All Episodes
Previous Next
Sept. 20, 2023 - Dennis Prager Show
01:30:28
Shouting Down Charlie
| Copy link to current segment

Time Text
Dennis Prager here.
Thanks for listening to the Daily Dennis Prager Podcast.
To hear the entire three hours of my radio show, commercial-free, every single day, become a member of PragerTopia.
You'll also get access to 15 years' worth of archives, as well as the daily show prep.
subscribe at prager topia.com hello my friends I'm I'm Dennis Prager.
The world is going mad, but I don't know what else one can say.
Oh, yes, last night I was speaking.
I was actually having a dialogue with Dr. Simone Gold, Frontline Doctors, for the Children's Defense Fund.
Well, no, no, it's the Children's Health Defense, sorry.
That is Robert F. Kennedy Jr.'s group.
And I'm just offering this in passing in case you're ever challenged.
If you say that truth is not a left-wing value, it is a liberal value, and it is a conservative value, but it is not a left-wing value, never has been.
Truth does not matter to the left.
It matters to liberals.
Not all, but many.
And to conservatives, not all, but many.
At least it's a value in those two groups.
So, this I found to be very effective.
If the left believed in truth, would they say men menstruate?
That is, I think, the most powerful example you could offer.
That truth is a joke.
Is a farce, is an impediment to leftism.
Just give that example.
If you do not say men menstruate, you are considered by the left to be a hater, a bigot, and anti-science.
But every single one of you listening knows it is an enormous lie men do not menstruate.
It is a gigantic...
There is no...
You can't say anything.
If you said the earth is flat, it would be equivalent and probably truer because the land you are on now, the floor you are on now, is flat.
So there are vast numbers of places on earth where the earth is flat, but there is no place on earth where a man menstruates.
If your child comes home and says, men give birth or men menstruate, you know that they have been poisoned to the extent that they regard truth as a farce.
It is an irrelevant question.
Is it true?
Irrelevant.
Just like, was it irrelevant that it was a lie that the Trump campaign colluded with Russia?
It was a lie.
It was as enormous as men menstruate.
And they got Pulitzer Prizes at the Washington Post and New York Times for perpetuating that lie, which the Columbia Journalism Review, Columbia is about as woke as you can get, but for some reason, God bless them, Columbia Journalism Review actually was committed to truth and said it wasn't true.
It was a terrible time for American journalism.
A terrible time for American journalism started very early.
The New York Times reporting that there was no famine in Ukraine in 1932. Corrupt, despicable Walter Durante, who was basically bribed with room and board and women by Stalin to report lies on behalf of the Soviet government.
The New York Times never returned that prize.
The Pulitzer Prize has never announced that they have rescinded.
Now they'll say, well, it wasn't given for that, but I find that to be as farcical as the original reporting.
Charlie Kirk went to Northern Arizona University, and the reception is very scary.
It is scary.
We have young people.
Who have been trained to be like the Soviet Youth League, Komsomol.
Brainwashed drones of evil.
Charlie Kirk went to speak, and they were screaming, F-U, of course they said the word, fascist.
Charlie Kirk drowned out by protesters on Arizona college visit.
I'll be with Charlie at Arizona State University next week.
If you have a seventh cousin who attends ASU, have them come to our speeches next Wednesday night.
That's a week from today in Phoenix.
Charlie Kirk laughs as mob of smelly overweight.
Okay, I'm not going to read that.
That's a tweet.
We don't need it.
F you fascist, you fascist.
The screaming.
I tell you, the screaming.
Why don't right-wing students scream and curse at left-wing speakers?
Even when they constituted half the campus or even a majority of the campus, did they ever do this?
I'm asking a question.
They may have.
I'm simply not aware of it.
It's like, do any adult children who are Republican refuse to speak to a parent because the parent voted Democrat?
You certainly have.
Left-wing children who don't speak to a parent because the parent voted for a Republican.
But it doesn't work in both directions, does it?
Yeah.
So again, we will be there next week.
Charlie sent me a very long report on this.
From Mediaite.
It's longer than the one from...
This is Daily Beast.
So, what is their...
The Daily Beast is their team?
No, it's our team.
No, their team.
No, you made a face like I was saying something silly.
Yeah, you were.
You are, yeah.
The Daily Beast is hard.
So why would...
It's interesting.
Why would Daily Beast be proud of reporting this?
What do you mean?
They believe that it's good for students to scream F.U. at a speaker they differ with and call him a fascist.
That is the level of the Daily Beast?
You know what, ladies and gentlemen?
You have just experienced something rare, and I apologize.
A naive moment on my part.
Where I thought that even a left-wing website...
Might be embarrassed by this, but they're obviously not.
Yep.
Turning Point USA founder Charlie Kirk was sworn by protesters who heckled FU a fascist during an appearance at Northern Arizona University yesterday.
Kirk, who was visiting the university for an open debate titled, Prove Me Wrong, The Government Is Lying To You, Was greeted on campus with signs, with threads, fascists, they spelled fascist wrong, not the mediaite, the protester.
F off.
By the way, I told you, I had that.
When I spoke for Moms for Liberty in Philadelphia, they had a lot of demonstrators out there.
I went to take the pictures, and that, I guess, another naive moment.
I thought they wouldn't recognize me.
I was wrong within a few seconds.
And many came over also screaming the F-word at me.
I think pro-Nazi, I think that was in there too, which is remarkable since my hatred of Nazis is so deep.
But anyway.
And then so there was a young woman.
Who looked me straight in the face and said, get effed.
And I looked her straight in the face back and said, I do.
And she had nothing to respond.
I think she was a bit shocked.
Charlie Kirk has a small face.
Do you understand that?
What does that mean?
Charlie Kirk has a small face?
Did you ever hear anybody described as having a small face?
No.
Okay.
Trans rights equal human rights.
Okay.
That's fair.
But trans don't have the right to cheat.
You have human rights if you're trans, but you don't have rights to cheat.
And if you're a male biologically and compete with women...
You're cheating.
That's all you are.
You're just a narcissistic cheat.
And that's where rights end.
We return.
Gold dealers are a dime a dozen.
They're everywhere.
What sets these companies apart and whom can you really trust?
This is Dennis Prager for AmFedCoin and Bullion.
My choice for buying precious metals.
When you buy precious metals, it's imperative that you buy from a trustworthy and transparent dealer that protects your best interests.
So many companies use gimmicks to take advantage of inexperienced gold and silver buyers.
Be cautious of brokers offering free gold and silver or brokers that want to sell you overpriced collectible coins.
They appreciate more than gold and silver.
What about hidden commissions and huge markups?
Nick Grovich and his team at AmFed always have your back.
I trust this man.
That's why I mention him by name.
Nick's been in this industry over 42 years, and he's proud of providing transparency and fair pricing to build trusted relationships.
If you're interested in buying or selling, call Nick Grovich and his team at AmFed, Coin& Bullion, 800-221-7694.
AmericanFederal.com.
AmericanFederal.com.
When I say that truth is not a left-wing value, I am telling the truth.
Come on.
The statement sex is not binary is an example of a lie.
A big one.
Sorry, folks.
Just adjusting the mic.
It's a big one, and we have a video up this week at PragerU titled, Sex is binary.
And it is given by an evolutionary biologist, a fellow at the Manhattan Institute.
So, when you say science says, it is a corruption of science to say it.
Did science say that children should be out of school for nearly two years because of COVID? Sweden had the schools open the whole time.
Nothing happened, except that the students did not fall back.
If you keep up with the damage done by closed schools, you will understand that, for example, it is about double the number of students who have to take remedial math when they get to college, because their level of math is so low.
As their level of writing and reading and everything else.
It was already bad because our schools by and large are awful.
They're not dedicated to education.
Sex is binary.
Here is the beginning of the video, and then I'm going to speak to Dr. Colin Wright, PhD in evolutionary biology.
Here's the beginning.
If you're watching me, you can see it.
If you're not watching me, you can hear it.
Asked to define the word "woman" during her Supreme Court confirmation hearings in 2022, Judge Ketanji Jackson famously demurred, saying, "I'm not a biologist." Well, I am a biologist, and I'm here to help.
To that end, let me rephrase the question to Judge Jackson.
Are sex categories in humans, male and female, real, immutable, and binary?
Or are they merely social constructs?
Answer?
Real.
That's just the way it is, and we all know it.
Immutable.
It can't be changed.
And binary.
There are only two sexes, not three or four or 57. This is true throughout the plant and animal kingdoms.
An organism's sex is defined by the type of gamete, sperm or ova, It can, or would, produce.
Males have the function of producing sperm, or small gametes, and females, ova, or large ones.
There is no third gamete type.
There are only two.
Therefore, sex is binary.
This shouldn't be controversial.
It's just basic biology.
Okay, we'll stop there.
As much as I want to hear, and I have, obviously.
You know, you did a great job, Colin Wright, and welcome to the Dennis Prager Show.
Thank you for having me.
I really appreciate it.
It was such a great experience doing the video with your crew.
Yeah, they're terrific.
I do videos with them, too.
I appreciate them equally.
So, what does it mean to be an evolutionary biologist?
So, broadly, it's someone who either studies how life has evolved from when it first started, a few billion years ago.
Up until now.
So it's, I guess, formally defined as looking at how gene frequencies change through populations over time and how selection acts on organisms that has kind of created the entire, all the, you know, the lush biodiversity that we see today.
So when they say that science is on their side, what are they pointing to?
I'm sure you've heard their arguments.
I've never quite followed that.
How does science back them up?
Well, they've sort of established, and this has happened in many domains, sort of a false consensus by really coming after scientists who dissent from these sort of mainstream political narratives.
This happened to me when I first started speaking up about this stuff, and I ended up completely derailing my career and making me sort of become the people's biologist right now.
So you get a lot of medical organizations who just sort of join in on this mantra that sex is a spectrum.
You know, there were no experiments that show sex is a spectrum.
There was no Nobel Prize given out for the discovery of the sex spectrum.
This is just sort of something that's been chanted by activists first and then has made its way into medical journals.
And it's just sort of reported as fact, sort of this eminence-based, you know, consensus rather than evidence-based.
And it's been a real big problem because it's hard to push back.
I want to talk to you about that problem.
And what happened to you?
I did not know that.
Colin Wright, Ph.D. in evolutionary biology.
His video is up at PragerU.
back in a moment.
It's an amazing thing, the time we are living in, that people say that sex is not binary.
memory.
It's a spectrum.
So I asked a PhD in evolutionary biology, Colin Wright, who's on with me and who presents this week's video at PragerU, titled, Sex is Binary.
Where did they get this ability to say, science backs us?
So you were saying that The scientists who back them are what?
They're giving in to popular pressure?
How would you explain people who are scientists who back them?
Well, I would say that most of them, like all of academia, you know, it's highly skewed politically for the left.
So when you get these sort of sacred cows on the left about transgenderism, this type of thing.
And they're told that the sex spectrum is liberatory to trans people somehow, then you can't really comment on it without being called a bigot, all this type of stuff, a transphobe.
This is what happened to me.
So you get people, you know, a lot of the scientists who are pro-Democrat, they don't want to say anything.
The ones who don't care, they keep their heads down because they'll get pilloried by academics, their own colleagues left and right.
It'll be harder to get grants.
It's just professional suicide to come out and say this type of stuff.
So the loudest voices and the most activist voices, they're the ones that sort of rise to the top and the only ones you hear.
So you don't have to say yes to this, but I want to know if I'm hearing you clearly.
Are you saying that most scientists in your field are cowards?
I wouldn't say that.
I would say most probably...
Don't know about these issues.
They don't see their relevance.
They think there might be as insane as flat-earthism and that this isn't going to proliferate or that people are making too big of a deal at it.
Or that not people don't actually believe that.
That's just something I hear today.
They're just, they don't think it's an issue.
And then when they're shown that it's an issue, then it's, you know, oh, you're just parroting, you know, far-right talking points or whatever.
So I'd say most scientists are just trying to do their experiments in their lab and they're not trying to be political at all.
And then there are a lot of people who are actually cowardly, and I've encountered many of them.
What happened to you?
Were you teaching at a university, or where were you?
So I was a postdoctoral researcher at Penn State when I started writing articles about this for the Wall Street Journal.
And this, you know, it was a huge campaign to smear my reputation, to try to say that I was a danger to students on campus because I wasn't inclusive and I was...
Denying their identities, which was a type of violence.
And this was a really sort of precarious part of my career because I was a postdoc.
I didn't have tenure.
I was looking for tenure-track positions.
And there were just major online campaigns, people emailing potential employers, telling them that I was not only a transphobe but a racist and making an unsafe environment.
So it was a full-court press just to get me out.
Of academia while they think they could, while I was the most vulnerable.
And it worked?
I was never fired, but I was pretty convinced that my chances of getting a position in academia and maintaining it, it's hard to just try to withstand all these accusations of being a bigot and stuff if you're trying to get tenure.
So I ended up leaving on my own volition to sort of pursue things where I thought that I could have more control over my actual future and career.
Did anyone in your program or at Penn State or anywhere reach out to you?
Anyone in your field?
I don't mean the public.
Yes, but only privately.
They wouldn't publicly defend me.
The only one who would defend me is my friend Jerry Coyne at the University of Chicago.
But he was retired, so he didn't have anything to lose.
They can't get rid of him.
So yeah, so only the people who were completely untouchable were the ones who said anything whatsoever.
So I just want to review this for the sake of my listeners, that in fact, what you're saying is that it is almost universal among evolutionary biologists and other biologists.
That they will not say there are only two sexes.
Am I summarizing what you said correctly?
Yeah, I would probably say that.
I've been writing about this for five years, and I'm still shocked at how I can still count on one hand the number of...
Then why should we trust anything that is coming out of universities in science departments that are filled with people who will lie because they don't want to be hurt?
That is an excellent question.
That's what made me so upset about this whole denialism of the reality of sex, because if the public is seeing scientists get the easy stuff wrong because of political reasons, how are we supposed to trust them on the more complex things like climate change or epidemiology and anything else?
You can't.
Anything that has a political valence, it's just...
Completely unable for people to trust what's going on because they get the easy stuff wrong.
That's right.
That is exactly what is happening.
By the way, you will find this of interest.
I'm sure this has never been said to you.
So I just want you to know when I began to think that scientists were not telling the truth to be popular or because popular pressure.
30 years ago, when they announced that 50,000 Americans a year are killed by secondhand smoke, I knew that the science departments or scientists in America were compromising science to say what the New I knew that the science departments or scientists in America were compromising science to say what Yeah, I actually read a piece in the free press recently about that whole...
Oh, really?
Yeah, yeah.
What did it say?
There was a scientist who was one of the main researchers of secondhand smoke.
He came out with an article 20 or so years ago that really contradicted all of the mainstream narrative that secondhand smoke was deadly.
And he was essentially just completely called names.
Told that he was in the pocket of big tobacco, and they tried to come after his career, too.
So now, just last week, this ran in the free press.
Oh, good.
I'm going to look that up.
Cullen Wright, Ph.D., Evolutionary Biology, gives this week's PragerU course five minutes.
Sex is binary.
pay your child to watch it hi everybody Final segment with Colin Wright, PhD, Evolutionary Biology.
You realize how degraded the sciences are that for saying that there are only two sexes, he is essentially banned from a career in academia.
And I don't know why that is not...
This massive indictment of the state of academia and the sciences there.
Is Colin on, by the way?
Yes or no?
What's the answer, Sean?
I don't know what you're signaling.
We have him right now.
Okay, so he disappeared for a moment.
Okay, good.
You're back, Colin.
Thank you.
Yeah.
Happy to be here.
Well, so you're now with the Manhattan Institute?
I am.
What would you recommend to a young scientist who knows that there are only two sexes?
What would you say to him or her?
Well, if this is your area of expertise and what you're studying, I would say make sure to say that loudly and make sure that it isn't corrupted by colleagues trying to push politically.
Fashionable pseudoscience in your field.
For a lot of other scientists, especially if they're in a precarious place in their career, if they're non-tenured, you really have to ask yourself if it's worth speaking up at this very moment about it.
I think championing the truth is the best.
The reason I wanted to become a scientist was because I wanted to say true things about biology.
Really, you're going to have to look hard in the mirror and decide.
What you're going to do if the field has been so corrupted.
But always speak the truth.
I mean, if you're asked, never lie.
Bless you.
One final question.
What's your answer to, and we only have a minute, is sex might be binary, but we're talking about gender.
Well, I mean, they try to conflate those terms every chance they get.
If you want to talk about gender in terms of personalities and behaviors and expression, then sure, that's clearly not a binary category.
But if you're talking about biology, then that's definitely binary, and we need to make a firm distinction between those two.
Well, thank you.
The video is magnificent.
I ask you all to watch it and send it along to people.
Anybody who says science says yes.
Colin, thank you.
We'll be in touch.
Thank you.
I appreciate everybody at the Manhattan Institute.
I will say it's like an all-star team, isn't it?
We continue.
You're listening to The Dennis Prager Show.
Mike Lindell has a passion to help you get the best sleep of your life.
He didn't stop at the pillow.
Mike also created the Giza Dream Bed Sheets.
These sheets look and feel great, which means an even better night's sleep, which is crucial for overall health.
Mike found the world's best cotton called Giza.
It's ultra soft and breathable, but extremely durable.
Mike's latest deal is the sale of the year for a limited time.
You'll receive 50% off the Giza Dream Sheets, marking prices down as low as $20.
Go to MyPillow.com, click on the radio podcast square, and use the promo code Prager.
There you'll find not only this amazing offer, but also deep discounts on all MyPillow products, including the MyPillow 2.0 mattress topper, MyPillow kitchen towel sets, and so much more.
Call 800-761-6302 or go to MyPillow.com and use the promo code Prager.
Hi everybody, Male Female Hour.
Every week, second hour of the show on Wednesday.
I think it's the most honest talk about men and women in the media.
I'm thinking, do I want there to be even a more honest one?
And the answer is yes.
I'm not looking for a championship.
I'm looking for honesty on the subject.
But we are, and there is only one person that I regularly have on the Male Female Hour.
It's Alison Armstrong.
1L1S, alisonarmstrong.com, renowned relationship expert.
This has been many years that I have her on because I find her mind original.
She, to her great credit, decided early on in her life to understand men.
And I think she has.
That's the amazing thing.
That is quite a compliment, Allison.
I think you have.
Well, the really cool thing about it is, in 1991, I thought it would take two or three years, two or three months, actually, to learn everything that was worth knowing about men.
That's how poor my opinion was.
And I've never committed this...
Studying men longer.
I've just been intrigued for over three decades.
I still will learn something at this point and go, oh my gosh, who are these people?
That's right.
Exactly.
Makes it really fun.
Makes it really, really fun.
We're going to get to the topic that both of us want you to discuss today, but...
Just on that subject alone, because I've given this a life of thought as well, I say to women that we are so different from you that trying to understand us is sort of like a human trying to understand an orangutan, but obviously we can never transcend the species gap.
We can somewhat transcend the...
The sex gap.
But that's how different, in many ways, men are.
Is that fair?
I think it's fair, and the good news is, especially for women, we have moments that are, it has to do with our cycles, and it has to do with our mental state.
We have moments where we are similar.
We're similar to the focus of a man.
We're similar when we're ovulating.
That's the closest we come to the sex drive of a man.
We have these moments where we can get really close.
And I've used those for years to have women go, okay, now imagine being that way all the time.
And their eyes get so big.
And we're lucky.
We get these little sort of edging up, being like you for moments every month usually.
And that can give us some insight into, oh, when I'm committed to a result, I hate being interrupted.
Oh, and I interrupt my husband all the time.
Oh, dear.
So I want to bounce one more.
See, that's an example of your original form of thinking.
That understanding of men is available periodically to a woman.
It's a fascinating insight.
I just want to share with you a cartoon that I found.
I think it's the funniest single one I've ever seen.
I love dark humor, and I thought it was hilarious.
Interestingly, it even works.
You don't have to see it, although seeing it is funnier.
So here's the cartoon, the illustration.
A man is hanging from a rope in his house.
He's clearly committed suicide.
The chair he stood on is knocked over.
He's dangling dead from the noose.
And he has a note on his chest.
And his wife is looking at the note.
Says, you misspelled constant criticism.
That's awesome.
Yes!
Yes, and so here's what's even really interesting, right?
And one of the biggest differences between men and women, and something I love about men.
So she looks at that note and she sees the misspelling of constant criticism.
So she sees what's not perfect, which is classic female vision and perception.
Whereas as a man, you're so fed by beauty, your mind filters for beauty.
Where ours is filtering for mistakes and imperfection.
And so, like, what women think of as a flaw, and to be beautiful, I have to be flawless.
A man's like, what?
That's part of your beauty.
Or spinach in your teeth?
What spinach?
I was too dazzled by your eyes.
I didn't notice, and I didn't care.
What's it got to do with anything?
And, I mean, this is such good news for women.
You're looking for beauty, and you're fed by beauty.
We don't have to work so hard at this.
That's fascinating.
Your reaction is terrific.
And women, in my experience, women do it to themselves, not just to their husbands.
Oh, we're brutal.
That's why if you say one little thing, we'll usually fall apart, because there are a hundred ways to criticize.
The voice in our head is criticize ourselves.
Before you ever said, you know, the beans are salty.
And we take that as a criticism.
It's a criticism.
I didn't do this perfectly.
What is the ultimate reason that this finding flaws is so built into women?
What does it serve in the larger picture?
Well, it's...
It's old and it's brutal and it's not verified, like many of the things that people think we don't verify.
It's based in that we think you will protect us and provide for us and want us if we always please you and never displease you.
And we think that we need to please you perfectly.
And a man said once, why do I... Why do I always get 100 points or zero?
Why don't I ever just get 80 points?
And women don't know that.
You can win a game without playing it perfectly.
You just got to play it a little better.
But it's built in.
I've encountered it in tens of thousands of women where we think we will survive if we're perfect.
And anything about us we think is imperfect, we're going to try to hide it.
And this applies to her perception of her man as well.
Well, yeah, it starts with her, but yes, it applies to everything.
This is how Martha Stewart became so wealthy.
She actually up-leveled the perfection of hosting.
And women just were sucked right into it.
Like, oh, I've got to do so much better than I did.
Better homes and gardens.
I mean, this goes back to the last century.
Better homes and gardens.
You have to have a better home and a better garden.
And it has to be better than the neighbors.
And there's a competition of perfection.
And it pretty much drives us crazy.
It can use our entire life up if we don't wake up and disconnect from it.
And it's one thing I so appreciate about men.
It would have been invisible to me.
If I hadn't been studying men, and what men mostly wanted to talk about was women.
And the things they said about women, I didn't know who they were talking about.
I'd never seen it.
But their sharing it with me opened my eyes, and I started looking for how they see women.
Fascinating.
And life, and life, one might add.
Back in a moment, Alison Armstrong.
The remarkable Alison Armstrong is my guest, as she is every season.
Mm-hmm.
This is the fall edition of the Male Female Hour.
Actually, we're sneaking in the last day of summer.
That's a riot.
I love your precision.
Yes, my friends, I misled you.
Yeah.
One of Dan's nicknames for me is Priscilla.
But he always says it very kindly.
It's never a criticism.
Naturally.
I need Priscilla on this.
Well said.
So, alright, so we opened up on the issue of seeing imperfections constantly in themselves and in their partners.
But now we'll go to an issue you want to raise.
We spoke right before the show, and that is what each sex most needs.
Is that a fair statement of what you'd like to talk about?
Yeah.
For people who heard last time when we were talking about sources of conflict, having different needs can be a huge source of conflict between people, especially because many of them are projected.
So a man will project onto a woman, for example, that she has to have a climax, and a woman will project on a man that he needs to be soothed because he's clearly so frustrated, so I'll touch him and soothe him and try to calm him down.
It doesn't go well, right?
Touching a man when he's frustrated, we don't even know.
The epinephrine in his body has his skin be so sensitive, it feels like you're a firebrand, right?
So not only do we have different needs, but we don't know we have different needs.
Most of us aren't even aware of our own needs because there's such a prohibition against having them.
Like for men to have a need is a weakness.
For women to have a need is an imperfection.
And so we don't do nearly enough work in this area.
And so when you and I talked last time about needs as a conflict, you said...
We should talk about what people really need.
It's like, okay, let's do it.
And I've worked on this since the very beginning of studying men because I thought men either didn't care about what I needed or they were actively withholding it.
And then as I listened to men, I was astonished at how much attention men pay Giving a woman what she needs, and can they give a woman what she needs?
And part of being the right person to marry is he thinks he can give her what he thinks she needs.
And that he thinks and he thinks is important.
And so I've just spent a lot of time distinguishing different kinds of needs.
And there are needs I call survival needs, like truly you will die.
Or your genes will die if you don't eat, sleep, have water, and have sex.
Like, both men and women need that.
As I was saying before the break, women only have the drive from that need when they're literally ovulating.
That's when we're fertile.
So that's when that survival need kicks in.
And then we have things we...
We need in order to survive, and we'll have a big, like, ah, survival reaction.
And those differ as well.
For men, it's mostly because they survive by being productive.
And, I mean, that is worth a whole conversation, for sure, Dennis, because it's not just productive in the present.
It's productive, how long have I been productive?
How long do I see I'm going to be productive?
They're very successful men, deeply, deeply depressed because they think of the end of their productivity, right?
So being productive, and then to be productive, you need to be productive.
The perception is a certainty, and you don't have to talk about it.
You need to be respected and trusted.
So any indication, and this happens a lot in marriages, where she'll do something that he...
His reaction to it seems outrageous.
She doesn't know that she just, the perception is she just attacked him by disrespecting him.
And women, we're going to express a lot of doubts, which they don't know their man is, wow, she doesn't trust me.
If she doesn't trust me, she doesn't respect me.
If she doesn't trust and respect me, she doesn't know who the heck I am.
The despair at that.
I mean, it's so hurtful and sad.
And then on the other side, for women, we're sure we'll survive by being connected.
And so we're constantly paying attention to, are we connected, the quality of the connection?
And we panic when there's an interruption to the connection, which men connect and disconnect, connect and disconnect because of single focus.
And we panic in the disconnect.
And that's usually why we'll interrupt, is to try to reconnect.
And it doesn't go well.
And then even one of the things I've encountered, and for any women listening, women so depend on connection, it gets crossed over.
Like women in sales think that if they have a really good connection with someone, they're going to buy from them.
They don't know, okay, we've got a good connection, but they have a better price, they have a better warranty, right?
Like, they're not going to buy based on connection, right?
There's so many factors.
And so that's one of the biggest differences, connection versus trust and respect.
And for women, the access to connection is interest.
And you could say attention and curiosity.
This is why we love being asked questions.
Men hate being asked questions.
I asked a group of men, how many questions does it take to make it an interrogation?
They all raised one finger.
That's right.
Yeah, so women, like, you know, they're dating and they want to ask a man all these questions and they don't know why he isn't anxious to get on the phone and do that with them.
I can't wait.
And so I like to teach women.
Men do better with playgrounds than with interrogations.
All right, hold on.
At that point, you'll develop.
I'm speaking with Alison Armstrong.
Alisonarmstrong.com.
we continue on the male female hour male female hour and every season we have her on because she has so many interesting and important insights because she has studied men and i might add women for so long alice
AllisonArmstrong.com, 1L, 1S. And while I'm at it, 1N, 1O, 1I. This is just to make sure you stay awake.
I love the absurd.
Forgive me.
Alright, so we're talking about the needs that men and women have and they're not identical.
They're not.
If I may for one moment, I'd just like to put it in another way because I think I really hear you clearly.
So...
I think a great analogy is people often give a gift, like a birthday gift, let's say.
They will often think, what would I like to receive?
And they give the gift.
And they mean only well.
They mean to be giving.
And altruistic.
But it's irrelevant what you would want in that sense.
See, the old dictum, do unto others as you would have done to you, has some truth, but it's not the whole truth.
Yeah.
I wanted to make sure I understood you.
Go ahead.
Well, I would differ with you in that...
It's not what would I like to receive.
There might be what would I like him to have, like what would I like him to wear.
But as we're going through life, we watch what a man seems to be lacking or struggling with, and then we'll decide.
Oh, he needs a new golf bag.
Oh, he needs new socks.
Oh, he needs more flashlights or something like that.
And this is why we never ask you.
What do you want for your birthday?
We think we already know.
I mean, that would be respect.
Honey, if you had it all your way, what would I give you for your birthday?
And then say, you can get back to me.
You don't stand there demanding an answer.
And that would be amazing.
But this is why when a man asks a woman, honey, what do you want for your birthday?
She's hurt because she thinks he hasn't been paying enough attention to her to notice all the things that have been obviously she's admired or said she wanted or struggled without.
She thinks he's paying so little attention to me, a tiger could drag me away before he even looked up.
So it's back to that connection and safety.
And we turn it into another conflict.
And we don't even know why we're doing it.
We just, you know, I said it a long time ago, Dennis, women look at a man and see a hairy, dysfunctional, misbehaving woman.
And we don't even question our expectation that you'd be just like a woman.
And then we would take it personally, that you don't, Respect me enough or love me enough or care about me enough to do what's obviously the right thing to do.
And because of that, because you're doing your right thing isn't the same as our right thing, and we don't even know that.
We just think you're misbehaving, not doing the right thing on purpose, you know, so you should be punished.
And then it goes further, and this is, you know, to me where I'm in awe of men.
We don't even know how much men pay attention to the right thing and to doing the right thing.
And that honor is doing the right thing no matter how you feel.
And not just bad feelings, like do the right thing even if you're mad.
Do the right thing even if you love someone.
You're going to do the right thing.
And we miss this, and it's the core of...
The 97% of men who are honorable and try to be honorable.
When we come back, I'd like you to answer this.
Would it be among the most productive things, and you know you're perfectly welcome to say no to me, but would it be one of the most productive things men and women could do is to simply answer the question for the other, What is it I most need from you?
Tell me if that's a legit question.
We'll get back, Alice.
Let's talk about that when we get back.
Yeah, all right.
Alison Armstrong, 1L1S.com.
To my mind, the only question about gold and silver is whom do you purchase it from, not whether you should purchase any.
Unfortunately, given the decline of all currencies, including the dollar, we are entering a projected $50 trillion deficit by the end of the decade.
I read it to you just the other day.
This is not sustainable, needless to say.
You need...
Gold and silver in your portfolio or just in your home?
The question is from whom?
I so endorse this man, Nick Grovich, that I mention his name.
I rarely mention the owner of a company.
He is honest and spectacularly knowledgeable in the field.
No obligation.
Contact AmericanFederal.com.
The company's name is Amfed, Coin & Bullion.
Americanfederal.com.
No obligation. Call 800-221-7694. 800-221-7694. Americanfederal.com.
And I am back with Alison Armstrong on this male-female hour.
I have her four times a year.
The only such guest in my entire career.
So we're talking about needs of men and women.
By the way, I loved your description which you've given me in the past.
What is it?
Women essentially think men are hairy versions of themselves.
Is that right?
Hairy, misbehaving, dysfunctional women.
Oh, God.
That's so much better than what I said.
Oh, my God.
Well, that explains the cartoon.
You misspelled constant criticism.
Exactly.
And women feeling the obligation to punish.
Because if you don't punish people who misbehave, they're just going to misbehave worse.
Before I address your question about the question, what do you need for me most, can I add a little bit about men being honorable?
Because I got worried I'd leave men in a bad place.
Please.
Go right ahead.
A good word about men is not common these days.
So sad.
So men tend to think that feeling shame, which is that gut feeling, I think it's one of the worst in the world, means that they're dishonorable.
And that's what I want to clean up.
Feeling shame is actually a reaction to failing.
At what you're committed to, what you think is the right thing to do.
We'll feel ashamed when we're not the qualities you are committed to being or a man will say, I should have been there.
I should have been there.
So again, you don't have to be perfect at doing the right thing.
And when you think you haven't, you'll feel shame.
That's what honorable people feel.
And owning that and forgiving yourself for it is really important to what a man will think he deserves.
And you and I have talked about that before.
The lifetime equation.
And so bad people, if you will, don't feel shame.
They literally do not feel shame at any way, any harm that they cause by neglect or by action.
They don't feel shame about it.
And so it's one of the things I learned when I was teaching men how to be the best version of themselves.
That shame is actually something to head into, to reconnect with your own spirit.
Because what we're ashamed of is an indicator of our highest values.
Excellent.
And now to my question.
Is it productive if each spouse would answer the question, what do you most need from me?
I would say a resounding yes.
And there are other versions of that, and then there's something really important.
So, is there anything you need from me that you've given up on getting?
You can save a marriage by listening to the answer to that question.
Is there anything you need from me that's too hard to get?
Because that's something that will proceed to giving up on getting.
And what do you need from me the most?
Absolutely.
And the trick is, and this is where love, honor, and cherish comes in.
I think those are verbs.
Can you honor someone's need because they say so?
And if you need to understand why they need that, that's not honor.
That's not honoring.
That's, oh, your need makes sense to me, so I'll give it to you.
Instead of, I don't need it to make sense to me.
I only need you to just tell me that it matters to you.
And I'll do everything I can.
I asked Dan, we're going on three years, my boyfriend.
I asked him a couple weeks ago, because he's doing the Understanding Men course right now.
So he's watching women confront how they emasculate men.
And I was like, okay.
Am I doing any of those to you?
No.
Is there anything you need from me that you're not getting?
No.
Is there anything that you need to be supported by me that I'm not?
He goes, I'm good.
But it takes courage.
It's scary to ask that question.
And it takes courage to sit and listen and to open your mind.
We don't need the same things.
And can I still give it to you out of loving and honoring and cherishing you?
I'm going to give you what you say you need.
So since we don't need the same things, isn't the deck stacked in some ways against couples from the beginning?
Because they cannot intuit what the other needs.
I think stacked is a mild word.
I think relationships are doomed.
I think we're doomed.
If we don't wake up, get curious, clarify and verify.
Talking to my chiropractor the other day about this, he and his girlfriend are at such an advantage because he's a native English speaker, she's a native Spanish speaker, so they keep verifying if they're understanding each other.
And they're doing so much better than people who assume they're understanding each other.
You're brilliant.
That is your reaction to my saying, the deck is stacked.
Dennis, you didn't say half of it.
They're doomed.
They're doomed.
We literally have opposing instincts, right?
So my need to connect will cause me to interrupt you, but you need...
To be not interrupted so you can focus.
So I will interrupt you to feel safe.
You need to not be interrupted in order to be productive and feel secure.
And not only that, but single focus is a state of peace.
And women don't know how much men crave peace.
Oh, I established it on this program.
You'll love this.
I asked men, I should really write this up.
I asked men, in the prime of their life, by the way, And I asked them, would you trade in half the amount of sex you now have for a happy wife?
And everyone said yes.
Yes.
Yeah, I completely get it.
Yeah, all right, hold on with me, hold on.
That is truly proof.
Of how much most men crave peace.
I will be back in a moment with Alison Armstrong.
Hi, everybody.
Very, very, very important subject.
Colonialism, imperialism, and the like.
I have a professor.
He's a professor of global history and economics at Leiden University in the Netherlands.
He is Jeff Finn, F-Y-N-N, hyphen Paul, Jeff Finn Paul professor.
It's in the Netherlands.
His new book is Not Stolen, The Truth About European Colonialism.
In the New World.
He presented a PragerU video this past summer.
Are we living on stolen land?
And has another one coming out this fall.
So, Professor, or Jeff, welcome back to the Dennis Prager Show.
Thank you, Dennis, for having me on.
It's a pleasure.
There are so many questions to ask.
The issue is so important.
Yeah, there's a lot to discuss.
God, is there ever.
Before we get to the actual subtitle, New World, can I ask you, and if the answer is no, I'm perfectly getting it.
You may say this is not your area of expertise or something you've looked into much, like you have the New World charges.
India is not the new world, of course, and if one looks at reactions to PragerU videos on this subject, where we speak about some of the benefits as well as the problems,
or bad things even, of colonialism in India, all you find basically on a Google search is tens of millions of Indians We're starved and killed by the Brits.
Are you familiar with that?
Yes, I do know a bit about it because I study global history and teach it.
So, yeah.
Just like with almost every other aspect of colonialism, we see numbers that are hugely exaggerated and usually made up out of broad cloth.
If you see numbers in the millions, they're almost always pure fabrication.
Wow.
So...
So what they do is then they cite a fabricated source that we can't really verify.
Well, a lot of times you'll have one demographer who is a sort of rogue.
Like, this is what happens on Hispaniola where Christopher Columbus first landed.
There was one group of demographers in the 1970s who said, oh, we think there might have been 8 million people on this island.
That's an outrageous figure, but everybody cites it because it makes it look as if Christopher Columbus killed millions of people when genetic studies have recently found there was only about 40,000 people on the whole island.
And that's what we're dealing with, like that kind of fabrication, and they're citing, you know, rogue scholars like that.
That is astonishing.
From 8 million to 40,000.
Yeah.
The more I dug into this, the more I realized just how much this is going on across the whole field of colonialism.
Of course.
Because it's the most fertile area to depict the West as evil.
Exactly.
Would they even acknowledge the good parts?
Do they acknowledge that...
India became a modern nation in large measure thanks to English becoming a universal language.
They had no universal language.
Courts were set up.
Legislature, free press.
Do they acknowledge the end of Sati where widows were burned with their husband's body when it was cremated?
I mean, do they acknowledge any good?
Yeah, and you know that there was a peace that was eventually brought across the whole country because warring factions were brought together.
They were introduced to the modern methods of history.
So everything we know about Indian history was actually salvaged, most of it, by British people and then eventually Indian people learning from the Brits.
There are some people beginning to acknowledge this.
But they're still drowned out by all the chorus of howling outrage on social media.
One more question on India, and then we'll get to, of course, your book and the New World issue.
Yeah.
Again, I feel like I'm putting you on the spot, but I so respect you.
Maybe you will have an answer.
So, doing research on the following matter, It's very, very, very hard to find almost any information on this.
The number of Hindus killed in the thousand-year Muslim rule of India.
Yeah.
Yeah, well, see, this is what I find as well.
If there were not scholars doing research on this before around the year 2000, then you're just not going to find reliable figures because nobody today wants to research anything that might be controversial or make the West look good or less bad in comparison with others.
So it may well be the case that nobody has really...
Counted those kinds of figures up and certainly in the last 20 years, nobody has dared to do anything like that.
And I might add, because I really have done research on this, the Indian government doesn't want these figures to be released for fear of Hindu-Muslim violence in India.
Sure.
Yeah, well, and that's the problem.
I mean, you can see if it's going to spark modern actual violence, then you can see why they might want to put a lid on it.
But, you know, in the long run, of course, we need to have an accurate historical record.
That's the only way that mature political decisions can be made.
Yeah, no kidding.
Okay, so...
I don't know how best to approach this enormous subject, colonialism in the new world, but I'll do it in this way.
Name one or two of the greatest charges, or more if you like, and refute them.
Sure.
Well, I mean, I really see my mission in writing this book as being a sort of morale officer for the U.S. You know, a sort of unofficial morale officer for the U.S. Armed Forces and for the American people in general, because we're being told constantly by the left that we were the bad guys of history.
But when you look at the historical record, it overwhelmingly shows us what we were always told up until 20 years ago, which was most of the time we were, in fact, the good guys.
We actually did history better.
Our leaders were more moral.
than almost any other pantheon of national leaders, except maybe the Brits.
And so we really, despite our flaws, we're generally far better than anybody believes today.
And one of those major charges that the left is leveling at American history is the idea of genocide.
Ten years ago, almost no historian used the term genocide to describe what happened to the Native Americans.
Even in California, you've probably heard now of the California genocide after the Gold Rush.
And that used to be known as the California Indian Wars because there was an actual war going on for about 20 years there.
But now it's been rebranded a genocide simply because that is a charge.
Which is, you know, easy to lay at the feet of European Americans.
So that charge of genocide is a novel one, and it's one that 100 years of historians before about 2013 never talked about.
And so as soon as you go back to the real history books, you see that that is just simply not true.
This has been made up.
The other one is stolen ground.
The idea that America was stolen, once again, most historians had a nuanced picture of that before about 2010. But in the last 10 years, with social media driving scholarship, we see discharge of stolen land coming up time and again.
When you actually look at the historical record, you see that east of the Mississippi, most of the land was actually purchased from the Indians who couldn't make their own firearms or metal tools.
And so they were selling land in order to get these necessities from the white man.
And so these two major charges are totally made up basically in the era of social media.
And, you know, any historian who's worth their salt should be able to contradict this easily.
Do you have any reliable number of human beings living?
We'll leave South America aside.
In North America, when Columbus arrived?
Yeah.
All right, if you do, hold on.
I'm going to come back to you.
I don't want to interrupt your answer.
I want to promote your book, actually.
It's truly significant.
Living on Stolen Land.
The book is Not Stolen, The Truth About European Colonialism in the New World.
It's up at DennisPrager.com.
Not Stolen.
Folks, we can still prevail in Western society with people like her.
TeamRiley.org I might add that I have a guest on of whom I can say similar things, Jeff Finn Paul, professor of global history and economics at Leiden University in the Netherlands.
His book Just Out is Not Stolen, The Truth About European Colonialism in the New World.
And Jeff, I was asking you, do we have any solid number, simply a number of the...
People living in North America at the time of Columbus.
Yes.
Well, this is all based on guesswork, you know, because you have to guess the number of villages and then the number of houses, and so it's very easy to end up with a very large spectrum.
So the lowball number for all of North America, including Mexico, is about 15 or 20 million, and the highball figure is about 100 million.
And that is completely ridiculous, but that's the one, of course, that gets cited because then it looks bad when all these people disappeared.
Most of the natives, of course, died of disease rather than massacred.
Over 90% died passively of disease.
But Mexico had about half of the whole New World population, and the future United States had maybe one or two million people, and the population...
The population density was maybe 1 one-hundredth of what was in England at the time.
I'm sorry, there was a breakup there.
What is 1 one-hundredth of who were in England?
Yeah.
The population density in North America was only about 1 one-hundredth of what was in contemporary England.
So it was...
Well, they were settled, and I assume that the Native American was nomadic.
Yeah, somewhat.
On the East Coast, they had just learned to plant corn a little bit, but they mixed that with hunting.
So they were semi-settled.
But for most of North America, they were nomadic.
Okay, so what is your theory, not including Mexico?
What do you think was the number?
I'm thinking before Columbus, maybe up to 2 million.
But then all these old world diseases passively spread through the continent, so a lot of these people ended up dying off.
We end up with maybe a million by the time the Europeans are settled.
So about half were killed by disease, and obviously a certain number in wars with the European.
But this was tiny numbers in the 17th century, a couple thousand, if that.
And then did the numbers increase in the 18th and 19th centuries?
Well, okay, here's a pretty crazy figure that most people don't realize.
So maybe out of a million Native Americans over the first, well, until 1848, so over several centuries, only 7,000 Native Americans were actually killed in massacres up to 1848. 7,000 over 250 years.
And why do you pick 1848?
Well, because then with the gold rush, maybe there were, there's contested figures, maybe another 7,000 people were killed right in the years between 1848 and when the Union came and settled things in around 1870. Because they're now speaking, what do they now, speak about the gold rush genocide?
What is the term they now use?
Exactly.
Yeah, they're trying to call it the California Genocide, and it used to be known as the California Indian Wars, and most of these people did die in battle or during combat situations.
What about the promises that America made to Indians that were broken?
Yeah.
Well, I mean, there certainly were broken promises.
The Trail of Tears was one where, you know, they had been promised this land in the southeast, but then they were kicked out to Oklahoma.
So some of that did happen, but if you look over the long term and across the U.S. as a whole, most of the land east of the Mississippi was purchased in small deals.
Like I had said before, the Indians traded extra land.
For tools and firearms and the like.
So there were some treaties that were broken, but that is not the majority of what happened.
Those are more exceptions to the rule.
And even with the Trail of Tears, these people were offered compensation of farms that were equal to, actually superior to what most white settlers had.
But the ones who were moved were people who refused those farms.
So, the policy these days, I even saw this in a University of Minnesota medical school video, is to now announce, especially at colleges, before anything happens, we just want to announce that we are standing or sitting on land taken from, and then they name a...
Sure.
So, what is your response to that?
Yeah, well, my response would be, why does it matter more when a European takes that land than when a tribe takes that land from another tribe?
Because often when tribes such as the Comanche took land from other tribes, they would often massacre all the men and just incorporate all the women into their own tribe.
The Sioux, for example, you know, everyone thinks of them as having owned South Dakota for time immemorial, but they had actually displaced six or seven tribes just in the previous century or two before, you know, the Europeans came and made treaties with them and broke those treaties, and there was wars.
But the fact is, the Sioux had displaced, you know, many, many people.
people so I would say if we're going to acknowledge that the Sioux used to own this land we should acknowledge all the other tribes that owned the land before the Sioux did which the Sioux themselves had displaced.
Yeah they don't they don't address that issue.
Because you know if your tribe gets massacred and your land gets Yeah, who did it?
Exactly.
Let me just repeat your book.
The book is Not Stolen, The Truth About European Colonialism in the New World.
Jeff Finn Paul is the author.
The author of the book Not Stolen, The Truth About European Colonialism in the New World, is my guest, Bob.
By the way, do you know if an audible will be coming out of your book?
Yes.
We are in the process of producing that.
Good.
I already bought...
I have it now.
If it were in Braille, I would probably have it.
I have the Kindle.
I have the book itself.
Give you an idea, and I will get the Audible when that comes out.
That's how important I think this is.
Yeah, I agree.
I am curious, how is your university in the Netherlands reacting to you?
Because if you were at an American university, you would need bodyguards.
Yeah, no, I was wondering about that.
Already, 10 or 15 years ago, I was being very cautious, but I occasionally said things when I was writing the history of slavery.
I mentioned that other people besides Europeans sometimes took slaves, and as soon as you do that, that already raises some flags in the minds of the woke.
So, I actually had to get a job overseas, in part because the American Academy was not welcoming anyone with a dissenting voice.
So the good thing is the Netherlands is the place where the Pilgrims actually originally lied in my own university town, is where the Pilgrims originally came from.
And it still has this idea that it is a, quote, bastion of liberty.
That's the motto of the university.
And so far, the administration is on my side, even though certain woke international students are starting to get kind of grumpy and agitated a bit.
They're agitated not over the issue of truth.
They're agitated over the issue of not depicting Europeans as evil.
Well, that's just it, because that's all I'm saying.
Europeans were not as evil as we're hearing in the last 10 years.
I'm not attacking any minorities.
In fact, I think my philosophy is more empowering to minorities than the West's philosophy.
But yes, that's what the students are upset about, is the truth, basically.
So, when Columbus arrived in the New World, what did he find, both in numbers and in quality of life?
Yeah.
Well, I mean, you know, he wanted to find China because he thought he was the next Marco Polo, and so he was hoping to find cities with, you know, roofs piled with gold.
But, of course, he landed in the Bahamas and on Hispaniola, where it was, you know, just a fairly primitive Stone Age society.
It was interesting in its own way and had some really interesting art.
But he only found about maybe 40,000 people there on Hispaniola, the first island where he set up shop.
And yet we hear that there were millions and millions of people, which is, of course, a fabrication just to make Columbus and the Spanish look bad.
For me, oh, I don't think you need a...
The show was knocked off the air, as you obviously have inferred by now.
Or ideological reasons.
That's the good news.
It was done through an accident that took place at the Mother Station.
I'm certainly sorry about that.
Jeff Finn Paul, professor of global history and economics at Leiden University, Netherlands.
The book, Not Stolen, The Truth About European Colonialism in the New World.
You know what I always wonder?
What does the left, presuming there are even a handful of serious thinkers there, and I'm not being cute, I think that there are serious liberals and serious conservatives, I don't think that there are serious left-wing thinkers, but let's say there were one.
How would this individual answer the question, what would you have liked?
Nobody come to half of the Earth's surface, the Western Hemisphere?
What would you have prescribed in your idyllic, non-colonialist world?
Well, you know, that's just it.
See, I'm an economic historian, so I think in terms of practicalities like this.
Like, the old world was 90% of the global population.
I mean, sooner or later, they were going to reach the new world, whether it was Arabs or Chinese or Europeans.
But I don't think that most of my colleagues really think about that terribly much.
I don't think they think in terms of spatial relations.
They're mostly social historians these days.
So they only think about culture, they only think about, you know, literature, or they think about language, but they don't really think about the practicalities of life.
So I really wonder what they would say.
They would just try to change the subject, I think.
Yes, I would think so, because there's no answer to the question.
No.
Half of the world is not going to be confined where it is.
And say, well, you know, people live there already.
I mean, if that were the case, then obviously there wouldn't have been a European expansion to the British Isles.
Nobody would have moved anywhere.
Everybody moved somewhere.
Precisely.
And, you know, where there were the most people in Mexico and Peru...
Today, those people are mostly mixed-race indigenous people.
It's not like Europeans wiped them off the face of the earth.
They just interbred with them.
They're still there.
Well, in some cases, I think, what is it, the Aztecs?
They helped wipe themselves out.
There was so much human sacrifice.
Yeah.
Which the Spanish outlawed and don't really get any credit for saving a couple hundred thousand people in the first decade alone.
By the way, in that regard, I don't know the answer to this.
I've always wondered, was there human sacrifice in North America?
Yeah, there was some.
I mean, people have been fighting tooth and nail to deny that these butchered bones at Hopi sites were actually cannibalized, but now they can do DNA tests on the feces that are found in those sites, and they realize, oops, they were actually eating people.
So yes, that was going on to some extent, cannibalism.
Human sacrifice.
Not that much, not as much as the Aztecs, but sometimes, yeah.
Yeah, the Aztecs win that award along with the Canaanites, but that was in another part of the world.
What happened, back to Hispanola and Christopher Columbus, so I asked you, what did he find both in terms of numbers and quality of life?
Yeah.
Yeah, so again, it was basically Stone Age, hoe farmers, and maybe only a couple tens of thousands of people on the whole island.
What is the story with one of the tribes being frightening insofar as being cannibals?
Is that true?
Is that myth?
Yeah, well, I mean, the Taino Indians that Columbus first encountered were, well, they thought more peaceful and they thought the Caribs who lived to the south were more warlike and more cannibalistic.
Of course, the Tainos, to survive, they had to be good at war as well.
It's just that the Caribs were fiercer and they were cannibals.
Yeah, we depict that in the PragerU video, and people resent that.
They don't ask, is it true?
They just don't like the fact that they were...
By the way, Caribbean comes from Caribs, folks.
You'll understand what happened there.
What was his own view, to the extent that we know, of the indigenous people?
Was he a white supremacist?
What were his views?
Yeah, well, that's one of the things I explore at length in the book, and the fact is, Europeans didn't know what the idea of racism was back in the 16th and 17th century, because they, first of all, believed that everybody was descended from Adam and Eve, so we were all one race.
Second of all, they thought that if you had different colored skin, it's because of the latitude that you lived at.
They were thinking that the Native Americans that they found were basically the same color as themselves, certainly the ones who lived up in North America.
So the idea that Columbus was racist is rather silly.
He also, in his journals, talks about Native intelligence, about how they'll make great subjects of the Spanish crown and fellow citizens.
Other Spaniards were talking about how they're great craftspeople.
While there was definitely some prejudice, we can find plenty of instances where Columbus and his colleagues were saying these are as good a people as any you're going to find anywhere on Earth.
That's fascinating.
Nobody knows that.
Nor do they know that Columbus Day was made in order to celebrate the Italian who was truly persecuted in many places, Italian immigrants.
Yeah, there was a lynching in New Orleans in 1892 before the first Columbus Day.
People certainly don't know that.
The book, folks, is not stolen by a professor, by our professor that I'm speaking to, Finn Paul, Jeff Finn Paul, to be precise.
He's at Leiden University.
This is not your first book.
No, I've written several scholarly books, but this was the first time that I decided to write one that's more accessible to the public because, honestly, I just got so fed up with what my colleagues were doing, I thought somebody had to step up to the plate.
No kidding.
All right, final segment.
Yes, you're a delight.
Back with Professor Finn Paul in a moment.
This book should...
At the very least, it should be required reading in courses on colonialism along with the other books.
Dennis Prager here.
Thanks for listening to the Daily Dennis Prager Podcast.
To hear the entire three hours of my radio show, commercial-free, every single day.
You'll also get access to 15 years' worth of archives, as well as the daily show prep.
▲
Export Selection