Relitigation

In February 1965, two of America's most towering public intellectuals faced off at the University of Cambridge in England. They were there to debate the proposition: "The American Dream is at the expense of the American Negro."
Reimagining The James Baldwin And William F. Buckley Debate

Last week, Khalil Muhammad and David Frum reprised the debate, under the title: "The American Dream Is Still at the Expense of African Americans." I haven't watched the video yet. I'm not sure that I will, to be honest. But I do find the idea of the debate, and having it again, to be interesting. But I think that what I would want to see are two people from other groups having the same discussion.

Because I think that, for instance, a Native American and a Pakistani American could bring different perspectives to whether or not the American Dream comes at the expense of the American Negro/African Americans. And because they wouldn't be arguing it from the point of view of being a "combatant" in the White/Black conversation on race in the United States, it would have to be less about experience and more about a neutral view of the situation.

Come to think of it, I would even liked to have seen Mr. Frum argue in favor of the proposition and Dr. Muhammad argue against it. because this, too, would have been less about the direct experience of being White or Black in America, and more about understanding the "other side," as it were.

There is nothing wrong with speaking to, and about, experiences. But experiences can't really be debated. People tend to start arguing side points. When Mr. Frum noted that "when you tell people that they are powerless, that America is against them, that they are not part of the country, you don't teach action. You teach passivity," he makes a good point. But it's a point that's completely unrelated to whether or not "The American Dream Is Still at the Expense of African Americans." Likewise, Dr. Muhammad's contention that "[Frum] gives far too much credit to the American system as he explains it," doesn't get us to whether the proposition is true or not. But it's quite likely that both men were speaking from their sincere experiences. And while those experiences are always valid for the people who have them, and may be interesting for others, speaking of them in the context of what should be a factual question tends to lead to "feel-checking" (evaluating whether people are justified in feeling a certain way about things based on some factual standard), and that's not helpful in a situation like this. Having debate participants avoid arguing their own experiences makes for a more objective and more useful debate. One that I think would be interesting to see.