Coleman Hughes vs. Jamelle Bouie Debate Color Blindness |
Вставка
- Опубліковано 4 чер 2024
- When you think about the world’s most intractable problems, racial inequality is among the most challenging. Societies have grappled not just with how to treat community members equitably in public spaces, but how to judge individuals based on qualities that extend beyond race in personal interactions. For many decades, some have pointed to “color blindness,” or treating people without regard to race or ethnicity, as the best way to promote equal opportunity. But, there are many who believe the approach downplays racial bias and silently maintains discrimination.
In this special event hosted by @TED and Open to Debate, we debate the question: “Does Color Blindness Perpetuate Racism?”
Arguing YES is Jamelle Bouie, Columnist for the New York Times
Arguing NO is Coleman Hughes, Host of the “Conversations with Coleman” podcast and Contributing Writer at The Free Press
Emmy Award-winning journalist John Donvan moderates.
#opentodebate #debate #racialinequality #colorblindness #criticalracetheory #blacklivesmatter #BLM #race #ethnicity #culture #politics #racism
===================================
Subscribe: / @opentodebateorg
Official site: opentodebate.org/
Open to Debate Twitter: / opentodebateorg
Open to Debate Facebook: / beopentodebate
===================================
~-~~-~~~-~~-~
Please watch: "Unresolved: The Iran Threat"
• Unresolved: The Iran T...
~-~~-~~~-~~-~
Explore our latest newsletter insights and debater editorials: Coleman Hughes and Jamelle Bouie Debate Colorblindness
Read here: opentodebate.org/newsletter-does-color-blindness-perpetuate-racism/
Sign up for our weekly newsletters here: opentodebate.org/newsletter/
Enough already, why are you continually propagating the narrative underwrites the perpetual debates that never goes no where; just give F..oundational B..lack A..mericans what they're OWNED -REPARATIONS -
Sa😮
As a software developer that happens to be black with a french name and worked remotely for 6 years (back when most people did not know what remote work was), I have worked with about half a dozen co workers that did not know I was black for several years, i.e. until we changed managers and the new manager asked us for the first meeting to turn on our camera's on for the meeting. Color does not matter for a lot of us.
My friend was working in Australia on off shore rigs. He was put on a team of twelve people to start a plug and abonnement campaign. When the team first met, the project manager was out of country and had to call in. One of his first comments was about how diverse the team was. My friend and another woman were the only two Americans and the American woman scoffed at the mangers comment because she was the only black person present. The manager did not like her comment and said "leave to the American to think skin color is all that counts for diversity." My friend was insanely embarrassed and the manger went on to talk about how there is 7 males and 5 females, over 4 countries represented and 4 different religions.
The American women ended up filing a complaint with HR towards the manager for racism. When the project manger finally got to Australia and met the team she was shocked to see he was a black man from England. Nothing ended up happening from her complaint and she was removed from the team and several months later lost her job in cuts do to the price of oil in 2016.
There is a lot more to this, she was actually demanding the project manger be fired (before she met him) and that the company was in fact complicit in the racism for having him on the team. Even though the manger's comment was about her being American and not about her being black.
@@jacoblee5796 That's a great story. What a great manager. Sad that that American woman probably didn't realize that she was in the wrong. I have a feeling that her "racism card" would've had very different and harsher consequences were it not an oil rig but a media company of some sorts.
Watching this for a second time while knowing what hoops they put Coleman through gives me even more respect for Coleman, and less for Chris, Ted Talks, and Jamelle Bouie.
16 years in tech , it’s the most wholesome place on earth. You just have to do the work. Poor Race relations only exist in peoples dark insecure subconscious. Do the work and it won’t matter ….. everybody has tribalistic preferences
Agreed, over 15 years in Tech myself and wouldn't want to work anywhere else. The calls for diversity are strange for me considering most of the engineers I work with are from all over this beautiful planet holding just as varied political views.
Coleman's Ted Talk happened in May but wasn't released until two weeks ago. Mikhaila Peterson's Ted Talk on being a carnivore has never been released. "TED welcomes a variety of perspectives on the issues that shape our world", except when they don't.
Carnivores not wanted😂😂
You know you are in trouble in a debate when you have to start by re-defining what racism is.
Right, he basically redefined the whole dictionary!
@@mikayahlevi Creating a new definition of a term while importing the baggage and history of the old definition is disingenuous.
E.g. I can't create a new definition of assault to include hurting my feelings and then have you arrested for assault for hurting my feelings.
I wonder if any Black people were in the room when the definition was created…
@@Surge700 would using the definition that MLK used be reasonable?
@@Surge700 You mean like MLK? Isn't this the definition that MLK used.
This specific debate should be played and paused for discussion in high schools across America. The respectful tone while disagreeing being a key aspect of the lesson.
What is this focus of respectful tones? Coleman is advocating for a horrible position that would hurt black Americans. He is advocating for colorblindness in an America with huge longstanding racial disparities, in a nation which for nearly 80% of its history were trying to crush and take from black Americans. It’s pure madness to say in such a society we can’t discuss racism or the ways black Americans are disadvantaged without those discussions being labeled as racist and divisive.
@@tm7517 Seems to me he wouldn't dispute the realities of history or even current racial disparities, what he's offering is a solution you disagree with, because he wants to emphasize policies that address poverty, not blackness. He points out that many policies designed to address racial disparities are exploited by recent Caribbean and African immigrants or well off black Americans, not the poor black Americans who they were created to help. It would help to engage with his arguments in a manner that is specific and respectful.
@@Kormac80
Solutions to racial disparities by ignoring anti black racism isn’t a solution to racial disparities.
America has been “colorblind” officially since the 1870’s by law and yet look at its history in that time. Colorblind laws can’t even guarantee colorblind application. We have seen this fact be proven over and over and over again. Stop and frisk didn’t mention race. It was colorblind. And yet it was ruled to have violated the civil rights of black people in New York City for many many years.
That’s really how colorblindness works in America. America will be blind to its anti black racism and wants black people to shut up with their divisive fight and ideas.
The colorblindness advocates have nothing to offer black Americans but continuing anti black racism, empty platitudes, and opposing anything black
Americans do to address anti black racism. colorblindness advocates are not pushing a respectable vision of America. It’s the same old racist nonsense.
@@tm7517 I cannot question your good intentions. Policy however often has huge unintended consequences. What evidence do you have that Coleman's position would hurt black Americans?
@@tm7517 congratulations you get first prize for missing the point. Low IQ people see color. End of discussion.
While I don't think Coleman Hughes' TED Talk should have required this debate to happen, I am glad it happened (and I think he did well here, so it strengthened his position).
Agreed, he defended colorblindness well and that other guy just spoke garbage
What TED did here is shameful and inexcusable. They need to require all speakers to engage in a debate or none of them.
No he's wrong when your race is 300yrs behind how we as black people get on level ground. [ I hope the saying ain't pull your boot strap]
Good conversation. I think Coleman's point of race being a less accurate proxy for disadvantage than class is spot on.
But that view ignores the impact of race based policy that impacts across the lines of class. We need to examine the effects of race based policy not just disadvantage
@@Kastled5 lol. Sure. Can you tell me how many books you have read on the subject? How many courses have you taken? How have you studied the links between economic disparities and race based policy? Let me know the answers then I might take you seriously. Lol at the data
@@jausti2 "we need to examine race based policy, not just disadvantage." I disagree. I think if we were to remove race based policies and focus on class based policies, we would resolve the issues without the need for invoking race.
@@jausti2 I think his point is to abolish any form of race-based policies in the first place and instead enact class- or income-based policies.
It's an understatement, no matter which way you look at it. He mentioned both angles: that there are plenty of people of all ethnicities at the bottom of the class heirarchy, and that many black immigrants and their children were never particularly disadvantaged or otherwise affected by the poverty cycle that has trapped native descendants of US slaves, and they naturally step in line ahead of native black people in the "affirmative action" queue.
No TED. It was part of the contract you signed with CH. You guys dropped the ball on this one.
This is one of the best debates I've heard from Open to Debate since it was renamed. It was a pleasure to hear these individuals debate this topic.
It is all the more remarkable when you learn the context in which this debate arose. If you don't know, you can also find this debate on Coleman Hughes' channel, where there is a short commentary directly from Coleman at the beginning.
If you know all about it, you don't need to read the following lines - I'm just "properly pissed off". Your comment serves as an opportunity for me to vent my annoyance.
My attempt at a summary - however, you'd be better off hearing it directly from Coleman. I am not a native speaker. But to the point:
Coleman gave a talk for TED (and also for Open to Debate). The reaction to his talk was positive, except that there is a certain group within TED that demanded that his talk not be published.
And as I understand it, this above debate was created as a condition for the TED talk to be published. So, because his opinion was found to be "incorrect", he was given an additional condition where a debate arises where a counter-argument is heard.
Knowing the context, Donvan and Anderson's introduction demonstrating the need to listen strikes me as the height of hypocrisy.
In conclusion - the debate itself is great and shows respect and civility. It's just that if Coleman had presented an opinion in a TED talk that was found to be correct, then it would not have come about.
I'm from Europe and I've come to believe that a lot of the stuff we get about the "culture war in the US" is purposefully chosen to create sensationalism. But this was a cold shower for me.
Enjoy this moment. Folks like Jamelle don’t tend to debate and expose their ideas to any scrutiny and this is the reason why. They don’t hold up.
Respect to Jamelle for debating and putting his ideas to the test. But major props to Coleman for stating the truth so clearly and compellingly that it’s obviously to anyone with a brain who is being intellectually honest.
You mean to say, the white perspective on race is superior.
Color Blindness should be the goal. To push the idea that people should be treated or judged differently based on their race is the definition of racism.
I have no desire to view white people as individuals. Racist white supremacist don't get that luxury. Sorry, not sorry.
An even better goal than not seeing race is not being race. Consider the moral premise from which we should start -- is defining identity/humanity based on melanin-concentration better thought of as a good idea or as a bad idea?
When the Government or large institutions treats people differently based on race, that's the very definition of institutional racism.
@@GeorgeOuExactly! Affirmative action, for example.
@@pansophicone7768 You heard your name and you jumped.
"If you don't see color, you don't see me" is the response I often hear to the concept, and is the most self-defeatist of rejoinders to the principal of not valuing people on the basis of skin color. Racial Identitarianism is poison.
No it is not. I would recommend reading the comment I just left regarding the actual thoughts of Justice Thurgood Marshall.
@@tigersaur_it depends on what the goal is I guess.. If the goal is for black people to gain more materially in the short term, I feel like a race conscious approach is more effective, but if the goal is to fight stereotypes, then it really has the opposite effect.. Other communities will definitely tend to see race based discrimination unfavorably and develop all sorts of biases in the process.
@@Timur21Well, people should have worried about what "other communities" would have thought before legalized racial segregation, before redlining, before policies that clearly have an adverse effect on Black Americans, the descendants of racialized slavery and the worst aspects of legalized segregation, those who have historically suffered from racialized violence. Maybe if we put it in terms on what similar racially discriminatory and what even "race-neutral" policies did to adversely affect Native Americans, people would understand the real socioeconomic problems around race in this country and realize colorblindness is not the way out of it.
So you don't think that race plays a role in shaping a person's identity?
@@cypherreport What should I assume to be true about someone's identity based on their race?
Jamelle says in his closing arguments that he simply wants to address inequality and be attentive to it, he never says how to do that. The answer for how to do that is especially complicated by the fact that the inequality of race that one may point to between black and white America can not all be laid at the feet of racial inequality. We know this because of the point raised by Coleman that Jamelle never accounted for. Jamelle never accounted for the fact of different groups of recent immigrants of African decent have different outcomes and show more upward mobility.
They didn't live with racism in their home country and therefore were shown that race would not be a factor in how they would be able to achieve things
Also, immigrants are a poor comparison for this. People who immigrate to new countries are more likely to be less risk-adverse, more likely to be intelligent, and more likely to be middle class in their home country all of which greatly influence how people act.
@@cypherreportYou do a decent job of supporting Coleman’s position
@@cypherreport what you say would make sense if it weren’t for the fact that 2nd and 3rd generation immigrants still show big differences in all the key metrics. In other words the social aspect you speak of is controlled for and therefore leaves essentially only cultural factors. Is that really so hard to believe? We have all seen it anecdotally
Excellent point!
This points to the power of culture as opposed to skin color.
“Let me begin by redefining all the terms in a way that supports my position.”
Yeah, listened to Jamelle go through and frame everything including his definitions around his argument, instead of actually defining terms for clarity. Most of his terms were given extremely long, convoluted definitions, so that he could use them without having to be specific, giving himself the vague, undefinable victimhood that seems to define the "anti-racist" movement.
Yep! And his definitions led to absurdities! His definition of “racism” was so broad that it would allow you to conclude that people within a homogenous country could be racist toward their own. For example, Japan is a pretty closed society, so almost everyone in Japan is Japanese. If that country has social policies that favor wealthy Japanese over poorer Japanese then, according to Bouie, Japanese people are racist against Japanese people. That dude is a clown.
@@kipwonder2233 Bouie’s definitions made ZERO sense. Just made up his own definition of race. Here’s Bouie’s definition. “Set of social relations produced by racism.” And here’s his definition of racism: “System of social action meant to inscribe relationships of subordination and domination between groups.” Go ahead and make it make sense! So according to Bouie’s definitions if the wealthy Japanese people SUBORDINATE OR DOMINATE poor Japanese people, then Japanese people are being racist toward Japanese people. 😂
@@user-zy4dz8pi7p
It also sounds like Jamelle is saying that people were not seeing differences between races before the classifications by White Europeans. Or that racism did not exist before that and thus can be eradicated again. To me that is so absurd when we look at different groups of people killing themselves over minor phenotypical or geographical as well as cultural differences since centuries.
@@user-zy4dz8pi7p Execpt he specifically talked about how class follows similar constructs... Where you listening?
It seems like the best way to stop racism is to quit being racist by stopping racial discrimination. Mr Hughes has the better case.
It is very simple: color blindness can be used for racist ends. And DEI can also. It all depends on how ideas are employed, as a virtue or a vice.
Good debate, really appreciate the cordiality in what is usually a very contentious issue.
I tend to side with Coleman’s view of color-blindness. To balance the scales without any discrimination or favoritism at all.
I sense “race aware” policies don’t balance the scale, but rather tilt it in the opposite direction in an attempt to make up for past transgressions. It’s hard to eliminate racial preferences while perpetuating the practice at the same time.
Thomas Sowell has a saying “There are no solutions, only trade offs”. We need to be aware that any proposed solution comes with side effects, and choose the most optimal one. That to me is color-blindness. Do not allow institutions to have built-in racial preferences of any kind. Is it perfect? No, but it is best and the most morally coherent position.
I'm an immigrant of color and I have been noticing my own body become filled with stress more and more when I see signs all over shops that state that they don't allow things like discrimination and racism etc. I didn't realize it until later, makes me feel like everyone around me wants me gone. Has the completely opposite effect on me, unless they don't want me in their establishment 😅 then they're doing great.
Racial preferences in things like admissions is not designed to make up for past injustice, but to try and prevent injustice from happening again.
@@cypherreportno it's just preferential treatment. I'm so sick of you lot beating around the bush.....you want special treatment at the cost of others. It's not gonna happen, end of discussion!
I guess I would have to ask, So what are we trading away, by not properly dealing with our oppressive history and pretending like we are all okay?
@@kolob4697 why should my money go to pay you reparations? Why should my children be at a disadvantage to your children? Why should I give a single fuck about your "oppression"?
My family never owned slaves, in fact my family immigrated over here penniless from Ireland and had members forcefully conscripted into the Union Army as they stepped off the boats all to free your ancestors?
I don't owe you shit and you damn sure shouldn't get special treatment over me.
First, respect to Janelle for agreeing to do this. One of the features (philosophies? strategies?) of people espousing critical social justice policies has been refusal to debate, arguing that debate in itself is problematic. Secondly, formal debates can be very stilted and disappear into the weeds, and credit to Open to Debate for the way it was handled, and I think let each side have the space to state opinions and interact in a way that both would probably feel was fair. I look forward to Coleman's book!
Janelle
Coleman Hughes posted a video about his TED talk related to this debate titled, “Why is TED Scared of Color Blindness?”
In it, Coleman adds context to his talk about an effort to quash and subdue it. Why? Because of internal TED staff members objecting to this talk. Here is a link to his brief video that gives his “full account” of TED’s efforts to subdue his ideas and minimize the exposure they got:
ua-cam.com/video/KKZlb-MdzKo/v-deo.htmlsi=SziMA6RPVUemBlyk
YES. Lack of disclosure for why this production was created is telling.
Spot on. @@timsmith6700
EDIT 9/27: It has come to my attention this debate was a result of Coleman Hughes recent TED talk "A Case For Color Blindness". A loud portion of TED employees complained his talk was "hurtful" and protested his talk not be released. To appease their employees, TED insisted Coleman have this debate. Coleman just posted a detailed explanation on the Free Press, article titled "Why Is TED Scared of Color Blindness?" 🙌
.
.
I was taught as a child that racism was byproducts of tribalism, ignorance, and stereotypes. I was taught not to treat people as racial monoliths, to not judge people based upon the color of their skin but on the content of their character. I'm inspired by MLK who said: "𝘋𝘢𝘳𝘬𝘯𝘦𝘴𝘴 𝘤𝘢𝘯𝘯𝘰𝘵 𝘥𝘳𝘪𝘷𝘦 𝘰𝘶𝘵 𝘥𝘢𝘳𝘬𝘯𝘦𝘴𝘴, 𝘰𝘯𝘭𝘺 𝘭𝘪𝘨𝘩𝘵 𝘤𝘢𝘯 𝘥𝘰 𝘵𝘩𝘢𝘵. 𝘏𝘢𝘵𝘦 𝘤𝘢𝘯𝘯𝘰𝘵 𝘥𝘳𝘪𝘷𝘦 𝘰𝘶𝘵 𝘩𝘢𝘵𝘦, 𝘰𝘯𝘭𝘺 𝘭𝘰𝘷𝘦 𝘤𝘢𝘯 𝘥𝘰 𝘵𝘩𝘢𝘵." I'm also inspired by the work of black musician Daryl Davis who converted over 200 people out of the Ku Klux Klan, all by setting a personal example of civility and understanding. But apparently in 2023, believing these things make me a "Conservative" when I've been Liberal all my life. 🤷♂
.
The key problem in this debate seems to be this newly expanded definition of "racism". As long as I've lived, racism has always meant discrimination based upon the color of a person's skin. It was not defined upon broad, abstract notions of "power" and "domination" against black people as Jamelle defines it. In my view, this new definition relies more on a worldview of pessimism and cynicism over our country's history and institutions than on defining racism in a way that can be objectively measured. Another example from this debate is the historical use of the word "color blind"; Coleman cited many examples of quotes, while I mostly heard Jamelle express doubt on how the word was used rather than provide counterexamples.
.
It seems to me Jamelle's definition of racism doesn't actually address root problems but rather obscures and shifts focus away from them, instead shifting toward a worldview (along with this new definition) entrenched in its own forms of tribalism, ignorance, and stereotypes...
All those race hustler, after Obama presidency, didn't know how to stay relevant. How to make a buck when we essentially succedd to come from a total racist country to elect a black president in 50 years? Just change the definition of racism. Its big theater to make money. Me too, I always been a liberal, but apparently I'm big time conservative now. My consolation: it seems like more and more black people talk against those new ideologues who pretend to talk in their name
I've thought a lot about it, and I think the new definition of racism exists to simultaneously inspire fanaticism and actually numb people to certain forms of racism by the original definition - namely anti-white and anti-asian racism. It's a definition which provides a key stepping-stone along the quasi intellectual path to a world filled with unprincipled, immoral racial discrimination, where sadism is mistaken for education, and masochism is mistaken for insight. I reject it, categorically. If I were the debate judge, I would have awarded Coleman the debate due to Jamelle's efforts to redefine all the words right out of the gate.
It’s just boilerplate Marxism. Class struggle imposed onto race.
America has always had both systemic and individual racism.
Great analysis!
100% agree with Coleman. Its troubling that many others don't understand that this is the way forward into our collective future.
As a fellow jew, I dont like to see race. Color blindness here in the US has made my community much safer. Its just more practical.
The first sentence of that is so ironic that i’m not entirely sure that you’re not making a joke.
@@Theyungcity23he nose exactly what he is doing
huh?
"As a fellow jew" .... You lead with your ethnic group. you are not color blind.
Coleman Hugh’s has held up heroically against the anti-democratic machinations of a faction within TED. TED’s integrity is being tested and runs the risk of failing.
@@Smozzle19 Okay,okay.
I agree. I am proud and thankful for Coleman pulling the curtain back on TED and where it might be headed.
Right off the bat, Jamelle is subscribing to a very new definition of race that serves his argument very well. Coincidence I’m sure…
And what about the idea of racism being a modern western concept? By his definition Japan in WWII was not racist, neither ancient Greeks. These people are just trying to gaslit all of us by constantly redefining terms.
@@brandotheone Pergidence which does not have the element of a power imbalance in society typically does not constitute racism. Discrimination happens all the time, but when its socially targeted against a people group and creates social harms, for being different ie different skin color or lineage then it transcends discrimination and becomes oppression.
@@kolob4697 why do you have to mix the terms oppression and racism? Racism is not prejudice+power, it’s just discrimination on the base of race. Like sexism is discrimination on the base of sex. Can you use racism as a motivation to oppress a group of people? Sure, but you can do it with sexism too. You are getting blinded by a bunch of American fake intellectuals.
@@brandotheone Hi great thoughts on this issue by the way. Racism is oppressive, sexism is also oppressive, but prejudice (dislike) alone with out the power to materially affect the party whom is the target of the discrimination is unfortunate but it is something we as a society can improve through social interactions, and shared public spaces. However when systems of societal power and social organization realize and impose those prejudices into the workings and out comes of those systems of social and economic order you end up with an systemically oppressive state.
Racism in America has been and is both systemic, and individual which is why we see an erosion of public spaces and goods, mainly after integration. There are of course improvements in both of these areas, ie no more restrictive covenants in real estate deeds, and general integration of public and most private spaces. However this color blind rhetoric is just usually interjected as a way deter from doing the work of actual repair. As if some how helping the people we hurt is unfair.
@@kolob4697 I think the main problem is in the use of the word oppression. Let’s take for example sexism and the book “I hate men” that came out a couple of years ago. It is obviously sexist. Did it oppress men? It is debatable, it spreads hate against them but I would not say men are an oppressed category. In this way racism and sexism are not necessarily related to oppression.
Speaking of oppression, how can you use the same word to describe the situation of todays black Americans and enslaved black Americans in 1800s? It is a misleading word.
Regarding reparation, who should pay reparation and who should receive reparation? I am in favor for reparation in case a person directly negatively affects the life of another person, but going back generations makes little sense.
I strongly agree with Coleman, the only way to make a just “reparation” is colorblind wealth redistribution. If I am poor because my ancestor was a black slave or because my white father was screwed in some other way it should not matter. This should be the aim of the left and it always was by the way.
Color blindness doesn't mean you ignore an individual's unique circumstances. You can look at somebody's achievements after say an upbringing in poverty or in an immigrant household that fled violence, without making it about race.
But it is about race! It isn't ONLY about race but it is about race. Race is the way that class is lived.
We grew in ireland in the 80's being taught colour blinds not cultural blindness. The culture made the person who they were, not their skin colour.
@@thihal123except it's not about race. Why do Nigerians do so well in college?
@@thihal123 It's not about race at all. Class isn't divided by race. You either live in a heavily racially insulated environment or you're kinda racist and refuse to talk people outside of your race.
You'd know class isn't divided by race if you did that.
@@derekrushe Exactly!
Bouie is trapped on a weak and crumbling foundation of postmodernism, it seems. Most evident in his opening, where he attempts to frame or redefine language (race and racism) in a way to support his position. The technique is to package and load them with relative and self-referential nonsense (8:25 "Race refers to the set of social relations that are produced by racism") and thus turn the debate into a language game. This is why philosophies such as CRT and other postmodern offshoots fail to stand against real scrutiny, and ultimately collapse into dogmatic campaigns of social pressure, shame, and authoritarian threat.
I'm not sure at what point the educated abandoned the idea that definitions must not be circular to have any value. This seems to be a real dividing point that many won't accept must be adhered to for words to mean anything. I like using something as simple as an apple to demonstrate the point. If we define an apple as anything that tastes apple-like, has colors of an apple, and is often used as an apple in a culinary context, then we still have no idea what an apple is. If we use its accepted definition: the round fruit of a tree of the rose family, which typically has thin red or green skin and crisp flesh; we can now find objects that fit that definition and identify them as apples. We can distinguish apples from oranges, from peaches, from tomatoes or from cats.
@@ThePeter_Kaitech "We all see apples differently. What might be an apple to you, might not be an apple to me. We must respect everyone's truth."
@@cmiller7299 And next time someone asks for an apple pie, I'll be sure to bake it using ingredients I perceive as an apple. My favorite apples are long and yellow with a thick peel. My truth, my pie and who are you to say otherwise.
What if you legit don’t know what the word means, and a circular definition doesn’t cut it?
If someone is truly educated, not just going through the motions of school, they wouldn’t struggle getting around a circular definition.
What you said might be the dumbest thing I ever read and only someone who has gone to university and learned critical theories would spew such nonsense
Do you know realize that dictionaries make exceptions for examples such as this? Haven’t you ever looked up a word only to realize you were looking up the conjugated form of an another word? I can’t believe someone like you exists.
If TED itself was OPEN to DEBATE ironically this production would not have been needed.
Well said.
the moment you start training people to assign a particular value to a thing, trait or topic, you are always creating another group of people who will disagree with the value assigned to that thing, trait or topic. Color blindness is simply not assigning any value to race. If you don't like that concept, then you can continue to prioritize race as you choose, but bear in mind that you are creating the opposition. Also, the state is it's own separate class of people, and once you involve them, the best result you'll ever get is to solve one problem at the cost of creating two or three more problems that will eventually be infinitely worse than the problem you were trying to solve.
Edit: I described the "best result" when describing the effect of involving the state, but I should add that the likely result is that NOTHING will get solved, because you've just created a new army of bureaucrats whose income, status, mortgages, etc rely on them keeping their job forever and never actually attempting to solve a problem.
Jamelle gives me zero hope that the racial divide in America will ever get better and hopefully go away. To me, under his philosophy, I can’t ever see a long term outcome that doesn’t lead to more hatred and violence. He truly makes me think that homogeny is the only way a society can thrive and survive.
@@decarmo philosophies like the ones this man hold cause me to believe that race will never become less of a conflict and will continue to rip societies apart. As such, yes, parts of me believe that homogeny possibly may be the only way to a thriving society.
@@bobbyboywonder12 But America HAS thrived. There is no reason to believe it can't thrive once this woke nonsense has been put in the bin.
The hatred that many blacks have for White success is comparable in many aspects to the one that Germans had towards the Jews.
The optimist would point out that denazification did work, the hatred is overcome. However, all polls indicate that the US is moving in the wrong direction. Racially aware policies have grouped people together that were not identifying with these groups before.
When you have to redefine terms to make your case, you’ve lost.
@@atlasto9052 And we COULD if US born inner city blacks would stop acting the fool and reinforcing EVERY negative stereotype America has identified and labeled them with - but they won't.
Coleman on the nail as ever. Colour blindness is the way to go but identity politics is killing it.
A bit of hypocrisy claiming TED supports fre expression of ideas on this. The debate happened because TED wanted to supress Coleman's talk.
Coleman, you sealed it in that final statement! Awesome video!
I'm heavily biased towards Coleman, but is it fair to say he won?
That would be fair.
As Coleman pointed out 1. He provided quote after quote of the civil rights leaders favouring a system based on class and not race and 2. There was zero retort to the fact that much like Jewish kids in the last century, you have Asian kids now hiding their ethnicity to ensure they are discriminated against. I have to say that again to.ensure,they.aren't.discriminated.against.
@@derekrusheand Jamelle provided context for what they were saying showing that he was misusing their quote. He brought up integration as one obvious example that refutes that refutes the bizarre idea that civil rights leaders were acting in some sort of color blind method which Coleman ignored. And Coleman is begging the question that they are being discriminated against in that way and that hiding being asian helps in that situation.
@Theyungcity23 Asian were and srr being discriminated against precisely because fo Affimative action. That has already been proven and Jamelle provided zero quotes from the civil right leaders to back up his assertions. It was him who ignored or strawman Colemans points.
@@derekrushe He pointed to specific speeches even giving the exact dates and he explained how Hughes was misquoting them. That's better than an appeal tp authority which seems to be your thing because your talking as if that ruling from a largely extremist right wing supreme court proves some fact.
Colorblind ness doesn’t perpetuate actual racism. The new dumb meaning of “racism” as being baked into society is nonsense and just extinguishes the old meaning without any appreciation for the word
How come they didn’t allow viewers to vote on wether their minds had been changed or not as with previous debates?
You know why. It would be blasphemy
Concept of Color Blindness --- not purposely noticing the skin color of another person --- is based on objective reality.
In an objective colorblind world, there are not white people, black people, brown people yellow people ----- there are just People.
We're all equal as humans.
What I find most remarkable is that time and time again young children go to school and play with each other without even the slightest awareness of the race or ethnicity of their peers. It's not until the parents or some older sibling takes notice and makes comments that the kids start to notice. We are born accepting and color blind until race and prejudice are beaten into us by society. Let's just stop doing that.
I think everyone understands this, but the problem is I think the burden gets put on black people to fix it or "stop making everything about race" when we are not even the ones who made the concept of it. It's very frustrating when we are the ones in debates when it should be conservatives and liberals who clearly show they don't care about black people.
@@Kristopherberry yes, but with CRT the blacks have joined the conservatives and liberals in stepping away from color blindness.
TED needs to clean house of existing staff and get back to their roots. Coleman is impressive and interested in his book.
The semi censored Sarah Silverman back in the day as well. That was when I first started thinking less highly of TED
Great conversation. At the same time not so great considering the circumstances around the real reason for this debate to occur in the first place. TED's decision to release Coleman's original TED talk under the condition of defending his argument in this debate is an attempt to dilute if not discredit Colema's point of view. Luckily Coleman gives a great rebuttal. Another question is why the TED talk and this video have a surprisingly low number of views? ....rhetorical question I guess.
It's almost as if TED doesn't actually want to follow their own mission...
In philosophy, Occam's razor is the problem-solving principle that recommends searching for explanations constructed with the smallest possible set of elements. In this conversation Occam's razor is falling towards Coleman. Jamelle needs a lot of words to come to unclear positions.
I observe that the Jamelle Bouie's in our society --- if you listen --- always seem to talk about race with no real distinction between the present or the past. The sense I get is that, for Jamelle, and others like him, racism as so captured their sensibility that it has become impossible to fully embrace all the progress that have been made. Jamelle cannot escape the psychological grip he is in, so his only choice is to live as if nothing has changed.
He acknowledges slavery no longer exists, and other forms of progress have occurred, but that societal and institutional biases still exist and should be addressed by a presumably egalitarian society. It's not that complicated.
@@diamondbracelette”addressed by a presumably egalitarian society” doesn’t really contain any explanatory information. It’s just a platitude. You can’t say it isn’t complicated right after you say nothing
Nothing you said revealed that you observed anything. You obviously went into this with a warped view of people having a position that you do not understand and were thus incapable of seeing anything but that in what Bouie expressed.
Bouie has a vastly better grasp of the history of race in America than does Hughes. Hughes holds views which are remarkably similar to those of Chief Justice John Roberts which underly his attack on the Voting Rights Act which originally mandated strict scrutiny of State imposed reapportionment schemes with respect to their racial impact. We have a long way to go before we can dispense with the use of race in public policy before we can consider ourselves close to the objective of a color blind society. Ignoring the reality of racism in housing and all forms of weath creation simply will not get us there. See The Color of Money for details.
Coleman nails the issue with poise and reality rather than emotion and awkward forced policies to try and correct problems by reversing positions of the past that were wrong then and even worse now in their reversal since we know so much more in hindsight.
You're unwell.
jamelle the smartest person to himself.
And the biggest racist to almost everyone else
One shouldn’t overlook the political support nonracial poverty programs would receive.
It was not overlooked. Coleman makes this important point while citing the positions of civil rights leaders
@@tadatomalinakloans5995 Yes, I noticed that. It's just that they both make so many good points that i personally felt compelled to reiterate that point. Political/popular support for policies is always important, but especially so during such a polarized time as this.
Coleman easily won this debate
Jamelle never made any direct statements about what public policies his racially conscious approach would advocate for. He at one point seemed to want to distance himself a bit from affirmative action. I'm skeptical of people who use language so indirectly; I've been following this debate in our culture since I was in High School (2004-2008) and have come to the firm conclusion that while it's likely that they mean well, racially based public policy advocates are mostly in the business of providing obtuse and circular arguments to justify their positions in academia and media... "It is difficult to get a man to understand something, when his salary depends on his not understanding it"
Jamelle is incoherent from the jump with his definitions
Jamelle lost. The public is catching up to this grift. Kendis already in hot water. Bad ideas implode on their own
Bouie spends a lot of his time trying to convince us that we shouldn't take people's quotes at face value i.e. "What he really meant was.........". This might fly for one instance, but when it's the whole foundation of your position, your position is weak.
Great example of the difference between someone trying to sound smart and someone actually being smart
Jamelle definitely said a lot of words. But boiling down his long winded speeches: race conscious policy is needed to balance previous race conscious policy. Not a good argument.
How else?
What is the definition of white and black? I am half Greek from what is now Turkey and the Levant. I am half Egyptian, so part Arab. Turns out genetic testing shows I have 1% Ethiopian, so does the one drop rule apply. I also have a couple of points of Balkan and Maltese? Am I black because of the Ethipian, brown because of the Turkish and Arab or white because of the Balkan and Maltese? Personally, I self-identify as Olive from the Eastern Mediterranean.
I the US You are free to be what you want because black people and Allie's fought for and gained your right to be so I the United States. But before that period the racial slur for you east the same as for black people. Even if you were a hundred percent Greek. Also the recent curiosity around Ancient Greek culture also played a roll in them removing the no Greeks allowed policies that use to exist.
This is also generally a counter-point I make myself. If you get bi-racial kids, say half-Ghanese and half-Irish, are the kids 'black'? If one of the kids is very pale (because irish skin) and has red hair, whilst the other kid has much darker skin and curly hair, are they both 'black'? If they get kids, when do you stop (or start!) calling them 'black'? How are you measuring 'blackness'? (The answer, sadly of course, is skin-deep, literally and figuratively, for so many people nowadays.)
I think generally people very much miss the point because they think in averages at the group level they are perceiving. Currently, we are talking (increasingly much) about 'race' in terms of skin colour, and because the averages for that specific group are worse than other groups, it must be racism. Of course let's not look at cultural artifacts; let's not see Turkish people to be different from Morrocans, Nigerians, South Africans, or Egyptians (what was racism again?); let's not look at social-economic status and education level. If people could just grasp the fact that if a certain group of people is disproportionally suffering in a certain way, then if you address the suffering itself you also disproportionally help that certain group of people (WITHOUT excluding people that are suffering similarly and WITHOUT including people that don't actually need the help).
Our societies are becoming more racist by the day, and the causal mechanism behind it is exactly what is perceived to be the cure.
Americans can't wrap their head around how North Africa, The Middle East all the way to The Steppes can be racially ambiguous - they think in black and white.
Caucasian
@@vincentdavis1926 So… someone for the Caucasus mountains?
Thank you for the debate, even if the reason for the debate was odd. And thank you for bringing more attention to Coleman. What an amazing, clear speaker! I learned a lot,. This is so much better than the hateful tribalism that so often shuts down any converation.
I've tried to understand Jamelle's point of view, and here's what I've gathered:
1) If we only focus on class and ignore race, we miss some issues, (e.g. maybe it's harder for a wealthy Black person to secure a business loan than a similarly wealthy white person)
2) Helping based on class today won't undo past wrongs. (e.g. maybe if Black people had access to fair loans, they would probably be ahead of where there are now)
I get the first point, though not sure policy (either race-aware or colorblind) is the right fix for that.
I'm also not sure it would be theoretically or practically possible to 'undo' past wrongs in a fair way as others have said.
Even so, it seems that the real issue is using race as the (only) filter for preferential treatment is clearly problematic.
I agree that race is less accurate proxy for disadvantage, but don't think we can say 'therefore policies should never include any reference to race'
Perhaps it's not so black and white...
I wish the language used was a bit more simple here. I had trouble following some arguments because of heady or specialized academic words which for me took away from quality of their argument..
You can google a word.
It was designed that way as a canard
That's by design. #thxcriticaltheory
I attempted a HR anti-racism questionnaire that started with mis-defining color-blindness and went downhill from there. I had to abandon it and have lost all confidence and trust in my workplace.
This is a struggle session. How many other TED speakers have had their TED talk held back under the condition that they follow up with an hour long "debate" defending their position? (See ua-cam.com/video/4spNsmlxWVQ/v-deo.html)
The conversation starts with Jamelle just completely changing the definition of the word race/racism. How can anyone proceed in good faith from there? The target just keeps moving...
I don't think so, how did he change it?
@@slipstreammonkey In my view, he takes the word race out of context, andheavily projects.
Etymologically and historically and politically, race has existed from Latin, meaning origin or root (people). Instead of seeing the word in the context of the world, he chooses to pretend like the word race only exist for North America. That they are in a unique position in the world. Similarly to American Creationists, Jamelle thinks he's the center of the world. Similarly to American creationists, he thinks the world was recently created. For the Creationists, it's 5000(?) years ago, but for him the world practically started in the 16th century. Anything else isn't relevant, all of which is extremely ignorant. For him, and his special mind, the concept of race doesn't exist anywhere else in the world, however.
The reality of race is much much worse than any US citizen have any real and tangible idea about. There are ethnic cleansing, honour killings, genocides, race based wars happening all the time outside the west. They're all embracing the idea of (their) race being the prime identity -- it all leads to tribalism, strong men politics, and extremely racist policies that makes your most hard core element seem mainstream anywhere else. This is based on my experience, through UN envoys to crisis areas and personal relationships and my own real experience living in the world for extended periods.
- Consider the difference. China have 0.6%, Korea, and Japan have 1% non-east Asian in their respective countries. They all have extremely racist policies. Nigeria? 1% non-African, however. Europe, which has largely accepted a colourblind model, 12% non-European. What happens if you reject the foundation of colourblindness?
- China is enacting ethnic cleansing against a racial minority as we speak.
- In Myanmar, the minorities suffer genocide, cheered on by Buddhist monks who are just as sanguinary and saber rattling as the most hard line clerics of the Abraham religions. The Lady? She turns a blind eye. It's racially based.
- Ethnic tension is on the rise between Serbia and Kosovo right now.
- In Ivory Coast, northern foreign Muslims invaded the village of my god mother and the country erupted in one of Africas many (civil) wars. Racially based violence.
- Huge war in Europe, in regards to essentially the Ukrainian race, ("slava ukraini"), many other ethnic tensions erupt related to this conflict, such as Moldova recently.
- The war between Azerbaijan and Armenia is currently seeing ethnic cleansing.
- In the Levant, if a Arab Christian daughter marries an Arab Muslim, her father will kill her because of honour. This is modus operandi.
- It's very common, that they see history as if their people is THE main player, unashamed, and that other people is but a footnote in their own Glorious History [sic.]. Stark contrast to history books in the west, where they at least strive to be objective. At worst, you have people who rewrite biography of its people to create shame.
- In the west, politicians often talk openly about past historical blunders. How many times do you hear China mention genoices or Turkey mention the Armenian genocide or Russia mention what happened to the original inhabitants of Crimea? It's racially motivated, masked by a culture that's afraid to lose face, so they never talk openly.
This isn't in some Other worldly or fantastical place. This is the real world. This is a small teste of how racist most of the world that you and I inhabit, truly is, and as I've personally experienced it. You have to live around the world to see how fundamentally medieval the world still is. The old world is terrified of losing face, so they never talk about this. Jamelle is a summer child, ignorant of the wider world and where he's going... a grim future awaits those who follow him.
In the wider world, a colourblind approach is an extraordinary gift.
@@willek1335 First off thank you for writing with such detail. I fully comprehend what you are stating. However I think your assumption of his narrow world view in your first paragragh is without any real evidence unless you have read most of his work and have a deeper knowledge of his historical knowledge. He may not for all i know have a thorough understanding of ancient history up to modern but Coleman doesn't broach that thread either so I think they kept it to the last 150 years for the most part. You make some bold statements about his character which I believe you are stretching pretty far but I can appreciate your instincts. No qualms about how much of a Lesser Evil we were and have become compared to other parts of the world. Doesn't change the argument just where we are on the spectrum. I basically see his point as Color blindness is Great, its the hope, the saving grace of mankind. But if in the sidecar of this endeavor among the population not victimized for 400 years is a clean slate followed by blindness to ongoing racism, then we should assume it is in some small part collaborative with its perpetuation. Trust but verify
@slipstreammonkey I wrote my first paragraph based on his words. He created a distinct category where the etymological meaning of the word race is Modern and Western. For him, race is practically rooted in the 16th century. He doesn't go outside this conceptual framework. He doesn't give a wide context and his ground for starting here was because other colleagues also start here. "A large body of research..." In this, he is right. It's very common to limit ones own field of view within a set geographical and time based category of history. The cardinal mistake however of historians is that such arbitrary categories creates blind spots, and in shadow ignorance fester.
One common effect of this historiographical sin is that we think we've stumbled on something extra special. A specific example, or poster child, is when US students gets animated and speak about slavery, as if it's a uniquely Modern and Atlantic phenomenon. In my opinion, this may creates a lot of naive conclusions that might end up undermine the very foundations of our atypical, slavery-free civilization(s). I based my first paragraph on his words.
The golden question for Jamelle, what's a clean slate? Which year? 1400s? 1000 AD? Please define what that means, and/or use preexisting examples of what that looks like. I don't know what that means, or perhaps more importantly what it doesn't mean.
@@willek1335 Ok, so you would prefer then a more broad body of evidence without geographical or time restrictions? Say look at a period where fundamentally race is the only factor which was present and bred discrimation? Maybe you could pinpoint 1 example of a blindspot that wasn't addressed.
As far as a clean slate I assume it starts to resemble the true meaning of a colourless society where individuals or states do not recognize race as imbuing degrees of character. It certainly needs to be more practical than a Utopian meaning. But the further we are away from it, the more a colourblind mentality can be simply superficial window dressing and mask the roots of racism.
This was an extremely high-level discussion. Good for Jamelle for being willing to step up, although he must have sensed that he would wage a losing battle. Coleman is world-class.
Based on the merits or bc he validates your preexisting biases? I don't discount his take and in fact value it (eg.valuing a class based approach; although I don't see Coleman walking the walk in what that would actually entail in his politics) , but Bouie is wrestling with a much more difficult and complex matter of historical context (eg his take on how the central theme of how the term "color blindness" was even being used is more convincing and supported) and policy based prescriptions. The first several minutes of the debate lays out the difference in terms of who has the more rigorous historical analysis. Coleman is in over his head in that. But what should be done in our current day is an open debate and anyone can freely weigh in on that.
@@diamondbracelette sheesh, man -- it seems like you have some preexisting biases.
@@hiawathasbrother Of course I do. Don't you? But I don't just say yay my guy won bc it makes me feel good.
@@diamondbraceletteI'm sorry you're upset
@@hiawathasbrotherME (AFTER GETTING COMPLETELY, BUT RESPECTFULLY OWNED): I'm sorry you're upset
I didn't like the definitions of Race and Racism at the start there. I think that is a disingenuous way of starting out.
Bouie vs Canteluna
part 5
JB “The way to address it, to emiliorate it, is to at least take note of and respond to the social relations that structure, and continue to structure, its ongoing existence. And that would put us against an idea of colorblindness.” JB
CL I take him to mean that we recognize inequality in our social relations that is being produced through institutions and that we can’t address it appropriately through being ‘color-blind’. Again, this assumes that the ‘inequality’ he refers to is something the government needs to address because of a discriminatory law or act on its part or of some other institution. And if the government wants to take action it must have an objective. If the objective is to ensure ‘equality’ then that means there is law or policy being violated that must be corrected. If there is no provable violation of law or policy then it could be the problem is misdiagnosed, as in assuming a violation simply based on an ‘unequal’ outcome of some kind. As I’ve stressed, ‘unequal outcomes’ are not necessarily a problem as they may be the result of desired dynamic in competition.
My point of social dynamism is very important. It is a fact that people are born with certain advantages over others and we would not everyone to be the same even if we could engineer it. Likewise in the economy. While we recognize that everyone needs basic amenities to live, we have an economic system that allows us to attain these amenities and that system is a dynamic one that is based in competition. The system is not meant to produce equal outcomes, it is meant to incentivize creativity and productivity and provide the best for the most. It is not perfect and isn’t meant to be.
In our system we make trade-offs for the good of the whole. We pollute our environment to a degree in order to have the benefits of life we wouldn’t have without the pollution. Of course, we pay attention to outcomes. We don’t want too much pollution and when it starts to be a provable problem, then we come together and use our government to address it. The goal is to have some sort of balance. What that balance is, is determined through our political system. The goal is not to make the air quality the same as it was at some past, arbitrary time, it is to ensure that we are participating in the process to address it, and that is also a dynamic system in that people will disagree what is ideal and how to address it.
Same goes for ‘inequality’ in the system. We know that things cannot and should not be ‘equal’ on every account, so we address the issue through the political process within the framing of the purpose of our liberal government. However, there are Marxists and various socialists who claim that liberalism has failed because it hasn’t produced the results they desire. There are also authoritarians on the right who make the same claim and want to run roughshod over the constitution and rule of law in order to force a system of government on the rest of us. Both of these extremes - left Marxism and right fascism - will never be satisfied with our system because it isn’t meant to solve all the problems each wants to use the power of government to solve.
9:58
Can you emeliorate inequality without focusing on characteristic of the people who you want to be equal?
Yes. Make it a purely meritocratic system and it will result in everyone being treated equally. Will it result in everyone having the same outcome? No, but it was be very unfair if outcomes were equalized while inputs remain unequal.
Bouie vs Canteluna
Pt2
JB “If racism is simply another form of inequality, then our question is how we address inequality generally.”
CL “Racism” is already against the law. If by “inequality” you mean unequal outcomes in certain areas (economic, for example), then you’d have to show that a specific policy is actually deliberately racist. Simply showing unequal outcomes is unlikely to a result of deliberate racist policy. This is the main error in the left’s understanding of racism. They conflate correlation with causation. That said, there may be gerrymandering going on in “red states” that is deliberately racist. I am open to looking at that.
JB “We can substitute inequality for racism and pull it up a level of abstraction to this: Can you emiliorate a system of inequality without reference or retention to the social relations produced by that system of inequality, and I think the obvious answer is no.”
CL No. You can’t substitute “inequality” for “racism”, this is a categorical error (ironically, you accused Coleman of committing*). Inequality and racism are different issues and should not be conflated. If there is overlap, then you must prove that racism is inteneded, simply showing unequal outcomes by race in a category does not prove racism.
JB “Consider ‘class’, it is not simply a matter of income, it is a relationship between two groups or more as it relates to production.And as a result we mostly recognize that to reduce or end class inequality we have to take account of class domination. We can’t simply redistribute wealth from one group to another, we have to do something about the relationship between laborers and owners of capital and everyone inbetween, otherwise we end up in the same place we started.”
CL “Class” is an abstraction. Marxists are concerned with eliminating “class” (as you defined it), but liberals are not. We are not concerned with the abstraction of class but rather ensuring our institutions are reflecting the liberal values and goals that underpin the spirit of our government, i.e., that the dignity (by way of legal rights) of the individual is of foremost concern. To this end, we also have established anti-trust laws to ensure that the economic system is in keeping with our laws, liberal values and goals. By focusing on legal rights of the individual and not the abstraction of “class” we are not put into what would be the inevitable situation of a “class struggle”.
It astounds me how hard it is for some to understand that fighting racial discrimination should not mean endorsing more of it.
Good debate and I think Coleman made better arguments but I wish so much of his argument didn't rely on "this is what civil rights leaders thought"
Even if he's right. Them believing it doesn't make it right
Yes, we could do with fewer appeals to authority.
If you look at the civil rights and participation in society of black people in 1950 vs 1970, I think it's fair to say the the thoughts of civil rights activists in that time were correct. THEY were successful. All the liberation movements were - for women, blacks and gays. No one has accomplished more than those people.
@@hlysnan6418His point wasn’t strictly an appeal to authority. He used those leaders as an example of how much the philosophy of color blindness has achieved.
@@jtatepdx Once or twice is useful as illustration; Mr Hughes invoked the opinions of civil rights heroes at least nine times, and certainly during most of his turns to speak. His argument was not limited to such appeals - and he was definitely far more persuasive than Mr Bouie - but the frequency of these references gave an impression of insecurity which wasn't necessary.
Agreed. They were great but we should be able to do better decades later.
Here is what happens when you notice a person's color ---- "He's a black man. Don't hire him. .... Hey look, it's a black guy! Let's get him!"
In 77 years on planet Earth, living always in the South, I have NEVER encountered anyone who says/thinks that. What I hear: "That boy fidgets, has bad manners, can't pronounce words. That girl has a chip on her shoulder, acts rudely, doesn't pay attention, can't be trained. That woman's fingernails are so long she couldn't possibly manage a cash register. This neighbor keeps his dogs on a chain all day, with them barking their heads off, lonely, neglected, miserable. If those comments fall disproportionately on one race, it still isn't about race.
Any time someone brings up the word equality or equity they should have to differentiate whether they are talking about equality of outcome or equality of opportunity
Isn’t the definition of ‘equity’ the forced equality of outcome?
@@fredbloggs5902close but I would say that is a bit of a cynical definition because the word forced has a negative connotation. There are forms of equity that everyone would agree with like wheelchair ramps for example. It doesn’t need to be a dirty word even if some people want to put it places it doesn’t belong.
The more I listen to Coleman, the more I am drawn to his stance. He's so well spoken!
13:44 mic drop 😂
15:21 another great point for the champ. Game over. Get ‘em Coleman 👊
To Mr. Bouie's arguments I would simply say: In the multitude of words sin is not lacking, But he who restrains his lips is wise. (Proverbs 10:19)
Mr Jamelle started the debate by saying race only exists because of systems of laws…. And then argues for keeping it in our gouvernement policies.
It was created within the system and you propose it can be rectified without the system.
@@slipstreammonkey "race only exists because of system of (US) laws" Anyone who thinks race only exist in such context have never lived in the Old World of Africa and Eurasia.
This isn't some distant planet. This isn't inhabited by orcs, elves and goblins, but by human beings, just like you and me. Here, the idea of race is much much much worse than you dainty Americans can ever imagine. Here, the laws of the land are still fundamentally medieval in nature. If a Arab Christian girl marries a Muslim man, in the Levant, that girl will expect her own father to kill her because of honour. If you visit north western China, you'll see a population that's getting ethnically cleansed. If you go to the border between Azerbaijan and Armenia, you will see ethnic cleansing. If you go to Myanmar, you will see the same genocide. If you go to Eastern Ukraine, you will see wars on a massive scale that's rooted in race. You Americans have your head so far up your own ass, you can't see how ignorant you are. Each and everyone of these societies, by definition, reject colourblindness. They explicitly embrace race ideology of maintaining tribalism. They embrace a view of history where they are the main player, and everyone else are wrong. The same tribalism that Jamelle is a proponent of.
It's not some distant land, its people are just like you and me. The same flesh and blood. If you go down his road, you'll end up like everyone else, of deeply racist world. For example: 0.6% of China are not of east asian decent. 1% of Korea, and about the same for Japan are of non east Asian decent. This is the norm. Nigeria, one of the most cosmopolitan African countries, about 1% are of non-African decent. However, 12% of Europe, which largely embraces colourblindness, is of non-European decent. If you want racism, you follow Jamelle.
Chris looks terribly uncomfortable, as he should. He caved to censorship and has treated this fine intellectual who is a skilled commentator quite shabbily. There is no excuse for this treatment of Coleman Hughes. TED's wonderful efforts to spread worthy ideas has been damaged by this episode. As a longtime follower of TED talks, I am extremely disappointed.
Glad I found this channel. Excellent guests and a debate worth having. Thanks to all
Jamelle did his best, but Coleman’s closing statement sums it up.
The entire "debate".
Hughes: Presents cogent, yet simple and digestible arguments that support his hypothesis, provides receipts.
Bouie: Gish Gallops endlessly, presents nonsensical redefinitions of common language to support his arguments, or even uses anecdotal third-party accounts to reframe historical viewpoints (Rustin supports targeted integration after all 34:42).
This was a joke of a debate that should have never happened, and the entire TED organization should be ashamed of it, that they then proceeded to be dunked on for an hour (not counting TED's pre-debate priming session) is just icing on the cake.
I respect Jamelle for being a good participant here. It is a tough task to argue that using an abstraction/proxy such as race is actually more beneficial than directly targeting the inequalities caused by racism
(52:27) Coleman notes that Jamelle "dodged" the point of the question! YA' THINK?!?!?!? This is what Jamelle is really good at: dancing around the issue by first introducing as much detail, and plain old obfuscation, as he can, and then simply saying something BESIDE the point! Well, after all, he DOES work for the NYT, right? 😉
It's really intriguing to see intellectuals miss the obvious. In his final segment Jamelle 'finds it odd' that we are happy to talk about sex when considering sex inequality but not race when considering race inequality. Just think about that. Can Jamelle really not come up with any reasons why we might treat these things differently? Perhaps that sex is a real biological difference with unavoidable and significant implications for our lives whereas race is a social construct based on something as inconsequential as melanin content or a 1/16th genetic inheritance? Or perhaps because there has never been, and could never be, segregation with a female side of town and a male side of town, with a whole lot of inter-group turf warfare and tribal violence. When was the last military conflict fought between the sexes? But the equivalent for race has occurred innumerable times in history. History shows the dangers of categorising by racial group in a way that it simply doesn't for sex. The reasons for this difference are obvious in the extreme if one is open to genuinely asking themselves the question.
Jamelle has the intelligence to see this. But he can't break free.
Great debate! Having listened to all of it, if race wasnt so politicized in our society, I dont think the two debaters would have been very far apart. They were both circling around the same thing, with different perspectives of it
I watched this so you don't have to: No. Colorblindness doesn't not perpetuate racism.
Have a good day.
Jamelle Bouie got schooled by a younger man...
Coleman Hughes is so articulate and a significant voice for our future.
Thanks Thomas for bringing up Descendants of American Slavery
Bouie is one of my favorites! Good to see a conversation about this. Coleman brings a voice for reasonable people to debate. Great conversation
After reading many of the top comments regarding this video on Colemans deabte makes me feel we can restore faith in humanity again. I also agree that Coleman should not have had to have this debate after the Ted-Talk management literally held his Talk video hostage in order to have this debate on terms laid out by the management from Ted-Talk.
Hughes is silly, i’m sorry. he’s a decent undergrad with a one-note normative claim. obviously it’s good to advocate not being racist. the question is whether this neutrality toward race would or would not overcome race/racism. so he’s making an empirical argument masked as an ideological one. so where is the empirical argument that legal or economic colorblind policies will produce racial equality? he never tells us anything but “don’t think about race” and magically it’ll create equality.
Jamelle represents a large group who build their career on the BS, because institutions reward those who do so; where gaslighting is a primary tool used to argue nonsensical positions. It's part of a very manipulative industry that attracts many people with high IQs but who are themselves highly manipulative in their communication style. Coleman represents a clear position that remains consistent and honest. He gets to communicate straightforwardly because he builds his career with a genuine attempt to find solutions and get to the truth. It shows. The day of the manipulator is coming to an end, me hopes. Rise of the genuine communicator! Go Coleman!
An alternative title of this could be, from the other side’s perspective, “Does racially discriminating perpetuate racism?” but then I guess you couldn’t really make a video with an answer so obvious.
Let’s be clear here, that is EXACTLY Bouie and his I’ll advocate; the persistence of racial discrimination. They just shroud their mission in academic gobblidook, which unfortunately this debates title seems to assist. Color blindness is blatantly and obviously the solution to racism. It’s so true, that the two are essentially antonyms. Any attempt to argue that color blindness doesn’t help racism is proof of racism on the part of the one making the argument.
Ditto
I think it's a pity that this was a debate and one wherein Coleman was pressured to participate. A real conversation between the two might have been more interesting. I appreciate Jamelle's attempt to define racisim as he's arguing against and about it. It was clearer than most of what I've heard insofar as "structural" racism definitions, but I struggle with this. It feels like redefining an established term. Defining terms or coming to terms in a debate is great, but I question its utility if the terms still aren't agreed on.
Go Coleman, go!!! 🎉 i celebrate your brilliance
I hope Ted Talks will be able to have a little more courage and will give more exposure and air time to Coleman's Ted Talk after this debate.
Although I'm on the side of, our country should be color blind, this was an awesome debate. It is a good example of how are elected officials should debate. Thank you!
@ColemanHughesOfficial, I believe, wins. Jamelle's arguments seem somewhat quibbling, even if well-argued.
Great questions from the guests!! Good debate!
Bouie avoiding the cases of upward mobility among newly immigrated black Americans was cowardly, citing he doesn't care much about affirmative action in higher education outcomes. Academia success isn't the only thing effected by these race-focused policies Bouie supports.
Right, he doesn't want to deal with data that conflicts with his biased POV
Good talk Coleman
Chris, I am disappointed you caved to a tiny minority of TED that objected to Coleman Hughes's TED talk. Please advocate for your team to become more tolerant and realize the value of diverse opinions and ideas. Some people want to shut down debate because they do not want to allow ideas to be freely discussed. Next time someone tries to cancel a TED talk, say NO.
What is equality? Really, does anyone have a functioning, practical definition of this idea that doesn't rely on any other suppositions?
58:20 The source of this problem goes deeper than the questioner or respondents have shared.
"For several decades we psychologists looked upon the whole matter of sin and moral accountability as a great incubus and acclaimed our liberation from it as epoch making. But at length we have discovered that to be free in this sense, that is, to have the excuse of being sick rather than sinful, is to court the danger of also becoming lost. This danger is, I believe, betokened by the widespread interest in existentialism, which we are presently witnessing. In becoming amoral, ethically neutral and free, we have cut the very roots of our being, lost our deepest sense of selfhood and identity, and with neurotics, themselves, we find ourselves asking, “Who am I, what is my deepest destiny, what does living mean?” (Professor Hobart Mowrer, “Sin, the Lesser of Two Evils,” American Psychologist, 15 (1960): 301-304)
Bouie vs Canteluna
pt 1
JB “Colorblindness would mean “that the state does not acknowledge race as a social reality.”
CL Wrong. The state recognizes race in that it makes it unlawful to discriminate by race in certain ways by certain institutions.
JB “Racism is a system of social action meant to inscribe relationships of subordination and domination between groups, that political, ideological, economic, juridicial systems created to preserve a supposedly natural domination of one group over another - that racISM.
CL Yes. I agree with this definition.
JB “Can you emiliorate racism as a system of subordination and domination while turning a “blind eye” to the social relations produced by that sub and domination.”
CL As I’ve established that the state DOES NOT turn a “blind eye” to race, as there are already laws that make it unlawful to discriminate based on race. The pro “color-blind” advocates would not eliminate all of these laws. (Although there may be some laws we believe should be eliminated, specifically the so called “affirmative action” laws that DO discriminate based on race especially where “zero sum” is in play, e.g. by using affirmative action methods to allow a black person into a university this means a person of another race is denied access.)
I will continue refuting Bouie's Marxist arguments in further posts.
Why the hell was this necessary?
It was made a condition of release for Coleman's original TED talk on color blindness.