Episode Transcript
[00:00:14] Speaker A: Hello, welcome to the Call Like I See it podcast.
I'm James Keys, and in this episode of Call Like I See it, we're going to discuss some recent criticism from Richard Dreyfus about the four new diversity requirements or diversity and inclusion. Inclusion requirements that are going to be instituted in the upcoming 2024 Academy Awards. And consider whether this is an example of good intentions gone bad with these requirements or if this is just another example of old man yells at clouds. And later on, we're going to discuss a recent piece from Derek Thompson in the Atlantic on workism. And that's work w o r K ism, not wokeism.
And we'll talk about how many highly educated and highly educated people and high achievers who adhere to this workism kind of ethic. For them, it's in many ways become a replacement for things like fulfillment and meaning that used to come from things like religion. So it's an interesting kind of topic.
Joining me today is a man who is known to work hard and play hard. Tunde. Ogonlana Tunde. Are you ready to show the people how you bring everything but the beat?
[00:01:32] Speaker B: I thought the beat is all that matters. How can I not bring it? How you gonna put me in that category, bro?
The audience thinking I'm some kind of loser.
So, no, I can't agree with this one.
[00:01:43] Speaker A: Yeah, you can't. You don't agree with this.
[00:01:45] Speaker B: All right.
[00:01:45] Speaker A: Mischaracterization.
[00:01:47] Speaker B: Yes.
[00:01:49] Speaker A: All right. All right. Now we're recording this on May 8, 2023, and I want to jump right into that. Now, there's four new diversity and inclusion standards, and these were first announced back in 2020 for the Academy Award, the Oscars.
And they've been described as, one, expanding on screen representation themes or narrative. Two, expanding representation among creative leadership and department heads. Three, providing industry access and opportunities to underrepresented demographics, and four, expanding representation in audience development.
Now, to qualify for an award, basically with these standards, you have to fulfill at least two of them. So you don't have to do all four, but two of those you have to hit. So just want to throw it to you broadly. Tunde, what do you make first of these, of these requirements, of these diversity requirements that are coming down from the Academy?
[00:02:40] Speaker B: I mean, I'm not sure what I make of it because in one. In one, I have mixed views on all of it. Right. In one way, I totally recognize the need for inclusion or the desire. I don't know if a need is the right word because, I mean, we have a lot of history that we can look at when there was an inclusion. And you know, maybe the system didn't work for people like us, but the system was carrying on. So, you know, you can do all this without including everybody, and obviously you can do it with including everybody. And so, you know, I default. My personality would default to inclusion. So for that way, I think it's a good thing, right, to try. And the spirit of trying to include people, I don't really have a problem with it. But where I would say that my concern is that from kind of our cultural standpoint and kind of the general population, it'll look like another pylon where some institution, organization is more concerned about how it looks to the public and less concerned about just letting things organically happen within it. And I'm not saying that that's the case. I'm saying I'm concerned that that could be the perception and that it could create more apathy and more people in the culture distancing themselves from, you know, let's say, sectors like mainstream Hollywood and participating and watching the Oscars and Academy Awards. Because I know that those numbers of participation have dwindled a lot in recent decades and not only from stuff like this. I know the Internet and other things have taken away a lot of attention from just the classic film and Hollywood stuff, but. So that's why I would say I have generally leaned towards positive on things like that. But I know that there's going to be some negative blowback in the culture as well.
[00:04:26] Speaker A: Yeah, I mean, I would say just generally that's the thought there is that kind of you got to do it well, you have to do it right. Really, because there are way. There are a lot of ways for to unintentionally not do it right. And then you end up not even serving the interest that you're trying to serve. Yeah, for me, I think that the two questions that really come down when you look at anything like this is what kind of society do we want to be? And if we're not already there, which generally speaking, you would think you'd be a little aspirational with that. But a lot of people like to look backwards as well and say, I want to be like something that was in the past and a lot of times that's with rose colored glasses. But nonetheless, what kind of society do you want to be? And if we're not there, how do you get there? And so those don't necessarily, even if one person or if a group of people agree on what kind of society we Want to be the part on how we get there may not even be agreed amongst all those people. So I think what we're dealing with here in many respects is okay, they've decided that they want their industry to be one that promotes opportunity for everyone, that people can get involved, people aren't excluded, and so this is how they want to get there. It's a fair enough attempt. My. I don't have strong feelings on this one way or the other. I admire the attempt because, you know, nothing is ever easy to change the status quo. And so I admire the fact that they're trying to do something. I would like. Anytime you try to do something, I would like you to kind of the people that are doing that, to keep an eye on it and remain flexible. And, you know, again, because there's always going to be unintended consequences, things like that. Now people just getting mad about it to me, isn't a unintended consequence, so to speak. Of course people get mad anytime you change this, the status quo. But there's something you mentioned there that I want to just throw a note in on, and that is the. A lot of times I hear things like this being presented. Oh, well, the alternative, we either do something like this or we just see how things evolve organically. What we tend to forget is that when we're talking about the exclusion of certain people from Hollywood or segregation, and these were. They didn't happen organically. There were people who actively took steps and said, hey, this. They asked, what kind of society do we want to have? And then how do we want to get there? And then they took steps to make sure that that happened. And it just happened to be. Well, not happened to be. But the history of this country is littered with people making those. Taking those actions, going one direction. So right now, we're in a time where a lot of times people are taking steps to go the other direction to go. In the past it was going towards less inclusion. People were taking active steps to make sure that happened. Now it's leaning more the other way. So that's part of the ebb and flow of society that we live in right now. And I'll just. I'll close it with this part with one piece or one. One word or one phrase. I'll say. And that is. That's the whole concept of a phrase like affirmative action is that if you want to. If you're saying where we want to be isn't where we are where we are. You can't just say, okay, well, let's Just see what happens organically, because where you are isn't. Didn't happen organically either. So you have to actually take. And that's what the phrase comes from, taking affirmative action in order to bring it out. So this isn't necessarily affirmative action, but the wording I wanted to highlight there.
[00:07:28] Speaker B: Yeah, well, I think, you know, this comes back to the greater culture of our country and, you know, our kind of culture wars, whether they were, like you said, in the rearview mirror back in the day or the ones that are happening now, which is this tug of war and push and pull between those who aspire, like you said, the aspirational view of the ideals of things like the Bill of Rights of all men are created equal and all that, and others who don't feel that way, I mean, for lack of a better term, or don't feel that when those words are written, that maybe at the time the term men was not to include Negroes, as, you know, certain literary scholars have put it.
[00:08:09] Speaker A: And I think you can add in also people that just don't like that are apathetic already and just like, look, you know, I could go one way or the other, you know, and it's.
[00:08:16] Speaker B: Like, you know, that's why I said that these things. That's what makes me cringe sometimes when I see a lot of this stuff is not because I don't think that it's valid or has merit or that we shouldn't be striving to be better. It's just that I understand the reality of humans and that there's just a lot of people there, that this topic is a lot, for a lot of people, overkill. And to see it constantly brought up in every. These different areas of life does have a certain blowback effect. Does that mean that people should or shouldn't do it? I'm not here to answer that. I'm just saying that I think those of us that are on the side of this debate, that would like to see equality continue to be pushed and equal rights and all that, need to just be prepared for the type of either apathetic or straight blowback reaction and also be prepared to respond to that. And maybe not in a way of either responding aggressively or by trying to be intellectual about it, just understanding that this is how certain people in a society are gonna feel. And that's okay, too. We just gotta keep moving, in a sense. And so.
[00:09:26] Speaker A: No, that's a good point. And I think the one thing I would add to that, and you kind of indicated this earlier, is just what we both did is just then you also have to be. You have to pick your battles, so to speak. And that's not to say there's certain things you're letting go, but that's just to say that you have to prioritize, you know, like. And that's not a new thing. That's not an insight. Like in, in the past, we've seen priorities as far as you go, civil rights movement, we've seen priorities with voting, we've seen priorities with education, things like that. And so that doesn't necessarily play in here. And I want to talk actually about the specific standards because one of the things, and I want to kick it also to our next topic, but one of the things about the standards that stood out to me, and we'll talk about this in the framework of the criticism, is that one, it's only two out of four, and then two, they aren't really. They aren't. At least only one of them is really directed at what we, the consumer would see. So it does seem to be trying to not just say, hey, you know, you can see somebody on the screen and feel better about that in a pandering kind of sense. It's saying, hey, we want to bring people in, get more people involved in terms of creative leadership, department heads, you know, industry access and stuff like that, which I think is. I commend them for that, you know, so to speak. So this isn't just saying, oh, you gotta have. We just want X percentage of this. People that look like this in. Or X percentage of people that look like that. That to me wouldn't necessarily be productive in the same way as saying, hey, we want you to make the attempt again, they're two out of four, so you don't have to all four to try to do more with this. So. But I wanted to get to the hostility. You know, Richard Dreyfus, who's an actor and he's at, He's. He's out doing media rounds right now because he's pushing civics education, which I think is great. You know, like the civics education is a really good idea. People do need to understand how the country's supposed to work and that everybody's not supposed to agree with you all the time and things like that. There's some basics that are about civics education that we seem to have lost. But in that he got asked about this and he was very hostile to it. And so do you think he has a point in some of his hostility? And you can point at any of the things he's spoken. We'll have the write up on this in the, in the show notes. But do you think he has a point or is he kind of missing the point or, you know, just kind of. What was your reaction?
[00:11:34] Speaker B: Yeah, well, first I'll say that my youngest child would take issue with you, that not everyone is supposed to agree with what he agrees with. I bet he thinks he's right all the time and he doesn't always want to share. So. Yeah, but. Yes, no, so.
[00:11:51] Speaker A: But you know, as an adult he will understand that.
[00:11:54] Speaker B: Well, let's hope so. Right. Let's hope he doesn't get stuck in his current mindset 30 years from now. So I'm doing, I'm doing the best I can, me and his mom. Let's see, let's see how he turns out.
I'll come back to you in a few decades.
So no, I think, look, when I tend to look at the, you know, one person's reaction and all that, I think about, okay, Richard Drivers is in the 70s. He's clearly been.
And this isn't anything negative, right? I mean, he's been in a bubble in a certain sense, right. He's been a famous guy. Was he an American graffiti in 1972? I mean, he's been in the game for decades. So high up like. Yeah, that's what I mean.
[00:12:35] Speaker A: Jaws, you know. Yeah.
[00:12:36] Speaker B: He's a guy and that's what I say. It's not a disrespect, but he's just a guy that doesn't have to face the ground level issues of racism and all these things on a day to day level. Like maybe a lot of people that aren't at his level of not just wealth but just the kind of fame and the insulation that that brings when you're a famous actor. Right. And an Academy Award winner yourself. So I take his comments with a grain of salt because I feel like he's making his comments like someone looking at it kind of abstractly, like as if he was looking at the earth from the moon and just commenting. Right. So I don't look at it as someone doing that as not being bad or malicious. I just think that you know a lot of people because what you bring up is great, that this isn't just. Again, let's get back to like you said about affirmative action, some misconceptions, right.
The people that don't like this kind of ideas, they'll tell you or they'll tell everybody that these are handouts and that's why it's not good because you're just handing out something to someone who doesn't deserve it or they think it's a zero sum game, where because you're giving that to someone, it's taken it away from someone else, maybe from a different group who is more qualified to do it. And I think that that's where in the, in the movie industry, as we're seeing, right, and this is some of the stuff that's come out lately in the last few years, is that you have all of these minority purchasing power. And I think I share with you that I decided to just look up what were the highest grossing movies of all time. And I was pretty fascinated to see that out of the top 15 highest grossing films, 11 of them are properties by Disney.
And the top ones are movies like Avatar, which obviously deal with ideas, right? Even those alien stuff, kind of indigenous versus civilized, all that, which you could say is some version of diversity. Then think about the movie Black Panther that's in the top, you know, 15 movies ever grossing. So what happens is the industry itself, the entertainment industry, just like every other corporate industry, wants to chase dollars. And what they've recognized in the recent decade or two last generation, that there's a lot more dollars in minority communities than there were in the 50s and 60s.
And what those communities have been showing with their dollars is that if you put more people on screen and more culture driven into these screen plays and the scripts from these different cultures, that they'll be rewarded by making more money. So that's why I think that for someone like Richard Dreyfus, he sees it as, hey man, everything's been good all this time. And you guys are attacking art, right? Like the idea of making art. And I think for a lot of people, this isn't about. This is just about saying, let's make sure that the people behind the scenes, like you said, not the actors and all that, but content creators, all that also begin to mirror the society because clearly that hasn't taken place. If this is something they're implementing, and to your point, they're saying we just need to hit two of these four metrics for someone to be considered, you know, for this type of award.
So with that said, I would say just like with the work stuff, right, I don't like the idea of quotas, but without pushing something like this and forcing it on people, they otherwise will keep others out because that's what's happened historically.
[00:16:13] Speaker A: Well, and I think you gotta look from the historical standpoint, again, it didn't evolve organically. There was a express effort to keep people out initially, and then what there was, then those barriers got broken down. But what was learned from that is that kind of the practices had been in place so much and then the experience was in places so much that just by taking down the existing barriers that were there for decades, it doesn't just level the playing field, so to speak. So it's really attempting to address that. A couple of things to me, his defense, and you mentioned this briefly, but his defense is that it's an artist, you know, like you. You shouldn't. You shouldn't force artists, that they have to conform to what the. In. In his words being the most current idea of what morality is. And that's an interesting thought, you know, and like in the abstract, you know, like, if you. If you go just purely theoretical. I think he has a solid point, you know, from the standpoint of art. But I think the problem with his point, I think, is that it's so removed from the context of just what America is and what America has been that, you know, like, it ends up being old man yelling at clouds because it's like, okay, so look, you're saying it's about the art and what the artist has to do and so forth, or what the art like, again, only one of these is about what's seen on screen. I'm not sure from an art expression standpoint how expanding industry or providing industry access to people, you know, or expanding the representation in audience development has anything to do with your expression of art. You know, like, you can go sell the thing to anybody. So it seems like when I read the basis for the hostility, it seems like he was just hostile to the idea of it. And then that's what he landed on, which is normal. You know, that's your whole righteous mind, elephant and rider stuff where it's like, well, I don't like this. Let me figure out some reasons why I don't like it. But I think one of the things that actually is revealed by what it is that you just cited as far as those highest grossing movies of all time is that the storytelling, a lot of time can be more. When you bring in more perspectives. Because here's, you know, the first, the one that does deal with the art, you know, which is expanding on screen representation themes or narrative? So expanding representation themes or narrative?
Either any one of those three. That's something that doesn't necessarily mean, hey, we got to have three black guys for every, you know, or, you know, four women for every 10 people or you know, with just whatever, you can have a different, you can tell different narrative, your narrative can be different, your themes can be different. There's a lot of ways to go about this and it's kind of just saying, and we see this problem a lot now. Don't tell the same stories over and over again, you know, like tell different stories. And so you can, and you can get more textured storytelling. A lot of times when you look far and wide and try to pull on greater, you know, more diverse experiences, more diverse perspectives and so forth. So it would seem to be stuff that would serve the interest of the art as well if put in the right hands and if put this open mindedness in terms of, okay, well how can I do better based on this versus what does this do? What does this take away from me? You know, you talk about it sometimes with just kind of how people's mindsets are, you know, like where people's mindsets are overly restrictive versus if they're kind of growth mindsets.
[00:19:37] Speaker B: Yeah, and I think that's what I was going to say is, you know, what you're making is the intellectual argument that we both make and people like us make, which is, well, why wouldn't you want more inclusion? But I think what we, you know, those of us that make these intellectual arguments forget and we project on the rest of the people that they think like us, that no, half the people out there don't think like us and they don't, or at least some large.
[00:19:59] Speaker A: Percentage of the people, a large enough.
[00:20:00] Speaker B: Percentage that we keep having these conversations. Right? So yeah, may not be half, but it could be more than half or less than half. But the bottom line is that they just have a different view and they either will not, they'll be at best apathetic, just not promoting the spirit of these ideas. And at worst they'll try and actually stop it because yeah, that goes back to, as I said earlier, they have a zero sum mentality or they misunderstand the objective. And it's not that Hollywood is saying you just gotta give and put blacks and minorities on these seats just to give it away to them. What they're saying is, you know, there's a lot of qualified people here that don't look like you guys that are in this space right now. So if we don't make you guys start looking for those other qualified people, you won't, because that's how humans operate. Not because you're bad people. And so because who goes out of their way to do Anything, Right. Unless they force. Well, that's.
[00:20:54] Speaker A: Yeah, that's kind of the thing. It kind of makes you. And that's the point of a lot of these types of requirements or standards in this ilk is that, hey, look outside of your existing circle for this. You know, challenge yourself, try to find something else that you may not go look in a place that you might not normally look. Because, yeah, that the assumption is. Now if you don't share this assumption, then obviously you'd come in on a different place. The assumption is though, that there is talent out there. And so. But humans are creatures of habit. If you're always looking for talent in the same places and all that, then you're probably, you're not gonna have a, you're not gonna bring in a diverse array of people. And I mean diverse in a lot of ways in terms of thinking, in terms of a lot of different things. So. But if you're saying, okay, I gotta stop for a second, I can't just do my default, let me stop, I gotta make sure I'm, I gotta be mindful about it, I gotta be thoughtful about it, that's really what they're thinking is gonna provide for a more equitable outcome. Now one of the things though that I wanted to mention on this is these types of things though, we have to acknowledge though that they can go too far and that there are people who, from an intention standpoint, I might agree with or something like that, but I'll see, like, hey, what you're doing in this instance, one, it's not about creating opportunity. It's about, you know, pushing something on someone in a way that is not. They're saying, hey, you just gotta do this regardless of if it's productive or it's almost in a punitive sense. And so it's just one of those things that you have to keep in mind. It's not always, okay, well, this person is fighting the right fight, so to speak. So we just take gloves off. And so you have to be willing to speak up. A lot of times when it's like, well, hey, it's not always we do things and we have to just, it's rigid and everything like that. With everything, you have to be flexible, you have to be open minded and you have to be able to look at it with flexibility and say, okay, well we try this and I hope they do this. In this instance, for example, if they, as they get feedback on how this is working, not just, you know, hostility, but just like, is this actually accomplishing what we're trying to accomplish being able to be flexible about it, you know. And so now onto that point, generally speaking, I just wanted to get, before we wrap this up, just your thoughts on whether it be in this industry or affirmative action in general, which we know is, you know, a lot of people are expecting that it's going to, in at least an educational sense, is going to be closed off here pretty soon. You know, there's cases that are going in front of the Supreme Court that may end it as we know it. So on the need for things like this in a society like ours. And again, we're going to take it out of the abstract here because obviously the best thing would be everybody gets treated equally and fairly all the time, but that we, we have to live in the world that we inherit. And that hasn't necessarily been how it's been. So we have certain practices and relics of the world we've inherited. So just what are your thoughts, you know, as far as how to, how do you pull this off? Because I would agree with you also, it's not easy to pull it off necessarily in a way that still ensures that you get buy in from, from enough in the society at large.
[00:23:49] Speaker B: Yeah, I mean, I think we already have the recent history of, let's say, the last two or three generations to look, this was pulled off originally with the 1965 Civil Rights act and then the kind of, let's say, 10 years of legislation after that that put the pieces together of ideas like affirmative action and minority business enterprises and all these other things to try and create a level playing field. Because culturally blacks had been excluded. And let's just go with, you know, the American history right now, right. Blacks were excluded from the general society for so long that culturally whites were not in a position from a cultural standpoint to just say, hey, you guys, just come on over now. It's all good. Right? Like, it's like people had to be kind of pushed in this direction and you know, that gets into the kind of the human part of it. But that's where I think that this is just a natural progression. Because going back to the affirmative action stuff of the 60s and the 70s, remember that wasn't smooth, right. You had things like busing, you had all this stuff that there was a lot of resistance to as well. And this is where we do ourselves a detriment as a country when we don't discuss this history. Because then what happens is fast forward to, you know, the last decade or so, right? Was it the early 2000, 10s when or sorry, I thought it was early 2000 during the bush administration, when a lot of people felt like, well, it's been long enough, it's been like 40 years, so we can just remove all these guardrails. And they really restructured and took a lot of teeth out of the Voting Rights Act. And you saw how quickly certain states started to try and implement things that made it more difficult for people to vote again because, you know, instead of trying to win, no longer pre.
[00:25:39] Speaker A: Clear it with the, you know.
[00:25:40] Speaker B: Yeah. And instead of trying to win people with their ideas and their politics and all that, they went back to authoritarianism, which is, let's just win this by trying to exclude as many people as we can and blah, blah, blah. So that's where, you know, I think we should just expect that none of this stuff is ever going a straight line and it's always going to have some pushback and, you know, fits and starts.
[00:26:03] Speaker A: There's a cognitive bias that goes into this as well. Just in terms of whatever you see commonly you tend to associate that as what's normal, you know, and then. And that's you, you conform to that in a sense. So if you exclude members of a group from certain things for a long period of time, then it almost becomes kind of locked into the culture and it's very difficult to break it. And so I think that just understanding how humans minds work, this type of stuff is important in certain areas of society where there's been exclusion. Now it is a balance though, because I often see that the goal has to remain the main thing, has to remain the main thing, so to speak. The goal has to remain about opportunity and making sure that everyone has opportunity and not. You don't want to replace one exclusion with another. And so that's always the balance that you have to do. You have to take with these things. Whereas, okay, we have to take steps to override kind of the, the bias, you know, that we have that have just built in and accrued with the, that we've inherited, you know, in our society. But then at the same time you, you have to do it in a way and you have to sell it in a way. And this is where you always get into leadership is important. You have to do it and sell it in a way that still has buy in amongst a large number and large people in society. And not just buy in from a guilt standpoint, anything like that, but buy in that this can make our society better. And a lot of times that's what I see as missing is we'll bring in these, these types of restrictions or standards and so forth. And I think people think the job is done at that point. And I'm like, well, no, there needs to also be a job on selling this to people and saying, hey, if we do this, this will make our society better. You know, if they just said at the, at the, you know, hey, let's build a dam, you know, Hoover Dam, let's just build this. And they didn't explain to people how it would make society better, people would have never been on board with it. They'd be like, no, why would we do that? Like, why would we build a dam on a river? Who cares? You know, I don't live there. It's not flooding my yard. Like it's. And so if it's, if the benefit isn't self evident, which for situations like these, when you're talking about inclusion and trying to bring more people into the framework of society, the benefits oftentimes aren't self evident. Particularly because as we know, and this isn't some, this isn't a problem with people, this is just how people are. Some people are wired with a very zero sum mentality and so they always view anything that someone else is getting as a negative for them. Whereas it may be easier to convince somebody with a growth mindset like, oh, okay, let's bring more people in as more dollars getting spent and everything like that. But nonetheless, my point being is that we cannot omit the attention to selling people on these things as to why they're good, explaining why they're good, why they're important, why it will make their lives better. And not just assuming that once you do it, you, you know, you, you slap your hands and then you're all good. The other thing I'll mention though, and this is just back last point on this is, is just with, you know, Dreyfus with his comment, there was one thing that I'll just point out in it that I didn't mention earlier, but I do want to say before, like he also objected to, or part of his objection appeared to be about the idea of, you know, he was asked a question, am I being told that I'll never have a chance to play a black man in blackface? You know, I'm adding the in blackface part, pointing to a 1965 movie where there was a guy who played Shakespeare lead in blackface. And to me, that's a really interesting point as well. Like, because if you take away the blackface association with the way it has Been historically in this country, then you. And you just look at it purely from an art standpoint. Again, it's one of those things like, oh, okay, yeah, people put on makeup and dress up all kinds of ways to look different when they're acting parts. But so, again, in the abstract, it's one of those things that. Okay, yeah, yeah, I get it. Yeah. Why can't you play abstract? But again, you can't put your head in the sand. And this is to your point, why we have to try to learn about our history and so forth. Our country.
The country we've inherited. The history that we've inherited informs us. Why, yes, Richard Dreyfus, you cannot play a black dude in blackface. You know what I'm saying? It's not because in the abstract, it's some moral wrong. It's because in this country, that invokes a history that is something that we're trying to put behind us, so to speak. And so with all of these. Again, you can't look at it at these types of points that you hear from. From time to time in the abstract. We have to account for it in the world that we live in today.
[00:30:39] Speaker B: And this is where I don't knock Richard Dreyfus, but this is where I do see that he's in a bubble, like we talked about at the beginning. Because I thought about it, actually, after you and I spoke about this in preparing for the show, and I thought, what. What he's missing. I don't. I don't knock him for his feeling because he's. He is. I do believe he's genuinely looking at this as an artist, saying, why can't I do that? Right.
[00:30:57] Speaker A: And I think he's trolling. I think he's being genuine. Yeah.
[00:31:00] Speaker B: He should be able to play a black character if he wants to. I think when we look at the idea of the guy that played Othello in the 1950s in blackface, that's what I started thinking. This is where he's missing the point. That guy was playing Othello in blackface because blacks were excluded from Hollywood at the time.
Hollywood wasn't even interviewing serious black actors. That's why, again, the people don't know history. Sidney Poitier just died in the last 12 months. And that's where we learned. Right. That he was the first black person to win an Academy Award in the early 60s. So the point is that.
[00:31:35] Speaker A: But he wasn't able to play leads of movies at that point.
[00:31:38] Speaker B: Yeah, exactly. That's my point. And so Richard Dreyfuss that's all I'm saying is. I'm not saying he's saying anything malicious. I just think he's missing the point. And this is what happens when we start having these conversations that a lot of people just miss the point that it's not about you can't play a black person. And all that is that black people are offended by blackface, specifically because it's a reminder of when blacks were excluded legally from participating in these things. And whites who were so racist and didn't want blacks in their faces and be around that they would put makeup on and pretend to be black and on purpose act like idiots. And it was a big joke in comedy. So it's just a lack of understanding of what that really means to people. And it's also a lack of understanding.
[00:32:24] Speaker A: I think it's. But I think it more than a lack of understanding. It's just a refusal to acknowledge that, you know, it's one. Have these conversations as if we're starting fresh from right now.
[00:32:34] Speaker B: Like, I don't think in that far ahead, like, that guy blackface.
[00:32:39] Speaker A: Think about it.
[00:32:39] Speaker B: Like, they wouldn't hire a black actor play Othello. Like, I don't think Richard Dreiffer is thinking that far into it, you know.
[00:32:44] Speaker A: But I don't think that's necessarily the key point as well. I think it's that, like, you don't get to. If you want to go buy a house tomorrow, you can't just tell the bank, okay, well, don't look at anything in my past. Let's just start this from right now. You know, like these. This cultural legacy that we have matters. And you can't just conveniently say, okay, well, let's just ignore it and let me do whatever I want to do right now. And so that's what I think he's missing more than anything. And so. But I do want to move on. Our second topic today we wanted to discuss was workism.
And that is. This is a piece in the.
[00:33:16] Speaker B: Well, just to be sure you didn't say wokeism.
[00:33:18] Speaker A: Yeah, I tried to be very clear in the intro.
[00:33:21] Speaker B: There was an R in there, right?
[00:33:23] Speaker A: Yeah, yeah. Work ism. Work ism. W O R K.
And it's an idea that Derek Thompson from the Atlantic was talking about. And just in terms of how what we're looking for. What we. What people are looking for in their jobs now is something that is not historically something people got from work, so to speak. And it's a really interesting piece because he goes from the Idea of, let's see the revolutions he calls them. We go from jobs to careers to callings. And that's what he says we are now, is that these are callings, like people. In large part, he's looking at highly educated white collar community people as people who find looking for callings in their work. So just before. I'm not gonna get too much more into just before I let you get in. So just thoughts on workism and the idea that, you know, like for many people right now it is about finding the equivalent to salvation through work.
[00:34:23] Speaker B: No, I thought it was a fascinating article and it. Reading it made me realize how true I think it is. Because you're right. I mean, they give good examples. Like you're saying, right? Like, oh, I have to have a job that fulfills me. I have to do my passion, all this. And I think, yeah, it's true. If you can find work that really makes you say, yeah, I love this every day and all that, that's great. But the point that they make is that that's kind of a new phenomenon in the human experience. That for most of our history until the 20th century, people just did work from hunter gatherers, you know, that just had to go out and forage and get food to. Whether you're a peasant in the Middle Ages or something like that, it wasn't seen as something that had to give you such fulfillment. It was seen as something to do to bring home the bacon, so to speak. Right?
[00:35:14] Speaker A: No, literally, that's what I'm saying. And so whether, like if you're farming or if you're doing like that's. That's what you need is you gotta do things. There was a very practical aspect of it. It wasn't about does this bring me joy or is it fulfillment? So to speak. And what he points to is really the kind of development of. With transportation becoming more efficient in the 19th century. Then you have the development of corporate life. Like big, large scale corporate life where you had the idea of employment becoming something where there's progress with management, middle management executives, all this kind of stuff. So you could. The fulfillment piece is that you don't just go to work and do the same thing for 40 years and then, you know, like that hopefully your kids at that point can take care of you and you're good to go. It's like, okay, I'm doing this and then after three or four years I move up the ladder and so forth. So there's a feedback involved that is to some degree fulfilling and something that can drive you and things like that give meaning to you, so to speak. And so that development he points to is something that really led to, in his mind, led to a change. What really stood out to me about in the article was when he compared people's or people's perception as far as, like, how much they valued things like work versus things like being in a relationship or having children, you know, raising children or tolerance, community and like. And it's all these things. It's all of these things in our society. If you go by, you know, surveys and stuff like that, none of them are as important to people, by and large as work and career, you know, in many respects, particularly again, amongst a subset of people that are in that white collar, you know, type of.
[00:37:01] Speaker B: Can I speak to that for a second? Because I actually developed a new saying. Go ahead. I call it the work caste system.
[00:37:11] Speaker A: Well, but you can advance though. That's the thing though. Like, are you saying white collar, blue collar?
[00:37:17] Speaker B: No, but, but I mean, look, it depends, right? Certain caste systems, culturally, some can advance and some can't. And so, and so some in work, yes, some people can advance, some can. But the reason I say it that way is because of our American culture. You know, I've heard this many times from people internationally that America is unique because what do we ask each other as Americans? When you meet somebody new? A lot of times it's what do you do? Yeah, right. Where other cultures it might be, hey, where are you from? What province? What part of the country are you from? What tribe are you in? You know, but for us it's what do you do? And the answer, all of us have a mental filing cabinet which will file away where they are on that cash system, Right? If I said I'm an investment banker, okay, you know, he's up higher on the totem pole. If I say that I'm a garbage collector is going to be lower on the totem pole. We rank ourselves immediately based on our professions. And so I'm sure there's some of that that plays into it too, which is we've developed a self identity around work. So if, so if that's who I am, I'm the investment banker or the, or let's say the big partner at the big law firm or the accounting firm. And I'm supposed to be behaving this way, always working, always on, even on vacation. I'm checking my emails and my wife's getting pissed off at me and all that. That's because that's who I am. You know, I'm bringing home the bacon. Oh, you can't get in.
[00:38:44] Speaker A: And I think that's also what's expected of you in those types of situations.
[00:38:48] Speaker B: That's what I'm saying. It's kind of, that's what I mean by the caste system. It's like you're kind of stuck in. Because of the way our cultures is. Because, yeah, I can't be an investment banker that works two hours a month because then I just.
[00:38:58] Speaker A: That's the interesting thing though is because I think you aren't stuck in it. It's really a bad. Goes back to that term identity and then also fulfillment. Like do you have other things? Because where you get stuck and if you read between the lines here, where you get stuck actually is when. What it is that you do when you are relying on it for things that, for the, to use the example in the article, you people used to get from church or people used to get from their bowling club or you know, your social fulfillment, your, your, your kind of, you know, like your, your identity. Good, good term for that, you know, like your identity. Like I, I have value, I have worth because of what I do when you tie those things up. And I'll, I'll say this for myself personally, this is something that I kind of, I, I think I observed early because my whole career played out in a way of me trying to avoid going into situations where work was going to take over my life, you know, and work was going to be all I was about. And so, and even, even more recently, you know, when I had my first kid, you know, right after I had my first kid, the next career move I made was to go out on my own and you know, to work for myself so that I could have more time. I could try to earn more or at least earn as much, but not be beholden to be. To have to spend the time away, you know. And so I think that in many respects it's a trap because once and more so even than the money, once something becomes so tied up into your identity, then the ups and downs of that really does play on your happiness in a way that if you really like, you spend time with your kids, you recognize that hey, it doesn't matter if we're sitting here playing on a gold plated floor, you know, or if we're sitting here playing on a dirt floor, you can just do that, you know, like, you can just have, you can just have the time.
[00:40:42] Speaker B: That's you, bro. That's what I mean. Some people that's the issue we have.
[00:40:46] Speaker A: That'S what I'm saying. It's the trap. It's the trap. Once you go down that road, it's very difficult to unwind it because that's, that's why there's not as far. This is the way, as you said, this is the way I am supposed to do it.
[00:40:57] Speaker B: And that's why we have so many people with anxiety and all these issues. Because, I mean, I, I felt this way when I was younger, in my early 30s in corporate America. I could, I started going down this road. And like you, I recognize that that's not who I was going to be. And I also recognized that that meant maybe I'm not going to make, you know, have a net worth of 100, 200 million by the time it's all over for me, you know, and that's okay. And so what I, what I, what I, what I, what I'm getting at is because I've, I've, I've felt that going in, down that road, and I have friends today that go down that road, which is where you're never happy, right? Because when you're working, you feel guilty that you're not home. And then like you said, when you're on the floor playing with the kids, your mind is turning, that you're not checking emails and you're not working.
[00:41:38] Speaker A: And there's always somebody coming for your position, too.
[00:41:40] Speaker B: Exactly. So I think that's where, unfortunately, that just creates, I'd say probably that's most Americans unfortunately predicament, and that creates a lot of negative offshoots in society. And to your point, because they talk about this in the article, like the other things that suffer because of workism, right? In this culture of work, work, work. And you said it's family life, marriages, all that. So I kind of realized that somewhere in my 30s, like, all right, at some point I got to make a choice. Am I going to be really going 14 hours a day hard like that? Because I could. But then my wife's going to get more distant from me. That's going to have certain consequences. I'm not going to see my kids all the time. That's going to make me miserable. What's going to, might change who I am as a person over time, so on and so forth. And I decided not to. And I decided to spend more time and I, and I recognize that, okay, if I don't crank it out the way that others are, maybe I won't have as much money or things like that at the, at the end of.
[00:42:39] Speaker A: The day, there's a trade off.
[00:42:41] Speaker B: Yeah, there is a, there is a trade off at it. Because you know why? Because we're all human beings with the same 24 hours. And like we've done the show about sleep. Right. Unfortunately, I'm a guy that needs my seven, eight hours. Some people can function off four, but 98% of the population needs that seven to eight hours. So if we're all working off the similar parameters, then obviously your choices, you know, that is a zero sum game, that part of it, right. It's like if I'm going to dedicate time to this in a 24 hour period, then I'm definitely taken away from something else.
[00:43:11] Speaker A: Yeah, time, you just got to be at peace. Yeah, yeah, Time, energy, focus, all that. And the thing, yeah, to me, and I'll say this briefly, is just that what I realized that kind of had me look at things a certain way is that it never ends. And you kind of, you know, touched around that. But that's the thing is that it just never ends in terms of, you know, like, if you want to go down that road, it's, it's constant. It's a constant ramp up. More and more and more is needed. And so.
[00:43:40] Speaker B: But I think like a boater, they can never get big enough.
[00:43:44] Speaker A: And that's true. You know what I mean? That's.
[00:43:48] Speaker B: This Guy's got a 60 footer. Oh, he's got a 70 footer. Oh, he's have 100 foot. Like if they just keep getting bigger and bigger.
[00:43:54] Speaker A: But I think really the piece about this, and I'll say this briefly because I know we want to get out of here, is that, that you can't gloss over is this is a story of replacement. This is a replacement theory.
[00:44:07] Speaker B: But that's a whole nother. We can't stop now.
[00:44:12] Speaker A: So the thing is that again, the shiny object, at least you know, in American culture will be, oh yeah, work, work, work. But actually what this is really about is all of the other things that we don't have anymore. And if we have gone this road, down this road where, or at least for many of us, where work is so important, such a central thing to our lives, that is there any. What is the way back for other forms of community? You know, it may not be organized religion, but organized religion sprung up in the past because of the needs of society and of culture. So presumably that will happen again. Something will spring up or things will spring. Some things will spring up that will allow people to meet, as you pointed out these basic human needs. But to me, it's the absence. It's the things that we've lost collectively as a society, you know, culturally and so forth, that we're trying to use work to replace the discussion about that I think needs to be had as well. Then we're not going to have it today. But just in terms of, okay, well, what else can we do? You know, like, obviously there's kids, there's family, you know, there's things like that, but what else is there to. For you to find that fulfillment, for you to find that, you know, what brings you joy and so forth and not have to rely on your job for it.
[00:45:26] Speaker B: It's interesting because there's a couple of things and I know we want to get out of here that I want to mention. I mean, that's a very good question you pose. And I think it's a very. It's going to be very interesting to see how this plays out in a society like ours. And our culture of, remember, America more than many other countries, has kind of this culture of hyper individualism. Right. That the individual. I need to be left alone. And you know, that no one can tell me what to do. And think about it. You made a good arc. Right. The replacement theory is real, but not in the.
[00:45:57] Speaker A: Not the way you've heard it.
[00:45:58] Speaker B: Not. Yeah, not the way you heard it. Right. Not the cultural victimization of whites being replaced by all these dumb minorities that are going to just vote for lefties, you know, not that one. That's not what I'm talking about. I'm talking about the replacement of humans by robots, which has already happened in many industries. And it's about to. This, this AI stuff, which we did a show a couple weeks ago, is about to decimate a lot, about a third of the service industry, you know, and, and, and so what?
[00:46:24] Speaker A: Especially the, the, the intellectual service.
[00:46:27] Speaker B: Well, that's what I'm saying. So what we're talking about is the replacement theory of really, humans are going to be replaced a lot more often coming up in coming years by machines. And what I, what concerns me is we've already seen the last decade, decade and a half with. When you put humans with a lot of time and then you have things like the Internet, it has disrupted society. And I think you're right. If our work now is going to be replaced by something else like, like AI and machines and kind of that has become the community for people, their job and their work, then it's true. Like what. What is going to replace that Sense of community for people and to just. This is where leadership would be great if we had it in this country in that way, where Congress and the leaders who could make laws were already looking ahead, saying, hey, look, we need to do something. Like I've always said, you know, it would be great in America if we had national service. That might create a new sense of camaraderie. If we had kids, 18, 19, like they do in Israel and Switzerland, other countries doing Peace Corps or military service or something, just to say, hey, something.
[00:47:36] Speaker A: To establish yourself mentally as a part of this group. Yeah, you know, but I mean, that's on a national level, but then you need that on the local level. You need that in a lot of places.
[00:47:46] Speaker B: And the other thing just before we jump is this is also happening on the back, this workism. And this is what I think is going to be very interesting, the next generation or so, because we have this bifurcation on one side. You've got this hyper work mentality. But in preparing for today, I was looking at some stats and there was a good thing on CBS a few months ago that of working age, men aged 25 to 54, there's 7.2 million unemployed out of choice.
So this is that they're not. That they can't find work, they're just choosing not to work. And they spend, they said they had all the stats, 6 hours and 53 minutes, call it 7 hours on average per day they spend in front of the TV that somehow they can just live. And they're chilling. So we have one side where it's too much work and we got another side where they're actually learning how just not to work at all. And I think that's probably. Both are unhealthy. You know what I mean? Yeah.
[00:48:39] Speaker A: There's the generational aspect of that as well, you know, because we've seen that, like the, the open, there aren't as many openings, so to speak, people working longer in, in life and less openings and so forth, less need. But yeah, I mean, I think the, the, the uncertainty that is the future is something we're looking at. But it's just interesting, I think, you know, and it was worth talking about just in terms of this, this idea of workism as a religion, as your. As where you can get that salvation, that fulfillment and so forth. And, you know, looking ahead as far as, okay, well, what did that replace? And you know, what will come next is something that's definitely worth considering. Considering. So we appreciate everybody for joining us on this episode of call like I see it. Subscribe to the podcast, rate it. Review us, tell us what you think. Send it to a friend. Until next time, I'm James Keys.
[00:49:26] Speaker B: I'm tuned to Lana.
[00:49:27] Speaker A: All right, we'll talk to you next time.
