Ep. 129 Identity Politics Is Hurting Young People–Of All Colors
Pointing to a recent Twitter thread from a progressive detailing his white male cisness, Bob shows how narrow the focus is on only particular “privileges” and not others. More generally, the effort to demonize white men is causing young people great harm, whether white or otherwise. The movement is based on power politics and relies on economic ignorance.
Mentioned in the Episode and Other Links of Interest:
- Nathan Tankus’ twitter thread on his privileges.
- News story on US national women’s soccer team losing to U15 boys.
- Bob Murphy Show episodes covering the economics of slavery: 71 with Mark Thornton and 81 with Jeffrey Rogers Hummel.
- Walter Block’s paper on reparations for slavery.
- Help support the Bob Murphy Show.
The audio production for this episode was provided by Podsworth Media.
About the author, Robert
Christian and economist, Chief Economist at infineo, and Senior Fellow with the Mises Institute.
A gentlemanly and collegial tone. Great show, Bob.
Murphy cancelled in 3, 2, 1..
Good episode.
I am always amused by the claim that only blacks are allowed to be racist because they have no power. Leaving aside the rhetorical absurdity of that claim, just looking at the empirical data is sufficiently devastating. The political realm is the ultimate bastion of power in society, and we have had a black US president, black cabinet members, black generals in the US military, black congressmen (heck, there’s even a “Congressional Black Caucus”), black governors, and many mayors and police chiefs of major cities are black. Beyond politics, there are and have been black CEOs and founders of businesses, small and large, and blacks compose many of the most sought after players in professional sports. I could go on.
The bottom line is, the Progressives who spout this assertion need to come up with another justification.
Good episode – informative, enlightening, but also somewhat disturbing.
I must confess that I smiled when Bob mentioned watching a movie about Apartheid – because I thought of this: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=9LX4LigFtPk.
You can only call it Apartheid if the group that operates it is not politically favored.
Dr Murphy says that both whites and blacks suffered during slavery because it was an inefficient system so no reparations are in order. But couldn’t the counter argument be that blacks suffered more? Whites lost ten, blacks lost 30, hence blacks are due twenty in reparations? Maybe even thirty because it wasn’t their fault. Maybe even sixty because of two teeth for a tooth (Rothbard).
I think the real argument against reparations is “I, Jan Masek, didn’t do it. Even if you prove my literal ancestors did, I am not responsible for the sins of my forefathers. If my father killed someone, I am not on the hook. Why should I be if my great grandfather enslaved someone?”
Jan I think you’re misunderstanding the way the argument goes. Yes, the *first* thing a lot of white people would say is, “We weren’t responsible for slavery, so how in the world do we owe reparations?”
But then in response to that, the proponents of reparations often argue, “You have inherited the extra wealth that slavery generated off of the exploitation of slaves. So out of those spoils you need to give back to the descendants of the people who were robbed.”
So to respond to *that* argument, it is definitely important to point out that slavery made the typical non-slave-owning white person poorer too.