The Atlantic - Latest Comments in Coates v. McWhorter

Re: Coates v. McWhorter

c c — Tue, 07 Oct 2008 11:17:25 -0000

why should a rap song try to be a soup kitchen? nobody asked Rembrandt to educate poverty-stricken children. Mr.McW is a generous man in many ways but he misunderstands that the artist's allegiance is first and always to the product. And sometimes, in a greater moment, a piece of art manages to liberate the soul. Only a few painters in the grand scheme of things ever nailed that, and only a few rappers/hip hop artists ever will too.

and sometimes art can actualy do a little earthly work as well, like Public Enemy. Again, if a rock critic or just any old white conservative dude concluded that punk rock was no good because it was Aggressive, he wouldn't even be given the time of day.

Re: Coates v. McWhorter

Asher — Sun, 05 Oct 2008 18:09:23 -0000

You keep asking why he should be provided a platform; the implication is that he shouldn't or at least that he should have less of a platform than he currently does.

And I don't recall ever saying that I go to law school. I go to Duke, and will go to law school. I know a little about Con Law, but that's all.

Re: Coates v. McWhorter

Fred — Sun, 05 Oct 2008 14:40:44 -0000

James,

You might want to try being a little more inventive yourself -- especially if you're not even going to try to contest the substance of what I write. If all you have is ad hominem jabs at me, at least try to mix them up a little bit. Or maybe you can go back to those sock-puppet posts instead.

Re: Coates v. McWhorter

frankie d — Sun, 05 Oct 2008 13:44:23 -0000

Well Frankie, you said this:

"and again, where is any evidence that mcwhorter's views should be provided any platform? is it the job of the media to provide a platform for right-wing propaganda?"

So I take you to be saying that he shouldn't be provided a platform. I think that what you aren't getting is that, when McWhorter's put on TV, nobody says that he's representative of the black community or black sentiment. He's just a conservative on racial issues who happens to be black.

again, where did i say that he should NOT be provided a platform?

i don't give a darn what you "take" or what you "think" about what i've written. i've written very specific words and i am very careful about that. apparently, it is tough for you to comprehend the written word, clearly.

it is my opinion that he does not deserve to have one, that there are more appropriate people to assume that position, but i've never said that he should be silenced.

if you bother to actually read what i've written on the issue that is clear.

i posed a question, and invited those who support him to provide evidence that indicates why he should be provided a platform.

that visibility is simply not handed to any homeless person on the street who says that they have interesting ideas to discuss. there has to be a baseline competence on certain issues, some level of credentials and credibility.

and the clear fact is that he would NOT be provided his current visibility if he were not a black man speaking on particular issues of interest to the black community.

he is there because he is black, so the ridiculous argument that he just happens to be black flies in the face of everything he has done in his career.

maybe his mom likes to think that may be the case; the record indicates otherwise.

my point is that people like mcwhorter lack all of those things that would typically place someone in a position where he could pontificate about certain issues. that is if the standard applied to the larger community was applied to those allowed to speak about issues related to black folks.

the only thing that has occurred is that white patrons have put them forward in order to manufacture his leadership persona, for their own political purposes.

no one else similarly has "leaders" and "experts" and "spokespeople" foisted on them in that fashion.

why is that so friggin hard for you to comprehend?

it's pretty doggone basic. for someone with an alleged law school background, your ability to zero in on issues and arguments is remarkable weak.

you completely ignore the facts that i present and instead, like sarah palin, only deal with the ones you want to deal with.

this is friggin boring and i'm through responding to someone who refuses to engage honestly.

i'm more than happy to discuss and argue points, but i'm not going to engage with someone who is dishonest.

have a good day.

Re: Coates v. McWhorter

effluvium — Sun, 05 Oct 2008 12:09:12 -0000

THC,

Another tip, in addition to the lighting. Raise the camera so that it's roughly face-level and perhaps at an angle instead of perfectly centered on you. The current set-up makes the viewer feel like he's on your dinner plate.

Good exchange, though. I'd like to see more.

Re: Coates v. McWhorter

Evan Narcisse — Sun, 05 Oct 2008 11:28:40 -0000

Ta-Nehisi,

Just watched this and thought you both acquitted yourselves well. Ironically, my viewing comes after seeing McWhorter at a panel during the New Yorker Festival on Saturday night. He, Cornel West and a few others were part of a discussion on race and class, which mostly wound up being about the economic crisis and Obama. I went in expecting West to continue to be a caricature of his former self and expecting to be hella annoyed at McWhorter, whose books I've never finished.

Instead, McWhorter won me over with the same qualities that you saw in your talk. Now, I may not ever wind up at the same places he does in terms of thinking about problems and solutions with regard to Black America, but I can respect how he gets there. And, I gotta say, Cornel's theatricality seemed to be in service of an incredibly ferocious and multifarious intellect. This is just the way dude gets down. It reminded me of why I liked his stuff in college and washed away some of my distaste for his segments as a talking head in various places. Speaking of which, he answered a question as to his comments after Obama's DNC speech. He basically cast aspersions on Obama's progressiveness, saying that MLK is the safest Negro in history and if Barack couldn't mention him, how compromised might he be? MJcWhorter replied with the whole "he's trying to win an election" argument.

Now, I happen to think that the line about "the preacher from Georgia" was more poetic and elliptical than a straight name-check woulda been. It was kinda sly and that makes it more beautiful and transcendently Black than quoting from a King speech would have been.

I missed out on giving you birthday wishes, so I'll just say continued success, dude.

Re: Coates v. McWhorter

James — Sun, 05 Oct 2008 08:52:48 -0000

Fred,

I was referring to your earlier post with the 'surly black' and 'getting bussed to a mostly black school' - you've used it before, almost exactly the same.

Do you just cut and paste it, or is your own experience where you went to a mainly black school and somehow were done out of getting an education by the (black) Man the only things you can refer back to?

If you're going to be bitter and resentful, at least be inventive with it.

Re: Coates v. McWhorter

Asher — Sun, 05 Oct 2008 05:00:14 -0000

Well Frankie, you said this:

"and again, where is any evidence that mcwhorter's views should be provided any platform? is it the job of the media to provide a platform for right-wing propaganda?"

Re: Coates v. McWhorter

Fred — Sun, 05 Oct 2008 01:28:39 -0000

"You said that exactly before it was deleted."

I don't recall writing the deleted comment. Must have been an impostor (perhaps you?).

Re: Coates v. McWhorter

frankie d — Sat, 04 Oct 2008 23:56:12 -0000

asher,

i do not know why you insist on mischaracterizing what i say.

the problem is simply this: instead of providing a platform for views of african-americans who would better represent the views of african-americans, the msm insists on putting black conservatives in the forefront, even though those viewpoints are a miniscule percentage of viewpoints in the black community.

those voices do not need to be silenced. no.

but if they need to be shoved to the far background so that more representative voices can be heard then so be it.

and i certainly am not afraid of voices like mcwhorter's. they are so feeble that they wilt under any sort of scrutiny. the problem is that the media consistently refuses to provide the kind of balance that would lead to that kind of scrutiny.

again, i do not hear any response to my proposition: how about having hamas reps routinely voicing their opinions about israeli politics?

would you be so sensitive to the right of hamas reps to speak their minds?

would there be any concern about silencing the voices of hamas, if jewish viewers argued that israeli voices who better represented mainstream israeli thought be provided a platform. and if necessary, at the expense of a learned, articulate hamas representative who might have lots to say about israeli politics.

see, somewhow, someway, black folks are always subject to a strange standard that no one ever applies to any other community.

nquest,

thanks for the link. very revealing.

i'd bet the numbers were even more lopsided now. if that study was done today, it would show an even greater overrepresentation of black conservative voices.

there is NO constituency for black conservatives in this country. yet, they still receive such consideration.

it is ridiculous.

Re: Coates v. McWhorter

Nquest — Sat, 04 Oct 2008 21:54:30 -0000

CORRECTION:

But, since McWhorter wants to go there... Where is the evidence that people who hold views like McWhorter, particularly the type of politicized Black conservatives who approach their discussions of race, racism and the Black community [LIKE MCWHORTER DOES]... where is the evidence that their attitudes have led to things that improve the Black community?

With the nonsense he engaged in during that poverty conference (video below), McWhorter has absolutely no credibility when it comes to the type of attitude someone Black has. (You'll see where this *lightweight* tries to rationalize his own peculiar brand of *victimology* used in his desperate "anything but the racism argument" ploy with his suggestion that "few innocent people could have resisted [the corrupting influence of welfare]." It just happens that the only "innocent people" he ever mentions are the "descendants of slaves.")

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Ys43Scz9Zus&mode=related&search=

Re: Coates v. McWhorter

Nquest — Sat, 04 Oct 2008 21:20:31 -0000

"he's oversimplifying hip hop to characterize it as a bunch of people saying "fuck you" in intelligent or unintelligent ways."

That's why he's a lightweight. Not only does he oversimplifies the sum total and essence of hip hop as the middle finger attitude but his idea that hip hop has ever seriously been promoted as the revolutionary vanguard is the intellectually laziness of an intellectual lightweight. Period.

it's ridiculous to say that hip hop can't improve the lives of black people without having specific policy proposals embedded in verses

It's ridiculous to create a ridiculous standard that if can't be said that hip hop has improved the lives of Black people that it is a failure as an art form or has caused some people to believe that it can do something its not capable of. TNC was right to say that it's a ridiculous standard that no other music genre was ever elevated to.

McWhorter, the lightweight that he is, has confused people who have talked about the powerful influence hip hop has or has had and tries to turn that into a nice little strawman argument to fit his curious "I'm one who deals with the problems in the Black community" schtick.

It takes a lightweight to make such ridiculous arguments and McWhorter mentioned the 60's to try to rationalize his weak argument, a non-point really, about hip hop today. Not only did he contradict his own idea by mentioning how people in the 60's doing civil rights work actually committed to and participated in the hard work of improving things but his sorry attempt to wage a war of ideology within the Black community is contradicted by TNC's own stories about his father's esteem of Malcolm X (perhaps the epitome of the "middle finger" attitude) that was in no way incompatible with a serious work ethic, discipline, etc.

But, since McWhorter wants to go there... Where is the evidence that people who hold views like McWhorter, particularly the type of politicized Black conservatives who approach their discussions of race, racism and the Black community... where is the evidence that their attitudes have led to things that improve the Black community?

Re: Coates v. McWhorter

Nquest — Sat, 04 Oct 2008 20:50:52 -0000

Frankie,

Fair.org did the following survey of 'The Loudest Silence Ever Heard' regarding the overrepresentation of Black conservatives in the media over a decade ago:

http://www.fair.org/index.php?page=1488

At the bottom of the article is a rather revealing table.

Re: Coates v. McWhorter

ronathan richardson — Sat, 04 Oct 2008 20:49:13 -0000

McWhorter ain't no lightweight. And it's a truth that the "middle finger" attitude that was key to the 60's isn't going to do it today. But he's oversimplifying hip hop to characterize it as a bunch of people saying "fuck you" in intelligent or unintelligent ways. And it's ridiculous to say that hip hop can't improve the lives of black people without having specific policy proposals embedded in verses. Ta-Nehisi basically got this right. McWhorter's argument is only strong as a refutation of those dudes that think that hip hop verses should be our political tracts and our way to politically unify. Hip hop can still have huge political power if all it does is teach a young generation to think in a new way.

Re: Coates v. McWhorter

CB — Sat, 04 Oct 2008 20:32:19 -0000

Frankie D,

What is it about you and others in this comment section that are so afraid of what McWhorter says?

Perhaps because what he says makes a great deal of sense...

Is he given a "platform" because the Manhattan Institute is his employer? You know, he also writes for theroot.com.

He has written several books...So I guess publishers should censor black writers who, as you say are "outside the mainstream." Why do you have the monopoly on "blackness?"

Re: Coates v. McWhorter

James — Sat, 04 Oct 2008 20:25:45 -0000

Fred,

I'm confused; you're surly, resentful, appear to be lazy (are you still unemployed), and eager to blame others for your own misfortunes.

You also don't seem very bright.

Does this mean that you're actually black?

Because you seem to attribute all of these characteristics to black people, and none to white.

Are you a self-hating black man? Perhaps you're mixed race, and you 'pass', but you bear some shame.

There's some pathology I'm sure. I can't wait for January 2009. I'm sure you'll be taking bitter to a whole new level.

PS - you've always said the same thing, but recycling whole posts Fred? You said that exactly before it was deleted.

Re: Coates v. McWhorter

Fred — Sat, 04 Oct 2008 19:48:04 -0000

Anyone who was surprised that Iowans would vote for a well-spoken black man is ignorant of the racial dynamics in this country. Most media portrayals of blacks are positive, and have been for decades. To the extent that a white person's view of blacks comes from the media, and not from personal interaction, he tends have positive views of blacks. To the extent that he has to deal with surly black female clerks at the local DMV, or worry about his kids getting bussed to a mostly-black school, he probably wouldn't have the warm & fuzzies about a black candidate.

Basically, it works out like this: the fewer blacks where you live, the more likely you are to vote for a black candidate, and vice-versa.

Re: Coates v. McWhorter

Asher — Sat, 04 Oct 2008 18:24:58 -0000

So you're back to saying that black conservatives should get no play because there are very few black conservatives. So if McWhorter were white, it'd be okay. But because he's black, he should be silenced.

Re: Coates v. McWhorter

Nquest — Sat, 04 Oct 2008 18:04:05 -0000

Re: McWhorter

Where does he get this "scared" of White people stuff from?

Like you, if you'd asked me a year before the Iowa caucus if Obama would win, I would have no. But unlike you, I grew up in the rural Midwest and have been around White people all my life. By the time Iowa rolled around, I was pleasantly surprised but I also expected Obama to win or have a good showing because, all things considered, I viewed Obama as the better candidate which includes his charisma, statesmanship, civil rights/community organizer grounding, etc.

One thing McWhorter did was decontextualize Ferraro's comments from months-upon-months (at that time) of race-baiting perpetrated by the Clinton campaign. And of course he ignored what Ferraro actually said because it conveniently helped him make a point he himself wanted to make about Obama's race as a plus factor... something that he wavered on in his in one of his late primary diavlogs with Glenn Loury primarily because he wants to believe in the accomplishment of some significant milestone achieved in America's march to racial nirvana but, wait, racism will always exist but the country/White people aren't as racist of most Black people think... or whatever the convoluted bs in his head actually is.

And that's the funny thing... He tries his best to say "that's not racist" or that there is too much focus on race/racism when Black people do it but somehow finds it acceptable, appropriate, germane and functional when he, and in that case Ferraro, does it.

You see, TNC, I wished you wouldn't have backed off of your statement about exposing young Black men/boys to hip hop vs. McWhorter. Whether you went to far in expressing what you felt at the moment or not, I think it would have been more than fair for you to match his 3 or 4 idiotic assumptions about your racial views by expressing what you thought about his.

It's clear he has this thing where he wants to talk about how Black people have it wrong even when he clearly positions himself, as he did with Ferraro, to run interference, etc. when someone White is clearly in the wrong. Given that reflex of his, he must be projecting his own fear of White people.

Beyond that, I'd like for someone to ask him what the hell his "work" does in terms of yielding results like the Harlem Children's Zone. Dude must be ignorant of Geoffrey Canada's ideas which don't align with his. And his lazy assumptions about you were, frankly, insulting.

Surely if his critiques are worth anything, he should be able to deal squarely with what you actually believe instead of reducing them to some convenient racial caricature of what he thinks most Black people think with his lonely ass.

People who have a significant number of people who agree with them typically don't have to make the point that "there are a lot of Black people who think like me out there" and assure themselves (because that doesn't fly with me, for sure) that that is true.

Re: Coates v. McWhorter

Nquest — Sat, 04 Oct 2008 16:59:46 -0000

McWhorter is a freakin' lightweight. His retorts were all canned. It was no different from some White person who had never met a Black person and had formed certain ideas and since he finally had someone Black to aim his ideas at, no matter who you were, no matter what you said, he was going to say the same thing and claim he heard the same thing from you.

Re: Coates v. McWhorter

frankie d — Sat, 04 Oct 2008 16:19:06 -0000

so what if duke is a bigot.

he has demonstrated appeal to white voters.

he represented a district in louisiana.

he got almost 40% of the vote in a governor's race.

obviously, lots of people support his views.

his views are no more radical that mcwhorter's views.

why is mcwhorter provided a platform when someone like duke is not.

(alert: i am being somewhat facetious!)

many, many people believe that mcwhorter's views are as negative and destructive as are duke's.

and again, where is any evidence that mcwhorter's views should be provided any platform? is it the job of the media to provide a platform for right-wing propaganda?

and relatively speaking, no, the views of those listed get nowhere the exposure of "black conservatives".

the fact is that "black conservatives" should get little or no exposure at all, their views are so anathema and divergent from those of the people they are supposed to be discussing.

it's like bringing a hamas representative on to talk about israeli politics.

and i am a news junkie and i would be willing to wager large sums that if media matters or a similar organization did a study they would find that, overwhelmingly, black political faces on tv were "black conservatives".

whether people like sharpton should be looked at as leaders is an entirely different matter.

Re: Coates v. McWhorter

Cody — Sat, 04 Oct 2008 16:13:38 -0000

I think there is something to be said for the comparison drawn between the pugnacity of punk and the pugnacity inherent in hip-hop. Growing up in a small town with a very fucked up and close-minded view of the world, one of the things that taught me a lot about how to approach political and social problems was listening to Bad Religion. Of course, I did not end up a socialist gutter-punk, but the first inclination I had that the people in power do not necessarily deserve unquestioned obedience came from a punk song.

Maybe John McWhorter was born with a knowledge of the pertinent political issues of our time, but for most of us, and I would say especially for white kids in rural areas and minority kids in the inner city, there is not a lot of exposure to healthy and probing intellectual discourse. To me, it is clear that neither agreeing with Public Enemy that the black masses need to rise up and assert themselves into positions of power by force nor agreeing with Bad Religion that all of the world's ills are engineered by the power elite are seriously defensible political positions. Yet you have to start somewhere, and the questions that this kind of music causes people to ask of themselves and of those in power in many cases lead to the kind of intellectual discourse that is the backbone of a functioning democracy.

I remember very clearly arguing with my teachers about things I heard in political music and realizing through the argument that I didn't really agree with the positions I was taking. The more attractive we can make critical thinking and discourse in our youth, the better. To the extent that any pursuit achieves this end, it is worthwhile. I believe a lot of hip hop as well as a lot of punk does so very effectively.

Re: Coates v. McWhorter

Asher — Sat, 04 Oct 2008 16:07:58 -0000

You're telling me that Jesse, Sharpton, Cornel West, Derrick Bell, the new liberal Glenn Loury, etc. get no airplay? That whenever the media wants a black perspective, they just call McWhorter or Shelby Steele or Ward Connerly? I don't watch a ton of TV news, but TNC's written articles complaining that people like Sharpton get looked to too often as the representative black voice. And Duke isn't given a platform because he's a bigot.

Re: Coates v. McWhorter

frankie d — Sat, 04 Oct 2008 16:04:06 -0000

of course that is not what i am arguing.

the problem is that people like mcwhorter, whose ideas are so out of the mainstream are provided much larger platforms that those whose views are much more representative.

if one only watched television, one would imagine that black conservatives dominated in the black community. one would imagine that their views were widely accepted. unfortunately, individuals whose views are much more widely accepted and representative of thought in the black community are almost invisible in the mainstream media.

that is the problem.

for instance, someone like t-nc has views that are much more representative of thought within the black community, though he is offered nowhere near the exposure that mcwhorter is provided.

he is thoughtful, "articulate" and he has lots to say.

when cable channels and other news organizations are looking for someone to offer a perspective on certain issues, t-nc would be a much better person to offer to an audience.

but instead, the media flocks to black conservatives like mcwhorter, whose views are absolutely outside the mainstream.

to use your example, it would be as if networks and cable news networks would come to a jewish person who espousd farrakhan's view of israel whenever they wanted a jewish perspective on an item in the news.

and then totally ignored views about those issues that were much more representative of mainstream thought.

that does not happen.

in fact, i cannot even imagine it ever happening.

why, then, does the same dynamic occur, almost to the exclusion of any other presentation of opinions, regarding issues of interest to african americans.

as i wrote, mcwhorter is welcome to his views. he is welcome to write whatever the heck he writes. but others should be provided similar platforms. unfortunately they are not.

and they should be called out for exactly what they are: enablers of right-wing propaganda on black communities and issues.

and as i indicated, someone like duke, who's views are demonstrably more accepted within the white community, though he is considered a radical in mainstream thought, is not provided the kind of platform that people like mcwhorter are provided.

why is that?

is it a coincidence?

i don't think so.

Re: Coates v. McWhorter

Asher — Sat, 04 Oct 2008 15:41:44 -0000

Frankie, I don't get your position. You seem to be saying (tell me if I'm wrong) that because he's black, and a vast majority of blacks don't agree with him on race, affirmative action, whatever, he shouldn't be given a platform. That seems like a pretty radical proposition. For example, I'm Jewish. Suppose I thought that Israel had absolutely no right to exist, they came and stole the land from the Palestinians, and so Palestinians are justified in committing terrorist attacks to get this imperialist regime off their backs. Very unpopular position in the Jewish community. But if I can write well, and some liberal thinktank wants to hire me, then what's the problem? Should I be silenced because my views aren't reflective of even a significant portion of the Jewish community? Why should I be reduced to my ethnicity like that? Because you'd grant that it'd be okay if I weren't Jewish, so your position basically comes down to the idea that you can't be given a platform to disagree with a consensus of the rest of your race. Seems like a really essentialist stance.