Levka<p><a href="https://kolektiva.social/tags/SocialJustice" class="mention hashtag" rel="nofollow noopener" target="_blank">#<span>SocialJustice</span></a> <a href="https://kolektiva.social/tags/intellectuals" class="mention hashtag" rel="nofollow noopener" target="_blank">#<span>intellectuals</span></a> <a href="https://kolektiva.social/tags/history" class="mention hashtag" rel="nofollow noopener" target="_blank">#<span>history</span></a> <a href="https://kolektiva.social/tags/JamesBaldwin" class="mention hashtag" rel="nofollow noopener" target="_blank">#<span>JamesBaldwin</span></a></p><p>"Five years after George Floyd, many liberals blame 'wokeness' for stifling open debate. So why can’t they handle being disagreed with? </p><p>On February 18, 1965, students at Cambridge University assembled for a debate between James Baldwin and William F. Buckley Jr. on the topic of racism in America. Before a rapt audience, Baldwin spoke of not only the stolen labor of slaves that had enriched the Southern economy but also the daily humiliations of being Black — 'the policeman, the taxi drivers, the waiters, the landlady, the landlord, the banks, the insurance companies, the millions of details 24 hours of every day which spell out to you that you are a worthless human being.' </p><p>Buckley, in his famous mid-Atlantic sneer, responded that the economic condition of Black Americans had risen so greatly since slavery that they had, essentially, nothing to complain about. Of course, Buckley was lying through his teeth: Almost half of all Black Americans were living in poverty. His real disagreement with Baldwin lay at the social level. The odious behavior of a few individual whites was regrettable, but it was no great obstacle. The real problem was that Black people lacked the kind of serious moral and intellectual 'energy' necessary to produce a professional elite. Instead, the civil-rights movement had encouraged a self-defeating posture of victimhood among Black people that young white liberals were all too eager to affirm. Thanks to the 'generosity' of white Americans, Black people had already attained economic justice, Buckley suggested. The last thing they needed was social justice too.</p><p>(. . .)</p><p>Another way to put this is that all social movements are also intellectual movements: They both contribute to and rely on the ideological groundwater of society. Williams would have us believe that someone who smashes a storefront window in Minneapolis or pitches a tent in Morningside Heights is engaged in the opposite of thinking. But the panicking ruling class wasn’t just interested in flattening the encampments or quelling the looters; it wanted to crush the ideas that these things represented. This is what Baldwin was getting at when he spoke of the 'spiritual state' of America. 'The political institutions of any nation,' he wrote in *The Fire Next Time*, 'are always menaced and controlled by the spiritual state of that nation.' What he meant, I think, was that every time a person contests or defends a political situation, they are also contesting or defending the intellectual terms on which that contest is conducted. You cannot fight without fighting about how you fight. That is why Williams cares so desperately about what the summer of 2020 made us think, even if the protests manifestly failed to achieve their objective goals; it is also why liberal institutions were so eager to snatch up these ideas and exhaust their potential before tossing us back the husks. What Mamdani’s win suggests, however, is that they did not get them all."</p><p><a href="https://archive.ph/JcgcM#selection-2581.0-2597.692" rel="nofollow noopener" translate="no" target="_blank"><span class="invisible">https://</span><span class="ellipsis">archive.ph/JcgcM#selection-258</span><span class="invisible">1.0-2597.692</span></a></p>