Glenn vs. Hitchens: The Reparations Debate
HTML-код
- Опубликовано: 2 апр 2022
- Support The Glenn Show at glennloury.substack.com
In this excerpt from a 2001 debate, Glenn Loury and Christopher Hitchens square off on the question of reparations for African Americans.
I've been binge watching Christopher Hitchen debates for the past week and I must say this was the first debate in which his opponent was not an intellectual lightweight. It's still a joy to listen to Hitchens, but it's a greater joy to see him debate a worthy opponent in Loury.
Though, like I just typed in my own comment, he was hypocritical, he appealed to emotion and ignored several obvious logical falacies on the case that he made, but oh well, in a way, I actually think it's good, gives him more of a human feeling to watch his flaws like this.
What would reparations look like? And who would qualify? Btw me too, I've been watching all the Hitchens debates. One of the great linguistic and philosophical minds of our generation.
@@anubis9151
Imagine if the presidential debates were this dignified and well argued.
First of all Don Trump has no debating skills at all and that's why he can only attend rallies because rallies are usually gang related. It's a mob mentality and that's the only communication a gangster relates to.
Nobody with as much dignity or restraint as either of these two gentlemen would ever desire to be president.
agreed 👍
My imagination is vivid and broad yet it cannot extend to this depth
They should be.
This is an astounding piece of history. This shows how two intellectuals can have opposing views and have an actual debate about a topic, and by having that debate everyone can learn from both parties. And in the end everyone walks away smarter and with a better understanding of the subject. This needs to be shared.
It allows anyone reacting emotionally to attempt a harnessing of said emotions
Hitchens wasn't an intellectual. He was a contrarian arguer. His fans are damaged/cretins.
Learning only has value when it changes your actions or beliefs.
In the end, we must always remember that Hitchens was a Leftist. And so was the professor against whom he argued. The anti-reparations professor's main argument was that reparations would hold back Leftists in their plan to move the political football more towards the goal line of communism.
So while the debate was certainly worth the watching, I hope no one comes away from it with the illusion that they saw all sides of this issue argued.
@@ericwillison4011uhh ... That didn't even come up even in time in the whole argument... All the "pushing Leftist agenda" and all that... You sure you not projecting from your insecurity to Communism ?
Do you think public welfare is communism ?
I'd almost forgotten just how sublime an orator Hitchens was. How we could use him in today's chaos.
Listened to him last night on Iraq. A liar and a State actor. And deeply racist.
Douglas Murray.
He's as close as you can have currently (and was a personal friend of Hitchens).
He's slightly less confrontational and dramatic, more tactful, with similar eloquence and incisiveness as Hitchens.
@@MrVvulf Except Hitch was a Democratic Socialist and Murray is a conservative.
It ends up sounding like sophistry most of the time. He has a talent for walking in circles around the point and using flowery language or obscure literary references to make it convincing. There's a reason he was far more popular in America than England and that's because we see people like Hitchens all the time.
Much of his lifes work revolved around telling people to ignore religion and listen to him instead.
He sought and received citizenship in the Christian based USA, why is that....to make an easy living?
Thanks for posting this Glenn! Didn't know you and Hitch debated!
Fantastic debate. People speaking from their conviction, not some "group line" and groupthink.
With all due respect (to the dearly departed), I don't know that that was much of a debate. No more than it is a fight when my sixyear-old and I spar w/ a pair of Everlast heavyweight gloves each. By all measures standard and intangible did Loury prevail, and there's not a definition of trounce that he failed to satisfy in that asswhoopin.
Figuratively speaking, of course. And--of course--with all due respect.
I had always thought hitch, if he was still alive, should talk/debate/ discuss issues with people like Glenn Loury or John Mcwhorter. Now I can say that it did happen and I am wiser because of this video.
@@jlongobardy1612 yes I agree. Hitchens relied too much on trying to convince people he won a similar debate in the past, and spent way too much time flattering the audience. Very little actual argument
@@pastorofmuppets8834 Yeah, he was more of a speaker than a debater.
How have I never seen this? Two intellectual giants who say what they think, political correctness and feelings be damned. Much respect.
What the hell youtube, where was this video hidden all this time ? What is the point of the crazy invasive algorythm if you cant even figure out that Glenn loury and Hitchens debate would interest me for 21 years ????
It was a different time. Mr Hitchens is sorely missed.
Totally! I don’t know how I missed this either. Two people I profoundly respect.
Yeah this is amazing. A real gem.
Because it was just uploaded
Actually, I’d seen this years ago and it has been around b
I feel incredibly lucky to have stumbled across such a fascinating debate by chance, I only wish it were longer. I feel like an open discussion section between Hitch and Loury would've been absolutely captivating to listen to.
Very true. Would love to see how Hitch would rebut Loury’s claims
I wish regular life was as thoughtful and respectful as this debate.
It's kind of heart warming that Hitchens acknowledged, agreed with and respected the main points Loury made, even as he was supposed to challenge them.
Remember what that felt like?
It's hard to listen to this without feeling sad. The ideal of open debate is in danger today. Seeing such a serious example of how debating can be done leaves me wanting.
Agreed. That culture of honest debate needs to get a comeback. No crazy shouts interrupting from the audience, people act mature, listen and (hopefully) think about what they hear. I feel at home in such an environment.
We can agree or disagree on various topics. If we do it in a civilized way, not condemning each others whole character for holding different views, we can still see the good in one another and live peacefully, more happily together.
And maybe in the long run change each other's minds, or, depending on the evidence, change our own. 🖖
Ij
J
Yea jest
Ompm
O
No
Mmpmpmnpnpnpnnppnnnj
lol.
in danger? It's dead.
The "open honest debate" is both being realized as a flawed concept in the minds of many people, justifiably so, while at the same time corporations are working with the state to control public thought, especially on political issues, in order to maintain power. So it's being attacked on 2 fronts, one of them kinda legit.
The problem is with conservatism and it's attempts to represent itself as in line with the values which both conservatives and progressives hold up as unassailable. Conservatives are simply lying about holding those values, and now that is seen. For example, both conservatives and progressives say they want equal opportunity for people of different races. Then we "debate" whether or not race should be a factor in school admissions. The conservatives make terrible arguments here, and the arguments are terrible because they aren't being honest about their values. Their true aims are maintaining an unfair advantage for their ethnic group, and when they try to contort their arguments to comport with equal racial opportunity, the arguments are terrible/stupid. A real "open debate" of good faith would be conservatives arguing White supremacy and progressives arguing against racial supremacy. But white supremacy is (as it should be) a non-starter. People have just decided they don't want to endlessly repeat arguments with people who are lying about their positions and conservatives simply lie about their true positions.
Plenty of good debates happening in the world.
I could listen to either of these men speak... endlessly.
Great hearing your Lex interview. This was also a great video. You're a great mind man!
Wow! I young Glenn and Hitchens going at it! This is a hudden RUclips gem!😃 Thanks for sharing this with us.
Wow what a treat! I’m a massive fan of both these men, but had never heard of this debate!
Like many people, I imagine, this is a surprising RUclips discovery. I’m a fan of both of these men, and I had no idea that they ever knew each other much less had such an excellent debate together. Thank you for sharing.
Finding old Hitchens debates are like finding gold , why hidden for so long ,21 years ?
Excellent debate. Love you both!
This is fascinating to watch in 2022 because regardless of the merits of the debate at the time, Glenn Lowry's closing remarks seem incredibly prescient for the conversation about race in America going on today and I'd believe hitchens would have had to concede that point if he was still here.
He’d have a more brilliant addendum to that notion I’m sure
The very foundation of this country was built off the backs of people who were never paid for their labor. That's one hell of an unpaid debt.
Thank you for re-uploading this, Professor!
I’m a devotee of Hitchens but I would have to say I feel that he was showboating here rather than addressing the deeper issue and consequences that Glenn so succinctly articulated.
I too think he was full of shit on this occasion.. considering not ONCE did he mention the fact that there are AFRICAN NATIONS that are JUST as culpable and owe just as much as any white person, not that in my opinion any white person alive today owes any black person for crimes of the past.. this is such an absurd notion it offends anyone with a brain! He also didnt go into the notion of "WHERE DOES IT STOP???" Why are we isolating ONE VERY TINY moment in history and selecting those people for SPECIAL TREATMENT that has never been considered for ANY OTHER PEOPLE IN THE HISTORY OF THE WOLRD!!!!! Who hasnt been fucking slaves at one point of another.. !! His argument about museums KEEPING artifacts just because the people they belonged to are no longer around is absolute nonsense.. in fact, it speaks to the argument that if the person to BLAME for these atrocities are no longer AROUND then in his thinking.. there is no claim to be had!!! And as the last person to benefit from slavery died about 400 years ago.. again.. he speaks against his own argument!
Hitchens is all style no substance, look up his brother if you want substance.
Hitchens' argument was more about how he got to his results than the result he urged. He said that himself as he started out his argument. His warning about arguing with people who tried to switch the subjects provided me with the valuable accretion of knowledge even though I did not agree with his results in favor of reparations.
@@d.jparer5184That's highly debatable. Peter has lots of logical issues.
@@autumnberend828 what do you mean logical issues?
I feel fortunate for having found this video. What a treat to watch two intellectuals I've admired for years enrich the discourse around a subject that so frequently ends in frivolous posturing and/or conversation-ending accusations against the other speaker.
Hitch wasn't an intellectual; he was a contrarian arguer.
@@johnharrison6745sounds like you’ve read him extensively
@@TheEmulsufiedEye 'Hitch' was just a drunken, drug-addled, food-addicted, nicotine-saturated, sexually-repressed, misogynistic, suicidal hack-of-a-journalist with essentially zero-credentials in 99% of the fields that he held-forth and pontificated about. All he had were an acid-tongue and a British hypno-voice. His fan-base are easily-impressed pseudo-intellectuals with Dunning-Kruger. [don't get me wrong; he was more-or-less right about a number of things; but, when you get-down-to-brass-tacks, he was unqualified, and, his arguments were VERY simplistic, and, relied-upon a great deal of credulity and sentiment/emotion from his audience/opponents]
Glenn has been in the trenches for a long long time. It's hard for younger people to really grasp the longevity of his active engagement in the American political conversation.
Well-said !!
And look how little impact it has had.
A Kardashian tweet gets a million times more eyeballs than anything these guys have to say.
The irrelevant and trivial will likely take precedence for 100s of years to come. Politicians largely win not by ideas or arguments but by fraudulent schemes, lies, and trickery that rely on voter ignorance and hyper-partisanship.
One day, maybe mind-reading AI can be utilized to reveal the devilish thoughts in the minds of candidates, resulting in the most evil of narcissists to think twice before presenting themselves as a candidate.
The sad fact is that the mainstream hushed him aside...he didn't deserve that and we are worse off for that, we don't deserve him.😭
@deathbycognitivedissonance5036 cool screen name and commentary
I had watched the Hitchens part of this debate, but always had wanted to watch the Glenn part - thanks so much for posting.
Big fan, Glenn! Never knew you and Hitch shared the stage, I respect you both a lot.
wow. just wow! what a debate, and how well led and presented!
Finally! Been wanting to find this again for years. Thank you Glenn.
I've never been more excited for a RUclips debate, to be honest. Thank you, Glenn!
I don't know how I've never seen this video, especially after years of scouring the internet for everything Hitchens.
I hadn't encountered Mr Loury or his work before but was completely blown away by his opening statement (I'm writing this having only seen this part so far). Extremely well thought out and articulated. Exactly what I've always thought, to "reimburse" the black population with a monetary amount is an insult to the dignity of those enslaved in the past. And indeed, once paid then "oh we've already sorted that issue out, no more to do here" could honestly be claimed.
I look forward to learning more from you Mr Loury, thank you.
How would paying back what was taken be disrespectful? Just because we can’t fix all of it doesn’t mean we shouldn’t fix some of it. It would help with the massive amounts of inequality between black and white being in America as a DIRECT RESULT of slavery and further discriminatory laws. The idea of being against ANY kind of reparations is baffling to me.
2001, and yet the debate still goes on... this needs to be shown in Schools!
Incredible performance from both participants. Thanks, Glenn.
Two of my favorite people Glenn and Hitch. I had no idea this discussion ever occurred. Thank you for posting!
Hitch was a waste-of-resources; his fans are feebs. Thank you.
Thank you for sharing!
oh wow. I cannot wait for the chance to listen to this! Glenn and Hitchens? we are blessed!
If this was held in 2022 Glenn Loury would've been shouted off the stage by the students in the gallery. And Hitchens, too, probably, for having the temerity to think that this subject should be debated at all. Remember, we all have the right to speak freely, until the pernicious mob decides we don't.
I doubt that.
@@lbdeuce No. Sadly, Brian E is 100% correct.
@@Jonesnaltitude that a pretty high confidence interval you sure thats even possible?
@@lbdeuce I lived in Berkeley for 18 years. I'm fully confident...
@@Jonesnaltitudedont you think being normalized to a place where a particular behavior is typical makes you poor judge of if that behavior is likely to arise elsewhere.
i can't believe this exists. two titans who i've always held in high regard. i haven't even watched it yet but i'm excited to see these two engage.
I though I had watched every Hitchens’ debate in RUclips. Thanks for this ‘fresh’ material. Also surprised of Hitchen’s view on this topic and fascinating arguments from Glenn. Enjoy the debate.
Very interesting! You always learn the most from listening to these well-structured debates. It's interesting that Hitchens accuses Glenn of considering the best the enemy of the good, but Glenn argues the good is the enemy of the best. A very important difference, and beautifully argued by Glenn! I never imagined I would watch a thirty minute Hitchen's debate, recommended to me after watching a fair amount already, and end up disagreeing with Hitchens.
I’m a fan of hitchens but I thought Glenn handled him here, it seems hitch was zoomed in looking at whether something should be done, if yes then yes to reparations, Glenn was looking at the politics of uniting the country and actually getting stuff done that would actually help make the country better, not just looking at some proposal in a vacuum not acknowledging the repercussions.
You make no point at all! 🤔
I have been a loyal fan of Hitchens for many years, and also I was surprised to find this gem after all these years… Where was it before? In my opinion Hitchens had nothing to say here. Loury pretty much carried this from beginning to end… I don’t know why Hitch even bothered to put his two cents in!
I, too, am a long-time fan of the Hitch, but nonetheless I found myself siding with Loury on this particular topic. As a matter of fact, I was somewhat surprised to find Hitchens on the "pro" side here, given how often and vehemently he tends to assert the value of human solidarity - which was the very crux of Loury's robust and articulate argument.
@@cryptocaesar8972 I thought Hitchens had him right from the beginning when he politely told his audience that how you think is important, introducing the irrelevant, the non sequitur, the generalisation and feelings into an argument, it is a dead give away.
To me that doesn't mean appealing to the charity of people is wrong, it is only wrong when you try to place an obligation on some; the majority of whom had nothing to do with slavery; to make eternal reparations for it and just piling the blame of disparate consequences of poverty and poor behaviour; which occur in all societies, onto slavery. Also Glen appealing to common humanity to right the wrongs of society while obliquely pointing out who in society he feels has been wronged, is saying nothing to mend the situation or anything calculated to unite humanity in mutual upliftment.
I must say, it probably felt weird arguing about this topic two months after 9/11 with all the world-changing effects that were going on around you at the same time, remaking the world as you watched. Twenty years later the same arguments on reparations hold true in a massively different world.
Well said.
..i might be reading it wrong but is the date on the screen 11/7/01....USA use the day/mn/yr format.
so was a few months before 9/11, not after ??
@@stephencoveney4269 no, the USA uses month/day/year format almost exclusively
Well we could chase the money back , but where do you think the buck stops ? Who rounded up the slaves ? who sold them ? who bought them ? and who used them ? The world slave trade had lots of participants . Africans had slaves , Arabs had slaves and European and Americans had slaves and lets not forget that the British spent a fortune fighting to stop world slavery , so who owes what to whom ?
@@horus909 "The _world_ slave trade" differs *greatly* from American CHATTEL slavery. The most brutal form. Don't be so disingenuous--or perhaps you are ignorant to the atrocities committed...? It was essentially an American holocaust. Slave _owners_ were paid royally! They received land promised to freed men and women. There's a book called "The Delectable Negro" by Vincent Woodard you ought to check out. There are even recipes in there...😐 Like, let's be really honest here. 😒
"Medical Apartheid" is also a good one. Enjoy! /s
25:58 what a prescient statement by Dr. Loury. I guess you called it, sir.
Also, I had no idea he and Christopher Hitchens ever crossed paths on the debate stage. Having followed Dr. Loury for the past few years now, I'm not surprised at all by his sharp intellect on display here, but man it is such a pleasure to witness against such a behemoth in Hitchens. Two men on different sides of the debate stage on this day, but forever brothers in arms in the war of ideas.
"...The us/them dichotomy that I want to avoid is what we're heading for!..."
Unfortunately, Professor Loury nailed it.
I DID NOT know these two have debated and ive seen all of hitchens debates more than once........soo looking forward to this
Hello Professor Loury - It has been a pleasure to discover your immense common sense, delivered with effortless communication and finesse. Thank you for having been a force for good for so many years.
He still is... In fact, he has a RUclips channel...
i take you appreciate the fact that the black guy is against reparations...so, its helpful for you.
@Dentsun4228 Can you tell me which family(s) kept your family enslaved, which African tribe sold your family into slavery, and which member(s) of your family were enslaved? If not, then reparations aren't a discussion.
My family and most families in America were not slave owners, and those reparations would come from taxpayers today, whose families were not slave owners 160 years ago.
@@JohnnyAquaholic it was the United States government that allowed by law the trade in slavery. This includes denying slaves rights to the fruit of their own labor. Were YOUR forefathers denied compensation for their labor? My guess is they got paid, so reparations is not an issue for you personally. Therefore it is the United States government that owes reparations for hundreds of years of forced free labor that was extracted from blacks. I'm sure you are against handouts so you should be against the United states benefitting from the free labor of millions of people, all of which amounts to a giant handout
@Dentsun4228 Again, I ask which family(s) kept your relatives enslaved, which African tribe(s) enslaved your relatives, and which members of your family were enslaved?
It is likely that my ancestors were enslaved given the history of where they come from. However, I'm not going to dig into the past to justify my shortcomings, nor my relative's currently.
You don't get to scream reparations just because you're black in America. For all you know, your ancestors could've been slavers in America or part of the tribes enslaving their neighbors. But of course, it's more convenient to just point the finger without knowing a damn thing about your actual history.
Damn. I thought I'd seen every debate with Christopher on RUclips. This is new to me and a gem.
A rare case indeed when he is outclassed. A worthy match.
Great arguments, thanks for sharing Glenn.
Agreed. Not Hitch's best effort.
Who cares who won a debate. Government loves to pay all these other groups who are not even citizens.
Bottom line, Slavery to Jim Crow as government sanctioned and they need to make it right by giving back the generation of wealth that was stolen.
Like Chris said it's owed and it's due.
Yeah, scapegoating this crime of the past on someone who did not commit it and/or didnt benefit from it and having them pay a group of people who did not suffer it at all or at most indirectly.
I remember him talking quite ill of another type of scapegoating, a religious one. Here the good sir faultered.
But doing so against a man such as Glenn Loury bares no shame :)
Never seen Hitch so gracefully, and with mutually expressed respect, taken down in a debate. Much respect, Mr. Loury
Hi Brent, I've watched more debates with Christopher Hitchens that I care to count but I would say that Hitch is always graceful and usually (but not always) respectful but is often taken down in debates. His British polish often disguises his loss to Americans who are enamored by his genteel accent but listen closely and you'll find that he loses a lot. Hitch especially loses when he argues for communism against capitalism. For all of Hitchen's genius ... he show a deep understanding for capitalism. As far as Glenn goes ... well I hang on his every word so nothing to say but praise for Dr. Loury !! :-)
wow, let me guess you are white and love a black dude feeding you what you want to hear? I love Loury and have listened to him for years, but most whites drawn to Sowell/Loury types are just mild bigots who found black people to feed them their views.
@@npickard4218 I would be interested to know which debates, since you refer to often having come across them, Hitchens is taken down? Do you refer to his earlier years, such as the early to mid 80s? In the case of this video, what seems to be lost on some is the fact that this was not a debate between Hitchens and Loury, it was a panel debate with multiple speakers, two of whom presented before Hitchens to argue the affirmative, which is extremely important context.
Depending on the subject matter, to which Hitchens is ultimately known for his anti-theistic rhetoric, I imagine anyone would be extremely hard-pressed to find a debate in which he is "take down", far from it. As for his more socialist ties of younger years, Hitchens himself has acknowledged changing philosophies with age. Surely that doesn't take away from his brilliant, and often devastating, remarks, writings and debates regarding public and political figures, religion and social elements.
I dont see Hitch taken down at all here. i was on Glenn's side until i heard Hitch speak.
Hardly taken down.
Also, where is Hitchens reply to Glenn's second turn at the mike?
This is a debate. This is what universities and societies in general should always embrace and defend. The possibility of human beings disagreeing on a subject with well thought out arguments delivered without histrionics, sound effects and low blows. We are sadly seeing how the agora for enlightenment and the development of critical thinking, is being turned into the obscure corners of "safe spaces" and "trigger warnings". The individual must shape and define his ideology, and not vice versa. Thank you for posting this. It was worth it.
Want to know what universities need to defend, that I assure you is in a myriad of their so called mottos? TRUTH. Yes truth is not always objective but it is imperative that we STRIVE TO ATTAIN IT. There have been FAR too many concessions made in the rejection of truth to maintain a “safe space”. This is what happens when you get intellectually dishonest people who are more obsessed with power than they are with the pursuit of knowledge.
University debates still go like this despite what the media will tell you. as someone who’s been to several
Gone are the times when people could debate contentious issues eloquently and respectfully such as in this debate. Modern society would do well to learn from debaters like these.
A pleasant surprise. You and Hitch on a stage! And you were eloquent, insightful and convincing, as usual.
Was so shocking. That's isn't Hitchens' expertise, I guess. Bring Religion and he'd burry that guy.
I miss Hitch. I can only imagine the choice words he would have for the present societal failings.
Thank God we still have Glenn around.
I had Hitchens as a professor in college, and spoke with him sporadically afterwards. I respect his intellect, but his Trotskyism and “sense of Justice” would also put him on some of the wrong rails against American self preservation in its own founding image.
He’d be pro-war with Ukraine, for example, and he fundamentally did not understand economics, so profligate spending would not have mattered to him.
@@NoahBodze Agreed. I was thinking more along the lines of the victimhood, identity politics “woke” cult.
@@NoahBodze did not understand? Or said something you didn’t truly understand.
@@AreMullets4AustraliansOnly I spoke clearly, objectively stupid person. You did not.
that is all he would have, choice words. I have listened to him parade his flowery rhetoric for some time. you know what I have yet to hear, an actual, actionable solution.
Glenn, your thoughts RE how to frame this issue (beginning at 28:11) are heroic. You sir are the embodiment of patriotism, writ as a moral conscience within the great ideals of a nation.
Thank you for this, and for so many other contributions.
"Anyone can have thoughts, it's how you think." I miss you Mr. Hitchens.
Stupid statement from a stupid person.
Love Hitch. Love Loury. This is one of the few debates where Hitch's punches did not land. His thought experiment was itself a Red Herring. Dr. Loury came into this debate on solid ground, and he wrapped up his argument on solid ground. Hitch, for all of his eloquence -and I could listen to his audiobooks non-stop, has never convinced me of his position on reparations. I respect the principle he stands on to make that case, but I would argue that Hitch's liberal principles and penchant for facts are more aligned with Dr. Loury's position on reparations than his own.
Great debate, thank you for sharing!
Three problems: 1) Lowery has drifted more right than " progressive" since this debate. 2) The right seems incapable of extrapolating other experiences or feelings beyond their own. Mr. Loury seems to be more interested in not upsetting the applecart as well as proving that he is every bit as actualized as any other high achieving American. Kudos to you, sir! But don't let your own ego, get in the way of getting some good, instead of what's best... 3) Keeping the topic at strictly monetary limits what's possible. It is written.
*Have to entirely disagree with this analysis: Hitchens thought experiment was so air-tight to the point that it pre-emptively shot down most of Loury's points, or anyone else's objections. If Hitchens' argument cannot convince you of the just nature of reparations, perhaps there's an undistributed middle going on with you(?). Hitchens essentially put down (with ease) every objection to reparations, including Loury's impotent objections. I simply cannot see how anyone can object to reparations for African-Americans. If not reparations in this instance, than no reparations for anyone in any circumstance.*
@@MattSingh1 I agree. I believe that Hitch is operating on an entirely higher plane than Mr. Loury. It's also somewhat ironic that Loury seems to empathize more with his former tormentors(if he'd been born 160 years ago, he'd been born in servitude) than his fellow African-Americans. It's as if he forgot where he came from
@@MattSingh1 Hitch was dead wrong. You cannot fix one injustice by creating a new injustice. Those responsible for slavery are not here - we cannot take money from them to offer as reparations. We can only forcibly take money from morally innocent people. This is unjustifiable, and requires the very collectivist thinking that made slavery conceivable in the first place.
Hitch was anything but a liberal. By definition almost every so called libertarian I’ve ever talked to is more liberal. Hitch was a socialist and claimed to be so to the very end. How we use and define words in this country is almost completely backwards it’s sad to me to hear someone claiming to be a fan not even know his most basic position from the left.
this is great. i came here for hitchens but glenn was incredibly thoughtful and well argued and well spoken as well.
Thank you for clearing this up for me. The question is not if we should have reparations, but what are we really trying to accomplish?? We do not need one more excuse to pretend the question is solved, and neither does our (joint) cultures!!
Thank you very much...
I had not learnt of the existence of Glenn Loury until two years ago when I needed to find non-absurd explanations for events in 2020.
Glenn is a blessing for western civilisation, he’s an intellectual titan, and it’s a pleasure to witness this historic testament to that fact.
P
well said !!
feel free to share
Intelligent ....he [Glenn] may BE...But, so far Only a few minutes in...He's using Alot of dismissiveness & he's SOOO off on this topic; smh He's touching upon irrelevant topics & EXTREMELY weak talking points 🎯💯...in relation to reparations &
It's ALMOST unbearable to sit thru🙄
Very sad...
@@stay-rootednlove2794 that's like, your opinion, man.
One of the best things going on right now is how some of the best public intellectuals are having conversations all over RUclips. Look, Glenn Loury is talking to Sam Harris. Eric Weinstein with Peter Thiel, cool! Chris Hedges rapping with Matt Taibbi. This is next level- bringing one of my all-time favorites, Christopher Hitchens, back to life and on stage with Prof. Loury.
Chris Hedges is clearly very intelligent, most definitely more intelligent than myself, but I don't trust his analysis at all... he's argued too much bs for my taste.
@@ActionAlligator "Claims made without evidence can be dismissed without evidence." Is the Hitchensian dictum that applies here.
@@twntwrs ?
@@ActionAlligator "...he's argued too much BS..." you claim yet fail to provide a single example. Therefore your assertion can be dismissed without any further consideration since there is nothing to consider.
@@twntwrs ok? who fucking cares, I was dropping my opinion off on youtube like everyone else... I'm not trying to prove a case jesus lmao. if you're really curious, look up his dumbass opinions on atheists and atheism, that's honestly the only one I even remember, but there were definitely more. or don't.
Wow, the two speakers are superb. Hugely impressed with all the arguments. They are intelligent, understandable and deal in realpolitik.
This video proves why debate, though important, is not a sport - because it can be done with a drink in your hand.
As much as I love Hitchens, and I do so love Hitchens, I’m going with Loury for the win on this one.
Hardly surprised. It’s about black people getting something that you are not going to get or are entitled to. Triggers people. Usually racists. But I don’t know you.
Hitchens has a lot of bad takes, for example he said Stalin was supported by the Catholic Church
Slavery was a normal practice in practically every culture for thousands of years. Every nation had slaves and every nation had some of its members enslaved. Hitchens and Glenn don’t seem to understand that. Slavery was the norm. Slavery was invented in Africa, not the US.
Slavery was forcefully ended, in the Western hemisphere, in the 19th century. It was ended in North America by a civil war that cost three quarters of a million lives. Hitchens and company seemed to be unable of comprehending that western Europeans voluntarily (and forcibly) ended slavery. Does he give a damn that his friends in China still practice forced labor on the Uighurs? That slavery is still practiced in Africa and India and many Muslim countries?
Instead of receiving gratitude for being given freedom in a world where slavery was the norm, white Americans are being told by those freed that that the blood and treasure spent in the civil war was just a down payment on endless reparations.
My respect for hitchens has been considerably diminished.
Well said.
Wow, a true masterclass on how to conduct such debates.
Thank you!
Thank you for the informal level of a harvard quality education in baseform economics, political science and sociology. And I truly mean that.
Your content has elevated who I am as a human being and you are phenomenally gifted as a speaker and a teacher. Thank you.
I have never heard Hitchens praise an opponent for having a superb opening argument. I feel that even he was thinking to himself that he was not prepared for it. I think that given time you would have even convinced him to change sides.
Glenn changed my perspective on the reparations argument.
Masterfully debated and orated. I find myself on the fence because I agree with both arguments. Dr. Loury is correct in saying that once reparations are paid, so has the debt and the books can be closed on this. It’s a scapegoat that doesn’t right the wrong. Reparations do not pay the debt, justice does. Yet I also agree with Mr. Hitchens in that reparations can help right the wrongs, while I would argue, only in part.
Perhaps the most impressive is the debate and how arguments are constructed and presented here.
I miss Christopher Hitchens! I so wish he were here to share his thoughts to what is happening to this country currently.
His one downside was his previously held Marxist view and never discarding the filter on his worldview.
@@adamrules01 because of that, what's happening to this country right now makes we wonder even more about what he would say.
I just watched him and Parenti debate Iraq. Hitches lied over and over again. It is now my belief he was a State agent.
@@casteretpollux a secret agent...naw.
@@debbiebrown381 No secret now is it?
No way! You debated hitch?
Yeah the only clip I've seen is of Christopher arguing for the affirmative. In that, I heard him mention Glenn but never came across the rest.
Glenn has had this in his back pocket all this time.
@@bertrandrussell894 hes always said it was owed
I have to watch the whole thing to be sure, but I think that you can find it complete with the title "Should Reparations Be Paid to the Descendants of Slaves? Christopher Hitchens Debate (2001"
Every Lion, Tiger, Leopard and Bear owes reparations to the rest of the animal kingdom.🤣😂
Hitchens asks the audience to be wary of side issues and immediately proceeds to offer one.
What a wonderful video from the past. Hitch and Glenn. Two giants having an honest debate.
In 2022, instead of Party A paying Party B, we're all paying Cardi B.
not me i'm suing her for reparations 🙃
Its sickening that Glen can sit in his ivory tower and say that. I get what he is saying but something has to give and we have to start somewhere. Its not all about checks in the mail...Reparations can include other things as you surely know.
Descendents of slaves are owed a great deal more than just money at this late date of 2023. I just visited my relatives barely visible grave site on a private plantation less than a mile from my home. The wealth that their enslavers have accumulated off the backs of many is breathtaking and disheartening.
Thank you Hitch for your stance.
What nonsense. Give it a rest, you want welth? Work for it like the rest of the planet.
Every nation and race had been subject to slavery , why treat one race differently? Why so much privilege and attention afforded to one race ? What's the end goal ???????
Imagine if our presidential debates looked more like this…i just watched the Republican primary debates a couple weeks ago and it reminded me more of second grade…
Great debate. Can’t remember ever seeing hitch get dragged like this. Nice job Glenn. You’re an important voice in the fight for reason. Thanks.
I think he is playing Devil's Advocate here.
Reparations is ridiculous.
Y
@@mithtube7603 F
Please give more details
@@MyBonee Africa sold the slaves to the slave traders. Go to the source with your complaints kid.
Empires have paid out reparations before it’s not ridiculous. Just look at Britain paying the mau mau of Kenya.
You cannot limit this debate to one country or race. How do we separate the descendants of slaveowners from the descendants of slaves; when the majority of people are BOTH.
so much respect for Glenn Loury, only one who made sense in this argument
It's rare to see Hitchen's in a losing posture
I've not seen a video in which I was in disagreement with him either. Excellent debate.
People see what they want to see
Hitchen's answer is in-the-box, and only addresses an opponent who would simply say "No, black people don't DESERVE reparations". Loury's response is pioneering and goes beyond the question. Loury is the opponent who says "No- the premise of reparations is framed incorrectly".
For this reason, they did a little bit of talking over the other. I believe Loury taught Hitchens a new perspective with this conversation.
@@emp5352 Hitchens broke Loury's view down to basically one man's opinion--not to upset the applecart
This folks is what we call conformation bias.
People love to act as if their own group have never done the exact same thing they accuse others of....
How far back do these goofs think everyone needs to rectify every injustice of history
Hard to argue with any real robustness that the reason to return some damaged bits of a stolen statue in marble equates to a case for compensation for 25 million deceased slaves over a period of 150 years of slavery. Not only are the two events completely different in so many ways, the logic and practicalities of compensation would turn it into a mockery, the bounds of which could be infinitesimally extended throughout history.
Awesome debate. Ultimately I would say Loury was the winner of this debate, especially when considering modern identity politics. How easy it is to divide a populace even *without* reparations. If reparations were ever repaid, Republicans would win every election for decades afterwards, setting *everyone* back, including the recipients of those reparations.
Glenn at his brilliant best.
The argument by Glenn, so wise and sophisticated.
I find it interesting how well Glenn can articulate the suffering of the modern black American community in this 20 year old debate, correctly attribute much of it to generational hardship conceived in their kidnap and enslavement, and explicitly make a case for progressive political action to dismantle the system that perpetuates it. What is perhaps more interesting is how the things I have heard from him in recent years (though I have not sought it out so certainly only a glimpse of his current perspective) are framed as endorsement of an anti-reality, “colorblind” perspective to push a “bootstraps” narrative in regards to the challenges black Americans face. Most curious.
Hitchens: God Debate: A+; Reparations Debate: D-
Agree. And yet he was wrong about God, too.
Prof. Loury, you were just as much an inspiration then as you are now.
I can't believe Glenn won a debate against Hitchens (in my opinion). What a legend!!!
To me, it's not surprising that Hitchens added Glenn to another one of his victims.
@@iannovak5223 How so? Are you saying that Hitchens point of reparations is valid?
Lowry, who is usually right, was wrong with his main line of argument back then, that disingenuous line about white society getting off cheaply by writing a check and moving on. Accordingly, Hitchens won the debate without even hard work, as usual. The real issue has been that most of us aren't culpable nor beneficiaries of the crime and have already watched half a century of systemic discrimination in favor of minorities, which has had more deleterious than beneficial effects. If the descendants of slaves were to sue the descendants of the slave owners, that would be a different story. Most of us are neither. But back when this debate was being had, I, too, believed that the the terrible state of the black community was the result of nothing but slavery and racism. After living and learning for a while longer in this country, that fantasy has collapsed. It has been a self serving lie to minorities and progressives. I wish I could have it back, like the religion I believed in before I grew up...
@@jewulo Without a doubt.
@@iannovak5223 But he didn`t make any...
The irony here is the argument Glenn makes is exactly the same that should've been made when Hitchens and the other "4 Horsemen of the Apocalypse" were riling people up to create an "us versus them" with religion and atheism.
Even though their endeavors are of a different subject, it still helped fuel the wokeism we're contending with now.
What?
I think they did a lot of good but that their arguments were a bit simplistic or even facile, and I agree with you about the fuelling. Woke is stopping us from talking when this species has never before needed so much to talk, when now our very survival depends on it.
Two of the most insightful perspectives I have ever heard
What a horrible analogy given by Hitchens, artifacts are not people, returnal of cultural artifacts stay for as long as they are upkept but if reparations money is given to black people in where they are socially standing right now, what will keep them from saving and invest or "tie" that money into what requires additional long lasting effort like a business and the lack of quick revenue that starting a business intels, instead of expending it irresponsibly in bad managed business or expensive items like a brand car, brand clothes, plasma 8k tvs, etc. I am hispanic and I have seen what quick money have done to my colombian culture and that is destructive, perpetuates bad habits for longer because have delayed us from touching financial rock bottom to wake up and do something.
Brilliant content. Thanks Glenn
Very interesting. I'm curious about your take on the matter today specifically in regard to COP 27.
It's an excerpt. Good debate as far as it goes. Shame we didn't hear Christopher's closing remarks.
Loury is a wise man. He understands the danger of trying to fix failed racial politics with a new form of racial politics.
Nah all see is a sell out.
How is taking money from a budget and giving it to deserving victims racist? Unless, the person against it resents where the money is going. People didn't have any problem compensating the 9/11 families, even though the US govt. didn't have anything to do w/ it(except drop the ball.) But that's not why they were compensated. Yet, blacks were harmed by the US govt. and people don't want to pay... The world is upside down. Hitch won because he operated from a higher plane...
What about the danger of forgetting and/or ignoring history?
there are dangers but the effects of Jim Crow /slavery were targeted along these specific lines so it makes sense. I'd rather see investment in the community like education and rec centers than lump sum checks though
@@dewanmdurnto3592 'I gotsa to get dat money!' Gimme that money white man!
I can’t believe I’m saying this but I think you lost this one Hitch. Never the less R.I.P you are sorely missed
The guy is exactly RIGHT!
The purpose of a civil payment, is to be made whole.
And he's exactly right, NO AMOUNT OF MONEY IS GOING TO DO THAT!
If there's no amount of money that can be rendered, to make one whole ....
Then the discussion shouldn't be about money. It should be, what would make you whole?
Because he's speaking the truth ... Reparations is so some people can FEEL better about something that happened, others can profit off of what happened to others . .
But at the end of the day, it was NEVER ABOUT BEING MADE WHOLE, because if it was ...
There'd be no problem with saying, you got your money, I don't want to hear about it anymore.
The reason that will hit some people as offensive, proves mine and his point. ..
The payment isn't about making anyone whole. It doesn't right the wrong.
This whole issue is about people today, mostly intellectuals with idol minds, needing to invent grievances that they feel the need to be forgiven for.
Lawyers & middle men (politicians families) that will end up with most of the money & a few ordinary people that'll get a few bucks but won't make a difference in their life.
I'm a big fan of Loury but I don't think he took down Hitchens here. He didn't make it clear how Hitchens' England vs Greece analogy failed.
Morton Downy Jr. once said it best: "My great grandfather may have been a complete a-hole, but I'm not, and I'm not paying for what he did."
Anybody that’s living off of inheritance or land that originated from slave owners needs to pay reparations. If you can be bequeathed property and money then debt should also be attached.
@@flyingdutchman2442 After the Civil War , these plantation owners for the most part were wiped out and dirt poor ..... Confederate money was suddenly worthless and the carpet baggers from the North came down and bought up a lot of properties for pennies on the dollar ..... As terrible as slavery is , there is not a single identifiable group on the planet that at one time or another was either the slave , or the enslaver . The ones that were sent to NA faired a lot better than those that ended up in SA or the Caribbean , where the majority of those who made the Atlantic crossing ended up ....... The ones who faired the worst were those who were bought by Muslims , as most did not reach their final destination and died along route in the desert . Others who never left the continent faired just as bad ...... And let's not forget they they were originally enslaved in Africa by fellow Africans ..... It was quite a lucrative business and went on for centuries before they ever saw a white man , and was still going on long after slavery was ended in NA .
@@dns7655 Untrue. There are black Americans that can retrace their slave lineage, nowadays. Probably not particularly common but they do exist. If the descendants of the slave owners can’t compensate, then that’s another matter.
Why would we need to remember African slavery when discussing compensation in the states? More white deflection?
@@flyingdutchman2442 Why should the descendants of slave owners compensate anybody for anything ? They are 100% innocent for anything that happened 100 years before they were even born ..... What about the African kings who first enslaved them ? And the biggest slave traders , the Muslims ? BTW , England and the US were the first to abolish slavery , and for the longest time the only ones .... Slavery still goes on in Africa today .
@@dns7655 Right. If genealogy can be proven, pay up. Inheritance comes with debt. Inability to compensate is a matter for the court systems to decide.
Interesting debate for sure. Regardless of how you feel I’ve always thought reparations was one of those issues that was never meant to be solved, but to used as a wedge issue to ignite a voter block come election time.
the date of the debate man... worlds about to change in two days n this debate takes a back seat for 20 years
I'd like to know the result of that debate!