TaNehisi Coates and John McWhorter

On my way to get vaccinated, I listened to this old podcast from 2017. Reason: today, none of the leading antiracists (Kendi, DiAngelo) actually debate their ideas in public, whereas at least Coates would engage in debate. So I wanted to hear his POV when put to the fire by McWhorter. One area of the podcast was particularly striking - their discussion about Obama prevailing over Hillary. Coates had called out Geraldine Ferraro for racist signaling when she reasoned that Obama was getting the nomination because he was black. McWhorter was defending her position for at least being somewhat true - voters liked Obama's blackness over Hillary and Coates was arguing: why single out his blackness over all the other components of his candidacy - Ivy League credentials, prior elected offices, his opposition to the war, etc. 

Basically, I was in almost complete agreement with Coates -- although for a slightly different reason -- I always thought Obama benefitted greatly from Hillary being an uncharismatic candidate. I would've argued that Obama's charisma helped him more than his blackness -- but that most of all it was Hillary's LACK OF charisma that really tipped the scales. History, I believe, has borne this out, that when it comes to casting a ballot - voters never wanted to press the Hillary button. Now, you might have an argument it is partially due to her sex, but Coates would say such reasoning is overly reductive. And he's RIGHT!

Except, of course, when it comes to police shootings. And this is the funny thing. Coates is very cautious and nuanced when discussing blackness as a possible positive factor in the case of Obama. But when it comes to blackness being a possible negative factor - as in the case of police shootings - he and the BLM cult want to reduce it all down to one metric: cop was white, victim was black. It never has anything to do with any other myriad of factors. 

I'd be interested to hear how he squares those ideas.