I am not being hyperbolic or dramatic when I write that if you do only one thing today, you should take the time to listen to, register, and share Scott Galloways words in the above video.
Scott Galloway doesn’t say a mumbling word about how racism — not just "income inequality" or more precisely, hereditary inequality — has driven American politics since the Civil Rights era, not merely since the 1980s. How does he overlook the well-documented "white backlash" against civil rights legislation that began in the mid-1960s?
The data is clear: For over two generations, Black voters have been the Democratic Party's backbone, consistently supporting Democratic presidential candidates by over 90% while championing civil and economic rights as the foundation of a true middle class. Meanwhile, white voters have increasingly aligned with the Republican Party, whose roots trace to Jim Crow resistance. The last time a majority of white Americans voted for a Democratic president was 1964 — the year the New Deal, which had largely benefited white Americans, began desegregation. Since Nixon in 1968, a majority of white voters have supported Republican presidents without interruption. Racism — not "income inequality" — has been the Republican Party's wedge issue for two generations.
I agree with you and I have my own criticisms of him, as I believe I have stated. Part of his personal 'brand' and media campaign is to promote "healthy masculinity," which still presupposes that men are physically and societally dominant and that they should choose to use that dominance as "protectors" rather than to cause harm. I don't believe that is true and part of me understands he is trying to recondition the public and especially men to use their inclinations toward domination for good but it's still a patriarchal, male-dominant worldview. He says masculinity equals strength and protection, and I say that if that were true, no one would be more masculine than mothers. As you point out, he also does not discuss racial discrimination and I would be curious to know if, as he does with his notion of masculinity, he assumes that the longstanding status quo racially and ethnically in the US should remain the dominant societal establishment. I kind of suspect he does.
I wasn’t finished and I wanted to modify my comment. That didn’t work. I agree with his analysis, apart from his closing statement, that Donald Trump was elected to solve this problem. Why would anyone possibly think that Trump could fix that problem, let alone that he would want to fix that problem? Did anyone ask Galloway about that?
I’m not sure why this hasn’t gone absolutely viral! This could not have been explained any better…this is where we are right now!
Scott Galloway doesn’t say a mumbling word about how racism — not just "income inequality" or more precisely, hereditary inequality — has driven American politics since the Civil Rights era, not merely since the 1980s. How does he overlook the well-documented "white backlash" against civil rights legislation that began in the mid-1960s?
The data is clear: For over two generations, Black voters have been the Democratic Party's backbone, consistently supporting Democratic presidential candidates by over 90% while championing civil and economic rights as the foundation of a true middle class. Meanwhile, white voters have increasingly aligned with the Republican Party, whose roots trace to Jim Crow resistance. The last time a majority of white Americans voted for a Democratic president was 1964 — the year the New Deal, which had largely benefited white Americans, began desegregation. Since Nixon in 1968, a majority of white voters have supported Republican presidents without interruption. Racism — not "income inequality" — has been the Republican Party's wedge issue for two generations.
I agree with you and I have my own criticisms of him, as I believe I have stated. Part of his personal 'brand' and media campaign is to promote "healthy masculinity," which still presupposes that men are physically and societally dominant and that they should choose to use that dominance as "protectors" rather than to cause harm. I don't believe that is true and part of me understands he is trying to recondition the public and especially men to use their inclinations toward domination for good but it's still a patriarchal, male-dominant worldview. He says masculinity equals strength and protection, and I say that if that were true, no one would be more masculine than mothers. As you point out, he also does not discuss racial discrimination and I would be curious to know if, as he does with his notion of masculinity, he assumes that the longstanding status quo racially and ethnically in the US should remain the dominant societal establishment. I kind of suspect he does.
I wasn’t finished and I wanted to modify my comment. That didn’t work. I agree with his analysis, apart from his closing statement, that Donald Trump was elected to solve this problem. Why would anyone possibly think that Trump could fix that problem, let alone that he would want to fix that problem? Did anyone ask Galloway about that?
Everything he says