Monday, September 27, 2021
Saturday, September 25, 2021
Sex is not a game nor an identity - it's a facet of relationship
The current foisting of sexual identity onto childhood is, to me, highly costly to personal development. Childhood should be, and has been in the past, a time to acquaint oneself with the world and develop one's relationship with it. It is not a time to determine "what you want to be when you grow up" or which sexual identity you choose.
Those who propose that focusing on LGBTQ+ will eliminate bullying have no foundational awareness of childhood - and in our day-and-age childhood extends through the teenage years.
Remember that humans enter the world as strangers to EVERYTHING and work incessantly at taking it in and sorting it out. We are born with an inate desire to make sense of things. An infant will drop his/her spoon repeatedly to determine if the same action produces the same result - over and over again.
As kids enter the larger community at school, their inate sense of order categorizes same vs. different. This is not inherently offensive - it's natural. A child overwhelmed with anxiety about their place in the world will be inclined to turn this awareness into proof that he/she is better than "the other."
To add another layer of identity is just plain cruel and highly premature. Relating to other humans is the task at hand - as humans, not as sex objects.
Sexual identity in childhood is false. Just as would be asking one who has never driven a car which they prefer to drive.
I have witnessed first hand the anxiety of a 3-yr-old (my granddaughter) when asked at preschool what she wanted to be when she grew up. A 3-yr-old has no concept of profession - has witnessed grocery-store clerks, nurses, parents, teachers - not much else. After the day at preschool when I picked up this granddaughter, she could not relinquish her agony over not knowing what to be. Finally, she tearfully explained: "But, Grandma. I want to be a Unicorn, and that's not a job...."
If we focus childhood on identifying which sexual acts they choose to identify with - we are leading them into a world of anxiety and away from the fundamental attention needed to acquire all the mental and emotional skills they need to navigate this world for a lifetime.
And life is far more than sex. Focusing on sex too early inadvertently proposes it as an END not a MEANS. Sexual relationships are (can be/should be) expressions of intimacy - not political statements, sports, acts of agression and dominance or self-assertion.
Those who propose that focusing on LGBTQ+ will eliminate bullying have no foundational awareness of childhood - and in our day-and-age childhood extends through the teenage years.
Remember that humans enter the world as strangers to EVERYTHING and work incessantly at taking it in and sorting it out. We are born with an inate desire to make sense of things. An infant will drop his/her spoon repeatedly to determine if the same action produces the same result - over and over again.
As kids enter the larger community at school, their inate sense of order categorizes same vs. different. This is not inherently offensive - it's natural. A child overwhelmed with anxiety about their place in the world will be inclined to turn this awareness into proof that he/she is better than "the other."
To add another layer of identity is just plain cruel and highly premature. Relating to other humans is the task at hand - as humans, not as sex objects.
Sexual identity in childhood is false. Just as would be asking one who has never driven a car which they prefer to drive.
I have witnessed first hand the anxiety of a 3-yr-old (my granddaughter) when asked at preschool what she wanted to be when she grew up. A 3-yr-old has no concept of profession - has witnessed grocery-store clerks, nurses, parents, teachers - not much else. After the day at preschool when I picked up this granddaughter, she could not relinquish her agony over not knowing what to be. Finally, she tearfully explained: "But, Grandma. I want to be a Unicorn, and that's not a job...."
If we focus childhood on identifying which sexual acts they choose to identify with - we are leading them into a world of anxiety and away from the fundamental attention needed to acquire all the mental and emotional skills they need to navigate this world for a lifetime.
And life is far more than sex. Focusing on sex too early inadvertently proposes it as an END not a MEANS. Sexual relationships are (can be/should be) expressions of intimacy - not political statements, sports, acts of agression and dominance or self-assertion.
Friday, September 24, 2021
Full-Day Kindergarten Takes Away from Child Development in favor of Economic Development
I've had the privilege of observing our granddaughter process this world she was born into since she was 1-yr-old. Sometimes watching her for a full day - other times filling in at the end of a day. Without the obligations of parenting, I've been more able to observe and enjoy. Here's what I've noticed.
Everything to a child is new - their brains are constantly in intake mode (much more so than ours, hence they notice things we don't and take in more than we might wish).
All that intake requires digestion. This is most naturally done through self-directed play. Play that may not seem purposeful to us, is necessary to the young brain trying to process an enormity of new experience.
We impede this process when we attempt to make "sense" of their play - rather than observe, facilitate and respond.
It's uncomfortable ground for most adults -- rather like being injected into someone else's dream. The temptation is to structure the child's activities so they make sense to us and produce a visible result validating our inputs.
Sending 4-yr-olds to an all-day kindergarten gives them more time for input resulting in less time to emotionally/intellectually process that input through self-directed play.
In a classroom there are inputs of multiple personalities as well as whatever is the curriculum. Time to processs all this is foisted onto time available for home life which has its own agendas - supper, music practice, sports, story-time, perhaps even conversation... Meaningful interaction with the child's own family in their safe place (home) pays the price of additional time in school.
Who benefits? Not the child but the economy - as mostly it provides childcare so parents can work.
An elementary principal and district curriculum coordinator once told me, a school board member, in a public meeting that the main difference in Society if public education did not exist would be that "children would be running lose in the streets." -- self-admission that the primary function of public school is to control kids while parents work.
When we add a "benefit" we truly need to assess its cost. All-day kindergarten for 4- and 5-year olds bears a heavy cost, not of finances, but of human development.
Everything to a child is new - their brains are constantly in intake mode (much more so than ours, hence they notice things we don't and take in more than we might wish).
All that intake requires digestion. This is most naturally done through self-directed play. Play that may not seem purposeful to us, is necessary to the young brain trying to process an enormity of new experience.
We impede this process when we attempt to make "sense" of their play - rather than observe, facilitate and respond.
It's uncomfortable ground for most adults -- rather like being injected into someone else's dream. The temptation is to structure the child's activities so they make sense to us and produce a visible result validating our inputs.
Sending 4-yr-olds to an all-day kindergarten gives them more time for input resulting in less time to emotionally/intellectually process that input through self-directed play.
In a classroom there are inputs of multiple personalities as well as whatever is the curriculum. Time to processs all this is foisted onto time available for home life which has its own agendas - supper, music practice, sports, story-time, perhaps even conversation... Meaningful interaction with the child's own family in their safe place (home) pays the price of additional time in school.
Who benefits? Not the child but the economy - as mostly it provides childcare so parents can work.
An elementary principal and district curriculum coordinator once told me, a school board member, in a public meeting that the main difference in Society if public education did not exist would be that "children would be running lose in the streets." -- self-admission that the primary function of public school is to control kids while parents work.
When we add a "benefit" we truly need to assess its cost. All-day kindergarten for 4- and 5-year olds bears a heavy cost, not of finances, but of human development.
Thursday, September 23, 2021
Angry letter to Kamala Harris
Kamala,
You are said to be in charge of problems at the border. Your responses are inadequate and inhumane. Transporting illegals to the dangerous conditions in Haiti without their consent is racist, narcissistic, and horrendously cruel. As Daniel Foote stated in his resignation letter:
"I will not be associated with the United States’ inhumane, counterproductive decision to deport thousands of Haitian refugees and illegal immigrants to Haiti, a country where American officials are confined to secure compounds because of the danger posed by armed gangs in control of daily life,”
To pretend to have compassion is outrageous in the face of these policies and actions.
The DNC really must think all Americans are intellectually deficient to fall for this administration's pretenses.
You are said to be in charge of problems at the border. Your responses are inadequate and inhumane. Transporting illegals to the dangerous conditions in Haiti without their consent is racist, narcissistic, and horrendously cruel. As Daniel Foote stated in his resignation letter:
"I will not be associated with the United States’ inhumane, counterproductive decision to deport thousands of Haitian refugees and illegal immigrants to Haiti, a country where American officials are confined to secure compounds because of the danger posed by armed gangs in control of daily life,”
To pretend to have compassion is outrageous in the face of these policies and actions.
The DNC really must think all Americans are intellectually deficient to fall for this administration's pretenses.
Tuesday, September 21, 2021
Momma - don't let your babies grow up to be college students...
The growing divides in our country, which Chris Hedges foresees as a very
present danger, ala Yugoslavia's experience - are seen by John McWhorter to be
exascerbated by the higher-ed divide.
Here's his salient opinion piece from the NY Times Sept 17, 2021: OPINION JOHN MCWHORTER
The University of Wisconsin Smears a Once-Treasured Alum Sept. 17, 2021 John McWhorter By John McWhorter Opinion Writer What is it about the University of Wisconsin and race? The administration’s recent decision to move a rock from view because a journalist referred to it with the N-word almost 100 years ago was goofy enough. But there has been more at the school in this vein.
This week a group including alumni, faith leaders, actors, and the N.A.A.C.P. wrote to University of Wisconsin officials asking them to repeal the tarring and feathering of an alumnus of the school, the renowned actor Fredric March. The letter, which was also sent to the Wisconsin governor, Tony Evers, and shared with me, decried the decisions to strip March’s name from theaters on the Madison and Oshkosh campuses, which the writers blamed on “social-media rumor and grievously fact-free, mistaken conclusions” about March.
March has been done a resounding wrong. I have no animus against the University of Wisconsin, but what we are seeing in these two sad episodes — the removal of the rock and the defenestration of March — is how antiracist “reckoning” can, if done without proper caution, detour into mere posturing, even at the cost of justice itself.
Fredric March is not the most famous of names among long-ago movie stars. But he attended the University of Wisconsin more than 100 years ago and went on to become as central in the old Hollywood firmament as Tom Hanks is today.
If you’re a fan of movie classics, you’ll most likely recognize him from his Academy Award-winning performance in “Dr. Jekyll and Mr. Hyde” in 1931; in the original “A Star is Born” in 1937; as a middle-aged veteran in “The Best Years of Our Lives” in 1946, which earned him another Oscar; and as Willy Loman in the 1951 version of Arthur Miller’s “Death of a Salesman.” Onstage he originated the role of James Tyrone on Broadway in Eugene O’Neill’s “Long Day’s Journey Into Night,” winning a Tony Award.
But no matter. Some wise people at the University of Wisconsin have decided that what we should know about Fredric March is that he belonged to a campus organization called the Ku Klux Klan as a lad. Except there is no evidence that his group was affiliated with the similarly named, but separate and notorious,K.K.K. March wasn’t some white-hooded Klansman. Attention must be paid.
March’s alma mater once treasured him as a favorite son. They put his name on buildings. But in 2018, they took his name off the Fredric March Play Circle Theater on the Madison campus, and then last year the Oshkosh campus decided to take his name off a theater building as well.
The movement that sparked this Scarletization of March was led by students. Typical rhetoric was statements like this from one Madison student: “I cannot believe that my friends and I have been performing in a space named after someone who would have considered all of us to be lesser beings.” She added, “I find it so ironic that we are sharing our intersectional stories in a theater that honors a racist.”
Despite the conclusion of a report — commissioned by Madison’s chancellor — that there was no evidence linking the Ku Klux Klan organization March belonged to with its more widely known namesake, the student-driven campaign resulted in the removal of the actor’s name from that theater building. Throughout, there was apparently little or no investigation of what the man actually stood for.
But March was, to use our current term of art, a lifelong ally of Black people par excellence.
As the journalist George Gonis, who helped to write the recent letter in support of March, has uncovered in his research on the actor, March gave orations as a high schooler on what we would today call antiracism. In 1939, when the Daughters of the American Revolution barred Black contralto Marian Anderson from singing at Constitution Hall, he was not only one of the signatories on the famous protest letter, but attended Anderson’s protest concert on the steps of the Lincoln Memorial, despite it meaning taking that night off from the Broadway play he was in. When Martin Luther King Jr. and Harry Belafonte were strategizing in the latter’s apartment in New York about civil rights efforts in Birmingham in 1963, March was there, too (King wrote a certain letter from jail soon thereafter). The next year, March was one of the white people who spoke on a national broadcast the NAACP sponsored in 1964 celebrating the 10th anniversary of Brown v. Board of Education.
This is a Klansman???
Hardly. It just happened that in 1919 into 1920 March briefly belonged to an organization that happened to also be called Ku Klux Klan.
Yes, I know — but wait. It was a student interfraternity organization. The Ku Klux Klan of revolting memory had emerged at first amid Reconstruction and then flamed out. The 20th-century Klan emerged gradually in the wake of the racist film “The Birth of a Nation” in 1915 and became a national phenomenon starting in 1921. In Wisconsin in 1919, when March was inducted into his group, it was possible to have never heard of the Ku Klux Klan that was later so notorious.
We can’t know whether this group modeled this name after the Ku Klux Klan organization depicted in “The Birth of a Nation.” But what we do know is that there is no evidence that their mission had anything to do with racism, and that when the “real” Klan made its way to campus in 1922, the organization March had joined (but left in 1920) immediately dissociated itself from that group and changed its name.
The name of the campus’s Ku Klux Klan seems to have been an accident. Clumsy, probably. The boys may not have thought of the “real” Klan as significant enough players in 1919 to merit avoiding the same name, and just liked the sound of it because of the sequential k’s and such. There is no record of this organization doing or supporting anything racist — and let’s recall that in this era, racism was thought of as so acceptable in conventional expression that one could in a newspaper casually refer to a big rock with a racist epithet for Black people.
Some antiracist activists may see this as nit-picking. They may argue that these young people must have known there was a racist Ku Klux Klan and didn’t care enough to change the organization’s name, and that this evidences a kind of racism in itself.
These are reasonable points. But against them, to seek a fair-minded assessment rather than a Star Chamber, we must note that in addition to what I wrote above, March’s life also included battling McCarthyite red-baiting (to which he was subjected) and antisemitism. His wife, the actress Florence Eldridge, was a lifelong prominent progressive. He was friends his whole adult life with the philosopher Max Otto, a member of the Unitarian Universalist faith, which has been famously aligned with the civil rights movement.
Even Madison’s chancellor, Rebecca Blank, has written that March had “fought the persecution of Hollywood artists, many of them Jewish, in the 1950s by the House Un-American Activities Committee” and that March “took actions later in life to suggest (he) opposed discrimination.” Oshkosh’s chancellor, Andrew Leavitt, acknowledged this history too, and said “there is no evidence to show that the UW-Madison group March belonged to was linked to the national movement of the Ku Klux Klan in its time.” But Leavitt said people on campus felt “shock and pain” over learning about March’s involvement in the similarly named group, and said: “I no longer possess — and this institution should reject — the privilege of nuancing explanations as to how a person even tangentially affiliated with an organization founded on hate has his name honorifically posted on a public building.”
Could March have possibly been a progressive but a racist one? Then how about the fact that Canada Lee, a Black activist actor, considered him an ally? Or that after the Daughters of the American Revolution episode, March often socialized with Marian Anderson? Or that now, people appalled at March’s treatment and writing in support include Black figures such as King comrade Dr. Clarence B. Jones, Langston Hughes’s biographer Arnold Rampersad, and actors Louis Gossett Jr. and Glynn Turman? Not to mention, white though he was, lifelong leftist activist Ed Asner just before his death?
To take the measure of the man, rather than engage in 21st-century American virtue signaling, makes the case for Fredric March as a racist rather hopeless.
Yet some may take in all of the above and still feel that March has been treated fairly, thinking apparently March went from antiracist teen orator to a spell as a Klansman collegiate bigot to a life marked by antiracist activism. Our interest is less in engaging how plausible that is than in filleting March to show that we know that racism is bad. We must do so by fashioning a fantastically know-nothing interpretation of a mere nine months of the man’s life and walk on proud of our antiracist spirits.
But I take the liberty of assuming that those who truly feel this way constitute a set-jawed huddle of people studiously impervious to explanation in favor of a battle pose. I must take one more liberty and venture: That is not the way most of us think, including those of us quite agonized over how to turn a corner on race in America. This witch-burning mentality is something most of us less concur with than fear. These “Crucible” characters (Arthur Miller helps us again) get their way by threatening to shame us the way they are shaming the latest transgressor.
The students who got March’s name taken off those buildings made a mistake, as did the administrators who again caved to weakly justified demands, seemingly too scared of being called racists to take a deep breath and engage in reason.
The University of Wisconsin must apologize to March and his survivors. His name should be restored to both of the theaters now denuded of his name, including the Madison building, which he in fact helped bring into being and for which he funded the lighting equipment even before the building was named after him.
This must happen in the name of what all involved in this mistake are committed to: social justice — which motivated March throughout his life.
Have feedback? Send a note to McWhorter-newsletter@nytimes.com. John McWhorte
r (@JohnHMcWhorter) is an associate professor of linguistics at Columbia University. He is the author of “Nine Nasty Words: English in the Gutter: Then, Now, and Forever” and, most recently, “Woke Racism,” forthcoming in October.
Here's his salient opinion piece from the NY Times Sept 17, 2021: OPINION JOHN MCWHORTER
The University of Wisconsin Smears a Once-Treasured Alum Sept. 17, 2021 John McWhorter By John McWhorter Opinion Writer What is it about the University of Wisconsin and race? The administration’s recent decision to move a rock from view because a journalist referred to it with the N-word almost 100 years ago was goofy enough. But there has been more at the school in this vein.
This week a group including alumni, faith leaders, actors, and the N.A.A.C.P. wrote to University of Wisconsin officials asking them to repeal the tarring and feathering of an alumnus of the school, the renowned actor Fredric March. The letter, which was also sent to the Wisconsin governor, Tony Evers, and shared with me, decried the decisions to strip March’s name from theaters on the Madison and Oshkosh campuses, which the writers blamed on “social-media rumor and grievously fact-free, mistaken conclusions” about March.
March has been done a resounding wrong. I have no animus against the University of Wisconsin, but what we are seeing in these two sad episodes — the removal of the rock and the defenestration of March — is how antiracist “reckoning” can, if done without proper caution, detour into mere posturing, even at the cost of justice itself.
Fredric March is not the most famous of names among long-ago movie stars. But he attended the University of Wisconsin more than 100 years ago and went on to become as central in the old Hollywood firmament as Tom Hanks is today.
If you’re a fan of movie classics, you’ll most likely recognize him from his Academy Award-winning performance in “Dr. Jekyll and Mr. Hyde” in 1931; in the original “A Star is Born” in 1937; as a middle-aged veteran in “The Best Years of Our Lives” in 1946, which earned him another Oscar; and as Willy Loman in the 1951 version of Arthur Miller’s “Death of a Salesman.” Onstage he originated the role of James Tyrone on Broadway in Eugene O’Neill’s “Long Day’s Journey Into Night,” winning a Tony Award.
But no matter. Some wise people at the University of Wisconsin have decided that what we should know about Fredric March is that he belonged to a campus organization called the Ku Klux Klan as a lad. Except there is no evidence that his group was affiliated with the similarly named, but separate and notorious,K.K.K. March wasn’t some white-hooded Klansman. Attention must be paid.
March’s alma mater once treasured him as a favorite son. They put his name on buildings. But in 2018, they took his name off the Fredric March Play Circle Theater on the Madison campus, and then last year the Oshkosh campus decided to take his name off a theater building as well.
The movement that sparked this Scarletization of March was led by students. Typical rhetoric was statements like this from one Madison student: “I cannot believe that my friends and I have been performing in a space named after someone who would have considered all of us to be lesser beings.” She added, “I find it so ironic that we are sharing our intersectional stories in a theater that honors a racist.”
Despite the conclusion of a report — commissioned by Madison’s chancellor — that there was no evidence linking the Ku Klux Klan organization March belonged to with its more widely known namesake, the student-driven campaign resulted in the removal of the actor’s name from that theater building. Throughout, there was apparently little or no investigation of what the man actually stood for.
But March was, to use our current term of art, a lifelong ally of Black people par excellence.
As the journalist George Gonis, who helped to write the recent letter in support of March, has uncovered in his research on the actor, March gave orations as a high schooler on what we would today call antiracism. In 1939, when the Daughters of the American Revolution barred Black contralto Marian Anderson from singing at Constitution Hall, he was not only one of the signatories on the famous protest letter, but attended Anderson’s protest concert on the steps of the Lincoln Memorial, despite it meaning taking that night off from the Broadway play he was in. When Martin Luther King Jr. and Harry Belafonte were strategizing in the latter’s apartment in New York about civil rights efforts in Birmingham in 1963, March was there, too (King wrote a certain letter from jail soon thereafter). The next year, March was one of the white people who spoke on a national broadcast the NAACP sponsored in 1964 celebrating the 10th anniversary of Brown v. Board of Education.
This is a Klansman???
Hardly. It just happened that in 1919 into 1920 March briefly belonged to an organization that happened to also be called Ku Klux Klan.
Yes, I know — but wait. It was a student interfraternity organization. The Ku Klux Klan of revolting memory had emerged at first amid Reconstruction and then flamed out. The 20th-century Klan emerged gradually in the wake of the racist film “The Birth of a Nation” in 1915 and became a national phenomenon starting in 1921. In Wisconsin in 1919, when March was inducted into his group, it was possible to have never heard of the Ku Klux Klan that was later so notorious.
We can’t know whether this group modeled this name after the Ku Klux Klan organization depicted in “The Birth of a Nation.” But what we do know is that there is no evidence that their mission had anything to do with racism, and that when the “real” Klan made its way to campus in 1922, the organization March had joined (but left in 1920) immediately dissociated itself from that group and changed its name.
The name of the campus’s Ku Klux Klan seems to have been an accident. Clumsy, probably. The boys may not have thought of the “real” Klan as significant enough players in 1919 to merit avoiding the same name, and just liked the sound of it because of the sequential k’s and such. There is no record of this organization doing or supporting anything racist — and let’s recall that in this era, racism was thought of as so acceptable in conventional expression that one could in a newspaper casually refer to a big rock with a racist epithet for Black people.
Some antiracist activists may see this as nit-picking. They may argue that these young people must have known there was a racist Ku Klux Klan and didn’t care enough to change the organization’s name, and that this evidences a kind of racism in itself.
These are reasonable points. But against them, to seek a fair-minded assessment rather than a Star Chamber, we must note that in addition to what I wrote above, March’s life also included battling McCarthyite red-baiting (to which he was subjected) and antisemitism. His wife, the actress Florence Eldridge, was a lifelong prominent progressive. He was friends his whole adult life with the philosopher Max Otto, a member of the Unitarian Universalist faith, which has been famously aligned with the civil rights movement.
Even Madison’s chancellor, Rebecca Blank, has written that March had “fought the persecution of Hollywood artists, many of them Jewish, in the 1950s by the House Un-American Activities Committee” and that March “took actions later in life to suggest (he) opposed discrimination.” Oshkosh’s chancellor, Andrew Leavitt, acknowledged this history too, and said “there is no evidence to show that the UW-Madison group March belonged to was linked to the national movement of the Ku Klux Klan in its time.” But Leavitt said people on campus felt “shock and pain” over learning about March’s involvement in the similarly named group, and said: “I no longer possess — and this institution should reject — the privilege of nuancing explanations as to how a person even tangentially affiliated with an organization founded on hate has his name honorifically posted on a public building.”
Could March have possibly been a progressive but a racist one? Then how about the fact that Canada Lee, a Black activist actor, considered him an ally? Or that after the Daughters of the American Revolution episode, March often socialized with Marian Anderson? Or that now, people appalled at March’s treatment and writing in support include Black figures such as King comrade Dr. Clarence B. Jones, Langston Hughes’s biographer Arnold Rampersad, and actors Louis Gossett Jr. and Glynn Turman? Not to mention, white though he was, lifelong leftist activist Ed Asner just before his death?
To take the measure of the man, rather than engage in 21st-century American virtue signaling, makes the case for Fredric March as a racist rather hopeless.
Yet some may take in all of the above and still feel that March has been treated fairly, thinking apparently March went from antiracist teen orator to a spell as a Klansman collegiate bigot to a life marked by antiracist activism. Our interest is less in engaging how plausible that is than in filleting March to show that we know that racism is bad. We must do so by fashioning a fantastically know-nothing interpretation of a mere nine months of the man’s life and walk on proud of our antiracist spirits.
But I take the liberty of assuming that those who truly feel this way constitute a set-jawed huddle of people studiously impervious to explanation in favor of a battle pose. I must take one more liberty and venture: That is not the way most of us think, including those of us quite agonized over how to turn a corner on race in America. This witch-burning mentality is something most of us less concur with than fear. These “Crucible” characters (Arthur Miller helps us again) get their way by threatening to shame us the way they are shaming the latest transgressor.
The students who got March’s name taken off those buildings made a mistake, as did the administrators who again caved to weakly justified demands, seemingly too scared of being called racists to take a deep breath and engage in reason.
The University of Wisconsin must apologize to March and his survivors. His name should be restored to both of the theaters now denuded of his name, including the Madison building, which he in fact helped bring into being and for which he funded the lighting equipment even before the building was named after him.
This must happen in the name of what all involved in this mistake are committed to: social justice — which motivated March throughout his life.
Have feedback? Send a note to McWhorter-newsletter@nytimes.com. John McWhorte
r (@JohnHMcWhorter) is an associate professor of linguistics at Columbia University. He is the author of “Nine Nasty Words: English in the Gutter: Then, Now, and Forever” and, most recently, “Woke Racism,” forthcoming in October.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
