BEST ADVISE GOING TO GIVE YOU SOME COLEMAN/ IS LEARN TO LOVE YOURSELF TRULY EMBRACE YOUR BLACK SKIN BECAUSE ITS BEAUTIFUL AND FIND SOME BLACK MENTORS THAT CAN HELP YOU ///ESPECIALLY BLACK MEN THAT LOVE WHO THEY ARE AND LOVE THEMSELVES AND BEAUTY/// WHAT YOU ARE SAYING IS COMPLETE NONSENSE AND TAKE A LOOK AT WHAT KIND OF PEOPLE ARE CHEERING YOU ON/// YOU ARE COMPLETELY WRONG BECAUSE FACTS ARE FACTS AND SKEWING THE PERCEPTION STILL DOES NOT CHANGE THE FACTS/// PLEASE LEARN TO LOVE YOURSELF LOOK IN THE MIRROR AND EMABRACE SAY GOOD THINGS TO YOURSELF LOVE YOUR HAIR YOUR NOSE EYES SKIN YOUR SMILE LOVE YOURSELF INWARD OUT LOVE ALL OF YOU/// WHAT YOU ARE SAYING NOW IS COMPLETE SELF HATRED/// NO WAY YOU CAN LOVE YOURSELF WITHOUT LOVING YOUR BLACK SKIN/// ITS SAD //YOU ARE NOT WHITE AND YOU WILL NEVER BE WHITE// YOU ARE A BEAUTIFUL HANDSOME BLACK MAN EMBRACE IT WALK WITH YOUR SHOULDERS BACK YOU ARE A KING// A BLACK KING// OWN IT/// ITS UP TO YOU TO LISTEN/ ALSO KNOW THERE ARE SUCH THINGS AS EDUCATED FOOLS AND REMEMBER STUBBORNNESS IS A SPIRIT///
That is only if they are interested in stopping discrimination. In practice that does not seem to be case. Socialism always thrives to power through "divide and conquer" tactics. The discrimination game is the exact tool for that. Their whole "oppression olympics" as we sarcastically dubbed it has an internal leftist academic name, and you wouldn't believe it for its insanity: "The Domination Matrix"
So you're saying that racial discrimination in favor of non-whites is necessary because they are analogous to the disabled when compared with whites? Am I getting this right? What about them is "disabled" so to speak? Just that people discriminate against them? @@Chatillgbt
I think I understand where they're coming from, but largely disagree on the practicality. The dragon to slay to help the most Black people today is probably getting underneath why the educational discrepancies are there - deeper than blaming the teachers or insisting that we just need to throw more money at the problem.
Jamelle Bouie did dodge the issue of discrimination against Asian students. Each time Coleman Hughes raised it, Bouie refused to address it. When Bouie said 'I'm not interested in Harvard', he made it clear that he couldn't care less if another group of people are discriminated against, as long as black people are favoured. Hughes won this debate, hands-down.
The issue against Asian students is weak. Asians have the best educational outcomes in the country. How are they being harmed? The group that actually takes spots at universities are legacy admissions not affirmative action admissions. Bringing up Asians is just a weak excuse to once again take away the insufficient governmental help that minorities get. If we can never slightly disadvantage anyone to help black people, it helps guarantees we will stay a permanent underclass. Lets screw black people and rationalize it later, the American way...
The reality is that this is a racist movement, with its underbelly being overtly black supremacist and seeking to oppress rather than seeking to find equality
@@stanleycross6000 Is that supposed to be a rebuttal? The U.S. is one of the least racist places on Earth. But not for the wokeist reversal, we'd be the world's benchmark for multicultural prosperity and equality. Not equity because that's antithetical to liberalism and liberty.
@@kenhiett5266 America was FOUNDED as a racist country and is fooling itself that the Constitution is or was colorblind. Blaming wokeness is simply a LAZY far right trope...And is a sign of a deficit of solutions. Ignoring Race to end Racism is in a word..."Unserious." Or is "negligent" more accurate? "Rebuttal" enough for you? PS: Woke is a Far Right fantasy much like "Cultural Marxism" 🤣
Those with power, money, and privilege perpetrate DIFFERENCES leading to DIVISION and VICTIMIZATION. Thanks, Mr. Bouie, for demonstrating as much in your Opinion column in today's NYTs (Aug. 13, 2023).
Jamelle's argument reminds me of the Orwell quote, "The great enemy of clear language is insincerity. When there is a gap between one's real and one's declared aims, one turns, as it were, instinctively to long words and exhausted idioms, like a cuttlefish squirting out ink."
It was exhausting trying to follow wtf Jamelle was saying, even though he sounded intelligent saying it. Coleman sounded just as intelligent while also being concise. “Brevity is the soul of wit.”
@@bubblehulk7647 I used to think it was me not understanding the academic language 🤦🏽♀️ now I’ve learned it’s literally that they’re not making sense 😅!
It is absolutely damning of TED that they considered withholding publication of Coleman's original presentation on this topic. Their bias was clear to me before. I don't think they appreciate how their alignment with the institutions of power committed to silencing dissent undermines their effort to elevate the discourse.
The statements from Monica Williams showed their hand - "most blacks are middle or upperclass... but they still suffer racism." TED and the black racists moved from Affirmative Action bc it's played its role. Effectively what we're witnessing and what was argued (against colorblindness) is treating bigotry and racism as some abstract, academic idea. Why? Because the elephant in the room is the shear number of poor and low middle class whites who NEVER even receive lip service from race hustlers/anti whites.
Identity politics, race politics, everything Jamelle is arguing for, is founded on perceiving a "group" as if it were a conscious entity. That's a delusion. A category of person is not a purposeful agent.
@silvertube52 Agreed, and was so glad that this came up from Thomas Chatterton Williams' question. Its one of the strongest arguments for color-blindness
I’ve been trying to figure out the wording for this throughout the last year. Thank you, my good man. Thank you. You haven’t the slightest idea what you’ve done for my mind.
Realbanggang, you guys certainly tell the truth about your position. There is absolutely a mountain of bias that occurs in society today. The overwhelming amount of is NOT directed at whts. However, you folks are only concerned with it if you believe it is.
@@thadlincolnii7398 huh? An overwhelming about of bias being directed..? Bias is something everyone has, always had and always will have. How is it "overwhelming" or "directed at" I'm not sure I understand what you're trying to say.
@@basicallybangbang Notice that my post was NOT about which groups hold the MOST bias. It was which groups were PRIMARILY impacted by bias. Far EXAMPLE , 1)In the past ten yrs, the justice department has reviewed a number of police departments in cities and found bias in policing. Each time the bias was against blks. Not whts. 2)Pew and other organizations recently did a study and found There was bias in real estate apprasals against blks over 10 yr period. Not AGAINST whts. 3)the FBI reported tha the overwhemling hate crimes Are against blks. NOT against whts. 4)Pew and others released stats that blks get higher sentences in the criminal justice system than whts for the exact same offenses. And more, Yet you guys either miss all these statistics or repeat unproven conservative talking points to dismiss each. In contrast, you are totally mobilized against the idea of affirmative action. Because you believe it discriminates against whts.
Fighting racism with more racism isn't a good idea. We need to fight racism by having stricter rules against race based discrimination, popularize our distain from racist culture, inform everyone about the dangers of untamed biased decisions made from positions of power.
Didn’t know Coleman before this fiasco, but I’m a fan now. Thank you for standing for reason, merit, and character. We’ll uplift members of all races in the process.
Mad respect for the affirmative position here. I haven’t heard someone defend it so well before. Granted it’s a ridiculous position, but normally people fall into straw men or ad hominem attacks when arguing against color blind policies. I always state it this way, “color blindness doesn’t ignore your experiences due to race. It simply does not assume your experiences due to your race.” It forces me to look at everyone as an individual and their unique experiences instead of placing them into a box from a single data point.
Right I agree and if you have a group of Asians with very similar applications then those data points around those individuals would be on top of each other even if you factored those individual experiences. They all have orchestra, math team, chess, social upper class activities, etc etc...... so how is that diversity? That was the point the Harvard was making. Now if you said hey I love chess as an Asian and I started a chess club to introduce chess to impoverished kids then that is diverse and deserves attention. What some Asians seemed to be wanting is participation awards for joining a bunch of clubs. Anyone can join a club or group but did you start one? Some of this stuff is like empty calories......
*The first thing I notice about Bouie and others of his persuasion is how his arguments require him to unfairly and impermissibly gerrymander the definition of words and terms in order to even make sense. Right off the bat, he implies that Coleman believes that the government should act as if race isn’t a “social reality” and that “race” is a concept actually born from racism instead of its actual meaning, and then he tops it off by redefining racism entirely. These people are so intellectually dishonest.*
Agreed. And then toward the end of te video Jamelle is saying that racism can disappear because race is a historically emergent phenomenon. The issue I see with this line of thinking is that his definition of racism relies on the idea that people of one type of group would subjugate people of another. That is a trait that I believe has been observed throughout recorded history (even within a race), so I fail to see how it's going to go away. It doesn't have to be related to race, and his new definition of racism seems to be applicable in cases that have nothing to do with ethnicity.
@@DrGoldfootPhD the fact is that humans have lived in ethnic tribes for the vast majority of our history. The idea that “racism” began with white colonisers and their successors is just plain false.
@@DrGoldfootPhDyes his argument depends very much upon America's version of slavery, when slavery as a whole had been a practice affecting all races at one time or place, and America was one of the places it first died
@@JMo-uh5cd you said "slavery as a whole had been a practice affecting all races at one time or place". It's far more accurate to say "most ethnicities, and most places throughout all of history."
"Quotas have been illegal for decades," and yet, when arguing for affirmative action, the universities consistently pointed to the racial balance of their student body, and what it would be if they didn't do affirmative action. They make it very clear that they had a "target" student body composition that they wanted to achieve, and they were going to adjust the importance of the factors they considered to achieve it. That's just quotas with more work.
Laws are to be colour blind, however; the private sector will do what the private sector does. If you forbid Harvard from selecting who they want in their establishment, same could apply to black colleges (I dunno if those even exist in reality I am not North American).
The issue here I believe is that differences in the quality of education kids receive prior to college needs to be addressed. To attempt to fix it at the college level just exacerbates the problem. Putting people in situations they are not prepared to handle will never work out well.
@@luxuryvagrant6496 The reason the federal government has so much leverage over Harvard et al. and can tell them what to do is because they accept a lot of federal money in the form of research grants and education loans. If they stopped taking those they could do whatever they wanted, even reverting to men's only single sex institutions. Is long as they keep taking that government cheese, they're bound by Title IX, and all the other federal regulations on who they admit, etc.
@@odysseus9672 That sounds like the government laws not being colour blind. I have difficulty relating. In France; legal text simply will not take someone's race into consideration. The word race exists only to state that it is irrelevant. Most of all, so far I agree. I simply don't feel credible pulling the "Its because I'm Arab, isn't it?" card. When I tell French people that in the UK I have filled-out government forms that ask my race they first ask "Why, does it impact your status?".
@@stevevest7206 Thing is, before college, children do spend time in school but let's face it; education happens mainly in the private sphere. I read an article that highlighted how social class impacts the kids within the same classroom : On the 1st day back to school after summer. The kids that have had a holiday trip, completed a course and attended an event are a world apart from those that spent 2 months playing football all summer. Class, not colour.
So TED can produce and release videos challenging ideas for a decade without having to demand a debate on any of them. Until they hear a talk that challenges their fundamental beliefs. Then - a debate is demanded. So ideas challenging society at large: put them out there. But threaten the orthodoxy on the left: withhold until debate.
@@8020drummer Yours is an excellent point. Perhaps this will show that a debate format may be superior in some ways to a slick, polished, unchallenged 18 minutes on stage. And i’m less mad, more frustrated/disappointed that a forum like TED has been influenced/captured by those requiring ideological orthodoxy. It once was a place where you knew the ideas would be thought provoking and challenging even if you didn’t fully agree. To see them resort to these moves because Coleman made some uncomfortable - was it not TED that gave Al Gore his first platform for a talk called Inconvenient Truth? Were they concerned then with how his talk would make people uncomfortable? They’ve made a brand bringing ideas that make people uncomfortable. But now it seems that is only ok if the right people are uncomfortable.
@@williamerdman4888 You guys are too much with this concern that somehow the "left" is more guilty of shutting down other ideas. First, the very definition of conservative is "adverse to change , innovation, and holding traditional values. Second, it is conservatives who are more likely to ban books and want to prohibit hearing positions different than thier own. Third, currently, it is conservatives that are primarily misrepresenting and literally lying about not only the "lefts" positions, but even thier own. If you need more examples, l would be happy to list them.
Wow, Coleman! I super-loved your TED talk and am sorry that your message was (is still?) being suppressed. Big props for you still being willing to go through with this debate. And you knocked it out of the park. I admire Jamelle and read him in the NYTimes all the time. But you won this debate hands down. I thought a key point was when you said that you are not arguing that we should not try to understand the history of the problem. So many people seem to think that being color-blind implies the opposite. We can understand (and regret) our history, but we still need to make the right choices moving forward, like directing policy at the various issues of interest (e.g., poverty, etc.) and not the imperfect proxies (e.g., race) for those issues (even if history shows that behavior related to those proxies got us into this mess).
I'd love to hear Jamelle's plan to eliminate "structural racism." I'm guessing it would look a lot like the Great Society policies of the 1960s that not only did not eliminate disparities, but exacerbated them. In fact, race-based governmental policy IS structural racism. That contradiction cannot be explained away. Nor can the unintended consequences that result.
That's a good point. My understanding was that it improved inequalities between races but kind of slowly isn't that true? If that is true then affirmative action still would have to prove if it does a better job when also taking into account the emotional backlash to the also existing "unfairness" it creates
Anybody who believes the Great Society agenda was nothing more than welfare for Black Americans are utterly and woefully misinformed and have mistaken partisan propaganda for actual history. For starters, Great Society policies and legislation include, but were not limited to: Civil Rights Act of 1964 Voting Rights Act of 1965 Fair Housing Act of 1968 Appalachian Regional Development Act of 1965 Elementary and Secondary Education Act of 1965 Higher Education Act of 1965, which created Upward Bound for college-bound children of low-income families Head Start National Teacher Corps Medicaid and Medicare Public Broadcasting Act of 1967 National Endowment for the Humanities National Endowment for the Arts The Child Nutrition Act of 1966 Food Stamp Act of 1964 Air Quality Act of 1967 Water Quality Act of 1965 Endangered Species Act of 1966 Wilderness Act of 1964, which preserved 9.2 million acres as federal wilderness areas Wild and Scenic Rivers Act, which established a national system to protect and preserve rivers National Trails System Act, which created a nationwide system of scenic and recreational trails Consumer Product Safety Commission and the Child Safety Act Immigration Act of 1965 Educational Opportunity Act of 1968 Child Health Improvement and Protection Act of 1968 provided for prenatal and postnatal care The 1964 Manpower Development and Training Act and the Economic Opportunity Act, which established Jobs Corps and the Neighborhood Youth Corps Wholesome Meat Act of 1967 required inspection of meat which must meet federal standards Truth-in-Lending Act of 1968 Wholesome Poultry Products Act of 1968 required inspection of poultry which must meet federal standards Land Sales Disclosure Act of 1968 provided safeguards against fraudulent practices in the sale of land Radiation Safety Act of 1968 Solid Waste Disposal Act of 1965 The Great Society was arguably the closest thing America has ever had to today's universally embraced colorblind "class-based solutions" for broadening opportunity across the board. While it wasn't at all perfect in execution in a few respects, overall the nation is undoubtedly all the better for it and Black Americans most certainly are, with its three major civil rights provisions standing prominently among the rest. It is simply inane to conclude otherwise, but the partisan narrative--no matter how utterly toxic and exceedingly marginalizing--must prevail. I don't have the words to express the depth of my contempt for it. Nothing else is so fundamentally and unashamedly anti-American. An excerpt from a source linked below detailing outcomes due to Great Society legislation: "In 1960, 40 million Americans (20 percent of the population) were classified as poor. By 1969, their number had fallen to 24 million (12 percent of the population)...Infant mortality among the poor, which had barely declined between 1950 and 1965, fell by one-third in the decade after 1965 as a result of expanded federal medical and nutritional programs. Before 1965, 20 percent of the poor had never seen a doctor; by 1970, the figure had been cut to 8 percent. The proportion of families living in houses lacking indoor plumbing also declined steeply, from 20 percent in 1960 to 11 percent a decade later... During the 1960s, median black family income rose 53 percent; black employment in professional, technical, and clerical occupations doubled; and average black educational attainment increased by four years. The proportion of blacks below the poverty line fell from 55 percent in 1960 to 27 percent in 1968. The black unemployment rate fell 34 percent...In addition, the number of whites below the poverty line dropped dramatically, and such poverty-plagued regions as Appalachia made significant economic strides." www.digitalhistory.uh.edu/disp_textbook.cfm?smtid=2&psid=3333
More importantly, look who supported the Great Society policies in the govt. it was the previously racist democrats such as LBJ. These politicians latched onto an existing movement being pushed by true civil rights supporters like JFK and RFK, who actually wanted civil rights. The movement was ultimately corrupted by nefarious actors who then used these govt actions to further suppress and control the very racial groups they claimed to be helping
People like him need racism. It’s how they make their money. They never want it to go away. If the supply of it is low, they get creative on how they find it.
@@deadlyoneable The black community has a huge problem with their community leaders who all do this. They don't want the struggle to go away because they'll be out of the job.
I beg to differ. He didn't get "destroyed". He held his own & both were very respectful. It was great they could both provide us with this platform! In the end, I align more with Coleman, but Jamel definitely presented some interesting counterpoints.
@@Seevawonderloaf I never contended otherwise. But the "got destroyed" narrative isn't conducive to honest, open dialog. Honestly? It's petty & childish.
@@Seevawonderloaf One who post that Colemans points were "largely SUPERIOR to Jamelle's " likely agreed with Coleman's position before watching the debate. This is Colemans platform. For example, a major question was asked in the debate by a contributor, "How do we know when a color blind society has been reached " Jamelle gave an answer that could be used as a measure. Coleman didnot provide a clear answer. While Coleman admits that racism exist, he does not clearly acknowledge or demonstrates he has a firm understanding on how the historical and contemporary affects of it has shaped our current society.
Um, I am biased because I think Coleman is such an amazingly smart and humble relatively young man, but I think he absolutely won that debate by a mile. Very well done, great arguments. I personally think his position is correct, but besides that he was just a better debater. Keep up the good work Coleman. This comes from a 44 yr old white guy who was a life long democrat and now is a hardcore radical independent.
It's really sad that people think Coleman is so smart. A generation ago he would have been one of a pool of pretty smart people making sense in the public eye. Now the level of public discourse has become so dumb he stands out.
@@OratorOfDivinity That's a really twisted way to read what I wrote. He's smart. Lots of people are smart. He stands out today because most intelligent people are acting dumb these days. I assume they are just too afraid to speak honestly.
@@OratorOfDivinitydude.... he's above average intelligence. If you understand how humanity works, you would find that Coleman doesn't know as much as he thinks. Sure he's confident but that's all. You ever witness a person speaking so confidently but isn't much knowledgeable on what that person is talking about? It happens here in the comments section all the time.
@@TuanTran-h5f Yes, l also agree Coleman is smart. However, Jamelle is more experienced. Many folks in the comment section asserted that "Coleman won the Debate" or Coleman destroyed Jamelle". This is Coleman's platform. Persons posting such comments likely agreed with Coleman's position before watching the debate. Moreover, likely thier beliefs would not be changed regardless of the quality of the counter argument. Frankly, both Jamelle and Coleman did good jobs presenting thier arguments. There was no clear acknowledgement of a winner of the debate based on the facts presented.
I think the biggest weakness in Jamelle's solutions is a poor understanding of the causes of poverty, and its why policies he would recommend not only fail but often embed people deeper into poverty. Likewise, Coleman's concept of targeting class addresses the broader concerns Jamelle claims to have. Ultimately Jamelle's narrower view is unhelpful to improve the situation he's concerned about.
@@Theyungcity23 There's cross cultural and cross historical evidence that disadvantaged groups do not improve their situation through having their hands on the levers of policy. Even in deeply unfair societies, like how Europeans treated Jews for 1000s of years, or even how Catholics were treated by protestants. (Even wondered why there's so many Catholic schools? =) =) =)
Structural racial disadvantage shouldn't be conflated solely with poverty though. That's a point Jamelle explicitly made and it's an important one seeing as though some of the biggest racial disparities in certain areas exist in the middle classes and above. After all, the Civil Rights Movement was largely a Black middle class movement. As far as targeting class, I'm not sure why we act as though this isn't the U.S. where poor/working class folks are horribly stigmatized, demonized, and essentially racialized. There's a reason our social safety net is so incredibly shoddy compared to our Western peers. We couldn't even manage to extend the child tax credit which was a demonstrable benefit to working parents because, hey, you know those lazy folks are just going to go out and buy beer and liquor right?
no one ever acknowledges the pure poverty in white communities too. I grew up in Appalachia. I have friends and people I love that still live in abject poverty.
Pretty much sums up Democrat politics and voters. Also sums up the bandaid solution of Republicans to just install 3x security guards for every school to mitigate school shooters
I like how the dude was like - I’ll answer that question in one second but let me quickly redefine every word in the sentence so I don’t have to engage with the question lol 😂
I didn't hear that. In debating, it's very important to define terms, especially where the terms may be inflammatory. I thought he gave clarity to his position and what they were debating.
Coleman, you were amazing in this debate. It’s such a shame that you were pressured to go through this by TedTalks. Evidence of the sad state of the world. Thank you for all you do Coleman!
I disagree that it's "such a shame" that Coleman Hughes is part of this debate! Wasn't his TED talk on Colorblindness only about 15 minutes? His observations and ideas deserve more time & depth! I am about to listen to this debate and am LOOKING FORWARD TO IT.
Wait, but he completely lost the debate, and the interesting part about this loss is that I don't even necessarily agree with Jamelle Bouie's approach on how to deal with race in America, the fact is color blindness based on the pretty weak and unsubstantiated arguments brought forward by Coleman Hughes clearly wouldn't even be functional within the American social and political context.
@@MrWhiskeycricket I am not sure what "buying into flim famery" means, this was a pretty straight forward debate where Coleman Hughes basically refused to even wrestle with the straight forward historical point made by Jamelle. The fact is you could have issues with Jamelle's approach, but Coleman Hughes is simply ahistorical and nonsensical.
@@nmk5003 jam-jam gets too many things wrong to be taken seriously. go read some actual history. he even opens with inaccurate comments. the caste system existed in india long before europeans started buying slaves from africans.
Thankfully, this debate has bumped my greens intake for the day… as Jamelle repeatedly dodged answering questions by treating us to an extra large serving of “word salad” instead of a cogent argument.
Of you white racists would deny you're racist white history do you think us Black people were born yesterday that you white Europeans have enlsaved a s Colonised Black Africans for 500 years google Berlin Conference 🙄
For what it's worth, it seems like fairly quickly this debate swerved away from the central question. Jamelle argued in favor of a certain kind of policy but how that invalidates colorblindness as a position, let alone bolsters the claim that it _perpetuates_ racism, was never made clear.
So glad someone else noticed this. Jamelle’s opening contention seemed to be in clear support of affirmative action and seemed a lot more hard-nosed than literally everything he said after that. I think when he realized that Coleman was just as informed as he was about civil rights history he started to make milder and less definitive statements about his position.
Jamelle got caught in arguing early civil rights leadership philosophy. Which was a hard to defend position against a well skilled and informed opponent. I think the best argument for Jamelle's position actually would argue the early venerated civil rights leadership was brave and noble, but unfortunately unable to see the future that showed some of their beliefs naive and mistaken. That's a hard route to take in a public debate, but I think it's the more defensible argument.... if you can get past audience resistance. FWIW... I still find it the weaker position, just more in line with the historical and theoretical development of the concepts he's advocating.
Exactly this. Some of the things Jamelle was saying (it was at times difficult to parse through his language to get a clear picture) were things that I might actually agree on, but they in no way supported the positive argument that color-blindness perpetuates racism. At best, they might support the idea that it could be theoretically possible for some color-awareness policy to end up with good results over some imagined long term.
Its that without a race minded policy then racists policies go unaddressed. Jamelle mentioned the obvious example of integration that Coleman dodged in his response.
What's so wild about this is that it's a continuous sequence of Coleman taking various quotes out of context and Jamelle then giving them context and analyzing them. There's not a single point where Coleman gets the better, and overall it's clear to me that Bouie has a better understanding of the history of the figures that Coleman wraps himself in to try and justify his position.
0:07: 🗣 This is a debate between Coleman Hughes and Jamel Bowie on the topic of colorblindness perpetuating racism. 7:53: 📝 The question of whether colorblindness perpetuates racism is explored in this debate, with one side arguing that it does and the other side arguing that it doesn't. 15:57: 😊 Colorblindness does not perpetuate racism, but rather is the antidote to racism. 24:36: 🔎 The debate revolves around the interpretation of the term 'colorblindness' and its implications in addressing racial inequality. 32:24: 🗣 The discussion revolves around whether civil rights luminaries advocated for colorblind policies or race-conscious policies. 48:26: 📊 The metric of racial progress can be measured by group inequalities and disparities across different realms. 49:00: 💬 The discussion focuses on the use of race as a proxy for addressing inequality and disadvantage in policies. 57:24: 💡 The discussion revolves around the impact of race-conscious policies on addressing racial inequality. 1:05:52: 🎨 The debate discusses the role of color blindness in perpetuating racism and the need for targeted policies to address racial inequalities. 1:13:47: 🗣 The debate focused on the importance of race and class in addressing racism. Recap by Tammy AI
Bouie talks about race as "a historically contingent phenomenon" that started around the same time as the slave trade. But humans across the globe have had an unfortunate tendency to treat people who look different as "others" since time immemorial.
Bouie's argument has a huge and fatal flaw. Is the racial policy that has so set back African-Americans historic? Is it over now? If its over now, then the entire discussion is moot. Or is it still setting African-Americans back? How then can he account for all the "race"/ethnic/national groups thriving in supposedly racist America, Nigerian-Americans, Korean-Americans, Chinese-Americans, Indian-Americans, etc. All easily identifiable as a race other than "white", but outperforming whites in every metric. This thriving is happening whilst supposedly racial policy is still supposedly in action.
I thought the exact same thing when he said that. Whether it’s race, religion, stature, etc humans have always grouped themselves based on their similarities and differences (especially physical ones).
@@quentinnewark2745 Are you seriously pretending not to understand why immigrants who came here 40 years ago are doing better than Black Americans? For your information, most immigrants who come to USA from Nigeria or China tend to be well off and tend to come on work visa or education visa. They are not poor refugee immigrants fleeing wars. They tend to be already well off and better educated.
They even challenged his views on stage as well, right after his Ted talk. I've never seen this happening before, really weird how badly people want to keep racism alive
@@岩の下駅 bingo…they think they are noble, and challenging racism. Unfortunately they are thinking just like the racist they despise. They don’t see the actual principle of why racism is bad. Judging people based on superficial, immutable characteristics. They think fighting racism is challenging white people or benefiting non-white people.
Thanks for watching my latest episode. Let me know your thoughts and opinions down below in a comment. If you like my content and want to support me, consider becoming a paying member of the Coleman Unfiltered Community here --> bit.ly/3B1GAlS
Good job keeping your cool through this dodging session. I would've lost it. That said, I remember you being even more stoic in the past, maybe it's time for a meditation retreat or something. 😜 Anyway, great showcase of precise and honest argumentation.
hello, ive only seen the Ted Talk thus far, but i did want to ask in regards to the "Orchestra Analogy", placating diverse students of music or musicians to learn and participate for the next generation is a must. But how do you become actively inclusive of the musicians in the area? I think we overlook how hiring for tech, STEM or any industry prioritizes overseas, work-visa, out of state, as an abuse of power. Neglecting the people who need the work the most, the people who need to be worked on the most - which are always within proximity to the "Orchestra". Its this neglect that fuels discontent, distrust, in community and further festers race-baced discrimination because there is no equity for the people there in the immediate area.
Color blindness, is humility personified. To not judge by outward appearance, is to accept, and not summarily dismiss anyone, simply by looking at them. Non judgemental, and more accepting of differences, looks, opinions, beliefs, tastes...etc.
Great comment!! In essence, you would have to ask people to look beyond appearances and uniqueness, language, etc. Unfortunately, prejudices and biases are embedded in our media and all of this is based on things taught. A baby is not born with prejudices and biases, so we know where it starts. Then they get older and make decisions based on their mindset. Changing this type of mindset is like telling an addict to stop going for their vice. It will change only when they see a problem and want to change. 😢
The most annoying thing about debates like this is that one side constantly uses big buzz words that muddle the argument. Sadly, these are the same people in good positions who want to still feel oppressed.
rickrudd, your post reminds me of comments made by Maga Republicans. In other words, likely a person who shared Colemans view on this subject before watching the debate. Therefore, likely not to change thier opinion regardless of the quality of the counter argument.
@thadlincolnii7398 LOL. Your comment reminds me of a typical White lib lady who believes Black people are feeble exotic species that require lowered standards and the benevolent charity of the White Savior in order to survive. Sad.
@@thadlincolnii7398 Yeah it's really unfortunate when someone takes a side but provides no reasoning or value to the conversation, which at best makes it worthless and at worst makes it sound like the audience that supports Coleman is purely reactionary without much processing, I say this despite supporting Coleman's stance.
An added bonus for a color-blind approach even specifically to reduce race inequality is that nobody needs to determine when it goes too far - it will automatically approach a good solution asymptotically.
I think there's another issue attached to this which has already become a problem. The people who say "I don't feel seen" or "represented" in media. If we follow colorblindness to it's logical conclusion, it's probably gonna create some vast differences in "representation" which some might lament. Although there might be a real challenge to tackle in-group biases if people don't get to interact with people of different heritage. Although I hardly disagree that those biases can be tackled by media representation. People need to interact with real people in real life to actually have any impact.
@@岩の下駅 I've never understood the point of "representation" of e.g. POC in media. It should IMO never be a goal in itself, unless what you're creating is not art but a product. And I guess that's what a lot of media is nowadays. Good examples of representation, where this wasn't an explicit goal, are "Everything Everywhere All At Once" and "Beef".
Coleman speaks in very clear terms. You listen to him and you can understand his point. He references many statements directly from the key historical figures quoting them directly. Jamelle uses a word salad approach. He uses a steady stream of complex terms and phrases jumping all over the place so that even when you focus it's hard to extract a coherent reasoned position. He throws in everything he can think of which reduces to a great long list of grievance claims. He ignores the clear direct quotes Coleman recites from the central figures in the civil rights movement because their clear natural interpretation flatly contradicts his position. I'd guess that Jamelle easily spoke three or four times as many words as Coleman without presenting a convincing argument. Jamelle is clearly a fully indoctrinated member of the Woke cult.
When Sam Harris debated Daniel Dennett on free will, I noticed that whenever Dennett spoke, there seemed to be clouds of confusion gathering, as he spoke around the point, avoided Harris's arguments, and changed definitions to suit himself. Conversely, whenever it was Harris's turn to speak again, those clouds immediately cleared - I could locate where they were in the conversation again, and both his and Dennett's positions became clearer to me. I got exactly the same feeling of "confusion clouds" gathering and clearing in this debate.
@@razzle_dazzle Nicely put. Jamelle appears, for instance, to love the word ‘contingent’ (I counted 6 uses?) which neither adds to nor clarifies any of his sentences. It is pure Dyson-ism - designed to distract and confuse.
You echoed my feelings precisely. Jamelle approaches every issue polemically - with no interest in addressing specific arguments or suggestions - but purely with defending and promoting the NYT zeitgeist. This he elects to do by introducing an increasingly frantic range of straw-men and speaking endlessly whilst saying nothing. Like Dyson and Sharpton, he would see no benefit to his personal situation in moving towards any form of logical compromise - as where does a one-trick race-baiter ply his trade after the race issue is ultimately defused?
Conservatives struggle to understand (or at least pretend too imo) leftist arguments because they like to stay in hug boxes and theY don’t like to challenge their ideas by spending time with different opinions. You understand Coleman’s conservative pov like I do because we’ve heard it thousands of times from all directions of media. His language is just as clear as Coleman’s. And he certainly didn’t avoid Coleman’s misquoting of civil rights leaders. He refuted it head on by pointing out that integration itself contradicts Coleman’s argument that these men were in favor of color blindness. He explained what they meant in context and Coleman’s response was to just say another quote as if that refuted the context in which those words were said.
An interesting side-bar on this debate was the difference in style between the two debaters. Mr Hughes kept his points relatively simple, using simple terminology while Mr Bouie opted for a more "academic" vocabulary and took many tangents. I think Mr Hughes made a more direct appeal to a broader audience, without talk down to the audience, while Mr Bouie was really directing his oratory to a more "elite" crowd. Any other opinions?
Jamelle represents the elitism that race-based policy, well let's just call it what it is post claudine gay resignation, the DEI cottage industry that rewards virtue signaling on race, to the injury of racial justice by gatekeeping voices like Coleman Hughes and alienating everyone else
I believe it was En Vogue who sang: "Free your mind and the rest will follow, Be color-blind, don't be so shallow." That was a unifying message, lets not lose that by following what is fashionable at a certain time.
TED has joined the general woke leftward drift in recent years - where junior staff members feel they have the “right” to influence content over the wishes of the board. I used to watch a LOT of their early content - but now that it has lost all sense of objectivity, I never watch it at all. Very much the same dynamic as in publishing and media.
Colemen should have never let him get away with defining racism the way he did, because that new modern definition is not how racism was or today is defined in practice.
Picked this up from my "Open to Debate" subscription and listened immediately. Glad to see it released here as well. Pretty disgusting that there was an attempt to shut down Coleman's TED Talk and had some partial success. It's hard to imagine the same thing would have occurred with someone taking an opposing perspective.
Thank you Coleman, you rock. Incredible that TED would (even) consider holding back your Talk. Astounding, but then again, not so much. Still, very glad you had the debate. Jamelle Bouie must be applauded for participating. Well done. And, yes, social media is a trigger for unpleasantness. 💚 of course I'm biased, but Coleman, you won this one hands down.
Jamelle doesn't appear to know that the Spanish invented proto-racism with Jews far earlier with the limpieza de sangre laws that defined Jews as "mala raza' which was 'impure race/lineage'. Basically, defining people in law as the 'other' for good or bad never goes well.
Great debate! Sad they wanted to censor your talk. It frustrates me that we can't have these conversations without someone wanting to censor them. We are adults and these are important conversations.
Notice Coleman engaging directly with the question, and Jamelle redefining both the questions and terms, sometimes multiple times, to finally get to what he wants to say.
I didn't see that from Jamelle. I thought he gave very well thought out answers- a bit lengthy but solid. For me, it was a very informative debate with much food for thought.
His argument was simply that structural racism exists and this therefore requires us to retain the notion of race in public policy. Granted this argument rests of a seemingly non-traditional definition of “racism” that he wanted to argue is actually the traditional one.
Fantastic, civil and informative debate. To me this is a model for how to have conversations with folks among whom you have disagreements. Not typically a both sides thinker, but I can't help but think both speakers are making excellent points and while I have leaned more toward Coleman's argument, Jamelle makes excellent points particularly around the historical context that creates present inequities. Not sure how to reconcile that, but happy to have these thoughts provoked.
I see an opportunity for Coleman to deal a death blow to Jamelle's (and others') argument by further delving into Jamelle's foundational belief: that racism is something that was constructed in the 16th and 17th centuries in order to solidify a hierarchy of groups in the New World. Coleman made passing mention of the fact that racism is one of those human experiences that has been with us for all time, which is true. But Jamelle doesn't give this much credence. It's incredible to me that someone of Jamelle's intelligence, and that many others like him, believe this idea that racism is particular to a historical context (16th and 17th century New World?), because that argument seems to carry the unstated subtext that only white people are racist or that it was an invention of white people. This set of beliefs also seems linked to the idea that slavery only happened in the New World, and was only perpetrated by whites against black and indigenous peoples. Which is simply not true. And fear of "the other" and the racism that in-group preferences leads to is a natural human instinct that we've managed to give shape to and evolve away from over time, as more and more contact between groups happened over history, and as societies have evolved. Jamelle doesn't seem to understand this or believe this, and I've seen his argument play out in Black Lives Matter websites in Canada, which try to "educate" the public on racism by completely distorting history. This view is based on a fundamentally flawed understanding of history and anthropology. It would be great to see Coleman and others in his camp drill into this fundamental flaw.
Jamelle also disregards mistreatment of the Jewish "race" in ancient terms as not really being racism. When you combine this with the equity hypothesis (that the only possible causes of inequality are superiority, discrimination, and privilege) then you quickly find that Jamelle is tapdancing around the idea that Jewish people are wealthy because they're discriminating against the rest of society, and that we need to explicitly extract resources from Jews through state action. This is not a new and interesting flavor of antisemitism - it's the classic formula.
@@michaelneufeld4515 fair point. How would you define them distinctly? I don't see them as distinct but very related, coming from the same source in our human nature.
Very well said. I agree, this was an opportunity to expose the absurdity of Jamelle's statement. I also don't agree with his definition of Race. And found it a bit absurd. His definition was tailored to the Racism lens. Race in the context of Homo Sapiens refers to similarity in physical characteristics or ancestral origin.
Colemans argument is also important because it helps us move beyond perpetual grievances. I thought we took large steps backward during the Obama years which sadly was such a missed opportunity.
Yep. Me and both of my parents voted for Obama and were deeply saddened by what he did in his second term. The way he handled Ferguson and the Trayvon martin incidents was extremely disappointing.. most polls show race relations taking a big dip in his second term
@@HorribleProgram-ew6eiTo your point, I saw the roots of this amongst peers as far back as early 90's and have heard academics say it goes back further, but grew a lot in 90's and became more widely held CW in 2010's. Certainly Obama could have provided more resistance if he chose, but I don't think he could have turned things around, and it would have cost him the ability to pursue other important presidential and party leader pursuits. Still wish he'd given it more critical thoughts and effort. He was occasionally slightly critical of some excess and shallowness... But in hindsight, too little and too late.
@@brianmeen2158it's still unbelievable to me how many folks just LOST it when Obama said "if I had a son, he'd look like Trayvon" and still haven't gotten over it. And I'm always curious as to what folks mean when they talk about a president affecting "race relations." As much as I despised Trump and his racist dog whistles, it had absolutely no impact on the way I interacted with and treated people of other races.
"I don't think we should use race as a second or third best proxy for something else when we can use that thing directly." That statement is so obvious that I simply cannot wrap my head around anyone believing otherwise. My only explanation for the 'colorblind is bad' crowd is that they're hung up on an issue of scope - that is that they look at racial groups as a monolithic force, so they see oh, the white group was nasty to the black group so now the white group needs to make up for it. Except the groups have no real continuity. You take a poor white kid born on the south side of Chicago and a poor black kid born one block over. These kids are both behind the eight ball. So when you choose to help one and not the other based on a trait they're born with, not based on anything they've done or any choices they've made, that's pretty fucked. Neither kid had any agency in the circumstances that lead to their family's socioeconomic status. Feels like a secular take on the religious idea of sins of the father.
Just caught this upon rewatching. Jamelle proposes that "race does not exist independently of historic conditions." What? So every black person in America is not black unless they were affected by slavery? What are they then? Glad Coleman didnt follow him down that rabbit hole of redefining the meaning of words. Jamelle did the same thing with "color-blindness," esentially redefining it from how it was used throughout history to suit his conclusions.
I don't understand your question. Slavery affected all Americans, regardless of race. All Jamelle is saying is that race doesn't exist within a temporal vacuum. I don't understand how that's such an objectionable assertion.
Sadly, I didn't hear a single argument about how Color Blindness is supposed to perpetuate racism. Instead it was a discussion about alternate methods.
Thanks Coleman. I listened to this earlier today on the Podcast. I would like to hear you and Jamie continue this and get more granular regarding the positions and texts of Dr. King and the other historical luminaries mentioned. If I heard correctly, it sounded that Jamie at least partly derived his definition of race as originating from racism as a historical phenomenon involving the othering of groups to further imperialist powers. Regarding defining race out of racism, there is a circular quality to this that I would like to see untangled or clarified. Also, this gets into questions like: does race originate solely out of designating difference in identity as a power tool, or can a notion of race originate from a more anodyne perceptual recognition of genetic difference in individuals? I appreciated the tone of mutual respect between you and the other participants, and I hope you are able to continue this conversation.
As a long time fan and listener of Coleman, this debate was enriching to me in a way that I rarely witness on this issue. I emphatically side with Coleman on this issue with consideration to Jamel and I found that though both are staunch in their views, they are nonetheless respectful to one another. I found Jamel's arguments are well thought out and genuine which was refreshing in a debate around this issue. It also had the added benefit of showcasing Coleman's expertise and intuition on this difficult subject. Though it may not thrust the issue in a great leap forward, it seems as though debates of this calibur and consideration firmly place one foot in front of the other. Thank you to all who were involved in providing this debate.
48:23 The thing that bothers me about Jamelle's view of the Black middle class living in areas of poverty, that their white contemperaries do not, is that he neglects to mention the cultural reasons why these communities remain in a unpoverished state. As a child growing up in these areas, I see the change in how many of us care for our neighborhoods. Criminals used to be in the shadows of our community. Now they are in the forefront. Businesses are weary of opening in these areas due to crime. In my opinion, the culture and pride we have lost since the late 60's needs to return.
This man said the term "Race" doesnt actually mean race but means and was being used ambiguously as the reality of racial disparity?? As if they didnt have the words to describe the social reality? This dude is incredible and a fine example of how academics twist meanings and definitions to say whatever the hell they've already decided they were going to think based on ideology.
I'm flabbergasted at the early contention about Phillips intent on color blindness. Jamelle tries to frame Hughes' characterization as posing some sort of contradiction because Phillips was concerned with African Americans being given the vote, which in his words, "was a color conscious policy rather than a color blind one" However, this is utter gobbledygook. If one part of the population cannot vote based on the color of their skin, then that's a race conscious/racist legal structure. The idea that opposing this cannot be considered advocacy for "color blindness" is absurd. There's no contradiction here what so ever. In fact, race-based voter-laws is a quintessential example of what an advocate of color-blindness would oppose- no, be obligated to oppose on principle. Why I should take the arguments of a person who cannot appreciate basic definitions or logical coherence is beyond me, and it's frankly speaking disappointing to think anyone would settle on Jamelle as an interlocutor in a debate like this given such a gross intellectual failure.
As I said in the comments of the Ted talk, it’s great in 2023 that people are finally able to debate these ideas so we can see how comparatively little rigor exists in their arguments. Coleman was also the perfect person to debate this, because he didn’t get flustered but also wasn’t tempted to do down semantics rabbit holes. Ultimately, he exposed Jamelle as having a lot of fancy language but an incoherent concept underneath
It is one thing to acknowledge the miseries of the past wrought by systemic racism, and the lingering effects of this today (though systemic racism no longer exists as such) - but when constructing public policy, all we can be concerned with is the reality of today. We cannot correct the past - and we shouldn't try. All we can do is try our best to erase any circumstances which would tend to foster continued racism or race-based attitudes or biases. For this reason, I believe Coleman's position is a self-evident truth. Jamelle spoke at length in high sounding yet vague, non-specific terms. Coleman's arguments were based, it seems to me, more in empirical fact, logic and, ultimately, empathy. Ultimately, though, it has to come down to this - if you are trying to fight racism, it is both illogical and immoral to do so by applying racist policies.
Really appreciate Jamelle coming to do this. I've generally been on Coleman's side on this issue, but Jamelle did the best job I've yet heard for the other side. These things obviously take some time to digest, but I think he may have nudged me towards changing my position--or at the very least, made me much more open to "race-conscious" policy. And more broadly, I appreciate him coming on and having this conversation instead of shying away from it as so many people do these days.
Color blindness is the only ethical choice. Just because some people are bad still doesn’t mean you sacrifice your moral principles. You keep telling the truth regardless of how people react to it.
This is a complicated topic and I love that it’s being addressed in open forums like this. There is not one simple answer that will break down the division in US society. Talking about it is a great first step and I actually believe it will finally start knocking down the bricks one by one making this barrier less and less, Intelligently finding solutions, and soon maybe we can become empathetic humans without blinders on.
This is exactly the kind of exchange of opinions we need to create better policies and improve public discourse: Informed, respectful, fair and well reasoned on all sides. Thank you
I'll struggle to listen to it because I've seen how Jamelle has acted for years online. What will be really interesting is to see how he spins this conversation online post-facto.
I'm a white Oklahoman and feel nearly no kinship with white liberals in upper west side Manhattan. I'd be much more relaxed and happy at a BBQ with my Black neighbors than I would at a soiree in the Hamptons with people born into the Ivy league life. I'm actually in the top 2% financially, but our culture here is different from a white east coast trust funder. If my Black neighbors had to choose who to work a project with: me or a Black liberal in San Francisco, I'm betting they'd much prefer working with me & my husband because we simply have much more in common. With this in mind, i feel color blindness is at least somewhat necessary for a country to run smoothly. Just grouping people by skin color is silly.
I heard it on Coleman’s podcast. Truly valuable discussion, a lot more of this will need to happen in order to undo the divisiveness that we are experiencing as a country. ❤
But we’ve been talking about this for decades. I remember having more fruitful discussions about race in the mid 90s than we do now - we’ve went backwards by quite a bit in the past 7-8 years
You realize how frustrating it must be to be Thomas Sowell? He disproved many of the lefts talking points about race and gender decades ago and yet they are still blathering on about them
The cult of.Critical Consciousness and it’s claims of systemic racism is a mass condemnation of the hearts and minds of millions of individuals they’ve never met.
Jamelle is sitting there meandering, attempting to deconstruct the meaning of language throughout American history. He tries framing the argument as one of semantics and the evolution of a phrase's meaning through time. Meanwhile, Coleman just drops the easily discernible quote, allowing the viewer to decide. There's no unnecessary reaching required. No fumbling. It just makes sense. The quote carries the message Phillips originally intended without the need to torture the English language in an attempt to derive the "truth".
I so look forward to seeing how Coleman evolves. He's already pretty deadly and hardly in his prime, so giving him more time in this crazy pressure cooker of ideas and philosophies is only gonna make him a stone cold killer.
I beg to differ. I feel like he is already 100% deadly in this particular topic. Nobody can beat him in this topic. Even the best debater on the other side can only hope for a draw.
It boils down to Bouie's contention that group inequality matters. No it does not. You are not your group. Your group is not you. That is true whether your group is black, white, left-handed, Jewish, or chess-players. The law can only apply to individuals, not groups. The moment identity matters *under the law* is the moment we abandon the enlightenment. We have lost a common basis for solving problems. The law - and therefore politics - becomes merely a competition among power groups. A competition among power groups is exactly what we don't want. There are nations where that is currently the case (mostly in Africa, but there are some elsewhere). They are not salutary examples. Secondly, the worst think you could as for as a black person in the United States is that white people see themselves as a group fighting with non-whites for power. By sheer numbers, they would win. The objective is to reach the stage where we recognize there is only one race - the human race.
I am German and when I came to US about 7 years ago, I was shocked that almost every form and questionnaire I fill out had race on it. That doesn't exist anymore since WW2 in Germany. I felt instantly that those forms are racist!
it annoys me when I fill out a form, e.g. job application, that I'm asked various identity questions around gender, race and sexuality under the guise of "equal opportunities". You can't tell me that a company which knows nothing about an applicant's gender/race/sexuality is in a better position to discriminate than a company which has all of that that information.
Why is it controversial or even debatable that we as HUMANS should interact with each other without consideration of race. Do I think racism will ever go away….no, just because of human nature. But we should absolutely strive to be colorblind and neither favor, nor denigrate people for their race…which they had no choice in deciding to be
I always look forward to productive discourse but I have to say it’s insane that TED would require a debate as a condition of publishing a normal TED talk. I am sure they wouldn’t have required it for the opposite position on this topic.
A key problem with debating people like Jamelle, is that they carry a very different definition of race and racism than has commonly been held over history and is still held by most people in our society. The left-leaning, academic, and convoluted definition he gave at the beginning obscures actual racism. I understand his concern with structural inequality (or inequities as Kendi would say), but it is inaccurate to conflate those problems with racism. It is telling that he only brought up black and indigenous people in his definition, as he seems to see race only within a narrow oppression narrative. I agree that racism is entrenched in the IMPORTANCE given to racial definition and supported the institution of slavery in America and continued legal and individual discrimination. Race as a proxy for how you should treat people is what kept slavery and Jim Crow alive for so long in America. I'm a fan of addressing specific harms to individuals, but to do so for groups defined poorly in a historically negative social construct? You are just perpetuating the problem of racism. Now, how do you deal with inequality in American society at large? Well, that is a bigger question.
His definition is built on the demonstrably false axiom that race is entirely socially constructed, rather than a product of our evolutionary tendency toward in group biases. His definition depends on the power of the state to exist, which is such a foundational error it's hard to take him seriously.
The stronger approach would have just been to argue for colorblindness on principle, rather than appealing to the moral authority of past civil rights leaders. The simple fact of the matter is that opposition to colorblindness is _necessarily_ pro-racism. Driving this fact home wouldn't be an _ad hominem_ or strawman, since Jamell is *_literally_* arguing for systemic racism in favor of black people. I get that you wanted to be polite and cordial, but that's the bottom line of it.
I hate when people do that in a debate. It’s cross quoting and massive appeal to authority fallacy. It goes from a rhetorical flourish at the close to the central issue for an extended period of time.
I'm not sure I agree with you, remember watching this debate would have been a TED Talk audience who attempted to get Coleman cancelled because he challenged them so. What Coleman was saying to this audience was hey, these historical figures that are probably your heroes agree with me too. I think that's quite a powerful argument to make to them. I do agree that in another context with less snow flakes in the audience going down the quoting historical figures route wouldn't work so well.
I agree that while it's interesting to hear what past civil rights leaders said...just because they said something doesn't validate their position. This question is simply a question of logic. How does emulating the tactics and approaches of segregationists alleviate discrimination? How does Implementing race based preferences end race based discrimination??? How can practicing racism evee hope to end racism??? Once we stop being "race conscious" above all else maybe that's when racism ends ...at least as a matter of law and public policy.
@@dicem8977 strategically it’s likely a prisoners dilemma. Coleman has to bring it up because if the opposition does then he’s ceded a lot of rhetorical ground, same with the other side. He has to bring up MLK’s mark on Washington speech otherwise the other guy will pull up all the crypto-communist statements he made and was surrounded by.
I think it was a good strategy though. However, adding a bit more of a principled argument alongside would've helped. But given the context of this debate I think it works well while remaining uncontroversial
Bouie goes off the rails immediately with : colour blindness means the state doesn’t consider race as a social reality. No. Hughes wins. Good debate, good questions. Hughes is too sharp for Bouie.
I’m just thankful for this conversation, though it is incredibly disappointing that in order to follow your TED talk they had to have a debate. It just shows you the level of indoctrination, but you did a great job of defending your stance and ultimately what I heard Jamall saying again and again was a subtle version of the Communist ideology of oppressed versus oppressor, and a pathos of vengeance and reparations. That the only way to eliminate disparity was to level the playing field and explode the current systems. He never once addressed the point that using class as a discriminator is much more fine tuned and designed to address the true issues, which will inadvertently address race!! Great job Coleman
Jamelle’s closing statement is way off. We do NOT currently address class inequality in any substantive way. I just don’t see it. I know everyone here is going to be pro Coleman, and I also thought he did better job at laying out his case, but I appreciate Jamelle engaging where so many have just dodged.
![The Perils of Race Science with Charles Murray [S2 Ep.21]](http://i.ytimg.com/vi/OE5QcD_12fQ/mqdefault.jpg)
![The Perils of Race Science with Charles Murray [S2 Ep.21]](/img/tr.png)
![Woke Racism with John McWhorter [S2 Ep.40]](http://i.ytimg.com/vi/gT9qMq0faCQ/mqdefault.jpg)
![Method Writing: The First Four Concepts - Jack Grapes [FULL INTERVIEW]](/img/n.gif)
Pre-order my book:
"The End of Race Politics: Arguments for a Colorblind America" - bit.ly/48VUw17
I preordered and I can’t wait to get it! There a conversation I’m trying to have about DEI and I suck at debate so I want to show her this book.
How can we get you to Atlanta?
I want a signed copy of your book!
BEST ADVISE GOING TO GIVE YOU SOME COLEMAN/ IS LEARN TO LOVE YOURSELF TRULY EMBRACE YOUR BLACK SKIN BECAUSE ITS BEAUTIFUL AND FIND SOME BLACK MENTORS THAT CAN HELP YOU ///ESPECIALLY BLACK MEN THAT LOVE WHO THEY ARE AND LOVE THEMSELVES AND BEAUTY/// WHAT YOU ARE SAYING IS COMPLETE NONSENSE AND TAKE A LOOK AT WHAT KIND OF PEOPLE ARE CHEERING YOU ON/// YOU ARE COMPLETELY WRONG BECAUSE FACTS ARE FACTS AND SKEWING THE PERCEPTION STILL DOES NOT CHANGE THE FACTS/// PLEASE LEARN TO LOVE YOURSELF LOOK IN THE MIRROR AND EMABRACE SAY GOOD THINGS TO YOURSELF LOVE YOUR HAIR YOUR NOSE EYES SKIN YOUR SMILE LOVE YOURSELF INWARD OUT LOVE ALL OF YOU/// WHAT YOU ARE SAYING NOW IS COMPLETE SELF HATRED/// NO WAY YOU CAN LOVE YOURSELF WITHOUT LOVING YOUR BLACK SKIN/// ITS SAD //YOU ARE NOT WHITE AND YOU WILL NEVER BE WHITE// YOU ARE A BEAUTIFUL HANDSOME BLACK MAN EMBRACE IT WALK WITH YOUR SHOULDERS BACK YOU ARE A KING// A BLACK KING// OWN IT/// ITS UP TO YOU TO LISTEN/ ALSO KNOW THERE ARE SUCH THINGS AS EDUCATED FOOLS AND REMEMBER STUBBORNNESS IS A SPIRIT///
Where's the debate, ego and assholes. That is NOT debate.
It never ceases to amaze me how apparently difficult it is to understand that the answer to discriminating is to stop discriminating
That is only if they are interested in stopping discrimination.
In practice that does not seem to be case. Socialism always thrives to power through "divide and conquer" tactics. The discrimination game is the exact tool for that. Their whole "oppression olympics" as we sarcastically dubbed it has an internal leftist academic name, and you wouldn't believe it for its insanity: "The Domination Matrix"
this assumes there's no discrimination being done in this magical "color blind" world
So you're saying that racial discrimination in favor of non-whites is necessary because they are analogous to the disabled when compared with whites? Am I getting this right? What about them is "disabled" so to speak? Just that people discriminate against them? @@Chatillgbt
You just listed a bunch of factors that race is an okay..ish proxy for where much better measures actually exist.@@Chatillgbt
I think I understand where they're coming from, but largely disagree on the practicality. The dragon to slay to help the most Black people today is probably getting underneath why the educational discrepancies are there - deeper than blaming the teachers or insisting that we just need to throw more money at the problem.
Jamelle Bouie did dodge the issue of discrimination against Asian students. Each time Coleman Hughes raised it, Bouie refused to address it. When Bouie said 'I'm not interested in Harvard', he made it clear that he couldn't care less if another group of people are discriminated against, as long as black people are favoured. Hughes won this debate, hands-down.
The issue against Asian students is weak. Asians have the best educational outcomes in the country. How are they being harmed? The group that actually takes spots at universities are legacy admissions not affirmative action admissions. Bringing up Asians is just a weak excuse to once again take away the insufficient governmental help that minorities get. If we can never slightly disadvantage anyone to help black people, it helps guarantees we will stay a permanent underclass. Lets screw black people and rationalize it later, the American way...
Doesn't surprise me. Bouie is a terrible writer. An affirmative action hire, if there ever was one.
He sees only black skin in the game
The reality is that this is a racist movement, with its underbelly being overtly black supremacist and seeking to oppress rather than seeking to find equality
Bouie is only interested in black this and that. Cares nothing for other groups. He is the WORST.
Turns out that when we focus on differences, it leads to division. Who would have thought. Nice work, Coleman.
Yeah especially for the ENTIRE history of America 🤣
@@stanleycross6000 Is that supposed to be a rebuttal? The U.S. is one of the least racist places on Earth. But not for the wokeist reversal, we'd be the world's benchmark for multicultural prosperity and equality. Not equity because that's antithetical to liberalism and liberty.
@@kenhiett5266 America was FOUNDED as a racist country and is fooling itself that the Constitution is or was colorblind. Blaming wokeness is simply a LAZY far right trope...And is a sign of a deficit of solutions. Ignoring Race to end Racism is in a word..."Unserious." Or is "negligent" more accurate?
"Rebuttal" enough for you?
PS: Woke is a Far Right fantasy much like "Cultural Marxism" 🤣
Yeah it’s almost like we knew this decades ago but those in universities(that should know better) don’t
Those with power, money, and privilege perpetrate DIFFERENCES leading to DIVISION and VICTIMIZATION. Thanks, Mr. Bouie, for demonstrating as much in your Opinion column in today's NYTs (Aug. 13, 2023).
Jamelle's argument reminds me of the Orwell quote, "The great enemy of clear language is insincerity. When there is a gap between one's real and one's declared aims, one turns, as it were, instinctively to long words and exhausted idioms, like a cuttlefish squirting out ink."
It was exhausting trying to follow wtf Jamelle was saying, even though he sounded intelligent saying it.
Coleman sounded just as intelligent while also being concise.
“Brevity is the soul of wit.”
The difference in real and declared aims is something most people miss.
Yes indeed…. Michael Eric Dyson being the reigning champion of this nauseating maneuver… 🤮
@@niftyjimabsolutely
@@bubblehulk7647 I used to think it was me not understanding the academic language 🤦🏽♀️ now I’ve learned it’s literally that they’re not making sense 😅!
I do appreciate how cordial this debate was. It actually allows for competing viewpoints to be expressed
It is absolutely damning of TED that they considered withholding publication of Coleman's original presentation on this topic. Their bias was clear to me before. I don't think they appreciate how their alignment with the institutions of power committed to silencing dissent undermines their effort to elevate the discourse.
The statements from Monica Williams showed their hand - "most blacks are middle or upperclass... but they still suffer racism."
TED and the black racists moved from Affirmative Action bc it's played its role. Effectively what we're witnessing and what was argued (against colorblindness) is treating bigotry and racism as some abstract, academic idea.
Why? Because the elephant in the room is the shear number of poor and low middle class whites who NEVER even receive lip service from race hustlers/anti whites.
I agree. I am not supprised at TED's reaction but constantly disappointed by their overt bias
I too think that is a more interesting issue than the question of the debate.
Very not surprised to hear it was an internal staff thing, either.
At least there were enough adults at TED to find a middle ground.
Identity politics, race politics, everything Jamelle is arguing for, is founded on perceiving a "group" as if it were a conscious entity. That's a delusion. A category of person is not a purposeful agent.
@silvertube52 Agreed, and was so glad that this came up from Thomas Chatterton Williams' question. Its one of the strongest arguments for color-blindness
Well said.
😅😊😊
I’ve been trying to figure out the wording for this throughout the last year. Thank you, my good man. Thank you. You haven’t the slightest idea what you’ve done for my mind.
Yes, absolutely. This is why collectivist ideologies are flawed, and why collectivist utopias always fail, even with a totalitarian vehicle.
"We shouldn't be racist except for when it suits our race's needs" type of mentality won't get us any where! Bravo Mr. Coleman
Realbanggang, you guys certainly tell the truth about your position. There is absolutely a mountain of bias that occurs in society today. The overwhelming amount of is NOT directed at whts. However, you folks are only concerned with it if you believe it is.
@@thadlincolnii7398 huh? An overwhelming about of bias being directed..? Bias is something everyone has, always had and always will have. How is it "overwhelming" or "directed at" I'm not sure I understand what you're trying to say.
@@basicallybangbang Notice that my post was NOT about which groups hold the MOST bias. It was which groups were PRIMARILY impacted by bias. Far EXAMPLE , 1)In the past ten yrs, the justice department has reviewed a number of police departments in cities and found bias in policing. Each time the bias was against blks. Not whts. 2)Pew and other organizations recently did a study and found There was bias in real estate apprasals against blks over 10 yr period. Not AGAINST whts. 3)the FBI reported tha the overwhemling hate crimes Are against blks. NOT against whts. 4)Pew and others released stats that blks get higher sentences in the criminal justice system than whts for the exact same offenses. And more,
Yet you guys either miss all these statistics or repeat unproven conservative talking points to dismiss each. In contrast, you are totally mobilized against the idea of affirmative action. Because you believe it discriminates against whts.
@@thadlincolnii7398 explicit race based discrimination is bad no matter the race. That's not limited to but it does include affirmative action
Fighting racism with more racism isn't a good idea. We need to fight racism by having stricter rules against race based discrimination, popularize our distain from racist culture, inform everyone about the dangers of untamed biased decisions made from positions of power.
Didn’t know Coleman before this fiasco, but I’m a fan now. Thank you for standing for reason, merit, and character. We’ll uplift members of all races in the process.
"Thank you SO much, Coleman, for making me feel better as a white man. Sincerely, Robert Menke, a lazy man."
Mad respect for the affirmative position here. I haven’t heard someone defend it so well before. Granted it’s a ridiculous position, but normally people fall into straw men or ad hominem attacks when arguing against color blind policies.
I always state it this way, “color blindness doesn’t ignore your experiences due to race. It simply does not assume your experiences due to your race.” It forces me to look at everyone as an individual and their unique experiences instead of placing them into a box from a single data point.
Well said
What a perfectly concise response. I shall strive to remember that phrasing. It's so simple and elegant.
I didn't really understand what Bouie said. But may E that's my bias. Can you explain Bouie's key arguments? What made it good for you?
Beautifully put at the end there.
Right I agree and if you have a group of Asians with very similar applications then those data points around those individuals would be on top of each other even if you factored those individual experiences. They all have orchestra, math team, chess, social upper class activities, etc etc...... so how is that diversity? That was the point the Harvard was making. Now if you said hey I love chess as an Asian and I started a chess club to introduce chess to impoverished kids then that is diverse and deserves attention. What some Asians seemed to be wanting is participation awards for joining a bunch of clubs. Anyone can join a club or group but did you start one?
Some of this stuff is like
empty calories......
*The first thing I notice about Bouie and others of his persuasion is how his arguments require him to unfairly and impermissibly gerrymander the definition of words and terms in order to even make sense. Right off the bat, he implies that Coleman believes that the government should act as if race isn’t a “social reality” and that “race” is a concept actually born from racism instead of its actual meaning, and then he tops it off by redefining racism entirely. These people are so intellectually dishonest.*
Agreed. And then toward the end of te video Jamelle is saying that racism can disappear because race is a historically emergent phenomenon. The issue I see with this line of thinking is that his definition of racism relies on the idea that people of one type of group would subjugate people of another. That is a trait that I believe has been observed throughout recorded history (even within a race), so I fail to see how it's going to go away. It doesn't have to be related to race, and his new definition of racism seems to be applicable in cases that have nothing to do with ethnicity.
@@DrGoldfootPhD the fact is that humans have lived in ethnic tribes for the vast majority of our history. The idea that “racism” began with white colonisers and their successors is just plain false.
@@DrGoldfootPhDyes his argument depends very much upon America's version of slavery, when slavery as a whole had been a practice affecting all races at one time or place, and America was one of the places it first died
@@MrWhiskeycricket no, I don’t accept your gerrymandering of terms and definitions. I meant what I said.
@@JMo-uh5cd you said "slavery as a whole had been a practice affecting all races at one time or place".
It's far more accurate to say "most ethnicities, and most places throughout all of history."
"Quotas have been illegal for decades," and yet, when arguing for affirmative action, the universities consistently pointed to the racial balance of their student body, and what it would be if they didn't do affirmative action. They make it very clear that they had a "target" student body composition that they wanted to achieve, and they were going to adjust the importance of the factors they considered to achieve it. That's just quotas with more work.
Laws are to be colour blind, however; the private sector will do what the private sector does. If you forbid Harvard from selecting who they want in their establishment, same could apply to black colleges (I dunno if those even exist in reality I am not North American).
The issue here I believe is that differences in the quality of education kids receive prior to college needs to be addressed. To attempt to fix it at the college level just exacerbates the problem. Putting people in situations they are not prepared to handle will never work out well.
@@luxuryvagrant6496 The reason the federal government has so much leverage over Harvard et al. and can tell them what to do is because they accept a lot of federal money in the form of research grants and education loans. If they stopped taking those they could do whatever they wanted, even reverting to men's only single sex institutions. Is long as they keep taking that government cheese, they're bound by Title IX, and all the other federal regulations on who they admit, etc.
@@odysseus9672 That sounds like the government laws not being colour blind.
I have difficulty relating. In France; legal text simply will not take someone's race into consideration.
The word race exists only to state that it is irrelevant.
Most of all, so far I agree.
I simply don't feel credible pulling the "Its because I'm Arab, isn't it?" card.
When I tell French people that in the UK I have filled-out government forms that ask my race they first ask "Why, does it impact your status?".
@@stevevest7206 Thing is, before college, children do spend time in school but let's face it; education happens mainly in the private sphere.
I read an article that highlighted how social class impacts the kids within the same classroom : On the 1st day back to school after summer. The kids that have had a holiday trip, completed a course and attended an event are a world apart from those that spent 2 months playing football all summer.
Class, not colour.
So TED can produce and release videos challenging ideas for a decade without having to demand a debate on any of them. Until they hear a talk that challenges their fundamental beliefs. Then - a debate is demanded. So ideas challenging society at large: put them out there. But threaten the orthodoxy on the left: withhold until debate.
Funny how this doesn’t make any sense when you change race to sex. Race is real and must be noted, sex isn’t real and we need to deny it.
I’d be madder if I didn’t think the debate did more to dismantle performative wokeness than practically anything else I’ve seen
@@8020drummer Yours is an excellent point. Perhaps this will show that a debate format may be superior in some ways to a slick, polished, unchallenged 18 minutes on stage. And i’m less mad, more frustrated/disappointed that a forum like TED has been influenced/captured by those requiring ideological orthodoxy. It once was a place where you knew the ideas would be thought provoking and challenging even if you didn’t fully agree. To see them resort to these moves because Coleman made some uncomfortable - was it not TED that gave Al Gore his first platform for a talk called Inconvenient Truth? Were they concerned then with how his talk would make people uncomfortable? They’ve made a brand bringing ideas that make people uncomfortable. But now it seems that is only ok if the right people are uncomfortable.
@@eq7992 I gave up on the TED talks long ago. You make a good point.
@@williamerdman4888 You guys are too much with this concern that somehow the "left" is more guilty of shutting down other ideas. First, the very definition of conservative is "adverse to change , innovation, and holding traditional values. Second, it is conservatives who are more likely to ban books and want to prohibit hearing positions different than thier own. Third, currently, it is conservatives that are primarily misrepresenting and literally lying about not only the "lefts" positions, but even thier own. If you need more examples, l would be happy to list them.
Wow, Coleman! I super-loved your TED talk and am sorry that your message was (is still?) being suppressed. Big props for you still being willing to go through with this debate. And you knocked it out of the park. I admire Jamelle and read him in the NYTimes all the time. But you won this debate hands down. I thought a key point was when you said that you are not arguing that we should not try to understand the history of the problem. So many people seem to think that being color-blind implies the opposite. We can understand (and regret) our history, but we still need to make the right choices moving forward, like directing policy at the various issues of interest (e.g., poverty, etc.) and not the imperfect proxies (e.g., race) for those issues (even if history shows that behavior related to those proxies got us into this mess).
I'd love to hear Jamelle's plan to eliminate "structural racism." I'm guessing it would look a lot like the Great Society policies of the 1960s that not only did not eliminate disparities, but exacerbated them. In fact, race-based governmental policy IS structural racism. That contradiction cannot be explained away. Nor can the unintended consequences that result.
That's a good point. My understanding was that it improved inequalities between races but kind of slowly isn't that true? If that is true then affirmative action still would have to prove if it does a better job when also taking into account the emotional backlash to the also existing "unfairness" it creates
Anybody who believes the Great Society agenda was nothing more than welfare for Black Americans are utterly and woefully misinformed and have mistaken partisan propaganda for actual history.
For starters, Great Society policies and legislation include, but were not limited to:
Civil Rights Act of 1964
Voting Rights Act of 1965
Fair Housing Act of 1968
Appalachian Regional Development Act of 1965
Elementary and Secondary Education Act of 1965
Higher Education Act of 1965, which created Upward Bound for college-bound children of low-income families
Head Start
National Teacher Corps
Medicaid and Medicare
Public Broadcasting Act of 1967
National Endowment for the Humanities
National Endowment for the Arts
The Child Nutrition Act of 1966
Food Stamp Act of 1964
Air Quality Act of 1967
Water Quality Act of 1965
Endangered Species Act of 1966
Wilderness Act of 1964, which preserved 9.2 million acres as federal wilderness areas
Wild and Scenic Rivers Act, which established a national system to protect and preserve rivers
National Trails System Act, which created a nationwide system of scenic and recreational trails
Consumer Product Safety Commission and the Child Safety Act
Immigration Act of 1965
Educational Opportunity Act of 1968
Child Health Improvement and Protection Act of 1968 provided for prenatal and postnatal care
The 1964 Manpower Development and Training Act and the Economic Opportunity Act, which established Jobs Corps and the Neighborhood Youth Corps
Wholesome Meat Act of 1967 required inspection of meat which must meet federal standards Truth-in-Lending Act of 1968 Wholesome Poultry Products Act of 1968 required inspection of poultry which must meet federal standards
Land Sales Disclosure Act of 1968 provided safeguards against fraudulent practices in the sale of land
Radiation Safety Act of 1968
Solid Waste Disposal Act of 1965
The Great Society was arguably the closest thing America has ever had to today's universally embraced colorblind "class-based solutions" for broadening opportunity across the board. While it wasn't at all perfect in execution in a few respects, overall the nation is undoubtedly all the better for it and Black Americans most certainly are, with its three major civil rights provisions standing prominently among the rest. It is simply inane to conclude otherwise, but the partisan narrative--no matter how utterly toxic and exceedingly marginalizing--must prevail. I don't have the words to express the depth of my contempt for it. Nothing else is so fundamentally and unashamedly anti-American.
An excerpt from a source linked below detailing outcomes due to Great Society legislation:
"In 1960, 40 million Americans (20 percent of the population) were classified as poor. By 1969, their number had fallen to 24 million (12 percent of the population)...Infant mortality among the poor, which had barely declined between 1950 and 1965, fell by one-third in the decade after 1965 as a result of expanded federal medical and nutritional programs. Before 1965, 20 percent of the poor had never seen a doctor; by 1970, the figure had been cut to 8 percent. The proportion of families living in houses lacking indoor plumbing also declined steeply, from 20 percent in 1960 to 11 percent a decade later...
During the 1960s, median black family income rose 53 percent; black employment in professional, technical, and clerical occupations doubled; and average black educational attainment increased by four years. The proportion of blacks below the poverty line fell from 55 percent in 1960 to 27 percent in 1968. The black unemployment rate fell 34 percent...In addition, the number of whites below the poverty line dropped dramatically, and such poverty-plagued regions as Appalachia made significant economic strides."
www.digitalhistory.uh.edu/disp_textbook.cfm?smtid=2&psid=3333
More importantly, look who supported the Great Society policies in the govt. it was the previously racist democrats such as LBJ. These politicians latched onto an existing movement being pushed by true civil rights supporters like JFK and RFK, who actually wanted civil rights. The movement was ultimately corrupted by nefarious actors who then used these govt actions to further suppress and control the very racial groups they claimed to be helping
People like him need racism. It’s how they make their money. They never want it to go away. If the supply of it is low, they get creative on how they find it.
@@deadlyoneable The black community has a huge problem with their community leaders who all do this. They don't want the struggle to go away because they'll be out of the job.
Jamelle got destroyed here. Fair play to him for doing it though. Bad ideas need to be heard.
Yes, obviously I completely disagree with Jamelle, but I have to give him credit for being willing to have the conversation and remain respectful.
I beg to differ. He didn't get "destroyed". He held his own & both were very respectful. It was great they could both provide us with this platform! In the end, I align more with Coleman, but Jamel definitely presented some interesting counterpoints.
@@melp7614he did present some good points and I'm glad he got to speak on it but ultimately Coleman's points were logically far superior to his points
@@Seevawonderloaf I never contended otherwise. But the "got destroyed" narrative isn't conducive to honest, open dialog. Honestly? It's petty & childish.
@@Seevawonderloaf One who post that Colemans points were "largely SUPERIOR to Jamelle's " likely agreed with Coleman's position before watching the debate. This is Colemans platform. For example, a major question was asked in the debate by a contributor, "How do we know when a color blind society has been reached " Jamelle gave an answer that could be used as a measure. Coleman didnot provide a clear answer. While Coleman admits that racism exist, he does not clearly acknowledge or demonstrates he has a firm understanding on how the historical and contemporary affects of it has shaped our current society.
Um, I am biased because I think Coleman is such an amazingly smart and humble relatively young man, but I think he absolutely won that debate by a mile. Very well done, great arguments. I personally think his position is correct, but besides that he was just a better debater. Keep up the good work Coleman. This comes from a 44 yr old white guy who was a life long democrat and now is a hardcore radical independent.
It's really sad that people think Coleman is so smart. A generation ago he would have been one of a pool of pretty smart people making sense in the public eye. Now the level of public discourse has become so dumb he stands out.
@@steveunderwood3683I'm sorry, what about Coleman makes you think that he has an average intellect?
@@OratorOfDivinity That's a really twisted way to read what I wrote. He's smart. Lots of people are smart. He stands out today because most intelligent people are acting dumb these days. I assume they are just too afraid to speak honestly.
@@OratorOfDivinitydude.... he's above average intelligence. If you understand how humanity works, you would find that Coleman doesn't know as much as he thinks. Sure he's confident but that's all. You ever witness a person speaking so confidently but isn't much knowledgeable on what that person is talking about? It happens here in the comments section all the time.
@@TuanTran-h5f Yes, l also agree Coleman is smart. However, Jamelle is more experienced. Many folks in the comment section asserted that "Coleman won the Debate" or Coleman destroyed Jamelle". This is Coleman's platform. Persons posting such comments likely agreed with Coleman's position before watching the debate. Moreover, likely thier beliefs would not be changed regardless of the quality of the counter argument. Frankly, both Jamelle and Coleman did good jobs presenting thier arguments. There was no clear acknowledgement of a winner of the debate based on the facts presented.
I think the biggest weakness in Jamelle's solutions is a poor understanding of the causes of poverty, and its why policies he would recommend not only fail but often embed people deeper into poverty. Likewise, Coleman's concept of targeting class addresses the broader concerns Jamelle claims to have. Ultimately Jamelle's narrower view is unhelpful to improve the situation he's concerned about.
He mentioned integration as one of the policies that support his point. Why do you feel that that embeds people deeper into poverty?
@@Theyungcity23 There's cross cultural and cross historical evidence that disadvantaged groups do not improve their situation through having their hands on the levers of policy. Even in deeply unfair societies, like how Europeans treated Jews for 1000s of years, or even how Catholics were treated by protestants. (Even wondered why there's so many Catholic schools? =) =) =)
Structural racial disadvantage shouldn't be conflated solely with poverty though. That's a point Jamelle explicitly made and it's an important one seeing as though some of the biggest racial disparities in certain areas exist in the middle classes and above. After all, the Civil Rights Movement was largely a Black middle class movement.
As far as targeting class, I'm not sure why we act as though this isn't the U.S. where poor/working class folks are horribly stigmatized, demonized, and essentially racialized. There's a reason our social safety net is so incredibly shoddy compared to our Western peers. We couldn't even manage to extend the child tax credit which was a demonstrable benefit to working parents because, hey, you know those lazy folks are just going to go out and buy beer and liquor right?
no one ever acknowledges the pure poverty in white communities too. I grew up in Appalachia. I have friends and people I love that still live in abject poverty.
Pretty much sums up Democrat politics and voters. Also sums up the bandaid solution of Republicans to just install 3x security guards for every school to mitigate school shooters
I like how the dude was like - I’ll answer that question in one second but let me quickly redefine every word in the sentence so I don’t have to engage with the question lol 😂
I didn't hear that. In debating, it's very important to define terms, especially where the terms may be inflammatory. I thought he gave clarity to his position and what they were debating.
Coleman, you were amazing in this debate. It’s such a shame that you were pressured to go through this by TedTalks. Evidence of the sad state of the world. Thank you for all you do Coleman!
I disagree that it's "such a shame" that Coleman Hughes is part of this debate! Wasn't his TED talk on Colorblindness only about 15 minutes? His observations and ideas deserve more time & depth! I am about to listen to this debate and am LOOKING FORWARD TO IT.
Coleman is an intellectual genius.... he sliced and diced this debate and dissected the context of things which made his points crystal clear.
I wish he would go into politics
Your bar for intellectual genius is set pretty low. Coleman is a guy that is not aware that he has above average knowledge.
Wait, but he completely lost the debate, and the interesting part about this loss is that I don't even necessarily agree with Jamelle Bouie's approach on how to deal with race in America, the fact is color blindness based on the pretty weak and unsubstantiated arguments brought forward by Coleman Hughes clearly wouldn't even be functional within the American social and political context.
@@MrWhiskeycricket I am not sure what "buying into flim famery" means, this was a pretty straight forward debate where Coleman Hughes basically refused to even wrestle with the straight forward historical point made by Jamelle. The fact is you could have issues with Jamelle's approach, but Coleman Hughes is simply ahistorical and nonsensical.
@@nmk5003 jam-jam gets too many things wrong to be taken seriously. go read some actual history. he even opens with inaccurate comments. the caste system existed in india long before europeans started buying slaves from africans.
Thankfully, this debate has bumped my greens intake for the day… as Jamelle repeatedly dodged answering questions by treating us to an extra large serving of “word salad” instead of a cogent argument.
Jamelle is a con. He does this on every topic. He's been richly rewarded for his role playing.
Of you white racists would deny you're racist white history do you think us Black people were born yesterday that you white Europeans have enlsaved a s Colonised Black Africans for 500 years google Berlin Conference 🙄
😂😂😂😂
All leftists do this.
“Well, if you look at the systemic systems of structural oppressive systems of oppressions and systemics.”
I just finished Jamelle's intro and I'm already confused and exhausted, bad debating.
For what it's worth, it seems like fairly quickly this debate swerved away from the central question. Jamelle argued in favor of a certain kind of policy but how that invalidates colorblindness as a position, let alone bolsters the claim that it _perpetuates_ racism, was never made clear.
So glad someone else noticed this. Jamelle’s opening contention seemed to be in clear support of affirmative action and seemed a lot more hard-nosed than literally everything he said after that. I think when he realized that Coleman was just as informed as he was about civil rights history he started to make milder and less definitive statements about his position.
Exactly. He veered off and changed the topic
Jamelle got caught in arguing early civil rights leadership philosophy. Which was a hard to defend position against a well skilled and informed opponent.
I think the best argument for Jamelle's position actually would argue the early venerated civil rights leadership was brave and noble, but unfortunately unable to see the future that showed some of their beliefs naive and mistaken.
That's a hard route to take in a public debate, but I think it's the more defensible argument.... if you can get past audience resistance.
FWIW... I still find it the weaker position, just more in line with the historical and theoretical development of the concepts he's advocating.
Exactly this. Some of the things Jamelle was saying (it was at times difficult to parse through his language to get a clear picture) were things that I might actually agree on, but they in no way supported the positive argument that color-blindness perpetuates racism. At best, they might support the idea that it could be theoretically possible for some color-awareness policy to end up with good results over some imagined long term.
Its that without a race minded policy then racists policies go unaddressed. Jamelle mentioned the obvious example of integration that Coleman dodged in his response.
What's so wild about this is that it's a continuous sequence of Coleman taking various quotes out of context and Jamelle then giving them context and analyzing them. There's not a single point where Coleman gets the better, and overall it's clear to me that Bouie has a better understanding of the history of the figures that Coleman wraps himself in to try and justify his position.
0:07: 🗣 This is a debate between Coleman Hughes and Jamel Bowie on the topic of colorblindness perpetuating racism.
7:53: 📝 The question of whether colorblindness perpetuates racism is explored in this debate, with one side arguing that it does and the other side arguing that it doesn't.
15:57: 😊 Colorblindness does not perpetuate racism, but rather is the antidote to racism.
24:36: 🔎 The debate revolves around the interpretation of the term 'colorblindness' and its implications in addressing racial inequality.
32:24: 🗣 The discussion revolves around whether civil rights luminaries advocated for colorblind policies or race-conscious policies.
48:26: 📊 The metric of racial progress can be measured by group inequalities and disparities across different realms.
49:00: 💬 The discussion focuses on the use of race as a proxy for addressing inequality and disadvantage in policies.
57:24: 💡 The discussion revolves around the impact of race-conscious policies on addressing racial inequality.
1:05:52: 🎨 The debate discusses the role of color blindness in perpetuating racism and the need for targeted policies to address racial inequalities.
1:13:47: 🗣 The debate focused on the importance of race and class in addressing racism.
Recap by Tammy AI
nicely done! thanks for saving my time! amazing summary tool Tammy AI. where you get this?
Thanks for this.
People like you should earn money doing what you’ do. Thanks!
Bouie talks about race as "a historically contingent phenomenon" that started around the same time as the slave trade.
But humans across the globe have had an unfortunate tendency to treat people who look different as "others" since time immemorial.
Bouie's argument has a huge and fatal flaw. Is the racial policy that has so set back African-Americans historic? Is it over now? If its over now, then the entire discussion is moot.
Or is it still setting African-Americans back?
How then can he account for all the "race"/ethnic/national groups thriving in supposedly racist America, Nigerian-Americans, Korean-Americans, Chinese-Americans, Indian-Americans, etc. All easily identifiable as a race other than "white", but outperforming whites in every metric. This thriving is happening whilst supposedly racial policy is still supposedly in action.
This by Jon McWhorter is superb, endless psychological victimhood as a lifestyle choice, and endless cataloguing of the evil of others.
ua-cam.com/video/D2chO8UzznM/v-deo.html
I thought the exact same thing when he said that. Whether it’s race, religion, stature, etc humans have always grouped themselves based on their similarities and differences (especially physical ones).
@@quentinnewark2745 Are you seriously pretending not to understand why immigrants who came here 40 years ago are doing better than Black Americans? For your information, most immigrants who come to USA from Nigeria or China tend to be well off and tend to come on work visa or education visa. They are not poor refugee immigrants fleeing wars. They tend to be already well off and better educated.
I’m glad you debated but it’s lame they insisted on adding a debate following your TED talk.
So incredibly lame.
Agreed, I don't know how often they put these caveats on Ted talks though.
They even challenged his views on stage as well, right after his Ted talk. I've never seen this happening before, really weird how badly people want to keep racism alive
@@岩の下駅 bingo…they think they are noble, and challenging racism. Unfortunately they are thinking just like the racist they despise. They don’t see the actual principle of why racism is bad. Judging people based on superficial, immutable characteristics. They think fighting racism is challenging white people or benefiting non-white people.
Such a shame, I used to talk highly of the Ted talks.
Thanks for watching my latest episode. Let me know your thoughts and opinions down below in a comment. If you like my content and want to support me, consider becoming a paying member of the Coleman Unfiltered Community here --> bit.ly/3B1GAlS
Good job keeping your cool through this dodging session. I would've lost it. That said, I remember you being even more stoic in the past, maybe it's time for a meditation retreat or something. 😜
Anyway, great showcase of precise and honest argumentation.
hello, ive only seen the Ted Talk thus far, but i did want to ask in regards to the "Orchestra Analogy", placating diverse students of music or musicians to learn and participate for the next generation is a must. But how do you become actively inclusive of the musicians in the area? I think we overlook how hiring for tech, STEM or any industry prioritizes overseas, work-visa, out of state, as an abuse of power. Neglecting the people who need the work the most, the people who need to be worked on the most - which are always within proximity to the "Orchestra". Its this neglect that fuels discontent, distrust, in community and further festers race-baced discrimination because there is no equity for the people there in the immediate area.
Your a tool for the right.
Coleman, you're awesome.
Color blindness, is humility personified. To not judge by outward appearance, is to accept, and not summarily dismiss anyone, simply by looking at them.
Non judgemental, and more accepting of differences, looks, opinions, beliefs, tastes...etc.
Best. Comment. Here! 👏👏👏👏
Great comment!!
In essence, you would have to ask people to look beyond appearances and uniqueness, language, etc.
Unfortunately, prejudices and biases are embedded in our media and all of this is based on things taught.
A baby is not born with prejudices and biases, so we know where it starts. Then they get older and make decisions based on their mindset.
Changing this type of mindset is like telling an addict to stop going for their vice. It will change only when they see a problem and want to change. 😢
The most annoying thing about debates like this is that one side constantly uses big buzz words that muddle the argument. Sadly, these are the same people in good positions who want to still feel oppressed.
Coleman was poised, prepared, and crushed it. Bravo.
rickrudd, your post reminds me of comments made by Maga Republicans. In other words, likely a person who shared Colemans view on this subject before watching the debate. Therefore, likely not to change thier opinion regardless of the quality of the counter argument.
@thadlincolnii7398 LOL. Your comment reminds me of a typical White lib lady who believes Black people are feeble exotic species that require lowered standards and the benevolent charity of the White Savior in order to survive.
Sad.
@@thadlincolnii7398 ok
Did you change yours?@@thadlincolnii7398
@@thadlincolnii7398 Yeah it's really unfortunate when someone takes a side but provides no reasoning or value to the conversation, which at best makes it worthless and at worst makes it sound like the audience that supports Coleman is purely reactionary without much processing, I say this despite supporting Coleman's stance.
An added bonus for a color-blind approach even specifically to reduce race inequality is that nobody needs to determine when it goes too far - it will automatically approach a good solution asymptotically.
I think there's another issue attached to this which has already become a problem. The people who say "I don't feel seen" or "represented" in media. If we follow colorblindness to it's logical conclusion, it's probably gonna create some vast differences in "representation" which some might lament. Although there might be a real challenge to tackle in-group biases if people don't get to interact with people of different heritage. Although I hardly disagree that those biases can be tackled by media representation. People need to interact with real people in real life to actually have any impact.
@@岩の下駅 I've never understood the point of "representation" of e.g. POC in media. It should IMO never be a goal in itself, unless what you're creating is not art but a product. And I guess that's what a lot of media is nowadays.
Good examples of representation, where this wasn't an explicit goal, are "Everything Everywhere All At Once" and "Beef".
Coleman speaks in very clear terms. You listen to him and you can understand his point. He references many statements directly from the key historical figures quoting them directly. Jamelle uses a word salad approach. He uses a steady stream of complex terms and phrases jumping all over the place so that even when you focus it's hard to extract a coherent reasoned position. He throws in everything he can think of which reduces to a great long list of grievance claims. He ignores the clear direct quotes Coleman recites from the central figures in the civil rights movement because their clear natural interpretation flatly contradicts his position. I'd guess that Jamelle easily spoke three or four times as many words as Coleman without presenting a convincing argument. Jamelle is clearly a fully indoctrinated member of the Woke cult.
When Sam Harris debated Daniel Dennett on free will, I noticed that whenever Dennett spoke, there seemed to be clouds of confusion gathering, as he spoke around the point, avoided Harris's arguments, and changed definitions to suit himself. Conversely, whenever it was Harris's turn to speak again, those clouds immediately cleared - I could locate where they were in the conversation again, and both his and Dennett's positions became clearer to me.
I got exactly the same feeling of "confusion clouds" gathering and clearing in this debate.
@@razzle_dazzle Nicely put. Jamelle appears, for instance, to love the word ‘contingent’ (I counted 6 uses?) which neither adds to nor clarifies any of his sentences. It is pure Dyson-ism - designed to distract and confuse.
You echoed my feelings precisely. Jamelle approaches every issue polemically - with no interest in addressing specific arguments or suggestions - but purely with defending and promoting the NYT zeitgeist. This he elects to do by introducing an increasingly frantic range of straw-men and speaking endlessly whilst saying nothing.
Like Dyson and Sharpton, he would see no benefit to his personal situation in moving towards any form of logical compromise - as where does a one-trick race-baiter ply his trade after the race issue is ultimately defused?
Conservatives struggle to understand (or at least pretend too imo) leftist arguments because they like to stay in hug boxes and theY don’t like to challenge their ideas by spending time with different opinions. You understand Coleman’s conservative pov like I do because we’ve heard it thousands of times from all directions of media.
His language is just as clear as Coleman’s. And he certainly didn’t avoid Coleman’s misquoting of civil rights leaders. He refuted it head on by pointing out that integration itself contradicts Coleman’s argument that these men were in favor of color blindness. He explained what they meant in context and Coleman’s response was to just say another quote as if that refuted the context in which those words were said.
Jamelle is well versed in critical theory-based shibboleths for sure.
Jamelle gets a Michelin star for word salad
An interesting side-bar on this debate was the difference in style between the two debaters. Mr Hughes kept his points relatively simple, using simple terminology while Mr Bouie opted for a more "academic" vocabulary and took many tangents. I think Mr Hughes made a more direct appeal to a broader audience, without talk down to the audience, while Mr Bouie was really directing his oratory to a more "elite" crowd. Any other opinions?
Agreed I felt confused by Jemelles language..too many big words and phrases. 😮
@@SamsFoodChronicles Black intellectualism. Big words to obfuscate and deflect.
@@peterkiedron8949which differs from "white intellectualism" precisely how?
Bouie is employing sophistry.
Jamelle represents the elitism that race-based policy, well let's just call it what it is post claudine gay resignation, the DEI cottage industry that rewards virtue signaling on race, to the injury of racial justice by gatekeeping voices like Coleman Hughes and alienating everyone else
I believe it was En Vogue who sang:
"Free your mind and the rest will follow,
Be color-blind, don't be so shallow."
That was a unifying message, lets not lose that by following what is fashionable at a certain time.
After watching this I still have no idea what exactly Jamelle is arguing for or what his argument is.
His argument is simply that structural racism exists and this therefore requires us to retain the notion of race in public policy.
Just listening to him makes my head hurt.
TED has joined the general woke leftward drift in recent years - where junior staff members feel they have the “right” to influence content over the wishes of the board. I used to watch a LOT of their early content - but now that it has lost all sense of objectivity, I never watch it at all.
Very much the same dynamic as in publishing and media.
Colemen should have never let him get away with defining racism the way he did, because that new modern definition is not how racism was or today is defined in practice.
"Rigorous debate and dialogue are core to who we are" - TED Spokesman
"We don't want to put this speech online" - TED Executives
Picked this up from my "Open to Debate" subscription and listened immediately.
Glad to see it released here as well.
Pretty disgusting that there was an attempt to shut down Coleman's TED Talk and had some partial success.
It's hard to imagine the same thing would have occurred with someone taking an opposing perspective.
Thank you Coleman, you rock. Incredible that TED would (even) consider holding back your Talk. Astounding, but then again, not so much. Still, very glad you had the debate. Jamelle Bouie must be applauded for participating. Well done.
And, yes, social media is a trigger for unpleasantness.
💚 of course I'm biased, but Coleman, you won this one hands down.
If you are in a room full of people and you close your eyes, what do you have? You have an opportunity to listen to them before you judge them.
And an opportunity to knock over the hors d'oeuvres table. 😁
That is why lady Justice is blindfolded.
And one day, you could be capable of not judging even once you see them.
@@luxuryvagrant6496
Ah....nope! Lol
Jamelle doesn't appear to know that the Spanish invented proto-racism with Jews far earlier with the limpieza de sangre laws that defined Jews as "mala raza' which was 'impure race/lineage'. Basically, defining people in law as the 'other' for good or bad never goes well.
Great debate! Sad they wanted to censor your talk. It frustrates me that we can't have these conversations without someone wanting to censor them. We are adults and these are important conversations.
What comes through in Coleman's arguments is that he's trying to work with a mental model that actually solves the issue.
Notice Coleman engaging directly with the question, and Jamelle redefining both the questions and terms, sometimes multiple times, to finally get to what he wants to say.
I didn't see that from Jamelle. I thought he gave very well thought out answers- a bit lengthy but solid. For me, it was a very informative debate with much food for thought.
His argument was simply that structural racism exists and this therefore requires us to retain the notion of race in public policy. Granted this argument rests of a seemingly non-traditional definition of “racism” that he wanted to argue is actually the traditional one.
Fantastic, civil and informative debate. To me this is a model for how to have conversations with folks among whom you have disagreements. Not typically a both sides thinker, but I can't help but think both speakers are making excellent points and while I have leaned more toward Coleman's argument, Jamelle makes excellent points particularly around the historical context that creates present inequities. Not sure how to reconcile that, but happy to have these thoughts provoked.
The more I watch these types of debates, the more I notice Occam’s Razor prevailing. Great job keeping it simple, Coleman!
I see an opportunity for Coleman to deal a death blow to Jamelle's (and others') argument by further delving into Jamelle's foundational belief: that racism is something that was constructed in the 16th and 17th centuries in order to solidify a hierarchy of groups in the New World. Coleman made passing mention of the fact that racism is one of those human experiences that has been with us for all time, which is true. But Jamelle doesn't give this much credence. It's incredible to me that someone of Jamelle's intelligence, and that many others like him, believe this idea that racism is particular to a historical context (16th and 17th century New World?), because that argument seems to carry the unstated subtext that only white people are racist or that it was an invention of white people. This set of beliefs also seems linked to the idea that slavery only happened in the New World, and was only perpetrated by whites against black and indigenous peoples. Which is simply not true. And fear of "the other" and the racism that in-group preferences leads to is a natural human instinct that we've managed to give shape to and evolve away from over time, as more and more contact between groups happened over history, and as societies have evolved. Jamelle doesn't seem to understand this or believe this, and I've seen his argument play out in Black Lives Matter websites in Canada, which try to "educate" the public on racism by completely distorting history. This view is based on a fundamentally flawed understanding of history and anthropology. It would be great to see Coleman and others in his camp drill into this fundamental flaw.
Xenophobia and racism are two distinct concepts.
I would say that Europeans created Systemic Racism but racism itself has always existed throughout history
Jamelle also disregards mistreatment of the Jewish "race" in ancient terms as not really being racism. When you combine this with the equity hypothesis (that the only possible causes of inequality are superiority, discrimination, and privilege) then you quickly find that Jamelle is tapdancing around the idea that Jewish people are wealthy because they're discriminating against the rest of society, and that we need to explicitly extract resources from Jews through state action.
This is not a new and interesting flavor of antisemitism - it's the classic formula.
@@michaelneufeld4515 fair point. How would you define them distinctly? I don't see them as distinct but very related, coming from the same source in our human nature.
Very well said. I agree, this was an opportunity to expose the absurdity of Jamelle's statement. I also don't agree with his definition of Race. And found it a bit absurd. His definition was tailored to the Racism lens. Race in the context of Homo Sapiens refers to similarity in physical characteristics or ancestral origin.
Colemans argument is also important because it helps us move beyond perpetual grievances. I thought we took large steps backward during the Obama years which sadly was such a missed opportunity.
Yep. Me and both of my parents voted for Obama and were deeply saddened by what he did in his second term. The way he handled Ferguson and the Trayvon martin incidents was extremely disappointing.. most polls show race relations taking a big dip in his second term
So true.
@HorribleProgram-ew6ei it was Obama fault. He lied about martin.
@@HorribleProgram-ew6eiTo your point, I saw the roots of this amongst peers as far back as early 90's and have heard academics say it goes back further, but grew a lot in 90's and became more widely held CW in 2010's. Certainly Obama could have provided more resistance if he chose, but I don't think he could have turned things around, and it would have cost him the ability to pursue other important presidential and party leader pursuits. Still wish he'd given it more critical thoughts and effort. He was occasionally slightly critical of some excess and shallowness... But in hindsight, too little and too late.
@@brianmeen2158it's still unbelievable to me how many folks just LOST it when Obama said "if I had a son, he'd look like Trayvon" and still haven't gotten over it.
And I'm always curious as to what folks mean when they talk about a president affecting "race relations." As much as I despised Trump and his racist dog whistles, it had absolutely no impact on the way I interacted with and treated people of other races.
"I don't think we should use race as a second or third best proxy for something else when we can use that thing directly."
That statement is so obvious that I simply cannot wrap my head around anyone believing otherwise. My only explanation for the 'colorblind is bad' crowd is that they're hung up on an issue of scope - that is that they look at racial groups as a monolithic force, so they see oh, the white group was nasty to the black group so now the white group needs to make up for it. Except the groups have no real continuity. You take a poor white kid born on the south side of Chicago and a poor black kid born one block over. These kids are both behind the eight ball. So when you choose to help one and not the other based on a trait they're born with, not based on anything they've done or any choices they've made, that's pretty fucked. Neither kid had any agency in the circumstances that lead to their family's socioeconomic status. Feels like a secular take on the religious idea of sins of the father.
Weirdly enough I mentioned "sins of the father" at my last company DEI talk, and was almost sacked for it.
Just caught this upon rewatching. Jamelle proposes that "race does not exist independently of historic conditions." What? So every black person in America is not black unless they were affected by slavery? What are they then? Glad Coleman didnt follow him down that rabbit hole of redefining the meaning of words. Jamelle did the same thing with "color-blindness," esentially redefining it from how it was used throughout history to suit his conclusions.
To them, the past will forever color the future, regardless of how far we get away from it.
I don't understand your question. Slavery affected all Americans, regardless of race.
All Jamelle is saying is that race doesn't exist within a temporal vacuum. I don't understand how that's such an objectionable assertion.
Sadly, I didn't hear a single argument about how Color Blindness is supposed to perpetuate racism. Instead it was a discussion about alternate methods.
Thanks Coleman. I listened to this earlier today on the Podcast. I would like to hear you and Jamie continue this and get more granular regarding the positions and texts of Dr. King and the other historical luminaries mentioned. If I heard correctly, it sounded that Jamie at least partly derived his definition of race as originating from racism as a historical phenomenon involving the othering of groups to further imperialist powers. Regarding defining race out of racism, there is a circular quality to this that I would like to see untangled or clarified. Also, this gets into questions like: does race originate solely out of designating difference in identity as a power tool, or can a notion of race originate from a more anodyne perceptual recognition of genetic difference in individuals? I appreciated the tone of mutual respect between you and the other participants, and I hope you are able to continue this conversation.
TED: We believe in open debate.
Also TED: Scowling while withholding publication of debate they don't like.
What is TED? It isn’t liberal in the classical sense.
As a long time fan and listener of Coleman, this debate was enriching to me in a way that I rarely witness on this issue. I emphatically side with Coleman on this issue with consideration to Jamel and I found that though both are staunch in their views, they are nonetheless respectful to one another. I found Jamel's arguments are well thought out and genuine which was refreshing in a debate around this issue. It also had the added benefit of showcasing Coleman's expertise and intuition on this difficult subject. Though it may not thrust the issue in a great leap forward, it seems as though debates of this calibur and consideration firmly place one foot in front of the other. Thank you to all who were involved in providing this debate.
48:23 The thing that bothers me about Jamelle's view of the Black middle class living in areas of poverty, that their white contemperaries do not, is that he neglects to mention the cultural reasons why these communities remain in a unpoverished state. As a child growing up in these areas, I see the change in how many of us care for our neighborhoods. Criminals used to be in the shadows of our community. Now they are in the forefront. Businesses are weary of opening in these areas due to crime. In my opinion, the culture and pride we have lost since the late 60's needs to return.
This was a good debate with respectful argumentation. It was also a very clear win for Coleman Hughes. Well done!
This man said the term "Race" doesnt actually mean race but means and was being used ambiguously as the reality of racial disparity?? As if they didnt have the words to describe the social reality? This dude is incredible and a fine example of how academics twist meanings and definitions to say whatever the hell they've already decided they were going to think based on ideology.
I love how complicated Jamelle Bouies arguments are, it has to be a word salad so that you have a harder time deconstructing the arguments.
Keep it up Coleman!
Way to take a tough situation at TED and turn it into even more persuasive dialogue!
Loved the cameo by Thomas, too!
I'm flabbergasted at the early contention about Phillips intent on color blindness.
Jamelle tries to frame Hughes' characterization as posing some sort of contradiction because Phillips was concerned with African Americans being given the vote, which in his words, "was a color conscious policy rather than a color blind one"
However, this is utter gobbledygook. If one part of the population cannot vote based on the color of their skin, then that's a race conscious/racist legal structure. The idea that opposing this cannot be considered advocacy for "color blindness" is absurd. There's no contradiction here what so ever. In fact, race-based voter-laws is a quintessential example of what an advocate of color-blindness would oppose- no, be obligated to oppose on principle.
Why I should take the arguments of a person who cannot appreciate basic definitions or logical coherence is beyond me, and it's frankly speaking disappointing to think anyone would settle on Jamelle as an interlocutor in a debate like this given such a gross intellectual failure.
When progressives lose an argument, they begin to throw a word salad at a canvas and pretend it’s a Jackson Pollock painting…
As I said in the comments of the Ted talk, it’s great in 2023 that people are finally able to debate these ideas so we can see how comparatively little rigor exists in their arguments. Coleman was also the perfect person to debate this, because he didn’t get flustered but also wasn’t tempted to do down semantics rabbit holes. Ultimately, he exposed Jamelle as having a lot of fancy language but an incoherent concept underneath
It is one thing to acknowledge the miseries of the past wrought by systemic racism, and the lingering effects of this today (though systemic racism no longer exists as such) - but when constructing public policy, all we can be concerned with is the reality of today. We cannot correct the past - and we shouldn't try. All we can do is try our best to erase any circumstances which would tend to foster continued racism or race-based attitudes or biases. For this reason, I believe Coleman's position is a self-evident truth. Jamelle spoke at length in high sounding yet vague, non-specific terms. Coleman's arguments were based, it seems to me, more in empirical fact, logic and, ultimately, empathy.
Ultimately, though, it has to come down to this - if you are trying to fight racism, it is both illogical and immoral to do so by applying racist policies.
Really appreciate Jamelle coming to do this. I've generally been on Coleman's side on this issue, but Jamelle did the best job I've yet heard for the other side. These things obviously take some time to digest, but I think he may have nudged me towards changing my position--or at the very least, made me much more open to "race-conscious" policy. And more broadly, I appreciate him coming on and having this conversation instead of shying away from it as so many people do these days.
Color blindness is the only ethical choice. Just because some people are bad still doesn’t mean you sacrifice your moral principles. You keep telling the truth regardless of how people react to it.
This is a complicated topic and I love that it’s being addressed in open forums like this. There is not one simple answer that will break down the division in US society. Talking about it is a great first step and I actually believe it will finally start knocking down the bricks one by one making this barrier less and less, Intelligently finding solutions, and soon maybe we can become empathetic humans without blinders on.
This is exactly the kind of exchange of opinions we need to create better policies and improve public discourse: Informed, respectful, fair and well reasoned on all sides. Thank you
I'll struggle to listen to it because I've seen how Jamelle has acted for years online. What will be really interesting is to see how he spins this conversation online post-facto.
Thanks for this calm and reasonable discussion. I feel transported back a decade or more.
Ted Talks should never sensor a speaker they invited.
I'm a white Oklahoman and feel nearly no kinship with white liberals in upper west side Manhattan. I'd be much more relaxed and happy at a BBQ with my Black neighbors than I would at a soiree in the Hamptons with people born into the Ivy league life.
I'm actually in the top 2% financially, but our culture here is different from a white east coast trust funder.
If my Black neighbors had to choose who to work a project with: me or a Black liberal in San Francisco, I'm betting they'd much prefer working with me & my husband because we simply have much more in common.
With this in mind, i feel color blindness is at least somewhat necessary for a country to run smoothly. Just grouping people by skin color is silly.
I heard it on Coleman’s podcast. Truly valuable discussion, a lot more of this will need to happen in order to undo the divisiveness that we are experiencing as a country. ❤
But we’ve been talking about this for decades. I remember having more fruitful discussions about race in the mid 90s than we do now - we’ve went backwards by quite a bit in the past 7-8 years
Agreed. People Kendi et al have reversed so much of the progress our society has made.
@@brianmeen2158yup.
Every time “group inequality” came up, I wished Dr. Sowell’s work would be referenced.
Coleman did, though not by name, when he referenced income disparities between white French and White Russians, and Indians and Pakistanis.
@@rickjulian7237 Ah. I didn’t get that far yet. Thank you!
You realize how frustrating it must be to be Thomas Sowell? He disproved many of the lefts talking points about race and gender decades ago and yet they are still blathering on about them
The cult of.Critical Consciousness and it’s claims of systemic racism is a mass condemnation of the hearts and minds of millions of individuals they’ve never met.
Jamelle is sitting there meandering, attempting to deconstruct the meaning of language throughout American history. He tries framing the argument as one of semantics and the evolution of a phrase's meaning through time.
Meanwhile, Coleman just drops the easily discernible quote, allowing the viewer to decide. There's no unnecessary reaching required. No fumbling. It just makes sense. The quote carries the message Phillips originally intended without the need to torture the English language in an attempt to derive the "truth".
I so look forward to seeing how Coleman evolves. He's already pretty deadly and hardly in his prime, so giving him more time in this crazy pressure cooker of ideas and philosophies is only gonna make him a stone cold killer.
I beg to differ. I feel like he is already 100% deadly in this particular topic. Nobody can beat him in this topic. Even the best debater on the other side can only hope for a draw.
It boils down to Bouie's contention that group inequality matters. No it does not. You are not your group. Your group is not you. That is true whether your group is black, white, left-handed, Jewish, or chess-players. The law can only apply to individuals, not groups. The moment identity matters *under the law* is the moment we abandon the enlightenment. We have lost a common basis for solving problems. The law - and therefore politics - becomes merely a competition among power groups.
A competition among power groups is exactly what we don't want. There are nations where that is currently the case (mostly in Africa, but there are some elsewhere). They are not salutary examples. Secondly, the worst think you could as for as a black person in the United States is that white people see themselves as a group fighting with non-whites for power. By sheer numbers, they would win.
The objective is to reach the stage where we recognize there is only one race - the human race.
Well said sir. Well said.
Thank you Coleman. I appreciate the clarity and nuance of your analysis.
I am German and when I came to US about 7 years ago, I was shocked that almost every form and questionnaire I fill out had race on it. That doesn't exist anymore since WW2 in Germany. I felt instantly that those forms are racist!
it annoys me when I fill out a form, e.g. job application, that I'm asked various identity questions around gender, race and sexuality under the guise of "equal opportunities". You can't tell me that a company which knows nothing about an applicant's gender/race/sexuality is in a better position to discriminate than a company which has all of that that information.
Such an obvious question. It boggles the mind that TED concluded that Coleman was wrong.
Coleman is the stats master of the counterwoke movement. Crushing them with facts!
Coleman won the debate.
Jamelle's position is intrinsically racist.
Bro, after 29 years of loving all my neighbors equally Jamelle Bouie just convinced me that I should be recist.
Coleman Hughes: Be color-blind to stop discrimination.
Chris Anderson: This concept is divisive!
Why is it controversial or even debatable that we as HUMANS should interact with each other without consideration of race. Do I think racism will ever go away….no, just because of human nature. But we should absolutely strive to be colorblind and neither favor, nor denigrate people for their race…which they had no choice in deciding to be
I always look forward to productive discourse but I have to say it’s insane that TED would require a debate as a condition of publishing a normal TED talk. I am sure they wouldn’t have required it for the opposite position on this topic.
A key problem with debating people like Jamelle, is that they carry a very different definition of race and racism than has commonly been held over history and is still held by most people in our society. The left-leaning, academic, and convoluted definition he gave at the beginning obscures actual racism. I understand his concern with structural inequality (or inequities as Kendi would say), but it is inaccurate to conflate those problems with racism. It is telling that he only brought up black and indigenous people in his definition, as he seems to see race only within a narrow oppression narrative. I agree that racism is entrenched in the IMPORTANCE given to racial definition and supported the institution of slavery in America and continued legal and individual discrimination. Race as a proxy for how you should treat people is what kept slavery and Jim Crow alive for so long in America. I'm a fan of addressing specific harms to individuals, but to do so for groups defined poorly in a historically negative social construct? You are just perpetuating the problem of racism. Now, how do you deal with inequality in American society at large? Well, that is a bigger question.
His definition is built on the demonstrably false axiom that race is entirely socially constructed, rather than a product of our evolutionary tendency toward in group biases. His definition depends on the power of the state to exist, which is such a foundational error it's hard to take him seriously.
The stronger approach would have just been to argue for colorblindness on principle, rather than appealing to the moral authority of past civil rights leaders. The simple fact of the matter is that opposition to colorblindness is _necessarily_ pro-racism. Driving this fact home wouldn't be an _ad hominem_ or strawman, since Jamell is *_literally_* arguing for systemic racism in favor of black people. I get that you wanted to be polite and cordial, but that's the bottom line of it.
I hate when people do that in a debate. It’s cross quoting and massive appeal to authority fallacy. It goes from a rhetorical flourish at the close to the central issue for an extended period of time.
I'm not sure I agree with you, remember watching this debate would have been a TED Talk audience who attempted to get Coleman cancelled because he challenged them so. What Coleman was saying to this audience was hey, these historical figures that are probably your heroes agree with me too.
I think that's quite a powerful argument to make to them.
I do agree that in another context with less snow flakes in the audience going down the quoting historical figures route wouldn't work so well.
I agree that while it's interesting to hear what past civil rights leaders said...just because they said something doesn't validate their position.
This question is simply a question of logic.
How does emulating the tactics and approaches of segregationists alleviate discrimination? How does Implementing race based preferences end race based discrimination???
How can practicing racism evee hope to end racism???
Once we stop being "race conscious" above all else maybe that's when racism ends ...at least as a matter of law and public policy.
@@dicem8977 strategically it’s likely a prisoners dilemma. Coleman has to bring it up because if the opposition does then he’s ceded a lot of rhetorical ground, same with the other side.
He has to bring up MLK’s mark on Washington speech otherwise the other guy will pull up all the crypto-communist statements he made and was surrounded by.
I think it was a good strategy though. However, adding a bit more of a principled argument alongside would've helped. But given the context of this debate I think it works well while remaining uncontroversial
Bouie goes off the rails immediately with : colour blindness means the state doesn’t consider race as a social reality. No. Hughes wins.
Good debate, good questions. Hughes is too sharp for Bouie.
I’m just thankful for this conversation, though it is incredibly disappointing that in order to follow your TED talk they had to have a debate. It just shows you the level of indoctrination, but you did a great job of defending your stance and ultimately what I heard Jamall saying again and again was a subtle version of the Communist ideology of oppressed versus oppressor, and a pathos of vengeance and reparations. That the only way to eliminate disparity was to level the playing field and explode the current systems. He never once addressed the point that using class as a discriminator is much more fine tuned and designed to address the true issues, which will inadvertently address race!! Great job Coleman
Great discussion! I lean toward Color-blindedness but there are many valid points from both sides!
Jamelle’s closing statement is way off. We do NOT currently address class inequality in any substantive way. I just don’t see it.
I know everyone here is going to be pro Coleman, and I also thought he did better job at laying out his case, but I appreciate Jamelle engaging where so many have just dodged.
My goodness, Jamelle uses 2000 words to answer a question when he only needs 200 to make his point.
Bouie: "... turning a blind eye ..."
Me: "I know exactly where this is going and I already hate the guy."
The mental gymnastics bouie is performing to reject the concept of colourblindess is mind boggling.