What a ridiculous show this was. Stewart is an old racist has been trying to stay relevant by parroting the ideas of popular racists like Kendi.
Sullivan's response to what he aptly calls a struggle session defenestrates Stewart at every level, starting with Stewart lying about the premise of the show (old habits die hard for Stewart):
"His montage of “black voices” insisted that African-Americans are still granted only conditional citizenship, are still barred from owning property — “we don’t own anything!” — and ended with Sister Souljah — yes! — explaining that the thing that kills black people are not bullets, but white people. This is the same moral avatar who once said: “If black people kill black people every day, why not have a week and kill white people?” Stewart then hailed Angela Davis — a proud Communist , with a particular fondness for East Germany’s suppression of dissent — and warmly thanked her as “Angela.” But Stewart included not a single black voice of disagreement or nuance. He apparently believes that all black people hold the same view. And all white people just refuse to hear it.
Jon Stewart’s insistence that Americans had never robustly debated race before 2020 is also, well, deranged. Americans have been loudly debating it for centuries. There was something called a Civil War over it. His claim that white America has never done anything in defense of black Americans (until BLM showed up, of course) requires him to ignore more than 300,000 white men who gave their lives to defeat the slaveholding Confederacy. It requires Stewart to ignore the countless whites (often Jewish) who risked and gave their lives in the Civil Rights Movement. It requires him to erase the greatest president in American history. This glib dismissal of all white Americans throughout history, even those who risked everything to expand equality, is, when you come to think about it, obscene .
Stewart’s claim that whites never tried to ameliorate black suffering until now requires him to dismiss over $19 trillion of public funds spent in the long War on Poverty, focused especially on black Americans. That’s the equivalent of more than 140 Marshall Plans . As Samuel Kronen has shown , it requires the erasure from history of “the Food Stamp Act of 1964, the Child Nutrition Act of 1966, the Social Security Amendments of 1965, the Elementary and Secondary Education Act of 1965, the Social Security Amendments of 1962, and the Economic Opportunity Act of 1964, and on and on.” To prove his point, Stewart has to pretend LBJ never existed. That’s how utterly lost he now is.
Stewart then used crude metrics of inequality to argue, Kendi-style, without any evidence, that the only thing that can possibly explain racial inequality today in America is still “white supremacy.” Other factors — concentrated poverty , insanely high rates of crime and violence , acute family breakdown , a teen culture that equates success with whiteness , lack of affordable childcare — went either unmentioned or openly mocked as self-evident expressions of bigotry. He then equated formal legal segregation with voluntary residential segregation, as if Jim Crow were still in force. And he straw-manned the countering argument thus: white America believes that African-Americans are “ solely responsible for their community’s struggles.”
The article is much more informative than Stewarts childish ranting.
Jon Stewart called “nonsense” on Andrew Sullivan’s claim he was ambushed on The Problem with Jon Stewart last week.
In a lengthy Substack post published Friday, Sullivan said a booker reached out to him about appearing on the show to talk about race. Sullivan, who has railed against so called “woke” narratives, was skeptical:
“Why would I go on a show just to be called a racist?” “No, no, no,” she replied. “Nothing like that would happen. This is not a debate. It’s just you talking one-on-one with Jon, and he’d never do that.” I said I’d think about it — especially since they seemed desperate with just 24 hours till taping — and later I called to say sure, if it’s just Jon. “I trust him to be fair.” I hadn’t had time to read the email invites, so I trusted the booker’s word.
Sullivan alleged right before his remote appearance he learned he would appear with two other guests who were in studio with a live audience, but chose to stay and do the show. In the post, he accused Stewart of acting “unprofessionally” after the host appeared to suggest Sullivan is racist.
On Friday night, Stewart fired back and claimed Sullivan was lying.
Nonsense @sullydish . Our booker handled this last minute ask impeccably. Mr Sullivan was told, texted and emailed a detailed account of who was on the program, the content and intent of the discussion. — Jon Stewart (@jonstewart) April 2, 2022
“Nonsense,” said Stewart. “Our booker handled this last minute ask impeccably. Mr Sullivan was told, texted and emailed a detailed account of who was on the program, the content and intent of the discussion.”
In a subsequent tweet , he wrote, “She patiently handled his high maintenance shenanigans and gave him every opportunity to excuse himself. This man wasn’t ambushed. Any damage incurred was self inflicted.”
Lastly, he called Sullivan’s use of the word “woke” against critics “lazy.”
And can we stop with the lazy “woke” shitanytime someone disagrees with a conservative. Fuck man. — Jon Stewart (@jonstewart) April 2, 2022
“And can we stop with the lazy ‘woke’ shitanytime [sic] someone disagrees with a conservative. Fuck man.”
Sullivan said he's relied on the booker's word and didn't read the email. Stewart said it was in an email.
But I can see why this is the issue Stewart wants to focus on. Better than the actual debate where he embarrassed himself siding with a cartoonish race hustler like Lisa Bond.
Jon Stewart’s insistence that Americans had never robustly debated race before 2020 is also, well, deranged. Americans have been loudly debating it for centuries. There was something called a Civil War over it. His claim that white America has never done anything in defense of black Americans (until BLM showed up, of course) requires him to ignore more than 300,000 white men who gave their lives to defeat the slaveholding Confederacy. It requires Stewart to ignore the countless whites (often Jewish) who risked and gave their lives in the Civil Rights Movement. It requires him to erase the greatest president in American history. This glib dismissal of all white Americans throughout history, even those who risked everything to expand equality, is, when you come to think about it, obscene .
Sullivan absentmindedly brings up one of the biggest problems related to race. He mentions the white sacrifice of the Civil War as something Stewart ignores, and then Sullivan brings up whites (often Jewish) who risked a lot for the civil rights movement. SULLIVAN IGNORES the 100 years between the Civil War and the bulk of the Civil Rights movement. This is far from a minor oversight. Those 100 years were filled with racial segregation, racial oppression , and racist discrimination. 100 years is 41% of the entire time America has existed as an independent entity. Sullivan, at best, just glossed over it. he is the one that should be embarrassed.
. SULLIVAN IGNORES the 100 years between the Civil War and the bulk of the Civil Rights movement.
Nonsese,
You’d expect to see terrible data for black family life in the dark days of white supremacist America under Jim Crow, with only a resurgence of wealth and stability after civil rights took hold. In reality, we see the o pposite : real progress for African-Americans before the 1960s:
[B]etween 1940 and 1960, the percentage of black families with income below the poverty level was almost cut in half, from 87 percent to 47 percent. In key skilled trades, the income of blacks relative to whites more than doubled between 1936 and 1959, while black income rose absolutely and relative to white income across the board from 1939 to 1960.
This, more than anything, speaks to the incredible resilience of black Americans in the face of terrible state-sanctioned oppression. Along those lines, Coleman Hughes adds :
Black women, too, saw their incomes grow at a faster rate than white women [between 1939 and 1960]. Baradaran makes the same mistake in her description of life for blacks in the 1940s and 50s: “poverty led to institutional breakdown, which led to more poverty.” But between 1940 and 1960 the black poverty rate fell from 87 percent to 47 percent, before any significant civil rights gains were made.
Moreover, Jim Crow existed in a section of the country. You can't universalize it
Prior to the Civil Rights movement, which can fairly be described from the Brown vs Board Of Education , in 1954, onward, racial discrimination was legal and was practiced.
In key skilled trades, the income of blacks relative to whites more than doubled between 1936 and 1959, while black income rose absolutely and relative to white income across the board from 1939 to 1960.
This passage is virtually meaningless. If I have 10 dollars and then have 20 , I have doubled my money. If you have 100 dollars , and then 125, your money has only gone up 25%. Mine has gone up 200% and yours has only gone up 25%. I must be winning, right?
There has never been a time when less than half of the people in this country were racist. Thats 400 years.
I got what you said. You specifically pointed out a southern state to highlighted what you believed was racism. I pointed out the same from a far left northern state, specifically northeast.
You could have just said that you experienced it but did not have to point out the state.
S E E D E D C O N T E N T
Jon Stewart has a great show, available on Apple TV and also as a podcast.
What a ridiculous show this was. Stewart is an old racist has been trying to stay relevant by parroting the ideas of popular racists like Kendi.
Sullivan's response to what he aptly calls a struggle session defenestrates Stewart at every level, starting with Stewart lying about the premise of the show (old habits die hard for Stewart):
The article is much more informative than Stewarts childish ranting.
www.mediaite.com /tv/fck-man-jon-stewart-hits-back-at-andrew-sullivans-claim-he-was-ambushed/
‘F*ck Man’: Jon Stewart Hits Back at Andrew Sullivan’s Claim He Was ‘Ambushed’
michael-luciano 3-3 minutes 4/1/2022
======================================================
Jon Stewart called “nonsense” on Andrew Sullivan’s claim he was ambushed on The Problem with Jon Stewart last week.
In a lengthy Substack post published Friday, Sullivan said a booker reached out to him about appearing on the show to talk about race. Sullivan, who has railed against so called “woke” narratives, was skeptical:
Sullivan alleged right before his remote appearance he learned he would appear with two other guests who were in studio with a live audience, but chose to stay and do the show. In the post, he accused Stewart of acting “unprofessionally” after the host appeared to suggest Sullivan is racist.
On Friday night, Stewart fired back and claimed Sullivan was lying.
“Nonsense,” said Stewart. “Our booker handled this last minute ask impeccably. Mr Sullivan was told, texted and emailed a detailed account of who was on the program, the content and intent of the discussion.”
In a subsequent tweet , he wrote, “She patiently handled his high maintenance shenanigans and gave him every opportunity to excuse himself. This man wasn’t ambushed. Any damage incurred was self inflicted.”
Lastly, he called Sullivan’s use of the word “woke” against critics “lazy.”
“And can we stop with the lazy ‘woke’ shitanytime [sic] someone disagrees with a conservative. Fuck man.”
Have a tip we should know? tips@mediaite.com
"Our booker handled this last minute ask "
Lol...
Sullivan said he's relied on the booker's word and didn't read the email. Stewart said it was in an email.
But I can see why this is the issue Stewart wants to focus on. Better than the actual debate where he embarrassed himself siding with a cartoonish race hustler like Lisa Bond.
Sullivan absentmindedly brings up one of the biggest problems related to race. He mentions the white sacrifice of the Civil War as something Stewart ignores, and then Sullivan brings up whites (often Jewish) who risked a lot for the civil rights movement. SULLIVAN IGNORES the 100 years between the Civil War and the bulk of the Civil Rights movement. This is far from a minor oversight. Those 100 years were filled with racial segregation, racial oppression , and racist discrimination. 100 years is 41% of the entire time America has existed as an independent entity. Sullivan, at best, just glossed over it. he is the one that should be embarrassed.
Nonsese,
Moreover, Jim Crow existed in a section of the country. You can't universalize it
Prior to the Civil Rights movement, which can fairly be described from the Brown vs Board Of Education , in 1954, onward, racial discrimination was legal and was practiced.
This passage is virtually meaningless. If I have 10 dollars and then have 20 , I have doubled my money. If you have 100 dollars , and then 125, your money has only gone up 25%. Mine has gone up 200% and yours has only gone up 25%. I must be winning, right?
There has never been a time when less than half of the people in this country were racist. Thats 400 years.
Where did you find that stat?
Thats 400 years.
Well, 246 years in this country.
Exactly, in the urban North, the issue is structural racism, not Jim Crow.
Tha vast majority of the complaints and inequities proffered by 'white people' are caused by white people.
As far as racist actions or comments, I've been to Louisiana. These things do exist.
You're right.
I've been to New York and have faced racism there by some of the black population.
So has my wife, as she is Asian
What's your point
No point. The existence is the point. You get that? Or not?
I got what you said. You specifically pointed out a southern state to highlighted what you believed was racism. I pointed out the same from a far left northern state, specifically northeast.
You could have just said that you experienced it but did not have to point out the state.
That shows your bias.
Of course. That was my experience. Your experience was in New York. Does that show your bias?
Nope. I was just pointing out that you don't have to point out any particular state.
Every state in the union has their racists.
Voted you up. We agree.
Amen...me too