Aeon Video
3 HN recommenders · recommended in 5 months, 2020–2023
58:43 · 841K views · Aug 13, 2019
The 1965 Cambridge Union debate between James Baldwin and William F. Buckley on race, justice and history in America. Baldwin argues that the American dream came at the expense of Black Americans.
Held up as a classic debate with a clear winner and Baldwin's powerful oratory, still relevant today.
5 comments from Hacker News
Baldwin could see things that ordinary commentators couldn't because he saw the world through other people's eyes, and felt the machinery of their thoughts. In this 1965 appearance at Cambridge University, he mesmerises the audience by telling them what it's like to grow up black in America not even knowing you're black, until one day, as a young child, you catch yourself in the mirror and realise you aren't the person your culture is built for. You actually don't exist, because there is no space in your culture's stories for you. What brings the predominantly white male audience at Cambridge Union to their feet for a standing ovation, beyond Baldwin's faultless elocution, is his mastery of white American experience. He speaks about racism from inside out, considering that what has happened to white Americans who have succumbed to the disease of racism is worse than what has happened to black Americans who suffer it. this video
I'd also recommend watching Baldwin's debate with William F Buckley. It's fascinating to see his clarity of thought, and how much it still ties to arguments of today. Different words, different terms, and more euphemisms now but same arguments of thought. The topic of the debate is "Has the American dream been achieved at the expense of the American negro?" this video Or even just watch the first 10 mins in from the youtube link point. The first 5+ mins slowing build to his point. Just watching their debate styles is fascinating.
As a sort of counterpoint, I think it might be worth it to watch a classic of the 'free debate' genre, Buckley vs Baldwin[1], that happened in the sixties in Cambridge. It pitted a black civil rights activist against the young Buckley, later a stalwart of American conservatism. I don't know if it's my bias speaking, but I felt that in the debate, Buckley comes across as a bully, with very little argumentative meat, who doesn't really respond to Baldwin's points. For what its worth, I didn't really like Baldwin's delivery either, but at least I felt there were substantive points there that were worth addressing. In a way, this is probably the best one can hope for when you stage this kind of event - Buckley is, at least, well educated, but I can't help but think the debate might have been far more interesting if it was Baldwin vs Malcolm X - because ultimately the problem with the Buckleys of the world is that they defend institutions that were not built on ideals, but rather economics, and as such the defenses themselves are generally sophistic and without anything really interesting in them. If I was a student, I would probably agitate to exclude a Buckley, and instead reach for a Malcolm, and I expect somebody would accuse me of being anti-free-speech, since the debate that would result would no longer span a societal divide, and both parties in the debate would be on 'one side' of the broader social issue. However, from an intellectual standpoint, it just sometimes is the
The point is that vocal fry, even when it is an affectation and not just your normal speech, used to be seen as a marker of eloquence and high class. British actors, male ones, used vocal fry extensively. Sean Connery's James Bond uses it in the famous "Bond. James Bond" introduction [0], for just one example. Or listen to William F Buckley, an American high class conservative (buffoon that presented as an intellectual) using it to sound prim and proper [1]. It is an objective fact that hating vocal fry is just a fad, and that loving it has been a fad for at least as long. You are free to dislike it, but you can't pretend it should be hated on objective grounds, and it definitely doesn't convey boredom or low effort. [0] [LINK] [1] this video - in a debate where Buckley's arguing the "dignified" position that black people shouldn't receive more rights
Debates can also be structured enough that if the debaters follow the rules it becomes possible to see clear winners, or at least surface important ideas for people to chew on. The James Baldwin / William Buckley debate is a good example[1]. Somehow though I don't think you'd get that kind of structure in a Joe Rogan podcast. [1] this video