Bigotry? How many blacks did you break bread with this past year? We have people of different races and ethnic groups regularly in and out of our homes and in our lives. My late grandfather was half Scot-Irish. I've visited over 150 countries around the world, including Ireland and African countries (my ancestory). My daughter-in-law, an educator, is white with 2 biracial children. I'm currently preparing for an upcoming trip to Turkey, Israel, Saudi Arabia, Dubai, Oman, Jordan, Egypt, and Abu Dhabi. I enjoy different cultures and their histories.
Zero-sum outlook? You're probably more comfortable with the likes of Clarence Thomas, a black conservative meritorious manumission negro grifter? New revelations just came out about his relationship with the ultra-right Koch brothers. Meritorious manumission has always been a significant obstacle for true group black progress.
Racism is a competitive relationship between groups for ownership and control of wealth and resources. Europeans got the headstart with black chattel slavery, a racist constitution, 2 billion acres of free Indian land, and Jim Crow. The Black group's wealth of less than 2% hasn't changed since the American Civil War when there were 400 thousand semi-freed blacks and 4 million black slaves. Lots of time and opportunities were lost in accumulating wealth in this unforgiving capitalistic system historically rigged by the white dominant group. Resources are very limited, and whites mostly own the boot and loot. Scraps? Lol!!! Black slaves lived off of massa's scraps (i.e., hog guts). Some still eat hog guts (Chitterings). Do you eat hog intestines? Lol!!!!
In his book, "Powermomics," Dr. Claud Anderson states, racism is a wealth and power-base competitive relationship between Blacks and non-Blacks. The sole purpose of racism is to support and ensure that the White majority and it's ethnic subgroups continue to dominate and use Blacks as a means to produce wealth and power. Centuries of Black enslavement and Jim Crow semi-slavery resulted in the majority of society becoming 99-foot giants and Blacks one-foot midgets. This massive inequality in wealth and resources made Blacks non-competitive and totally dependent upon Whites for the necessities of life. True racism exists only when one group holds a disproportionate share of the wealth and power over another group and then uses those resources to marginalize, exploit, and subordinate the weaker group. In America, it is Whites who use wealth and power to marginalize, exploit, and subordinate Blacks. Whites can deny Blacks employment, educational opportunities, business resources, and a place to live or the right to vote. Therefore, according to this definition, Black people can not be racist. No group of Blacks has the power or exclusive control of resources to the degree that they can educationally, politically, economically ĺand socially exploit and marginalize the White race. Blacks can only react to racism and try to alter the conditions that racism creates. Despite the realities, there are numerous conservative Blacks who act as apologists for White racism and confuse the issue. A conservative Black radio talk show host in Los Angeles, for example, charges that Blacks are racist as Whites. His desire for white approval, as well as his ignorance of history, impedes him from understanding that White racism and Black prejudice are not the same thing. Blacks have a reason for their feelings about Whites based on how they have been treated by Whites. The White race, on the other hand, has never been marginalized by the Black race. Racism reinforces the legacies of slavery and Jim Crow semi-slavery. Blacks have been unable to escape from those legacies because the majority of society acknowledges the operation of racism in the distant past but minimizes its present significance."
DEI = Title VII + Title VI (and, in the universities those plus Title IX). Amplified in the 80s and 90s when "discrimination" was greatly expanded to include "stereotypes" and "hostile environment harassment" thru the EEOC and the courts; all of the above cemented into place through corporate liability expansions during the same time - and then consecrated in the "Ellerth-Faragher test" (1998, U.S. Supreme Court), which made clear the need for "preventive and corrective measures." All clearly "constitutional." Also, more simply, massive. There is more (a lot more) to "woke" than affirmative action and the "disparate impact" debate. It is true that the Right is now pushing back against anti-white, anti-male uses of the machinery of anti-discrimination law, but in doing so they only make it stronger, in my opinion. And now for the shameless self-promotion: spelled out in chapter 3 of my book, "American Multiculturalism and the Anti-Discrimination Regime" (out Sept. 15 from St. Augustine's Press).
I started listening to your interview with Carol Swain this morning and got halfway through. Looking forward to finishing the interview and learning about her new book.
I appreciate you asking Ms. Swain some of the common questions circulating regarding her support for Donald Trump. I make the following points that I think are relevant to your questions:
• The only election contest brought by Donald Trump was in Georgia. Georgia law required a hearing to be set within at least 10 days. The lower court simply did not set a hearing, and the Georgia appellant and Supreme Court failed to enforce the law. That reinforces Ms. Swain’s statement that there is not fair judicial relief available.
• Regarding what were the Georgia election irregularities, I believe Ms. Swain correctly responded there were many. Some of the more common ones are detailed in the Georgia case filing. I will try to attach that filing to my post for the benefit of your community.
• Finally, in response to your comment about Donald Trump conceding after not receiving remedy through the court system, in addition to the difficulty of courts appropriately responding to the relief sought by others (and Donald Trump in Georgia) that Ms. Swain referenced, it is important to note that the Constitution saw election challenges mostly having a political resolution; that is, that is why the Constitution allows for election irregularities to be brought to Congress. This is precisely what Donald Trump did as well as many other incumbents and challengers over the history of our founding.
Ms. Swain reference all these points, in general, which your listeners would benefit I believe from a much more detailed discussion. I recommend you interview Robert Barnes, a constitutional and civil rights lawyer who has done many election challenges and was heavily involved in the Georgia court filing. He can be found on Locals at vivabvarnes.local.com. Glenn, Robert and Viva had you on his show. He's the best I've heard at articulating the details of these election challenges and does so even handily. I think your board would enjoy him.
Oh, man. The internet "legal advice" I have received is that most corporate DEI programs inasmuch as they emphasize the "I" will clear the SFFA v. Harvard test.
Unconstitutional sounds crazy, but I think you could pick out “equity” particularly and say that where 14th amendment claims about “equal treatment” come into conflict with “equity”, equity loses.
There’s another argument that you could construct where DEI is essentially like “separate but equal”, a concept that may work in some purely theoretical context but in practice almost always constitutes prohibited discrimination.
Slavery is one thing that the Constitution got wrong from the beginning, and we're still living with this burden. The "Articles of Confederation" was the original organizing document after the American Revolution. There was so much wrong with the Articles that it had to be scrapped. The US Constitution took its place. The reason I bring this up is that the Articles of Confederation were silent on the issue of slavery, and during that time, six black slaves sued for their freedom and won.
The Constitution had slavery written in, even though most of the Founders either owned slaves they were NOT allowed to free, or didn't own slaves at all. The fact that the law counted each black slaves as 2/3 of a person. This gave their white slave owners a vested interest in keeping slaves, and providing a political incentive for the continued owning and multiplying of slaves. This was an unspeakable injustice, especially since the incentive built in, made the original end-date of slavery in the Constitution a joke.
Now the argument shifting to prevent private owners from exercising private preferences or prejudices is backed by 247 years of government meddling in private decisions.
The decision-making constraints on government are different than on private individuals and businesses. Rightly, any person should have a right to choose his or her friends, business associates and employees.
The simple rule is that governments, since they hold the objective use of force to maintain law and order for all the people over an area of land called a country, cannot be allowed or encouraged to discriminate between groups of people by race, religion, sex, creed, etc. In the United States the rule of the Founders has been "innocent until proven guilty." Government institutionalizing racial preferences, no matter who is being preferred are an anathema to justice.
It would be refreshing if people would be consider that now is the time to privatize preferences, and make the clear distinction between government financed livelihoods (where discrimination is banned) and privately financed livelihoods, where individual preferences (aka discrimination) is treated as an aspect of cultural evolution and individual rights. Sometimes, we need to assume that people do not need new laws, especially laws which remove private choice and infantilize a population under the benevolent dictatorship of a Nanny State.
This view assumes people who are categorized as white (as I am) do not want to understand their relationships with people who are categorized by our culture as black, brown, yellow and so forth - based on darker and/or different skin color. In 2020-21 and 2022, my employer supported a completely voluntary program of reading books and through them sharing our experiences. It was a learning process. A non-threatening way to talk about race and the effects of racism on our culture.
In 1950’s Texas, Jim Crow laws very efficiently, and legally at the time, separated people in public life based on skin color. And treated them vastly differently - in public life.
Organized and well facilitated diversity and understanding programs can potentially promote racial healing. We inherited the mess we are in, but it is up to us to repair the damage done.
"The DEI folks seem to think they can say whatever they want, under the rubric of 'white people are bad' or some such." This is, in my view, an absolute fact. It is also somewhat unavoidable in the current context. I tend to agree with Ms. Swain in large part, on this narrow issue. I agree with Mr. Loury, in the fact that it is not unconstitutional. It, DEI training, could be worthless--which is another discussion--but it should not be used as an excuse to attack others.
Bigotry? How many blacks did you break bread with this past year? We have people of different races and ethnic groups regularly in and out of our homes and in our lives. My late grandfather was half Scot-Irish. I've visited over 150 countries around the world, including Ireland and African countries (my ancestory). My daughter-in-law, an educator, is white with 2 biracial children. I'm currently preparing for an upcoming trip to Turkey, Israel, Saudi Arabia, Dubai, Oman, Jordan, Egypt, and Abu Dhabi. I enjoy different cultures and their histories.
Zero-sum outlook? You're probably more comfortable with the likes of Clarence Thomas, a black conservative meritorious manumission negro grifter? New revelations just came out about his relationship with the ultra-right Koch brothers. Meritorious manumission has always been a significant obstacle for true group black progress.
Racism is a competitive relationship between groups for ownership and control of wealth and resources. Europeans got the headstart with black chattel slavery, a racist constitution, 2 billion acres of free Indian land, and Jim Crow. The Black group's wealth of less than 2% hasn't changed since the American Civil War when there were 400 thousand semi-freed blacks and 4 million black slaves. Lots of time and opportunities were lost in accumulating wealth in this unforgiving capitalistic system historically rigged by the white dominant group. Resources are very limited, and whites mostly own the boot and loot. Scraps? Lol!!! Black slaves lived off of massa's scraps (i.e., hog guts). Some still eat hog guts (Chitterings). Do you eat hog intestines? Lol!!!!
You're projecting.
In his book, "Powermomics," Dr. Claud Anderson states, racism is a wealth and power-base competitive relationship between Blacks and non-Blacks. The sole purpose of racism is to support and ensure that the White majority and it's ethnic subgroups continue to dominate and use Blacks as a means to produce wealth and power. Centuries of Black enslavement and Jim Crow semi-slavery resulted in the majority of society becoming 99-foot giants and Blacks one-foot midgets. This massive inequality in wealth and resources made Blacks non-competitive and totally dependent upon Whites for the necessities of life. True racism exists only when one group holds a disproportionate share of the wealth and power over another group and then uses those resources to marginalize, exploit, and subordinate the weaker group. In America, it is Whites who use wealth and power to marginalize, exploit, and subordinate Blacks. Whites can deny Blacks employment, educational opportunities, business resources, and a place to live or the right to vote. Therefore, according to this definition, Black people can not be racist. No group of Blacks has the power or exclusive control of resources to the degree that they can educationally, politically, economically ĺand socially exploit and marginalize the White race. Blacks can only react to racism and try to alter the conditions that racism creates. Despite the realities, there are numerous conservative Blacks who act as apologists for White racism and confuse the issue. A conservative Black radio talk show host in Los Angeles, for example, charges that Blacks are racist as Whites. His desire for white approval, as well as his ignorance of history, impedes him from understanding that White racism and Black prejudice are not the same thing. Blacks have a reason for their feelings about Whites based on how they have been treated by Whites. The White race, on the other hand, has never been marginalized by the Black race. Racism reinforces the legacies of slavery and Jim Crow semi-slavery. Blacks have been unable to escape from those legacies because the majority of society acknowledges the operation of racism in the distant past but minimizes its present significance."
DEI = Title VII + Title VI (and, in the universities those plus Title IX). Amplified in the 80s and 90s when "discrimination" was greatly expanded to include "stereotypes" and "hostile environment harassment" thru the EEOC and the courts; all of the above cemented into place through corporate liability expansions during the same time - and then consecrated in the "Ellerth-Faragher test" (1998, U.S. Supreme Court), which made clear the need for "preventive and corrective measures." All clearly "constitutional." Also, more simply, massive. There is more (a lot more) to "woke" than affirmative action and the "disparate impact" debate. It is true that the Right is now pushing back against anti-white, anti-male uses of the machinery of anti-discrimination law, but in doing so they only make it stronger, in my opinion. And now for the shameless self-promotion: spelled out in chapter 3 of my book, "American Multiculturalism and the Anti-Discrimination Regime" (out Sept. 15 from St. Augustine's Press).
https://maxkanin.substack.com/p/understanding-justice-neil-gorsuchs May violate Title VII regardless.
Hi Glenn,
I started listening to your interview with Carol Swain this morning and got halfway through. Looking forward to finishing the interview and learning about her new book.
I appreciate you asking Ms. Swain some of the common questions circulating regarding her support for Donald Trump. I make the following points that I think are relevant to your questions:
• The only election contest brought by Donald Trump was in Georgia. Georgia law required a hearing to be set within at least 10 days. The lower court simply did not set a hearing, and the Georgia appellant and Supreme Court failed to enforce the law. That reinforces Ms. Swain’s statement that there is not fair judicial relief available.
• Regarding what were the Georgia election irregularities, I believe Ms. Swain correctly responded there were many. Some of the more common ones are detailed in the Georgia case filing. I will try to attach that filing to my post for the benefit of your community.
• Finally, in response to your comment about Donald Trump conceding after not receiving remedy through the court system, in addition to the difficulty of courts appropriately responding to the relief sought by others (and Donald Trump in Georgia) that Ms. Swain referenced, it is important to note that the Constitution saw election challenges mostly having a political resolution; that is, that is why the Constitution allows for election irregularities to be brought to Congress. This is precisely what Donald Trump did as well as many other incumbents and challengers over the history of our founding.
Ms. Swain reference all these points, in general, which your listeners would benefit I believe from a much more detailed discussion. I recommend you interview Robert Barnes, a constitutional and civil rights lawyer who has done many election challenges and was heavily involved in the Georgia court filing. He can be found on Locals at vivabvarnes.local.com. Glenn, Robert and Viva had you on his show. He's the best I've heard at articulating the details of these election challenges and does so even handily. I think your board would enjoy him.
The Georgia court filing can be found at the following link: https://vivabarneslaw.locals.com/post/4439850/barnes-law-school-highlighted-georgia-election-contest
Oh, man. The internet "legal advice" I have received is that most corporate DEI programs inasmuch as they emphasize the "I" will clear the SFFA v. Harvard test.
Unconstitutional sounds crazy, but I think you could pick out “equity” particularly and say that where 14th amendment claims about “equal treatment” come into conflict with “equity”, equity loses.
There’s another argument that you could construct where DEI is essentially like “separate but equal”, a concept that may work in some purely theoretical context but in practice almost always constitutes prohibited discrimination.
Slavery is one thing that the Constitution got wrong from the beginning, and we're still living with this burden. The "Articles of Confederation" was the original organizing document after the American Revolution. There was so much wrong with the Articles that it had to be scrapped. The US Constitution took its place. The reason I bring this up is that the Articles of Confederation were silent on the issue of slavery, and during that time, six black slaves sued for their freedom and won.
The Constitution had slavery written in, even though most of the Founders either owned slaves they were NOT allowed to free, or didn't own slaves at all. The fact that the law counted each black slaves as 2/3 of a person. This gave their white slave owners a vested interest in keeping slaves, and providing a political incentive for the continued owning and multiplying of slaves. This was an unspeakable injustice, especially since the incentive built in, made the original end-date of slavery in the Constitution a joke.
Now the argument shifting to prevent private owners from exercising private preferences or prejudices is backed by 247 years of government meddling in private decisions.
The decision-making constraints on government are different than on private individuals and businesses. Rightly, any person should have a right to choose his or her friends, business associates and employees.
The simple rule is that governments, since they hold the objective use of force to maintain law and order for all the people over an area of land called a country, cannot be allowed or encouraged to discriminate between groups of people by race, religion, sex, creed, etc. In the United States the rule of the Founders has been "innocent until proven guilty." Government institutionalizing racial preferences, no matter who is being preferred are an anathema to justice.
It would be refreshing if people would be consider that now is the time to privatize preferences, and make the clear distinction between government financed livelihoods (where discrimination is banned) and privately financed livelihoods, where individual preferences (aka discrimination) is treated as an aspect of cultural evolution and individual rights. Sometimes, we need to assume that people do not need new laws, especially laws which remove private choice and infantilize a population under the benevolent dictatorship of a Nanny State.
This view assumes people who are categorized as white (as I am) do not want to understand their relationships with people who are categorized by our culture as black, brown, yellow and so forth - based on darker and/or different skin color. In 2020-21 and 2022, my employer supported a completely voluntary program of reading books and through them sharing our experiences. It was a learning process. A non-threatening way to talk about race and the effects of racism on our culture.
In 1950’s Texas, Jim Crow laws very efficiently, and legally at the time, separated people in public life based on skin color. And treated them vastly differently - in public life.
Organized and well facilitated diversity and understanding programs can potentially promote racial healing. We inherited the mess we are in, but it is up to us to repair the damage done.
Unconstitutional is a strong word...a bit like fascist, or communist appropriators for that matter.
"The DEI folks seem to think they can say whatever they want, under the rubric of 'white people are bad' or some such." This is, in my view, an absolute fact. It is also somewhat unavoidable in the current context. I tend to agree with Ms. Swain in large part, on this narrow issue. I agree with Mr. Loury, in the fact that it is not unconstitutional. It, DEI training, could be worthless--which is another discussion--but it should not be used as an excuse to attack others.