than just the onus of white America, which includes stoop-shouldered little me, but as a weight borne by ALL of us. All of us, as countrymen of all colors, need to work together to transcend this "AMERICAN tragedy."
I'm on the brink of tears; Glenn, you rule!!
This was his best point in a while for sure!
But black people are not the ones who ascribe white privilege, white people have more of an onus because it is they who do it the most.
@@JohnSmith-hs1hn I think Glenn was saying that blacks had to take some responsibility for where the inequities of the past find them today. An adult who has been warped by a rotten childhood must sooner or later "rise above his raisin.' " More importantly, Glenn was calling for the setting aside of the "us and them" mentality that stubbornly persists between groups of people in this country. It requires a fleeting flash of insight to do this; I've lost it already. 😔
This is the kind of debate and critique that can move the discussion forward. Thank you.
I am looking at the chart at 39:30 in the video addressing the theory that black Americans behave in inequality-promoting ways. The chart... N-3; "Black Americans are not responsible for past and present discrimination", N-4: "Because of N-3, black Americans are not responsible for their inequality-promoting behavior", N-5 "Because of N-4, black Americans are not responsible for persistent black-white inequality." The premise is that there are factors that shape all societies and cultures, factors that are (or were) beyond the control of those populations. So I would ask, are white Americans responsible for their behavior towards other racial demographics? I would also ask, it this about blame or is it more about presenting explanations.
Well put. Admonishions to behave in responsible ways are just an example of a cultural incentive, so if you accept even that culture is a proximate cause of dysfunction, you implicitly accept the need to assign responsibility insofar as doing so is necessary to improve the incentives in question.
As Glenn speaks around 13 - 15 minutes in, he is giving deep truths about what, in part, can keep a race from moving ahead. Parents, community and school are largely responsible for building resilience, curiosity, enthusiasm, team spirit, and a willingness to learn in their children. This is not to say there is not injustice. At around 25-27 minutes he talks about our collective responsibility for each other as Americans, and this being an "American tragedy." So true.
@Mitch Lang are you unaware of the countless groups who have achieved exactly what you claim is so unreasonable to expect?
@Mitch Lang do you think all these problems would go away if you improved the material conditions of people? Because I live on Detroit’s East side and I don’t think money will fix these problems
@Mitch Lang material conditions are a key part of the story, but you can't just dismiss culture in comparison without evidence. I suspect if you control for material conditions you'll still find a huge disparity in out-of-wedlock births between cultures with strong aversion towards single motherhood and cultures obsessed with the nuclear family.
@@Stumashedpotatoes This right here. Literally EVERY other race in America does exactly this. To even be fair blacks do the same thing.
This is why the conversation tends to be a boring one. It is really a conversation of what to do with the lower class to bringing it into the middle class or higher. As if it is something most actually want and are willing to do what needs to be done to get out of the lower class. You see so many examples of people doing it that people assume that is something others WANT to do it and put in the effort to do so.
I give one simple example even though I can give many. I hear many times that people in the inner cities don’t have a choice and can’t go anywhere. Yet people without a dime to their name, barely if at all can speak the language and only the clothes on their back come thousands of miles and become part of the middle class within 3-10 years. Yet because someone has a certain amount of melanin in their skin and the history of being black in America they can’t get in their car or get a bus ticket and go somewhere else that might be bette suited for prosperity? That could not be any more nonsensical.
Great discussion on both sides, and it's a privilege to listen to a debate about a polarizing issue, yet come away feeling LESS polarized. These guys are deep thinking, heavy intellectuals and the country would be well served to have gentlemen like them in leadership positions. The internet (youtube, podcasts, etc) is doing a good job in providing a platform for these kinds of discussions and debates, but I would strongly suggest the White House and Congress (regardless of party in power) organize, promote and present panels of discourse like the one to the country, It would help bring our citizens together.
Mr. Ingram should be complemented for his skillful shaping of a very productive conversation.
Love these discussions. Both Glenn and Adaner are passionate advocates for their positions, and we are all richer for it.
Well said Mr. Loury. It's about a balanced approach to our black community's issue. Culture matters greatly and needs to be a large part of any viable solution. Thank you also Mr. Usmani as well. Love the open, honest, thoughtful and respectful debate.
Excellent! I just want to add as Glenn said, saying someone is responsible is not blaming the victim. There were two main questions of Russian intelligentsia:"Who is guilty?What is to do?". The conservative American thinking is not to ask "Who is guilty?" But to ask "Who is responsible?". The guilt view is view of the past, it has no power except moral and except to another human being. There is no guilt for any social institutions, they don't have moral imperative, each of single person has. Were is question "who is responsible?" is forward looking, actionable question. Even if institution, or culture or nature pushed you to unfortunate situations, you still have some responsibility to deal with it.
This is what civil discourse looks like.
I would be interested in hearing Adaner talk about the flourishing of American Jews, directly in the wake of the Holocaust, in light of the thesis he advances here.
@Mitch Lang Yeah, unfortunately, the Ashkenazi population is not a clear-cut natural experiment for the reasons you listed. Maybe a better natural experiment is the recent paper Persistence through Revolutions www.nber.org/papers/w27053 (which seems to at least falsify the idea that all disparities between distinct groups of people are ultimately due to past discrimination, and it suggests an explanation based on cultural values).
Ultimately, the theory of structural racism (as your comment indirectly shows) has very little predictive power. It explains too much -- both how some groups are less successful and how some groups are more successful. It doesn't really give unique explanations for any particular stylized facts (unless you count the findings in, say, the economic literature on persistent negative effects of slavery across countries on things like development, but that isn't really what people are arguing about in 2020). It's hard to find any clear-cut natural experiment to test it -- it's sufficiently flexible that it leads to enormous identification problems.
A group doing well does not mean there is no substantial racism, and takes away from that group's own ingenuity. It is totally possible to live in an environment with pervasive racism, while still succeeding, so that argument can also be made.
@King Kong That's a strawman and a kafka trap. We could talk for hours about the racism that affects people today that has nothing to do with what happened centuries ago. You cannot use personal responsibility as a cudgel to deflect from race issues; personal responsibility and race issues are two entirely different things, and someone isn't a "victim" for wanting to stop the oppression or perceived oppression against them. That'd be like saying that a woman just has a "victim complex" because she wants the guy that rapes her everyday before work to stop his behavior.
@@JohnSmith-hs1hn u use the phrase "rape every morning" as if it is relevant here
@@Stumashedpotatoes he is an ideologue not arguing in good faith nor seeking productive discussion. He literally invalidated my experience and called me a liar at the same time after asserting directly contrary to fact that segregation has defined my entire existence, yet my parents overcame segregation to bring me into the world. Fuck that guy
A really fantastic and thought provoking conversation. Thanks to all 3 of you.
On the black child/ Asian child thing. The difference between the two is that even though both receive cultural pressure, the outcome of the Asian pressure has a positive outcome for the Asian child. There is no positive outcome for the black child if they succumb to their cultural pressure.
Glen Loury is the man!!
3 objections for Adanar that Glenn didn't make:
1) aren't we enabling bigotry by normalizing segregation by racial identity in both the formulation of the problem and the solution? Let's not cause unnecessary division but solve national problems as a nation, regardless of what the people affected by or contributing to the problem look like.
2) can't a group's behavior be a rational cause of discrimination towards that group? Police are more cautious around men than women, for example, without being sexist or irrational in light of the behavior of men vs women.
3) can't all arrows in the clarification at 34:43 be bidirectional, and isn't a vertical link between inherited inequality and discrimination also missing?
@Mitch Lang no, they are not. 1 is normative, 2 is analytical. Did u watch this video?
@Mitch Lang wrong. For example, perhaps it's wrong to stereotype certain subgroups of women as promiscuous in an essentializing and limiting way (as Jesse Lee Peterson does by labeling any woman who has sex outside of marraige a slur). Even so, if your goal is to get laid as readily as possible, it's quite rational to direct your efforts towards women who are often stereotyped in this essentializing way rather than towards women who rarely or never are.
"aren't we enabling bigotry by normalizing segregation by racial identity in both the formulation of the problem and the solution"
But the races are already segregated. It is a matter of fact. You yourself live a life than is entirely segregated on the basis of race. Most Americans are, even in the most diverse cities in America.
"can't a group's behavior be a rational cause of discrimination towards that group? "
You just contradicted your first point . If you are saying that a person should be targeted based on the behavior of someone else in their group, that is promoting racism and segregation and far worse than the notion of simply classifying and analyzing groups, that you previously just decried. What you just expounded on is the very definition of racism.
@@JohnSmith-hs1hn I don’t believe that is at all promoting racism. If you take racism to be inherent characteristics based upon a persons race so as to sort them into inferior and superior hierarchies, then simply acknowledging differences is not racism. It is not sexism to understand that men are considerably more aggressive and prone to crime than women. Or take Latin America for example. Latin America makes up 8% of the worlds population, yet makes up around 38% of the homicide rate worldwide. And 80% of those murders in Latin American cities occur on 2% of the streets. Is it racist/sexist to focus police attention on that 2% street area? Isn’t it worse to simply ignore reality and lower standards for certain groups of people, sort of a soft bigotry of low expectations type of deal?
@@NotoriousMinion All the examples you just listed definitely meet the definition of racism and sexism. If I said that most white people are racists, it would immediately be deemed racist and I'd be canceled . You cannot change the definitions of words to fit your narrative nor what most people perceive to be racism.
Glenn, I had no idea you coined the term social capital. I had lazily thought it was Putnam. I would give you the economics Nobel for that, even though it is not a "real" Nobel.
There's a serious flaw, which Glenn alluded to, in Adaner's thought experiment at 43:06 about the hypothetical Asian and black student. He imagines the two distributions of responses to more or less benevolent environments, and concludes that the disparate outcomes are predictable and inevitable on the group level.
This neglects all the feedback one receives from outside one's "cultural universe" and the rewarded actions within it. Not least is the exacting feedback from reality, in which one's income, security, life satisfaction, etc. are substantially influenced by one's own efforts and decisions. If one's cultural reward system is observably leading to poor outcomes, *this is feedback as well!*
Put most concisely, a theory which imagines that people are obliged by their cultures to behave in certain ways is an overly narrow conception of the feedback to which people can respond. External social influences and harsh reality remind us what needs to change.
@Mitch Lang Glen points out from the start that race is socially constructed and we are producing it continuously. Adanar unfortunately defaults to producing more of it by neglecting to even question the appropriateness of participation in racial subcultures, which, in my view, must be disrupted, downplayed or eliminated immediately lest we enable more bigotry by making arbitrary categorizations more salient in our rhetoric and behavior. Adanar exacerbates the very problem he tries to solve before he even sets upon a solution
thought-provoking. really like the way Glenn present his argument , concrete and logical
Glenn I think most of the people that listen to you would be willing to buy you a new microphone. Audio is just tough to listen to
I’m sure he can afford his own microphone.
Fantastic display of civilized conversation. Well done gentlemen, cheers!
Very interesting exchange. Looking forward to watching the whole thing.
before you stream and upload, sort out the audio please. Important discussions like this deserves to be heard.
Before you make that kind of statement please learn how the internet works where it's limitations.
Finally someone explicitly referencing metaphysics. That's the bottom level of the issue; Free will. It is not scientific no matter what people say, it's metaphysical, so whatever stance you take will always be unfalsifiable and presupposed. But, determinism will lead to Fatalism (and removes accountability) and agency will lead to hope. You can see what internalizing each narrative does to people.
Where can you see such a thing? I'm not sure I can mind-read who believes in agency versus determinism, except to say you appear to look down on the latter
@Mitch Lang Such a love-letter to hegemony! And such a celebration of White Supremacy, Mr. Lang! with all of that materialism in the one hand, and saviorism in the other...and through your rationalism and measurements, you're going to decide how your fellow humans (a/k/a "those poor dumb brutes") shall live and thrive, becoming healthier and healthier, until you've finally bred out all the hatred, wrath, greed, and sloth, and bred in nothing but meekness, mercy, and forgiveness.
Thank goodness you've volunteered to be Humanity's overseer, teacher, and guardian...will you be keeping your human subjects on a ranch somewhere? Or maybe an island plantation, where you can control their education and meals, too...and help them make healthy choices about mating?
@Mitch Lang Well you can't determine if something metaphysical is real, you have to presuppose it, and you just said you believe in agency, so what's your point? I don't believe you can will anything and everything into being, but you have a choice, if you didn't you wouldn't have accountability. Determinism is for people running away from responsibility, that's the "freedom" you're talking about, only romanticized.
@@highneedforcognition9660To say that your disposition was caused by history and that you can't escape it unless some outside force intervenes is what? To say that "education" will set you free, that the right inputs will produce the right outputs is what? Black people can literally do anything and people will say "well I can't blame them for lashing out at what we've done to them." This guy isn't as bad but he's still saying the same things. More "education" throw more $$$ at the problem. If you don't fix the consciousness first, you'll never solve it. I.g. if they are cynical (this intersectional epistemology big "nobody can understand my lived experience") and fatalist then no amount of money will solve the problem.
@Mitch Lang truly beautiful post! Very impressive reasoning!
One question that emerged for me while watching had to do with Dr. Usmani's note that perhaps he and Dr. Loury are addressing different audiences and, later, that he accepts that Mr. Loury's "exhortation" at the level of the individual, but that different principles applied to the collective. My question, which I wish I could ask our scholars, is to what extent has this become an unforeseen complication as history and technology have moved toward greater and greater individual involvement in protest movements and political activism? That is, if someone for example claims "the personal is political" and simultaneously canvasses to assist with voter registration in empoverished neighborhoods, how does one prevent the social message from becoming confusingly expressed amidst the individual ethic, and has this problem become greater after the second half of the 20th century as communications technology have to accelerated in evolution year after year? More and more people respond to tweets or tiktok vids for inspirations into political activism, and I don't quite see Dr. Usmani's distinction being tenable or sustainable.
South Africa is 80% black and has been under black rule since 1994. But the black/white disparity hasn't changed much. How do you explain it, Prof. Usmani?
South Africa actually provides even stronger evidence in support of Adaner's argument, which is primarily about economics and effects of past discrimination. Apartheid only ended in 1994, and in the absence of massive social democratic redistribution his argument would predict the emergence of a small black elite along with the white elite, and middle class blacks but not poor blacks benefiting from the end of formal racial barriers. That is exactly what happened.
@@beyondaboundary6034 Simple rules from Brookings to join the middle class: at least finish high school, get a full-time job and wait until age 21 to get married and have children. For a household with 2 adults, even if they work for Amazon warehouse, Walmart, Costco, Home Depot, as Uber driver, 2 incomes pooled together, you shouldn't be in poverty. Another option is to join the military, then everything is paid for including college education. What racism/discrimination prevents you from doing these things? Military, many companies and colleges bend backwards to hire/admit blacks.
FYI, the audio on this video is suffering from very irritating lower frequency booming that could significantly improved with a little audio processing.
If 70 % of African American families have no father influence,father love and discipline, the other 30 % of families are thriving. What are those families doing differently? They have 2 parents? Parents encourage children to study and achieve? Do these parents love, educate and discipline? To promote responsibility
that 70 percent number is over exaggerated. All that tells you is marital status at the time of birth. Many out of wedlock parents co parent just like divorced parents
@@michaeldavis2135 but isn't it good news that it's down from a high of 90% in the 90s? And isn't it bad news that it's up from what was at the time a concerning 25% in the 60s? Also there's some other rather convincing data on the prevalence of fathers in a community being more determinative than whether or not a specific child has a father in the home
@wholly33 outcomes depend more on the percentage of children with fathers in the community than the presence or absence of any specific father
The one good point Usmani made was to ask for an example that encouraging successful behavior and discouraging destructive behavior works.
I would argue there are plenty of examples. Glenn being one. But Glenn didn’t give an example, so to the casual observer, that was a point in the favour of Usmani.
But I would say, Glenn just being a brilliant and successful human, whilst black, is enough retort. 🙏
Isn't encouraging successful behavior and discouraging destructive behavior the very point of parenting and mentorship?
Absolutely outstanding. Thank you so much.
A problem which the end of the video reminded me of is that too many people talk about how well various social welfare style policies are working in countries with a fraction of the population of the US, without considering the problems involved in managing hundreds of millions of people scattered over 3 million square miles. For example, when they talk about single-payer healthcare, they never mention China.
The PRC has nothing comparable to single payer healthcare. Its healthcare system is based on hukou and subsidized private hospitals and public hospitals and clinics for rural peasants
The US has vastly more resources to draw upon, what with being the largest economy in the world and all, so the question of scale is a red herring.
Wonderful exchange of ideas! Especially appreciate the organization of the video. Glenn's affirmation of Black people's agency is passionate, thoughtful, and necessary, especially in the face of race-essentialist narratives that elevate white supremacy as our supreme social malady. It was also great to see that Adaner's prescription of universal policies (increased social spending, healthcare for everyone, universal child care, more financial support for families of all races) was supported by Glenn.
But Glenn doesn't adequately address the issue of how much capitalism, and specifically America's system of political economy, promotes racial inequality by actively working to squelch attempts at creating more robust, universal social programs (through the American Legislative Exchange Counsel, The American Enterprise Institute, the Republican majority in the U.S. Senate, the massive coordinated opposition to health care reform, increased minimum wages, more gov't bargaining in the health care industry on behalf of poor citizens, etc.). While it is true American capitalism may give lip-service to racial justice movements, this is far from challenging the structural conditions that pit precarious workers, already at unequal starting points, against each other. One example of how capitalism can exacerbate racial inequality is the attempt of Republicans--under the guise of privatization--to gut funding for programs like the Social Security Administration, the USPS, HUD, FDA, EPA, and other government agencies that disproportionately employ African Americans.
Excellent conversation
This video should have at least a factor of 10 more views.
At 1:13:00 is exactly the point that's always missed: different messages are appropriate for different contexts, and the key is to direct the right messages the right ways.
From an analytical perspective, you can always go back one step further and assert that this step is due to structured racism like one-parent families, violent behavior, etc.
The role of racial discrimination vs the role of harmful counterproductive pattern . Two question. Are these factors independent from each other? And is the prevalance of these harmful behaviuor patterns higher among Afro American?
I can't defend my point with evidence or common sense, so I'll resort to a deliberately ignorant logical fallacy. How does this help anyone?
The welfare state and the war on drugs.
@@roundedges2 what other factors would you mention?
I think the biggest thing we should look at when deciding on whether America IS racist rather than WAS racist is how well Nigerians, black South Africans, Koreans, Indians , Chinese do when they immigrate to the US. If it was just some 1920s style racism I don't see how all races are doing better than poor whites and poor blacks with long ancestral history in America?
I think it's Cultural. Immigrants are usually extremely driven and ambitious people. This is reflected by how much more wealth is handed down to second generation immigrants of any colour. The old guard who have lived in poverty for generations, mostly white but also a reasonable chunk of African Americans, remain in poverty and trodden on by authority.
1:02:00 very good point! Most people understand that few individuals are actually overtly racist, yet they speak as though there's this High Council of Secret Racists pulling the strings to keep certain groups underprivileged while granting others all the power from on high. It's a completely reductive mindset that does nothing but cause division and bitterness which makes it impossible to create positive change or help anyone in need.
Coleman Hughes has called it a conspiracy without conspirators
Thanks for posting this. Glenn, hope you read this. I’ve been following you since 2016 (have read the transcript from your lecture relations before transactions and have a copy of Anatomy of Inequality). It was shocking to me, though, that when it was pointed out that your normative claim reads as finger wagging, you stated that that’s not what you intended. Unfortunately that’s how you come off in your videos and posts. I’m glad you clarified your position but your content tends to feed into political tribalism (see the commenter below who said “you seem liberal at spots”). Hoping to see more content like this.
There is little or no "structural racism". Show me an institution or orgainzation in 2020 that is dedicated to racism--I'll wait.
There are racists in some institutions, and some of them are no doubt in positions where they can act in a racist manner. That is a serious problem, but it is not the same thing.
@Craig Jones I see Chinese restaurants and nail salons as grouped not by a desire to exclude so much as to share language and/or cultural ties
@Mitch Lang "Structural racism" was called "neo-imperial racism," a kind of racism both invisible and intangible, but which certainly existed -- indeed. once discovered, half the rulers and learned men did nothing but marvel at the intricate detail, design, and sinister-though-unseen effects caused by the neo-imperial* racism.
------------
* In 20th-Century Eurasia, it was also named "creeping racism," and most often was found in political dissidents.
@Craig Jones as far as I know it was never broadly present in Chinese restaurants. Where else do you perceive it? Let's discuss on a case-by-case basis. Two of the best arguments for presently existing cases are the crack vs powder cocaine sentencing disparity and the tendency of court stenographers, regardless of their background, to mistranscribe so-called "black English" in ways that tend to hurt the defendant
Adaner, work with some computer scientist who’s an AI expert. Analyze big data going back to 17th century until today. It’s not too hard to find out how much slavery, Jim Crowe, war on poverty, war on drugs, etc. contribute to the disparity today. My guess is discrimination would contribute to < 10%.
Exhorting people to do better absolutely has positive change.
Social policy, on the other hand, is one of the main causes of poverty and crime in these communities.
It seems crazy to think that “this time it’s different” and the government will solve everyone’s problems
I agree you shouldn't blame individual blacks for the culture they're born into.
On the same vein, one should not blame an individual white for the action of other whites in the past, who aren't in most circumstances, aren't even their ancestors.
24:00 - Powerful. "This is us", when 'us' refers to all Americans. This contrasts with James Baldwin's "I" in his famous "I was there" (during slavery), as if he experienced the horrors of slavery personally.
Great discussion between two knowledgeable and reasonable people. I think Adaner makes the stronger argument, and he gets to the heart of the matter around the 1:09:00 mark. Whatever we may say about individual behavior, catching up with our peer nations in social spending would do far more to fix the problem than exhorting kids to behave better (not that there is no place for that).
A fantastic discussion between two great minds.
I have to say that I take the most issue with Usmani's theory of blameworthy and praiseworthy behavior.
To give an obvious example: I can fully understand why someone might steal food from someone else if they were starving. I would probably do the same thing in their position.
The act of stealing is still wrong. It is still blameworthy. The thief still deserves to be punished.
That's fine, but when it comes time for judgment where you have some leeway in punishment, that you grade people on a curve.
@@ubuu7 Based on something like "need?"
I fully agree. I also think he's refusing to assign responsibility for convalescence to all involved parties. If a driver crashes into my leg he must be held responsible, but no one can do the required physical therapy for me.
I think your words deserve a better microphone!
This conversation is so incredibly important, and it is a shame that so much is lost by poor quality audio.
The main factor in the acquisition of wealth is culture first; opportunity secondly. Chinese, Indian, Russian and Jewish people in the US do not have the greatest opportunity built on a legacies of evil. Instead, they work hard, have good intact families with a husband and wife, they pursue college and are good at saving money.
@1:09: Wow, I thought Adaner was being very reasonable until we got to this subject (of policy) and as an Economist, Glen should have ATTACKED this head on. Welfare and affirmative action have had no positive effect on the whole. To redouble a 0 effect is 2x0...=0. Many would even argue that the effects have been deleterious. Any policy that seeks to benefit any portion of society (albeit based on race or economic level) has a COST to those non benefactors. Yet, this being the case, white people have voted in favor of such policies and white people put Obama in the White House under no duress. P.S. I am a die hard IDW Liberal who voted for Obama and now Biden...just in case someone misreads my factual statements as political discourse.
The assertion that welfare has had no positive effect on society is such an extreme statement it’s hard to take you seriously. Glenn is an advocate for the welfare state as are most economists because of the overwhelming historical evidence demonstrating its positive impacts on society starting in the late 19th century. It was created by liberals who recognized its importance in stabilizing society and thus allowing capitalist economies to function much better. Even in this conversation Glenn references the obvious need for welfare state redistributive action to improving society.
If you are an IDW devotee you must know Eric Weinstein also recognizes the need to massively expand the welfare state in the coming years? He wants to expand welfare to everyone - UBI. He has said we need a hybrid model which has capitalism alongside radical redistribution which will be “even more socialistic than our communism of yesteryear.”
The certitude with which you assert zero benefit of welfare is concerning. Making arguments about changing current policies on how welfare operates and the emergence of negative behavioural incentives is fine. But that’s about how welfare is implemented, not about its very existence.
Don't you need to have an arrest, an apprehension, a stake out, an officer on the beat, a conviction, before you have any way to measure offending? What if you could measure offending without the need for justice system statistics, would you then have similar offending statistics to that provided by our justice system? Weren't native people "offending" when they were playing the drums? After the civil war, weren't black people offending by behaving like a free person? Using the justice system as the only way of knowing about civil society offensiveness is like asking a slave owner circa 1820 what race is morally superior. "Well according to statistics, it's white people".
That white slave owner has no reservations about the status quo. He assumes that if the law, the congress, the executive, the business community, the stock market, the courts and unfortunately academia are all fully aligned and in full sympathy with the legal structure and power balance of the current system then it is above reproach. It is good. And defending it, making money off it, supporting it, accepting it and adjusting to it, taking it for granted in other words is also above reproach. I don't want these kinds of automatic assumptions and the mindset that power balance status quos should be programmed into the new army of algorithms that will be behind the auto pilot ordering of society and economy in the near future.
And lets step back. Similar to one of the biggest slave economies ever which was above reproach by most in power, in the courts and law enforcement, in academia, in business/Wall St. in congress and the executive, is not our foreign presence, foreign aggression, intimidation, sanctions and war waging also? How about related co-belligerents for instance, big tech, the surveillance state soft power propaganda warfare which is very mixed with regular media for consumption by the the American consumer and peasantry.
How big is the US military? How much of that is basically private? How much of it must include an astronomical corporate profit tax for the production and maintenance of it? That's just the military. What about the wealth and economic control that manages Washington? In other words big energy, Wall St./finance and foundations and multi-nationals. My long and laborious point is that, despite the relentless and very successful propaganda messaging through media worldwide especially domestically, the war waging business is as unscrupulous as can be gotten away with.
Now we would like to think that it can't get away with much because we are a democracy and we have a free press and it's closer to heaven on earth than any place ever was. Hey I'm not being sarcastic, state religion is real religion, it isn't a Christian Judeo Islamic religion but it is as powerful or more powerful. In my opinion, our style of state religion is centered around economic beliefs and precepts. Religion has always been universally powerful because it was monopolizing the populations side by side with the kingdom and government for centuries and centuries.
What I am saying is that despite the cover and legitimacy we eagerly volunteer for it, despite it's official legal status, despite it being the official state position that all of this is above reproach, it is not that good. It is not improving or making positive contribution to the world community. It is exploitation, it is economic terrorism, it is amoral. Even though this is pure capitalism it is not good
Though we would like to think that the nature of man is now more enlightened and is not as ruthless and hungry for power as it used to be. We like to think that man and womankind is, by virtue of its political correctness not as crude and cruel, not enslaving and exploiting weaker more vulnerable populations and continents. Well it is and it does, it just does it in a much more deceptive and clever way with very sophisticated, subtle and mysterious administration and extremely massive unending electronic media propaganda wars. I give this perspective because I am pointing out that our current system doesn't just have some nagging problems that need to be tweaked. To say that it is not above reproach is a huge understatement.
WARNING: thought provoking questions ahead
One might say, why go into this argument? This argument that is probably shared by many and is potentially controversial for others and possibly taboo for some? Well I do it because it seems that the black offender has some pretty big marks going against him, those being a higher rate of committing violence and murder. Not things that can be easily forgiven and forgotten. Despite the reality that violence and murder cannot be allowed to occur without redress, I would like to take a wider view and ask: If you had to identify the biggest terror threat in the world, who would it be? Was the biggest institutional slave economy in the world terrorism? If it was, did the US simply stop being the biggest terrorist in the world overnight? Was it a threat to the world or just a threat to insignificant people? Does the US global presence ever intentionally provoke violence among third party actors as a strategy? Does the US global presence ever deceptively provoke other countries or factions into violence for the sake of blaming its own attacks and invasions on the victim? Does the US global presence simply launch unprovoked attacks on complete non-offending nations simply because there is a significant economic incentive? Does it then use its vast intelligence/human rights apparatus institutions to distract, confuse and justify it in any way possible? (How is the latter related to the media?) Does the US global presence ever launch unprovoked attacks on non-offending countries simply to cripple their economic advancements? Can all of this be ignored, distorted and or justified simply by the production and broadcast of TV shows and co-belligerent reporting? Can great performances by "news" actors and "news" directors and producers be viewed more like Hollywood movies then journalism? Are these productions exquisitely skilled at the Hollywood art of inducing the suspension of disbelief of the viewer? When protestors are protesting police force murder and are chanting "I can't breathe", is the double meaning of that statement instinctually understood by the vast majority of human beings regardless of their level of sympathy or views on police misconduct?
Keep fighting the real enemies brother!
1:13:10 dude tells Glenn who his community is....moderator steps in. Glenn holds back...
This discussion was fucking dope. Both of you dudes should be knighted.
Yes there is racism today and it is likely distributed mostly evenly however, given that the power structure is mostly white and since the majority of the population is mostly white, said "racism" likely has a net negative effect on all minorities (not just black people). That said, this is a 3% problem. The problems being ignored by the media, by BLM and by universities and corporate America (et. al.) is the income gap, the violence gap and the control gap. The gaps are not (necessarily) structural or the result of some conspiracy or structural (racial) intent (in my view). They, instead, evolve as a matter of many many socio-political and economic factors. The first and most prominent being that the HAVES always have more and continue to get more until there is a revolution. That the wealth and income gap continues to widen is not one of uniqueness to our culture or our nation. Some countries have done a better job of slowing this disparity than others. The fundamental problem I have with BLM and many on the "progressive" Left, is the victim narrative defined in large part by racial identity and motive. This is absolute BS and this life-long LIBERAL will not tolerate it one bit!
I would find Adaner's argument 100% persuasive if there wasn't stark contrast to the African American culture of 1940-1950's vs African American culture of the 1970-1980's. It is my understanding that there was no concept of doing well in school or getting a good education in the 1940-50s as being "white" and thus not black which follows something you don't want to emulate as an African American. It is my understand that this attitude arises in the late 60s to early 70s. If this is true can this be blamed on past injustices when we see great stride made with civil right in the mid 60's? If past injustices where to blame then wouldn't these attitudes have manifested earlier?
I think blame is the wrong approach anyway, when know there are significant metrics that show success finishing high school, getting married, not having children out of wedlock and obtaining full time employment. Does doing these things create successor not doing these things create failure? No. But these metrics show that doing these things seem to create patterns of behavior that promote success. Shouldn't we be promoting behaviors, regardless of who is to blame, because success is more important than who is to blame. Shouldn't we show people how to succeed giving them the tools?
Dr. Usmani "The rare child who does his homework despite his peers saying he shouldn't" - well, that's a racism statement. So where is the parent's influence? And Adaner's assumption that the response to past discrimination is negatively related to successful behavior? Much evidence is that a reaction to discrimination is often positively related to successful behavior. If people still hold the goal of wealth accumulation, then any barriers will just cause actors to change behaviors to hurdle over them rather than stop in front of the barrier and give up.
I am at 43:00 or so now. Usmani is arguing hard that black dysfunctional behavior is not black people's fault, that it's all a result of historical determination. It seems to me that this argument has huge policy significance, and I wonder if he's going to get to it. To wit: if much of it is black people's fault, then they have to change their behavior if they want to improve. If, on the other hand, as Usmani is saying, it isn't their fault, that makes a strong case for reparations. And now he's using hypothetical people to excuse anything people do under stress. . . .sigh. And he is arguing that dysfunctional behavior among black people is "average," which is NOT what Glenn has said, and which is not in evidence.
I'm just a dumb nurse with an AA degree, but it sounded to me as if the sociologist was saying black people (at least in groups!??!) don't have the free will to behave in their own best interest but, I guess, white people (and of course academics!) do... so whites and academics are free - and wise! - enough to decide how to raise up those poor black folk. "Pass the money over to us - we know what to do with it! We're sociologists!!" I say, defund the universities - at least the sociology departments... and use that money for these ongoing experiments. The US has been throwing money at poverty for many decades now and things have only gotten worse. How in the world does it makes sense to say the lack of fathers in the American home is due to immigrants getting the good jobs during the Industrial Revolution, by the way? The black family - and the white! - started failing in the 1960s!! At exactly the same time as the money started being lobbed! My brother worked as a social worker in the early 60s and he verifies there was a night shift of social workers going into poor homes to make sure no man (aka father) was there! And the sociologists still haven't added two and two together?? End the minimum wage so young people, felons, etc., can more easily get jobs. People - esp. men - need jobs to have self-respect. You get the opposite from hand-outs.
I find it hard to take arguments seriously when the central proposition is that the universe is determinist.
Usmani's argument about immigration taking the industrial jobs so Blacks couldn't get them as agriculture gave way to industry, is only good up until about 1914, when WW1 and then the Immigration Acts choked off immigration for 50 years, while industrial jobs multiplied hugely.
Hard to watch with the audio quality
really good point at 34:33
The ironic part is, segregating people into racial groups is a form of "discrimination" and the persistence of these social constructs contributes to an inherited inequality between divided groups. So let's add a vertical arrow on the left in of the clarification at 34:43, and make all arrows bidirectional. It would be very useful to separate the discrimination box into three different boxes (rational types 1a and 1b, and objectionable type 2 animus).
Disrupt segregation in Theory.
Disrupt segregation in practice.
So the whole argument is that you can’t blame people for bad decisions? Seems dubious
If the oppressed are not responsible for their personal behavior, does that mean the oppressors also are not responsible for their personal behavior?
no, but it strangely implies that the oppressors are (and will ever be) almighty. Which is an absurdity, since if it is so, nobody would single out the oppressors.
If its "inherited structured inequalities" then it is really "class inequality" not "race inequality"
I'm unconvinced by Adaner's main argument, but he argues his views very compellingly, and much better than Glenn's dry reading of his pre-prepared comments.
The two speakers agree that some aspects of Black behavior or culture constitute one of multiple causes of Black disadvantage, but Usmani distinguishes his view from Loury's by holding that even this cause is not the fault of Blacks. I don't disagree with him. BUT whether you believe all individual choices are predetermined or that all humans, regardless of their lot in life, can always exercise freewill, shouldn't this cause of Black suffering be addressed by every means possible, just as the other causes needed to be addressed? It's important to Usmani who is and isn't to blame, but his distinctions don't change what should be done.
Adaner, the policies based on your line of thought has been failing lower class AAs for 50 years. Yet you are basically playing an intellectual game to defend it. I thought a Harvard scholar should know better than that.
The form of Adaner - the speed of speech and the energetic commitment to the ideas - is very strong but the content, the actual ideas, are far in between and quite weak. In him the form wins over function (of sharing good ideas).
The Blame and Praise argument made by Adaner is clearly a context shift. It attempts (cleverly) to shift from a context of Objectivity and Generality to one of Subjectivity and Specific instances (as if Glen is claiming that all features (vs. acts) of a given culture (in this case African American) are categorically collectively worthy of praise or worthy of condemnation). Clearly this wasn't Glen's point. Secondly, Adaner's points on praise and condemnation are obvious in the subjective context. Every rational and reasonable person judges individual acts based on their subjective understanding of the facts and weighs it against what they would do (this is known as morality). This is not a position that Glen is speaking against. There is value in collective praise or condemnation. For example, it is fair to say that the fact that 70% of African American children live in single parent homes is worthy of condemnation. It is a poor cultural norm and certainly worthy of condemnation. It is clearly associated with the cultural values. However each circumstance is worthy of review and until understood, judgement should be withheld because there are exceptions to every normal distribution. A culture who puts children first would not have the same result and we know this from observing much poorer cultures (like in India and yes, most of Asia) that this can't logically follow from economic plight...and even less so from economic opportunity for African Americans vs most of the Asian population who live in abject poverty but somehow manage to preserve familial structure. If anyone wants to blame this on American racism, this will have to be quantified and justified. In summary, it is completely reasonable to condemn African American cultural norms which have obvious deleterious effects without condemning the individual circumstances of any single person or the people within said culture. If this isn't clear, please re-read my explanation.
Great points. "Cultural norms currently common among American Americans" might be a less essentializing phrasing than "African American culture", which makes the pathologies seem more permanent than they have been or need be
Adaner talks about the reasonableness of calling out behaviours of individuals in a group, but the unreasonableness of calling out the group as a whole. I accept that, but isn’t that happening because the US is obsessed with talking about its citizens in terms of the identity groups within it. If the US stopped framing its discussions about identity groups, as Glen suggests, and starts talking about groups without identity markers, like, for example, the group “poor” or “working class” behaviours of individuals could still be called out, the collective poor and working class would get the help they need, and the US may finally be able to move on from obsessing about using identity group categories and start seeing everyone collectively as Americans.
I agree, and Adanar exacerbates the very problem he tries to solve by framing it in terms of identity groups before even offering solutions. American history has taken a clear stance against segregation. It's time we disrupt segregation in rhetoric as well.
Does structural racism exist? I'm always suspicious of titles like that. I heard that Charles Koch once wanted to have a program on PBS called "Does climate change exist?" If Charles Koch ever made that show do you think it would be supporting the evidence that climate change exists? I'm one to simply let structural racism itself answer the question of whether it exists or not. And if half of us aren't sure if we should acknowledge it, that sure makes it hard to address. If these guys keep having debates maybe it will evolve into a debate about whether racism exists. What, did a bunch of social workers hire a big PR firm to push Clinton's welfare reform through? eye roll. I agree to most of what comes out of Glenn's mouth but when it comes to his ideas for remedies or fixes it sounds to me like he got it from a FOX news talking point. And he makes me think.
I imagine Glenn might think that fostering and encouraging personal agency and the strengthening of individuals is far better and more effective than punitive hand outs, like a disability for being black is an institutional framework that is counter productive. Usually when I hear people say that needy or suffering people don't deserve cash assistance or food assistance or any kind, I instinctually hear an argument that I suspect has been fostered by the corporate Libertarian movement against big government that successfully recruited many a conservative mind to believe regardless of their income level that government providing social assistance is bleeding them dry. Lower and middle income people all over the nation still believe this and it is still driven home. Can we see the books? I doubt it. But if people really believe that the cost of welfare and assistance to the needy is a big strain on their budget then I think they are duped. 4 trillion or more for Wall St and the stock market and any corporation that might have lost a customer during covid, but if these kids aren't getting food and cloths they must not be trying hard enough. What I am trying to say is that I think Glenn's arguments come from a good faith interest and not a deluded covetous motivation.
I’m not going to watch a 2 hour video where no one presents any evidence at all that racial inequality exists. If evidence were presented, this could be discussed or validated or challenged, but no evidence whatsoever regarding racial inequality will be presented.
Good!
freedom of choice, population difference and the fact inequality is a natural occurance in our world.
Is Adaner a moral relativist? A determinist? Probably not the former, but the latter he comes across as. I agree with a great deal of what he has to say up until the point where he seems to cross the threshold into full-throated determinism (he is a historical materialist, yes?), and there I cannot follow him. Its imo a grim outlook on human beings, Alan Watts called it the fully automatic model. And it really is akin to a difference in spiritual belief. Between whether the universe is a discrete and definable chemical formula playing itself out exactly as the conditions of reality allow it to, or if there is an inescapable element of chaos and unpredictability in the unfolding of things where something like agency might live. I suspect this is the bedrock philosophical disagreement between he and Glenn.
Which of his arguments seems deterministic to you? I am a determinist yet I disagree with Adanar's overall point (that it's wrong to find fault with behavior rather than the system that led to it) and agree more with Glenn, although both make the fundamental mistake of normalizing categorization by race, which enables bigotry
@@highneedforcognition9660 I disagree with his overall point as well. I dont think there's such a neat 1:1 ratio between the material conditions of a group, historical and contemporary, and their behavior, which is the crux of his argument about blame. This is what seems deterministic to me as well. Maybe he doesnt actually think its a 1:1 input to output, and he just thinks its more useful to think in these terms for the sake of devising policy, which is fair. Still, the deeper philosophical implications are what give me pause.
And to me he seems almost to contradict himself on this point, or maybe just doesnt address an obvious tension in his argument. He will admit that on an individual level of analysis praise and blame are perfectly fine and good and rational, but scaled up to group is where he thinks one can't due to his point about what an average person would do in the same circumstances. Groups are just collections of individuals. They dont disappear in the aggregate. To be sure aggregates like demographics are abstract approximations, and again I think this may be his emphasis on policy guiding him. Still it's something obvious that I believe he ought to have addressed.
Also towards the end of the discussion Adaner says that he does believe American history could have "only gone one way." So I do feel its fair to characterize him as deterministic. Honestly I was for many years myself and have friends who still are so its not a pejorative observation by any means.
Damn, Glenn is smart.
Blame and praise at the group level is a category error. Modeling successful and rejecting the destructive behavior doesn’t require blame.
Just a realization that (for instance), the Asian approach of pushing for success within the system works, the black approach of trying to game or overturn the system, doesn’t.
No need for blame, collective or otherwise.
Who's to say that those approaches are typical of those groups, and/or that members of each of those groups don't do each of those things? Your point might be better served by taking race out of it entirely and not caring what type of person performs what behavior at what frequency so much as about reducing the frequency of maladaptive behaviors and increasing the frequency of better ones in the entire population
Well technically, blacks are far better off today than they were during the height of white American identity politics and racism. It would be foolish to say that no gains were achieved, in fact, it paved the way for Asians and other minorities to be able to succeed.
@@highneedforcognition9660
This whole conversation is about black inequality. So it is kind of impossible for it not to include race
@@JohnSmith-hs1hn
Agreed. Glenn and Coleman Hughes often talk about the phenomenal success of black America. The problem is, the grievance industry isn’t interested in that success, it’s interested in whether that success is on line with white performance. And it isn’t, therefore the BLM types, not Glenn, dismiss the success
@@honestjohn6418 but you just said they are doing worse now, therefore racism isn't the issue. Btw that is a presupposition, you'd have to actually prove how racist we are or aren't right now.
Adaner is really good.
His argument lacks depth of analysis. I can't believe he's employed at Harvard.
When one begins with ideology rather than a quest for facts, then confirmation biases are sought which stifles true analysis.
Cultural Marxism
Teaching external locus of control is crippling for any person/persons caught in a destructive cycle.
Adaner was respectful and attentive which is to his credit.
1:28 Glen gives up the ghost. He knows the truth, but hides it to keep his place in society l.
what truth? speak plainly, I can't decode crypto conservative
Rational adoptions to circumstances. “We can will a different response.” The conditions are created by liberal policies which, in effect socially engineered (cultural complicity), derelict behavior within the culture of the effected community.
Glen is using the example set be the anomaly, or the exception to the rule, to place to onus for change on the individual.
While at the same time identifying structural policy and liberal changes in the general culture as the actual culprits.
He wants to blame the victim for refusing to push a boulder up hill.
@@americanbeanpiecompany7886 it seems he wants the victim to stop seeing himself as the victim and the tunnel vision to the end of his life, to take of his blinders put himself out there avail to the opportunities that are in place big or small or back to the corner for some more of the tunnel
1:26 Glen’s career ends
FInally help on the way. DR Loury hang in there ...200 CEO are keeping the word to turn it around now need the churches. black and white to put together a ten year plan
. gone are the unequal treatment set for 30 years gone for 65 years..it is easy to make men into slaves hard to make slaves into men...hang in there...goid debate
Solid video! Keep up with the great work. We Would really value your review! Let's help each other? 😎🙌
the guest first name should be welfare and his last name state
Glen sounds a bit liberal in spots here... I guess to appease his adversary.