Andrew Schulz's Flagrant with Akaash Singh
Andrew Schulz's Flagrant with Akaash Singh
"But if you recognize how shitty their past was, they said, we need to shed this image. Yes. We have a cool tradition, but we want to remove all the racism from it, which is essentially what every country has done. We're all guilty of some form of hatred or bigotry. And we've tried to shed it to the best of our ability." — Speaker 1
"The question is, did they try to remove themselves from the past? I don't know enough about the organization, but it could be one of those things where they're like, apparently, according to the article, they banned Black people and Jews. Sorry. But we don't know if when they let them in, if it was like, oh, we don't want to get sued for discrimination." — Speaker 2
"But point is you got you got this situation where the past is obviously horrendous. But you recognize how horrendous it is and you try to remove yourself in that past. Go." — Speaker 1
The discussion centers on the Veiled Prophet Ball in St. Louis, an event with a documented history of white supremacist origins and discriminatory practices, including barring Black individuals and Jews. The conversation acknowledges that in 1979, the organization began making changes, including allowing Black participants and changing its name, to shed its problematic image. A key point of contention is the public's reaction to Ellie Kemper, an actress who became "Queen of the Ball" in 1999, 20 years after these initial reforms. Speakers debated whether individuals should be held accountable for the historical actions of an organization they join, drawing parallels to visiting Germany or wearing clothing from brands with historical ties to problematic regimes.
A significant portion of the dialogue focuses on the concept of institutional evolution and societal progress. The hosts explore whether the Veiled Prophet Ball's changes were genuine attempts to reform or merely superficial actions to avoid legal repercussions. They discuss the difficulty in discerning true repentance versus calculated PR moves, especially when the organization's current practices remain somewhat opaque. The analogy of countries shedding their bigoted pasts is used to illustrate the complexity of judging individuals tied to legacy institutions.
Further into the transcript, the conversation shifts to the historical context of slavery in the United States, particularly focusing on states like Missouri. The hosts express astonishment and critique the idea of owning slaves for tasks unrelated to significant agricultural production, such as serving drinks or dusting, questioning the morality and logic behind such practices. The underlying sentiment is a condemnation of slavery's inherent injustice, while also attempting to differentiate levels of perceived "laziness" or moral depravity associated with its practice in different economic contexts.