I was thinking as I read about Gen Z why many were overrepresented in chanting "from the river to the sea." From person on the street interviews many did not know what they were chanting. Moreover, chanting may be both an exercise in free speech and an exercise in slogan-thinking (or non-thinking). I am left with an interest in digging deeper about the variations within the broad category of "Gen Z." Of course, being a pre-Baby Boomer myself may make me suspect.
This is an interesting perspective, as always on FBT. However, I do not agree with the author that "younger Americans demand transparency, evidence, and ethical consistency." Some do, of course. No generation can be described with categorical certainty. But the ones she defends, such as campus protestors against Israel, clearly live by demands closer to the opposite of "transparency, evidence, and ethical consistency." As joe.nalven2 points out in the nearby comment, the kindest observation that can be made about most young American campus protestors is that they don't even know the meaning of the words that come out of their mouths. I spent a lot of time observing the recent Gen Z protests, often in person, and there was no "evidence" or "ethical consistency" on offer. There was only blind hate, fed mostly by lies, conveyed in blinkered and shameful slogans.
Ms. Long is absolutely correct about free inquiry being vital for a functioning democracy. While Gen Z does indeed want transparency, evidence, and ethical consistency, it is not clear that they are prepared to understand what actually constitute these or how to use them. They exist in algorithmically defined information silos, are spatially segregated from those with different views, and increasingly lack the critical thinking skills to evaluate the information that they do receive (this is absolutely NOT confined to this generation but is a societal malady.) What is ethical is filtered through ideology, as is what counts as credible evidence and how transparency is defined. None of these is intellectually or morally neutral or self-evident (but we think they are). Were this not the case cancel culture would not have been a phenomenon, nor would ill-informed chants of making Palestine free "From the River to the Sea" have been uttered. The Israeli-Palestine conflict is incredibly complex, and yet there is ample evidence to arrive at sober judgments about it, even if those judgments do not lead to easy answers—real life is often like that. Gen Zers nor their elders have generally rendered such judgements. In sum, there is little evidence that transparency, evidence, and ethical consistency will be able to wake us from our current socio-political nightmare. For that to happen all sides would actually have to want it and I don't see that. There's an ocean between good ideas and intentions and good deeds.
Having read the comments, it seems I am feeling what most of the others have felt. What Dr. Long describes more aspirational than actual. These kids shout down guest speakers and report professors who try to challenge them to think independently. Not seeing this desire for open discussion. They think, tragically, that they already know what they need to know. They don’t need to listen, they just need to categorize the speaker in advance. Once that’s done, they “know” whether the speaker is right or wrong without the bother of careful listening. They have no capacity for careful consideration because social media has reduced their attention span to mere seconds. Their professors can’t assign an entire book because they are incapable of reading it- unless perhaps it’s a short “graphic” book in the comic book format. Ask them a penetrating question and they dissolve into fear and “unsafeness”.
Again, the description offered by Dr. Long is a good thing to aspire to. But it ain’t out there by all appearances.
An excellent piece by Dr. Long that shows why Free Black Thought is the gold standard for social and political commentary! She provides invaluable insights into as to why Gen Z hold the values they do and the events that shaped their worldview. This article should be published in the New York Times or the Wall Street Journal. They never would, but it should be! It’s far superior to the usual drek you’d read in those publications! Gen Z most certainly values transparency, evidence and ethical consistency. But they don’t know how exactly to define these things, what they constitute or how to use them properly. They often fall for half-truths, lies and propaganda. They are also more often than not, driven by emotion and idealism rather than facts and rational thought. Gen Z also sees the world in a very black and white way and can’t see gray. In summation, Gen Z means well and seeks to do good, but don’t have a good idea of how to do it, how to get there or what things like “justice” or “equity” look like or the how to properly use the tools they’ve got to actually make positive change in the world. In truth, Gen Z are the Lost Generation 2.0 and are misguided.
The Israeli-Palestinian Conflict is incredibly complex and many of them have an at best, distorted and overly-simplistic view of it. I think young people today in general don’t understand the Israeli POV, are ignorant of the reality Israelis live under or the magnitude of what took place on October 7th and downplay the evil of Hamas. They act without really knowing what it is their talking about. They use Zionism and Zionist as slurs without really having a good understanding of what Zionism is. Zionism is the Jewish civil rights movement essentially. If they knew more about Israel, they’d love it because it embodies the very progressive values many of them treasure so deeply. The whole “Queers for Palestine” phenomena is a perfect example of how little young people often know. They latch on to a cause if it sounds good, is emotionally satisfying and allows them to stick it to the man and the U.S. Empire in someway without thinking anymore about it.
Right on and precisely on target. I have come to believe that Gaza may stand as the greatest tragedy of this century. What makes this genocide especially dark is that it represents Dark Ages-level evil unfolding in a post-Enlightenment world, at a moment when humanity, by many measures, has reached its highest spiritual and moral awareness.
Yet the genesis is depressingly familiar. As it has always been, a small elite uses money, control over media, and political narratives to advance narrow, self-interested aims, whether through war or by obstructing what would serve the common good. What is different now is awareness. This is not something Gen Z alone perceives. More and more of us are seeing it clearly, and that collective awakening may be the only light in a very dark moment.
I came of age in the 1960s and have witness the coming of age of several generations since. They all have one thing in common. They have been tought in school the ideal goals of the United States. As they go out in the world they begin to see that those ideals have not been met and cannot fathom why that is. In response they want to change things. Certainly in the sixties we had the Baby Boomers trusting nobody over 30. Following generations had their own betes noires. Gen Z's actions are no different from previous generations coming of age.
I was thinking as I read about Gen Z why many were overrepresented in chanting "from the river to the sea." From person on the street interviews many did not know what they were chanting. Moreover, chanting may be both an exercise in free speech and an exercise in slogan-thinking (or non-thinking). I am left with an interest in digging deeper about the variations within the broad category of "Gen Z." Of course, being a pre-Baby Boomer myself may make me suspect.
This is an interesting perspective, as always on FBT. However, I do not agree with the author that "younger Americans demand transparency, evidence, and ethical consistency." Some do, of course. No generation can be described with categorical certainty. But the ones she defends, such as campus protestors against Israel, clearly live by demands closer to the opposite of "transparency, evidence, and ethical consistency." As joe.nalven2 points out in the nearby comment, the kindest observation that can be made about most young American campus protestors is that they don't even know the meaning of the words that come out of their mouths. I spent a lot of time observing the recent Gen Z protests, often in person, and there was no "evidence" or "ethical consistency" on offer. There was only blind hate, fed mostly by lies, conveyed in blinkered and shameful slogans.
Ms. Long is absolutely correct about free inquiry being vital for a functioning democracy. While Gen Z does indeed want transparency, evidence, and ethical consistency, it is not clear that they are prepared to understand what actually constitute these or how to use them. They exist in algorithmically defined information silos, are spatially segregated from those with different views, and increasingly lack the critical thinking skills to evaluate the information that they do receive (this is absolutely NOT confined to this generation but is a societal malady.) What is ethical is filtered through ideology, as is what counts as credible evidence and how transparency is defined. None of these is intellectually or morally neutral or self-evident (but we think they are). Were this not the case cancel culture would not have been a phenomenon, nor would ill-informed chants of making Palestine free "From the River to the Sea" have been uttered. The Israeli-Palestine conflict is incredibly complex, and yet there is ample evidence to arrive at sober judgments about it, even if those judgments do not lead to easy answers—real life is often like that. Gen Zers nor their elders have generally rendered such judgements. In sum, there is little evidence that transparency, evidence, and ethical consistency will be able to wake us from our current socio-political nightmare. For that to happen all sides would actually have to want it and I don't see that. There's an ocean between good ideas and intentions and good deeds.
Having read the comments, it seems I am feeling what most of the others have felt. What Dr. Long describes more aspirational than actual. These kids shout down guest speakers and report professors who try to challenge them to think independently. Not seeing this desire for open discussion. They think, tragically, that they already know what they need to know. They don’t need to listen, they just need to categorize the speaker in advance. Once that’s done, they “know” whether the speaker is right or wrong without the bother of careful listening. They have no capacity for careful consideration because social media has reduced their attention span to mere seconds. Their professors can’t assign an entire book because they are incapable of reading it- unless perhaps it’s a short “graphic” book in the comic book format. Ask them a penetrating question and they dissolve into fear and “unsafeness”.
Again, the description offered by Dr. Long is a good thing to aspire to. But it ain’t out there by all appearances.
PS: These young generations remind me of something Mark Twain said: “It’s not what I don’t know that bothers me. It’s what I do know- that ain’t so.
An excellent piece by Dr. Long that shows why Free Black Thought is the gold standard for social and political commentary! She provides invaluable insights into as to why Gen Z hold the values they do and the events that shaped their worldview. This article should be published in the New York Times or the Wall Street Journal. They never would, but it should be! It’s far superior to the usual drek you’d read in those publications! Gen Z most certainly values transparency, evidence and ethical consistency. But they don’t know how exactly to define these things, what they constitute or how to use them properly. They often fall for half-truths, lies and propaganda. They are also more often than not, driven by emotion and idealism rather than facts and rational thought. Gen Z also sees the world in a very black and white way and can’t see gray. In summation, Gen Z means well and seeks to do good, but don’t have a good idea of how to do it, how to get there or what things like “justice” or “equity” look like or the how to properly use the tools they’ve got to actually make positive change in the world. In truth, Gen Z are the Lost Generation 2.0 and are misguided.
The Israeli-Palestinian Conflict is incredibly complex and many of them have an at best, distorted and overly-simplistic view of it. I think young people today in general don’t understand the Israeli POV, are ignorant of the reality Israelis live under or the magnitude of what took place on October 7th and downplay the evil of Hamas. They act without really knowing what it is their talking about. They use Zionism and Zionist as slurs without really having a good understanding of what Zionism is. Zionism is the Jewish civil rights movement essentially. If they knew more about Israel, they’d love it because it embodies the very progressive values many of them treasure so deeply. The whole “Queers for Palestine” phenomena is a perfect example of how little young people often know. They latch on to a cause if it sounds good, is emotionally satisfying and allows them to stick it to the man and the U.S. Empire in someway without thinking anymore about it.
Right on and precisely on target. I have come to believe that Gaza may stand as the greatest tragedy of this century. What makes this genocide especially dark is that it represents Dark Ages-level evil unfolding in a post-Enlightenment world, at a moment when humanity, by many measures, has reached its highest spiritual and moral awareness.
Yet the genesis is depressingly familiar. As it has always been, a small elite uses money, control over media, and political narratives to advance narrow, self-interested aims, whether through war or by obstructing what would serve the common good. What is different now is awareness. This is not something Gen Z alone perceives. More and more of us are seeing it clearly, and that collective awakening may be the only light in a very dark moment.
I came of age in the 1960s and have witness the coming of age of several generations since. They all have one thing in common. They have been tought in school the ideal goals of the United States. As they go out in the world they begin to see that those ideals have not been met and cannot fathom why that is. In response they want to change things. Certainly in the sixties we had the Baby Boomers trusting nobody over 30. Following generations had their own betes noires. Gen Z's actions are no different from previous generations coming of age.