Things that went whizzing by that I want to remember: First: This is gonzo—not Elie Mystal, but rather John McWhorter. What would McWhorter have preferred to the Civil and Voting Rights Acts?: Elie Mystal: Review of Woke Racism: How a New Religion Has Betrayed Black America by John McWhorter: ‘McWhorter… says that Black people have no pride. Framing the civil rights era as a benevolent gift from Whites, he writes: “Segregation had been outlawed from on high, with black Americans not having had to endure the long, slow clawing our way into self-sufficiency regardless of prevailing attitudes that other groups had dealt with…. This had an ironic by-product: It meant that black people could not have a basic pride in having come the whole way…”
Cathy Young from Reason writes: "Just read your blogpost and felt compelled to point out that Elie Mystal's quote is somewhat out of context. I still find McWhorter's argument on this point less than persuasive, but he certainly doesn't wish the Civil Rights Act hadn't happened, and he acknowledges the role that black Americans played in getting segregation outlawed..."
Regarding "Why China’s Elite Tread a Perilous Path", one could also say ‘Wealth, power and fame are no defence against the arbitrary power of the [state]".
I don't know anything about Gideon Rachman - and don't have access to the article - but there seems to be an especially British expectation that "wealth, power and fame" should protect the holder from the exercise of state power.
Well, yes: social power should protect yourself from the state. That is where they start. Social power can then be extended—"a man's home is his castle"—but in the relative autonomy of local notables, British ideas of liberty begin..,
What I meant by this is the idea that those with "wealth, power and fame" should be untouchable - but those without those attributes should be unprotected. This "British idea[] of liberty" seems to me in contrast to the principle (not always lived up to, of course), that all should be equal in the eyes of the law and state.
Yes. The principle starts with inequality—that the rich and others with social power have peculiar and particular liberties. And then, perhaps, that idea gets extended. But only perhaps—autonomy of the powerful is the root. That is the British (and the Tocquevillean French) idea of liberty...
Cathy Young from Reason writes: "Just read your blogpost and felt compelled to point out that Elie Mystal's quote is somewhat out of context. I still find McWhorter's argument on this point less than persuasive, but he certainly doesn't wish the Civil Rights Act hadn't happened, and he acknowledges the role that black Americans played in getting segregation outlawed..."
Regarding "Why China’s Elite Tread a Perilous Path", one could also say ‘Wealth, power and fame are no defence against the arbitrary power of the [state]".
I don't know anything about Gideon Rachman - and don't have access to the article - but there seems to be an especially British expectation that "wealth, power and fame" should protect the holder from the exercise of state power.
Well, yes: social power should protect yourself from the state. That is where they start. Social power can then be extended—"a man's home is his castle"—but in the relative autonomy of local notables, British ideas of liberty begin..,
What I meant by this is the idea that those with "wealth, power and fame" should be untouchable - but those without those attributes should be unprotected. This "British idea[] of liberty" seems to me in contrast to the principle (not always lived up to, of course), that all should be equal in the eyes of the law and state.
Yes. The principle starts with inequality—that the rich and others with social power have peculiar and particular liberties. And then, perhaps, that idea gets extended. But only perhaps—autonomy of the powerful is the root. That is the British (and the Tocquevillean French) idea of liberty...