So educational. Thanks Michael. What's interesting about Goldberg is that back when she was doing movies I remember reading a quote from her that essentially said she wished not for Hollywood to make more parts for "black" people. But that they would just hire more black people for any role. Make the roles less "about" the black experience and more organically inclusive. Just like "Yeah, this part if for a middle age woman. Doesn't make a difference if she's black, latin or white."
This is my problem with the current push for "black voices" in media and entertainment. It's actually become more segregationist. You open up Hulu or Netflix now and, post George Floyd, "Black Stories" is it's own category. Why can't people, (right, left, "woke" or not) see that this is just more ghettoization?
I know this is off topic from her holocaust comment, but it's related. "Race" as a concept is such a construct that people from Hitler to Whoopi, (no, I'm not comparing them, I'm contrasting them) can come up with totally different yet equally fake concepts that seem to make sense only if you accept the initial premise. That premise being that there's something essentially different about us.
There isn't. Genetics is real. Skin color is real. Race is not.
But racism is indeed real. And every time we think we've killed it, it comes back to life like the shark in Jaws. What brings racism back to life? The very concept of race. You can't kill racism without first killing race. And to do that? We're gonna' need a bigger boat.
It might be useful and important to add - if your research confirms this - that when the Nazis were looking around for ways to implement racist policies in Germany, they turned to the U.S., which they found provided perfect models and examples.
Exactly. There is plenty of scholarly research based on German legal sources that confirm that they looked for analogs and inspiration from US racial laws for legal precedence.
Good essay, Michael. I mostly agree with you on it. I do not think Whoopi should have been suspended. Nor should she be fired. Those who call for either are just misguided.
Is being Jewish a race? I always thought that it was a religious or ethnic category, not a racial category. Was I wrong about that?
There is no doubt that the Nazis thought being Jewish was a race which should be suppressed, tortured, and exterminated.
Whoopi was certainly correct that the Holocaust was about man's inhumanity to man, but was she really wrong when she said that it wasn't about race. That statement could just be interpreted as "The Nazis were wrong to consider being a Jew a race."
"Racism" has been wrongly broadened in its meaning.
"Is being Jewish a race?" No. And neither is being black or asian or white. It's all BS. Race isn't real. But when it's considered real it gives birth to racism. Which is all too real.
I tend to agree with your conclusion that being Jewish is not a race, but disagree with you that there are no races. People can be reliably classified into a few "races" defined by observable or measurable physical and genetic profiles. In modern times fewer people can be classified into these few "races" because of intermarriages and their offspring. Of course, any hypothesis about the superiority of one race over another is fallacious. Also, belief in races does not necessarily give birth to racism. Belief in different religions also does not necessarily give birth to discrimination or mistreatment based on religion. Same for other types of group classifications.
"In modern times fewer people can be classified into these few "races" because of intermarriages and their offspring."
But hasn't that always been the case? Our genetic characteristics have been mixing and changing throughout human history. As Richard Dawkins says, we're all African apes at the end of the day.
Regardless, I disagree that we can be "reliably classified". As 23 & me type sites keep showing us, what we think our "race" is can often be way off. (Aren't there suspicions that Hitler himself was actually Jewish?)
My overall point is that even if you could find specific genetic traits that define us "racially", (debatable) those traits wouldn't line up with what most people consider "race". Wether it's the Nazi concept or the American "color" concept. They're all false on their face. And the minute you accept them is the minute you give license to all sorts of false assumptions about how people differ. It really is all bullshit.
GW1: "In modern times fewer people can be classified into these few "races" because of intermarriages and their offspring."
CB2: But hasn't that always been the case? Our genetic characteristics have been mixing and changing throughout human history.
GW2: Yes, but it has gone from little to quite a lot throughout human history.
CB2: As Richard Dawkins says, we're all African apes at the end of the day.
GW2: He is correct about that, but it is an oversimplification and does not disprove that there are races.
CB2: Regardless, I disagree that we can be "reliably classified".
GW2: Well, you are just mistaken about that. At the least we can reliably classify all human persons into four racial categories: white, black, asian, and other.
CB2: As 23 & me type sites keep showing us, what we think our "race" is can often be way off. (Aren't there suspicions that Hitler himself was actually Jewish?)
GW2: That does not prove there are no races. If you don’t clearly belong to one of the BIG THREE, then you belong to OTHER.
CB2: My overall point is that even if you could find specific genetic traits that define us "racially", (debatable) those traits wouldn't line up with what most people consider "race".
GW2: What most people think is irrelevant here. You claimed there are no races. You are guilty of a non sequitur which goes something like this: “Racism exists and it is bad, therefore there are no races.” or maybe “Because racism is bad we must declare there are no races.” It is similar with sex. Some people today make an analogous claim “Because sexism is bad we must declare there are no sexes, no male and female.”
CB2: Wether it's the Nazi concept or the American "color" concept. They're all false on their face.
GW2: It depends specifically on the claim. Your claim that there are no races is false on its face also. (Pun intended)
CB2: And the minute you accept them is the minute you give license to all sorts of false assumptions about how people differ. It really is all bullshit.
GW2: I disagree. You are making false statements, overgeneralizations, false predictions, and non sequitur arguments.
GW2: How to scientifically establish that there are racial groups: Randomly select 10,000 adults from the world population. Determine their genetic profiles. Determine objectively their phenotypes or physical characteristics. Determine the positive correlations between the former and the latter. Conclude that there are just a few general genetic-phenotype clusters. Some persons do not fit into these clusters, maybe even the majority. Nevertheless, from this study you will see that there are a few races.
GW2: You could also do a study in which you ask people to identify the races of a hundred people from pictures and check the inter-judge reliability of the subjects doing the identification. Give them just four categories – white, black, asian, and unclassified. You will see that they are pretty reliable in this classification.
There are plenty of scientific studies that look at "race" and what it actually means. And in general, race is so ill-defined and inconsistent in interpretation (and without a scientific basis) as to almost be meaningless as a scientific tool. That doesn't mean that certain regions of origin might not have certain predictable traits or predispositions to disease, for example. Your interpretation is massively broad, western derived and also quite recent. "Race" 2,000 or 1,000 or 500 years ago meant something entirely different. And if you've ever been to the middle-east, the 'stans, North Africa, to name a few, the clear racial characteristics you're looking for aren't easy to find. The other issue is your categories are skin color based (white, black) and then geographically based (Asian). The breadth of diversity in appearance across Asia alone is remarkable. I've seen darker "Asian" Bangladeshi than some "black" Africans. Are those Bangladeshi "black"? And, moreover, Asia is an arbitrarily defined region.
I agree with some of your claims here. You said "as to almost be meaningless as a scientific tool." But not meaningless. Races are recognizable and reliable within the dataset of genes and physical characteristics. It is a common trope to think "Racism is bad, and therefore races do not exist."
You said "Black, white, asian and other". What is someone with 2 "Asian" grandparents, one "black" grand parent and one "white" grand pareny? Is that other? Or mixed? And here in the USA there's sooo many people with linages mixed like that or even more complicated.
How can race be a thing if it's so flexible as to be meaningless to the millions of "mixed" people both here and abroad?
And even if you're could prove your hypothesis, how does it line up with the street level of race? Which is usually a collection of stereotypes that have been soundly disproven.
Michael, if I may use your first name, I have really come to admire and rely on your thoughts, research and insights. As Douglas Murray says, everything you point out substantiates understandings that we all knew to be true up until a few days ago (in this case about the ignorant use of racial animus in driving the Holocaust). Now for some reason, we need to relearn these truths all over again. Everyone should accept Goldberg's apology, even if imperfect, but it would be so constructive for her to go one step further and acknowledge what you factually point out, that these current CRT theologies have so dumbed down the understanding we collectively have about race that someone like Goldberg, who clearly aspires to some form of enlightenment, could wind up being so ignorantly and actively deluded, specifically as a consequence of this CRT hubris. She won't do that, but wow it would be impactful if she did. Without your saying it, I interpret that as your hope in your excellent piece. I am very happy with my paid subscription, and I'm glad you're out there thinking for us.
Side note, from what I can gather, Maus wasn't actually banned anywhere. That seems to be a misunderstanding. As Matt Shapiro writes in his Polimath substack [1]:
"That instinct kicked in when I heard that Maus, a Pulitzer Prize-winning graphic novel about the Holocaust, had been banned from a Tennessee school. I hate bans. I hate the idea of having access to a book one day and then having that access revoked the next. That bespeaks an attitude that doesn’t trust the audience to their own judgement but demands that some ideas or forms of art are too frightening or dangerous to allow free access to them. Everyone ran with the same phrasing for this story. Every news article said it was either “banned” or “removed from classrooms”.
But eventually someone alerted me to the fact that this isn’t what happened at all. Maus wasn’t banned. It was simply not chosen as an anchor text for a planned eighth-grade curriculum on the Holocaust. [2]"
_________________________
That said, I had actually never heard of Maus before, so this "banned-but-actually-wasn't-banned-but-got-spread-on-the-news" response brought it to my attention, and in 1-2 months when Amazon restocks it I should have the copy I ordered yesterday.
Also, your quote:
"I guess two weeks is enough reflective time to educate oneself on the Holocaust, a subject to which scholars devote entire careers."
'Great article Michael. It's always a pleasure to expand my learning horizons from your deep well of knowledge.
I'm wondering what your thoughts are regarding how Europeans, & Germans in particular, thought about issues of race before Darwin and his ideas of Natural Selection, etc, were in ascendancy? Were the majority populations throughout Europe xenophobic whenever they were faced with having to deal with immigrants, refugees, etc., who were noticeably different from themselves, and moved into these geographic regions over the centuries? Isn't it a fairly natural feature of all human groups (and an evolutionarily derived necessity) to be wary, or even hostile, to strangers seemingly establishing a foothold in areas previously occupied by a certain homogenous group? The reason I bring this up is because there needs to be an answer to a burning question regarding the Holocaust which seems to always be in the background but never actually discussed, which is : Were the German people, as well as their culture, ideas, and actions leading up to and including Hitler, basically "evil" to the core from the get-go for decades or centuries before WWII? Or was the horrible chain of events leading up to the euthanasia, persecution, slave labor and genocidal programs possible for any group of humans who would have been in the same degree of industrial development coupled with xenophobia and the breakdown of moral & ethical systems of human empathy? In simpler terms, were the people who perpetrated the Holocaust basically flawed for many generations before it happened? Or was this outcome the predictable extension of multiple converging factors which might befall any group of humans at any time in history (past, present, or future)? I'd be interested in hearing your take on whether or not the Holocaust was orchestrated by a horrible, *evil* group of humans? Or if all humans have this potential for horror & *evil* within them and can act on it if their group feels sufficiently threatened in certain ways. Thanks. QR
The irony is that even Jewish organizations have adjusted their definitions of racism to conform to the white --> BIPOC paradigm. In 2020 amidst the George Floyd aftermath, the Anti-Defamation League changed their definition of racism to "The marginalization and/or oppression of people of color based on a socially constructed racial hierarchy that privileges white people." (https://www.adl.org/racism)
According to that definition the Japanese aren't racist, and neither are the Zulus, but.... That is, however, a fair definition of the form that racism has currently taken among peoples of perceived predominantly European ancestry and Christian culture. It's an extreme form of tribalism.
It seems there are multiple different ways to think about race. Is it Black Yellow White and Red? Is it Semitic, Hamitic, etc.? Are Inca of a different Race than Aztec, or Algonquin different than Navaho? Are Celts a different race than Germanic, and Finns and Basques a different race? It seems that often "race" is a construct to use to create separation, though it can be useful in looking for tendencies of physical attributes (lactose intolerance, sickle cell disease or Thallassemia, celiac disease, risk of skin cancers, thigh bone length, muscle quality, and many other factors, though none are absolute due to the fact that NONE of us are exclusively anything). So what she said could be taken as true or false depending on the definition you use-- if you use the one that the Nazis used it would be false, but if you use that taught in American schools in the 1950s it would be true. I just wish that race would not be regarded as pejorative in the first place, but more like where you grow up or blood type.
Much ado about nothing. If the only view you can have is the one you are told to have then there are no views just religion. And it really is all about tribes, everyone wants to be in a tribe and every tribe wants to be special and better then other tribes, then all that is needed for hate is some reason the other tribes are bad, any reason will do...
MSNBC's Mika Brzezinski said, "This is something that is just going to start getting ridiculous. I mean, if Whoopi Goldberg is canceled, that would be the end... All this cancel culture is getting so out-of-hand." Yet, just days before MSNBC tried to get Spotify to cancel Joe Rogan just for talking to people with different points of view. And rarely does a day go by without the major media outlets demanding the cancellation of Dan Bongino, Dave Portnoy, Tucker Carlson and anyone else who isn't a leftist supporter of the Democratic Party.
Whoopi will have a two week paid vacation. If she were a white man or a conservative, she would be made to disappear and never work again.
Really? I would point out that all those right-wing examples you have are, in fact, visible and still working. You’d have a pretty hard time finding a media outlet more major than Fox, and I don’t see them cancelling right wing voices, at all. Blaming it all on the main steam media is a lame, rightist trope than people on the right need to take some ownership of, just as those on the left need to stop their own censorious behaviors. Fix your own house before you criticize others.
In my opinion, and in the opinion of most conservatives, neither Rogan or Goldberg should be cancelled. Most progressives in the media, however, spend a large portion of their time making apologies for people they agree with, while trying to destroy anyone who dares to disagree with them. They prefer to silence their opponents, rather than debate them. MSNBC's radically different treatment of Rogan and Goldberg is just one example among many.
Conservative media have to be shut down because they aired Trump's election theories? On those grounds, shouldn't CNN, ABC, CBS and NBC be taken off the air because they spent several years promoting the Russian collusion hoax? After years of CNN falsely claiming the Steele Dossier was valid and the Russian collusion claim against Trump was credible, it was never held accountable for its misreporting, and Newsmax never called for CNN to be shut down. Hillary Clinton still pushes the Trump-Russia story, almost to the point of seeming deranged. Will she be banned from social media? Not likely. In the 2016 election, 96 percent of journalists’ political donations went to Hillary Clinton, according to The Center for Public Integrity.
According to the Media Research Center, in the months March through May 2020, coverage of Trump by ABC, CBS, and NBC was 94 percent negative, with the coverage reaching an unprecedented 99.5 percent negative in May. During the time Trump was in office, MRC has regularly found network coverage that was 90 percent or more negative.
According to an analysis by the MRC, Facebook and Twitter censored accounts belonging to Trump or his re-election campaign 65 times prior to the 2020 election. Biden and his campaign, meanwhile, have been censored a grand total of - zero times. Eventually, those platforms banned Trump permanently.
It wasn’t enough to ban Donald Trump from Facebook and Twitter if he and his followers could move to Parler — so Parler had to be shut down, too. Big Tech obliged, succumbing to pressure from the media and their Democratic allies in Congress. This unprecedented suppression was denounced by conservative and libertarian publications like the Wall Street Journal and Reason, but was celebrated by most other media outlets.
The Washington Post headlined an editorial, “Parler deserved to be taken down.” The Guardian called for still-harsher censorship through federal regulation. At MSNBC and CNN, commentators longed for more government action — a new equivalent of the 9/11 Commission to investigate the Capitol riot — and further corporate censorship.
CNN’s senior media reporter, Oliver Darcy, called for telecom companies like AT&T, Verizon, and Comcast to stop providing platforms for the distribution of “lies” and “conspiracy theories” by conservative channels like Fox News, Newsmax, and One America News Network. On his CNN show Reliable Sources, Brian Stelter discussed further steps to “curb” the “information crisis,” and he offered no objection to the solution offered by a former Facebook executive: “We have to turn down the capability of these conservative influencers to reach these huge audiences.”
You never hear Fox News personalities, conservative journalists or conservative podcasters demanding that progressive voices be silenced, however. Even Michael Shermer, who leans left on most issues, has criticized the censorship and double standards of legacy media.
Progressive journalists have been in an ideological bubble so long that they’ve come to believe their own hype about the right-wing menace — and they’re oblivious to their blatant double standards. You also seem to have lost touch with reality - a bit surprising for someone who reads skeptic. I'm sorry, but facts don't cease being facts just because you don't like them. The same people who are calling for the destruction of Joe Rogan -- who is non-partisan and hasn't done anything wrong -- are simultaneously defending and making excuses for Whoopi Goldberg, simply because she is black, female, and supports the Democratic Party. To deny that is to deny reality.
Goldberg said something incredibly, really incredibly stupid. But perhaps she didn't really mean it (that is, perhaps she is just too stupid to realize that what she said is stupid and offensive), and she did apologize. So my first reaction would be to forgive and forget.
But Goldberg's "woke" friends keep trying to cancel people like Jordan Peterson, JK Rowking, and now Joe Rogan, for saying things that offend them. So I guess tasting their own medicine will do the wokes some good. Perhaps they'll become more reasonable (well, of course they won't, but optimism feels good).
So educational. Thanks Michael. What's interesting about Goldberg is that back when she was doing movies I remember reading a quote from her that essentially said she wished not for Hollywood to make more parts for "black" people. But that they would just hire more black people for any role. Make the roles less "about" the black experience and more organically inclusive. Just like "Yeah, this part if for a middle age woman. Doesn't make a difference if she's black, latin or white."
This is my problem with the current push for "black voices" in media and entertainment. It's actually become more segregationist. You open up Hulu or Netflix now and, post George Floyd, "Black Stories" is it's own category. Why can't people, (right, left, "woke" or not) see that this is just more ghettoization?
I know this is off topic from her holocaust comment, but it's related. "Race" as a concept is such a construct that people from Hitler to Whoopi, (no, I'm not comparing them, I'm contrasting them) can come up with totally different yet equally fake concepts that seem to make sense only if you accept the initial premise. That premise being that there's something essentially different about us.
There isn't. Genetics is real. Skin color is real. Race is not.
But racism is indeed real. And every time we think we've killed it, it comes back to life like the shark in Jaws. What brings racism back to life? The very concept of race. You can't kill racism without first killing race. And to do that? We're gonna' need a bigger boat.
It might be useful and important to add - if your research confirms this - that when the Nazis were looking around for ways to implement racist policies in Germany, they turned to the U.S., which they found provided perfect models and examples.
Exactly. There is plenty of scholarly research based on German legal sources that confirm that they looked for analogs and inspiration from US racial laws for legal precedence.
Good essay, Michael. I mostly agree with you on it. I do not think Whoopi should have been suspended. Nor should she be fired. Those who call for either are just misguided.
Is being Jewish a race? I always thought that it was a religious or ethnic category, not a racial category. Was I wrong about that?
There is no doubt that the Nazis thought being Jewish was a race which should be suppressed, tortured, and exterminated.
Whoopi was certainly correct that the Holocaust was about man's inhumanity to man, but was she really wrong when she said that it wasn't about race. That statement could just be interpreted as "The Nazis were wrong to consider being a Jew a race."
"Racism" has been wrongly broadened in its meaning.
"Is being Jewish a race?" No. And neither is being black or asian or white. It's all BS. Race isn't real. But when it's considered real it gives birth to racism. Which is all too real.
I tend to agree with your conclusion that being Jewish is not a race, but disagree with you that there are no races. People can be reliably classified into a few "races" defined by observable or measurable physical and genetic profiles. In modern times fewer people can be classified into these few "races" because of intermarriages and their offspring. Of course, any hypothesis about the superiority of one race over another is fallacious. Also, belief in races does not necessarily give birth to racism. Belief in different religions also does not necessarily give birth to discrimination or mistreatment based on religion. Same for other types of group classifications.
"In modern times fewer people can be classified into these few "races" because of intermarriages and their offspring."
But hasn't that always been the case? Our genetic characteristics have been mixing and changing throughout human history. As Richard Dawkins says, we're all African apes at the end of the day.
Regardless, I disagree that we can be "reliably classified". As 23 & me type sites keep showing us, what we think our "race" is can often be way off. (Aren't there suspicions that Hitler himself was actually Jewish?)
My overall point is that even if you could find specific genetic traits that define us "racially", (debatable) those traits wouldn't line up with what most people consider "race". Wether it's the Nazi concept or the American "color" concept. They're all false on their face. And the minute you accept them is the minute you give license to all sorts of false assumptions about how people differ. It really is all bullshit.
GW1: "In modern times fewer people can be classified into these few "races" because of intermarriages and their offspring."
CB2: But hasn't that always been the case? Our genetic characteristics have been mixing and changing throughout human history.
GW2: Yes, but it has gone from little to quite a lot throughout human history.
CB2: As Richard Dawkins says, we're all African apes at the end of the day.
GW2: He is correct about that, but it is an oversimplification and does not disprove that there are races.
CB2: Regardless, I disagree that we can be "reliably classified".
GW2: Well, you are just mistaken about that. At the least we can reliably classify all human persons into four racial categories: white, black, asian, and other.
CB2: As 23 & me type sites keep showing us, what we think our "race" is can often be way off. (Aren't there suspicions that Hitler himself was actually Jewish?)
GW2: That does not prove there are no races. If you don’t clearly belong to one of the BIG THREE, then you belong to OTHER.
CB2: My overall point is that even if you could find specific genetic traits that define us "racially", (debatable) those traits wouldn't line up with what most people consider "race".
GW2: What most people think is irrelevant here. You claimed there are no races. You are guilty of a non sequitur which goes something like this: “Racism exists and it is bad, therefore there are no races.” or maybe “Because racism is bad we must declare there are no races.” It is similar with sex. Some people today make an analogous claim “Because sexism is bad we must declare there are no sexes, no male and female.”
CB2: Wether it's the Nazi concept or the American "color" concept. They're all false on their face.
GW2: It depends specifically on the claim. Your claim that there are no races is false on its face also. (Pun intended)
CB2: And the minute you accept them is the minute you give license to all sorts of false assumptions about how people differ. It really is all bullshit.
GW2: I disagree. You are making false statements, overgeneralizations, false predictions, and non sequitur arguments.
GW2: How to scientifically establish that there are racial groups: Randomly select 10,000 adults from the world population. Determine their genetic profiles. Determine objectively their phenotypes or physical characteristics. Determine the positive correlations between the former and the latter. Conclude that there are just a few general genetic-phenotype clusters. Some persons do not fit into these clusters, maybe even the majority. Nevertheless, from this study you will see that there are a few races.
GW2: You could also do a study in which you ask people to identify the races of a hundred people from pictures and check the inter-judge reliability of the subjects doing the identification. Give them just four categories – white, black, asian, and unclassified. You will see that they are pretty reliable in this classification.
You might be right. I might be wrong. Do you think there's a chance you're wrong and I'm right?
Sure, there's a chance of that, but on these issues the probability is low.
There are plenty of scientific studies that look at "race" and what it actually means. And in general, race is so ill-defined and inconsistent in interpretation (and without a scientific basis) as to almost be meaningless as a scientific tool. That doesn't mean that certain regions of origin might not have certain predictable traits or predispositions to disease, for example. Your interpretation is massively broad, western derived and also quite recent. "Race" 2,000 or 1,000 or 500 years ago meant something entirely different. And if you've ever been to the middle-east, the 'stans, North Africa, to name a few, the clear racial characteristics you're looking for aren't easy to find. The other issue is your categories are skin color based (white, black) and then geographically based (Asian). The breadth of diversity in appearance across Asia alone is remarkable. I've seen darker "Asian" Bangladeshi than some "black" Africans. Are those Bangladeshi "black"? And, moreover, Asia is an arbitrarily defined region.
Good article to read on parts of this. https://www.scientificamerican.com/article/race-is-a-social-construct-scientists-argue/
I agree with some of your claims here. You said "as to almost be meaningless as a scientific tool." But not meaningless. Races are recognizable and reliable within the dataset of genes and physical characteristics. It is a common trope to think "Racism is bad, and therefore races do not exist."
You said "Black, white, asian and other". What is someone with 2 "Asian" grandparents, one "black" grand parent and one "white" grand pareny? Is that other? Or mixed? And here in the USA there's sooo many people with linages mixed like that or even more complicated.
How can race be a thing if it's so flexible as to be meaningless to the millions of "mixed" people both here and abroad?
And even if you're could prove your hypothesis, how does it line up with the street level of race? Which is usually a collection of stereotypes that have been soundly disproven.
I already answered these concerns. Work with the science.
Michael, if I may use your first name, I have really come to admire and rely on your thoughts, research and insights. As Douglas Murray says, everything you point out substantiates understandings that we all knew to be true up until a few days ago (in this case about the ignorant use of racial animus in driving the Holocaust). Now for some reason, we need to relearn these truths all over again. Everyone should accept Goldberg's apology, even if imperfect, but it would be so constructive for her to go one step further and acknowledge what you factually point out, that these current CRT theologies have so dumbed down the understanding we collectively have about race that someone like Goldberg, who clearly aspires to some form of enlightenment, could wind up being so ignorantly and actively deluded, specifically as a consequence of this CRT hubris. She won't do that, but wow it would be impactful if she did. Without your saying it, I interpret that as your hope in your excellent piece. I am very happy with my paid subscription, and I'm glad you're out there thinking for us.
Side note, from what I can gather, Maus wasn't actually banned anywhere. That seems to be a misunderstanding. As Matt Shapiro writes in his Polimath substack [1]:
"That instinct kicked in when I heard that Maus, a Pulitzer Prize-winning graphic novel about the Holocaust, had been banned from a Tennessee school. I hate bans. I hate the idea of having access to a book one day and then having that access revoked the next. That bespeaks an attitude that doesn’t trust the audience to their own judgement but demands that some ideas or forms of art are too frightening or dangerous to allow free access to them. Everyone ran with the same phrasing for this story. Every news article said it was either “banned” or “removed from classrooms”.
But eventually someone alerted me to the fact that this isn’t what happened at all. Maus wasn’t banned. It was simply not chosen as an anchor text for a planned eighth-grade curriculum on the Holocaust. [2]"
_________________________
That said, I had actually never heard of Maus before, so this "banned-but-actually-wasn't-banned-but-got-spread-on-the-news" response brought it to my attention, and in 1-2 months when Amazon restocks it I should have the copy I ordered yesterday.
Also, your quote:
"I guess two weeks is enough reflective time to educate oneself on the Holocaust, a subject to which scholars devote entire careers."
*chef's kiss*
[1] https://polimath.substack.com/p/sometimes-we-hold-the-line
[2] https://core-docs.s3.amazonaws.com/documents/asset/uploaded_file/1818370/Called_Meeting_Minutes_1-10-22.pdf
'Great article Michael. It's always a pleasure to expand my learning horizons from your deep well of knowledge.
I'm wondering what your thoughts are regarding how Europeans, & Germans in particular, thought about issues of race before Darwin and his ideas of Natural Selection, etc, were in ascendancy? Were the majority populations throughout Europe xenophobic whenever they were faced with having to deal with immigrants, refugees, etc., who were noticeably different from themselves, and moved into these geographic regions over the centuries? Isn't it a fairly natural feature of all human groups (and an evolutionarily derived necessity) to be wary, or even hostile, to strangers seemingly establishing a foothold in areas previously occupied by a certain homogenous group? The reason I bring this up is because there needs to be an answer to a burning question regarding the Holocaust which seems to always be in the background but never actually discussed, which is : Were the German people, as well as their culture, ideas, and actions leading up to and including Hitler, basically "evil" to the core from the get-go for decades or centuries before WWII? Or was the horrible chain of events leading up to the euthanasia, persecution, slave labor and genocidal programs possible for any group of humans who would have been in the same degree of industrial development coupled with xenophobia and the breakdown of moral & ethical systems of human empathy? In simpler terms, were the people who perpetrated the Holocaust basically flawed for many generations before it happened? Or was this outcome the predictable extension of multiple converging factors which might befall any group of humans at any time in history (past, present, or future)? I'd be interested in hearing your take on whether or not the Holocaust was orchestrated by a horrible, *evil* group of humans? Or if all humans have this potential for horror & *evil* within them and can act on it if their group feels sufficiently threatened in certain ways. Thanks. QR
Interesting. i'd make the point that Darwin was himself not a "social Darwinist."
The irony is that even Jewish organizations have adjusted their definitions of racism to conform to the white --> BIPOC paradigm. In 2020 amidst the George Floyd aftermath, the Anti-Defamation League changed their definition of racism to "The marginalization and/or oppression of people of color based on a socially constructed racial hierarchy that privileges white people." (https://www.adl.org/racism)
According to that definition the Japanese aren't racist, and neither are the Zulus, but.... That is, however, a fair definition of the form that racism has currently taken among peoples of perceived predominantly European ancestry and Christian culture. It's an extreme form of tribalism.
It seems there are multiple different ways to think about race. Is it Black Yellow White and Red? Is it Semitic, Hamitic, etc.? Are Inca of a different Race than Aztec, or Algonquin different than Navaho? Are Celts a different race than Germanic, and Finns and Basques a different race? It seems that often "race" is a construct to use to create separation, though it can be useful in looking for tendencies of physical attributes (lactose intolerance, sickle cell disease or Thallassemia, celiac disease, risk of skin cancers, thigh bone length, muscle quality, and many other factors, though none are absolute due to the fact that NONE of us are exclusively anything). So what she said could be taken as true or false depending on the definition you use-- if you use the one that the Nazis used it would be false, but if you use that taught in American schools in the 1950s it would be true. I just wish that race would not be regarded as pejorative in the first place, but more like where you grow up or blood type.
Much ado about nothing. If the only view you can have is the one you are told to have then there are no views just religion. And it really is all about tribes, everyone wants to be in a tribe and every tribe wants to be special and better then other tribes, then all that is needed for hate is some reason the other tribes are bad, any reason will do...
MSNBC's Mika Brzezinski said, "This is something that is just going to start getting ridiculous. I mean, if Whoopi Goldberg is canceled, that would be the end... All this cancel culture is getting so out-of-hand." Yet, just days before MSNBC tried to get Spotify to cancel Joe Rogan just for talking to people with different points of view. And rarely does a day go by without the major media outlets demanding the cancellation of Dan Bongino, Dave Portnoy, Tucker Carlson and anyone else who isn't a leftist supporter of the Democratic Party.
Whoopi will have a two week paid vacation. If she were a white man or a conservative, she would be made to disappear and never work again.
Really? I would point out that all those right-wing examples you have are, in fact, visible and still working. You’d have a pretty hard time finding a media outlet more major than Fox, and I don’t see them cancelling right wing voices, at all. Blaming it all on the main steam media is a lame, rightist trope than people on the right need to take some ownership of, just as those on the left need to stop their own censorious behaviors. Fix your own house before you criticize others.
In my opinion, and in the opinion of most conservatives, neither Rogan or Goldberg should be cancelled. Most progressives in the media, however, spend a large portion of their time making apologies for people they agree with, while trying to destroy anyone who dares to disagree with them. They prefer to silence their opponents, rather than debate them. MSNBC's radically different treatment of Rogan and Goldberg is just one example among many.
Conservative media have to be shut down because they aired Trump's election theories? On those grounds, shouldn't CNN, ABC, CBS and NBC be taken off the air because they spent several years promoting the Russian collusion hoax? After years of CNN falsely claiming the Steele Dossier was valid and the Russian collusion claim against Trump was credible, it was never held accountable for its misreporting, and Newsmax never called for CNN to be shut down. Hillary Clinton still pushes the Trump-Russia story, almost to the point of seeming deranged. Will she be banned from social media? Not likely. In the 2016 election, 96 percent of journalists’ political donations went to Hillary Clinton, according to The Center for Public Integrity.
According to the Media Research Center, in the months March through May 2020, coverage of Trump by ABC, CBS, and NBC was 94 percent negative, with the coverage reaching an unprecedented 99.5 percent negative in May. During the time Trump was in office, MRC has regularly found network coverage that was 90 percent or more negative.
According to an analysis by the MRC, Facebook and Twitter censored accounts belonging to Trump or his re-election campaign 65 times prior to the 2020 election. Biden and his campaign, meanwhile, have been censored a grand total of - zero times. Eventually, those platforms banned Trump permanently.
It wasn’t enough to ban Donald Trump from Facebook and Twitter if he and his followers could move to Parler — so Parler had to be shut down, too. Big Tech obliged, succumbing to pressure from the media and their Democratic allies in Congress. This unprecedented suppression was denounced by conservative and libertarian publications like the Wall Street Journal and Reason, but was celebrated by most other media outlets.
The Washington Post headlined an editorial, “Parler deserved to be taken down.” The Guardian called for still-harsher censorship through federal regulation. At MSNBC and CNN, commentators longed for more government action — a new equivalent of the 9/11 Commission to investigate the Capitol riot — and further corporate censorship.
CNN’s senior media reporter, Oliver Darcy, called for telecom companies like AT&T, Verizon, and Comcast to stop providing platforms for the distribution of “lies” and “conspiracy theories” by conservative channels like Fox News, Newsmax, and One America News Network. On his CNN show Reliable Sources, Brian Stelter discussed further steps to “curb” the “information crisis,” and he offered no objection to the solution offered by a former Facebook executive: “We have to turn down the capability of these conservative influencers to reach these huge audiences.”
You never hear Fox News personalities, conservative journalists or conservative podcasters demanding that progressive voices be silenced, however. Even Michael Shermer, who leans left on most issues, has criticized the censorship and double standards of legacy media.
Progressive journalists have been in an ideological bubble so long that they’ve come to believe their own hype about the right-wing menace — and they’re oblivious to their blatant double standards. You also seem to have lost touch with reality - a bit surprising for someone who reads skeptic. I'm sorry, but facts don't cease being facts just because you don't like them. The same people who are calling for the destruction of Joe Rogan -- who is non-partisan and hasn't done anything wrong -- are simultaneously defending and making excuses for Whoopi Goldberg, simply because she is black, female, and supports the Democratic Party. To deny that is to deny reality.
Goldberg said something incredibly, really incredibly stupid. But perhaps she didn't really mean it (that is, perhaps she is just too stupid to realize that what she said is stupid and offensive), and she did apologize. So my first reaction would be to forgive and forget.
But Goldberg's "woke" friends keep trying to cancel people like Jordan Peterson, JK Rowking, and now Joe Rogan, for saying things that offend them. So I guess tasting their own medicine will do the wokes some good. Perhaps they'll become more reasonable (well, of course they won't, but optimism feels good).
Thank you.