Sep 6, 2019
Professor Eddie Glaude Jr. and Professor Imani Perry look back andreflect on the events of August 2019. Together, they examine theNew York Times 1619 Project; its impact, backlash, and thequestions it raises. Perry also shares insights on the writingstyle of her newly released book,Breathe: A Letter to MySons.She speaks onthe influence of ToniMorrison's literary legacy and what inspired the composition of herbook.
We then sit down with Eddie Glaude Jr. and Julian E. Zelizer,Author, and Professor at Princeton University, to discuss thechallenges of balancing and teaching within the academic and publicmedia arena. They then explore the historical cycle of racializedpolitics displayed by President Donald Trump and its impact withinAmerica as we approach the 2020 Elections.
Podcast Transcript:
(0:00)[musicplaying]
Eddie Glaude: Hello, and thank you for listening toAfrican American Studies at Princeton University, a conversationaround the field of African American Studies and the blackexperience in the 21st century. I'm your host, Eddie S. Glaude Jr.I'm the chair of the Department of African American Studies here atPrinceton. You're listening to Episode 17, recorded on Monday,August 26 2019, and today, I'm joined by Professor Imani Perry.Imani Perry is the Hughes - Rogers Professor of African AmericanStudies and faculty associate in the program in Law and PublicAffairs and Gender and Sexuality Studies at Princeton. She haswritten and taught on a number of topics regarding race in AfricanAmerican culture. And she's a prolific writer. Her more recentbooks include: May We Forever Stand: A History of theBlack National Anthem, Vexy Thing: On Gender andLiberation. And the award winning book Looking forLorraine, the radiant life of Lorraine Hansberry. Her latestbook is scheduled to hit the stands in September, and we'll betalking about it today, Breathe: A Letter To My Sons. Sowe just recently had a kind of historic event in mass media withthe publication in the New York Times magazine of the 1619project.
Imani Perry: Uh-hmm
Eddie Glaude: And you know, we could have easily, we couldeasily talk about the specific pieces, uh, if we wanted to, but Iwanted us to kind of pull back a bit
Imani Perry: Hmm
Eddie Glaude: And think about the effort to renarrate thestory.
Imani Perry: Yes
Eddie Glaude: And I want to, I want to approach it fromthe vantage point of, of your work.
Imani Perry: Yes
Eddie Glaude: And the things that we've been talking aboutover these so many years. One of the more important recommendationsof more beautiful and more beautiful and more terrible is that werenarrate.
Imani Perry: Right.
Eddie Glaude: And that renarration is important, not onlyin the context of these micro practices,
Imani Perry: Uh-hmm
Eddie Glaude: How we describecommunities,(2:00)where it seems as if they're not picking upthe trash
Imani Perry: Right.
Eddie Glaude: How we talk about undocumented workers inthe range of ways in which we talked about a rate, that we talkedabout the contradictions in our society, and how the way we narrateor tell that story, orients us
Imani Perry: Right.
Eddie Glaude: ...to how we respond. So let's pan out abit.
Imani Perry: Hmm
Eddie Glaude: And think about the 1619 project as iteffort of renarration, what do you think about it?
Imani Perry: Uhm. I think it's fantastic. I think, youknow, there's a reason that at this moment in history, we aretrying to find ways of telling the story of the nation that help usunderstand how we got here, right? And in a number of great ways,right? So, certainly, when you start this story of this country,and I say that, you know, there's, there's lots of ways to tellorigin stories, there's a, there's a series of different momentsthat we could identify as the beginning. I think 1619 is impartsignificant, because it both marks that kind of British settlercolonial project in this nation, and puts uhm African people at thecenter of it, and in particular, much more greater particularity,the exploitation of their labor, combined with the extraction ofresources from this land, right? That helps us understand, ofcourse, the depth of racial inequality that we live with 400 yearslater, the climate disaster that is in pending, right, because partof the logic of that settlement was extraction and exploitationthat was reckless. And helps us understand how central markets havebeen to the formation of the nation, we tend to tell these sort ofromanticized stories about the republican form ofgovernment,(4:00)uhm, sort of the, the mythologies attached to thenarrative of Plymouth Rock are more likely to form the centralnarration of the nation and of the Constitutional Convention thanJamestown. So something important is shifting in this narration,because it is necessary to shift the paradigm to make sense of theworld we live in. Right, we pick up there millions upon millions ofhistorical facts, we pick up upon some for, uhm, very particularpurposes in our time. And I think there's something reallyextraordinarily important about telling the story of how we got toa point of such uhm, suffering. At the same time is there suchabundance and even excess in the nation. Right?
Eddie Glaude: Yeah, you know, I'm always whenever I thinkabout origin stories, I'm always reminded of Edward Said'swonderful book, Beginnings.
Imani Perry: Yes.
Eddie Glaude: And you know, Said always riff, riff thethesis with that book with this line that, you know, the problem ofbeginnings is the beginning of the problem.
Imani Perry: Right
Eddie Glaude: Where we start...
Imani Perry: Hmm-mm
EddieGlaude:... matters.
Imani Perry: Right.
Eddie Glaude: And so I think you're absolutely right, thatto begin with 1619, you know, which we begin with the fact thatAmerica was a corporation before it was a country.
Imani Perry: Absolutely.
Eddie Glaude: Uh, the reality of-of slavery, ascomplicated as it is, and the venture of servitude,
Imani Perry: Hm-mmm
Eddie Glaude: and the range of, of classdifferentiation
Imani Perry: Yes
Eddie Glaude: That's the present there coming to view. Butit's also very complicated story to begin 1619 to kind of draw, andnot to say that there was a straight line drawn
Imani Perry: Right.
Eddie Glaude: Between that start that starting point inwhich slavery comes into view.
Imani Perry: Hm-hmm?
Eddie Glaude: And say, our colleague, Kevin Cruz's pieceabout the way your race, uh, informed the traffic jams,
Imani Perry: Yeah
Eddie Glaude: Informs the traffic jams inAtlanta,
(6:00)
Imani Perry: Right.
Eddie Glaude: But races, you know, in 1619, is a veryfluid and complicated reality during that period.
Imani Perry: Right.
EddiGlaude: So to. So on the one hand, it's a beginning thatallows
Imani Perry: Hmm-mmm
Eddie Glaude: Some clarification but on another hand,right, it raises all sorts of questions.
Imani Perry: Right. I mean, races unsettled, right? Eventhe status.
Eddie Glaude: When you say unsettled, what do youmean?
Imani Perry: Uhm. Or not yet. It's not yet codified.Right? The question of, so I should say, so it's not as thoughslavery didn't yet exist, right. And we can see that and, you know,the Spanish colonies, and even in Sir Francis Drake's in Roanoke, alanding some you know, I guess, almost 40 years earlier. So uhmwhen I say it's unsettled, I don't mean that there isn't already aconception of a racialized form of slavery, I don't mean, thereisn't already a conception of hierarchies of human beings. But it'snot clear that we're gonna have at that point, that there's gonnabe such a deeply codified structure of racialization hierarchy,especially when these people from various parts of the world arehaving these fresh encounters with each other. Right. And battlesand wars. Right. And so there's this, there is, and also, thequestion of, you know, what is it I think over, you know, amajority of people on that initial settlement didn't survive,right? So, uhm, even what this enterprise is going to be is not, isnot sure at that moment. And I think that's actually instructivefor this moment, as well, because we tend to take the configurationof our world for granted in ways that we probably shouldn't, right,the order of the world, particularly the kind of legacies of thedomination of Europe. The history of, uhm, Empire and the UnitedStates as the inheritor right, the, the new nation thatinherits(8:00) the role of the European empires. There's an openquestion mark, about how long that will be sustained in thismoment. And so I think, as you looking at the, the flux, that isactually always a part of history, even though we don't oftenattend to it, and in our immediate time is reallyimportant.
Eddie Glaude: And you know, it's, it's always hard tothink about the way in which these national narrativeswork.
Imani Perry: Hmm-hmm
Eddie Glaude: So with that, you know, it's one thing tosay that it's not necessarily a kind of litany of our sins, becauseit's not just simply that
Imani Perry: No.
Eddie Glaude: But it's also not just simply a kind ofconfirmation from the underside, right? Of the grandness ofAmerica.
Imani Perry: No.
Eddie Glaude: So it's not just simply an affirmation ofthe project from those who've been excluded. So I've always, youknow, as we think about because it's a historic momentin...
Imani Perry: Yes. Right.
Eddie Glaude: ...mass culture in,
Imani Perry: So what do we do with it
EddieGlaude:.. in republic domain.
Imani Perry: Right.
Eddie Glaude: What do we do with it?
Imani Perry: That's right.
Eddie Glaude: It's the question, right?
Imani Perry: Right.
Eddie Glaude: How does it, how does it generate a layeredand more complex conversation?
Imani Perry: Right. And I, I do think we always run the,run the risk in the United States because of how powerful themythologies of American exceptionalism are. Irrespective of thenuance and the complexity of the stories we tell than beingcollapsed.
Eddie Glaude: Constrictive into, right.
Imani Perry: Right. And so I think that's it, a danger.And that's part of why I keep sort of trying to, sort of talk aboutor think about, what does it mean to have the exploitation of laborand land at the very foundation of your creation? Because that isas fundamental, a part of the American project, does anything elsethat we might say and perhaps more than anything, I tend to thinkit's even more than things that we might say that are laudatoryabout the American project. There's a, there's a tension as anessential tension between the ideal of democracy, right? And whatit meant to build this incredibly wealthy nation (10:00)that,that moment, right, even before you get sort of established thegovernment, when it's still a colony, that moment, you're, you'reseeing the seeds of that fundamental tension.
Eddie Glaude: Right. Right. And that's really important,right? Even, even if we make the claim, right, that that form ofslavery in that moment, isn't plantation slaves
Imani Perry: Right. It's not.
Eddie Glaude: It's not complicated.
Imani Perry: Right. No.
Eddie Glaude: It's, it's, it's somethingdifferent
Imani Perry: Right
Eddie Glaude: But there's still the seed
Imani Perry: Absolutely.
Eddie Glaude: That allow for us to make that move. And,you know, I think, for me, as I was thinking about wonderfulpieces, and the issue of the New York Times Magazine, I was alsothinking about those moments of descent. I mean, radical descent,people who did not concede to the American project, folks whoalways resisted that they, that they can't be conscripted into the,into the story of America, you know, what do we do with them? As werenarrate, and what, what resources might they offerus?
Imani Perry: Hm-mm
Eddie Glaude: As we're thinking about this project. Doesthat make sense?
Imani Perry: It does. I mean, it makes me think, and thisis partially my current obsession with the dismal swamp.
Eddie Glaude: Yeah the dismal swamp, tell them whatthe dismal swamp.
Imani Perry: And the dismal swamp [inaudible] coastto Virginia, North Carolina, this massive swamp that was the siteof a maroon colony of, you know, African Americans who not onlyescaped, but left. Uhm, not, were not engaged and kind of idea ofan escape north. But opting out, right?
Eddie Glaude: Yeah
Imani Perry: Building an alternative community. And Ithink it's really, part of my obsession is that there's partiallythe narrative of African Americans is that there weren't that manyMaroon colonies. And in fact, lots of research now is showing thatthey were much more robust than previously thought. Uhm, but also,you know, when we think about a series of a variety of kinds ofrelationships to this land, right,(12:00) one of those that hasexisted for a long time is saying, well, we might not be able to goback across the ocean. But we're going to opt in to another kindof, of political order, similar to you know, enslaved us, enslavedblack folks running to the seminal.
Eddie Glaude: Yeah, yeah.
Imani Perry: Right. And, and, you know, that there's a,so, so the descent, the refusal, the opting out, differentrelationships to the project have always been present. They don'tthis idea of a sort of nationalists. Imagine, black nationalsimagination doesn't begin in the 20th century.[inaudible]
Eddie Glaude: Right. Right.
Imani Perry: That's, you know, and I think that's alsoimportant, right?
Eddie Glaude: Yeah, yeah. You know, because I think it'simportant, because even as we try to renarrate the story of thenation, we need to understand that they're just those elements ofthat story that aren't assimilable to this idea of America itself.Right. And, and we might have to understand why that's the case.But let me, let me, let me transition really quick, because when Iread many of the pieces, I just thought of one of your, one of yourfavorite novels about the late Toni Morrison...
Imani Perry: Hmm-mm
Eddie Glaude: A Mercy
Imani Perry: Yes
Eddie Glaude: Uh, and she was so very deliberate in thatmoment.
Imani Perry: Ohh. Yeah
Eddie Glaude: Why don't you say, say a little bit aboutthat. And then I think it'll be a wonderful transition to talkabout the next book.
Imani Perry: Okay. Yeah, I mean, A Mercy is, initself a kind of origin story of the nation. And it's an originstory of the nation that really take seriously the, the conditionsof all of the figures, right, so there is an indigenous woman whois, uhm, sort of navigating around the domestic sort of ambitionsof this European landowner. There are tensions between thePortuguese and the British there and the French. Uhm. There are arange of different relationships to blackness,(14:00)
Eddie Glaude: Right.
Imani Perry: [inaudible]. And then there's a scene that,for me is so powerful, of European women being in the hold of theship..
Eddie Glaude: Hmm-mm
Imani Perry: ...right, coming from Europe, unsure what'sgoing to, what they're going to encounter. Now, in African Americanliterature, the trope of the Middle Passage is incrediblyimportant..
Eddie Glaude: Yeah
Imani Perry: ...right, that you sort of this journeythrough death to new life on these shores But something else ishappening constitutionally for the Europeans are coming too, right.They are also becoming something different, right? And in thisencounter people with the wide variety of histories who also have awide variety of different kinds of, of hardscrabble living, right.Uhm. So that you need more nuance, to understand the, thefoundation than simply the categories of slave or free, or man orwoman, right? Uhm. Or European, and African, that they're all thesevarieties in there. Uhm. And people, and one of the things I thinkis really potent is that you see the character of the figures inthe novel, transformed by virtue of what they encounter on theseshores and, and the prevalence of greed...
Eddie Glaude: Right
Imani Perry: ..and desire and also loss..
Eddie Glaude: So-
Imani Perry: ..the rapture
Eddie Glaude: Yeah
Imani Perry: So, so yes, I think that, that novel reallyis the kind of I mean, it's, that's another example of the kind ofsort of retelling of the beginnings that we need.
Eddie Glaude: So it would be a wonderful kind ofrecommendation to all the folks who are listening to the podcastfor them to not only read the 1619 journalism, to read thatmagazine, but to read, pick up Toni Morrison's novel, AMercy, and to read them together.
Imani Perry: I think that would be fantastic,yeah.
Eddie Glaude: I think that would be amazing thing. Butwhen I think of Toni, and I think of her writing, and I think ofher style. For some reason, I think of you're writing and yourstyle.
Imani Perry: Yeah? Ohh! Well..
Eddie Glaude: Right, there is ah, there is ah(16:00)something in the power of, of how you approach ideas and on thepage, there's a lyricism, there's a, an. uhm,elegance...
Imani Perry: Thank you.
Eddie Glaude: ...to the way in which you write. This yearhas been an amazing year for you with the publication of look, youknow, May We Forever Stand, Looking for Lorraineand Vexy Thing.
Imani Perry: Hmm-mm
Eddie Glaude: Or Vexy Thing then Looking forLorraine
Imani Perry: Yeah
Eddie Glaude: Both of those same simultaneous.
Imani Perry: Right. Same week. [laughs]
Eddie Glaude: Same week. Yeah. And now Breathe:ALetter To My Sons is coming. It's gorgeous book.
ImaniPerry. Thank you.
Eddie Glaude: It's a wonderful book. Talk a little bitabout the language, cause one of the things about Breathewe could talk about the content, but I wanna talk about thewriting. Give me a sense of, of what went into, uhm, some of thosegorgeous sentences.
Imani Perry: Well, thank you so much. I mean, I, you know,there's um. It's a very much a work that I, I was I was trying toenter into our tradition, right.
Eddie Glaude: Illusions are everywhere.
Imani Perry: Illusions are everywhere, you know. And even,you know, just to go back to A Mercy for a moment where athreat of the story is the phenomenon of a mother trying to figureout how to protect her children.
Eddie Glaude: Right.
Imani Perry: So it is actually sort of right at the centerof this project, as is Song of Solomon, where you have a,an aunt who is trying to impart lessons to her nephew much in thesame way. So there's a direct influence. Uhm. And, and for me, the,the exercise of the writing is about, you know, how this, thisquestion of how to navigate this world that is, uhm, uh, so cruel,so unjust,(18:00) so terrorizing in it's uhm the wildness of, ofracism, right. And racism is, is, is a wild eyed enterprise, right?Uhm it's blindsiding, it's cruel. Uhm, and we have, I mean I thinkit's, it is not I don't mean this in the kind of pat romanticfashion to say that the gift of improvisation in our tradition isdirectly born of the navigation of, uhm of the circ*mstances,right, it's sort of how do you take the resources that you have atyour disposal, and create beauty and navigate and get some placedespite all of the roadblocks. So for me, entering into theaesthetic tradition, was, in fact, a way of trying to apprehend,uhm, the pieces of what we have to navigate not simply in anexplicit fashion, but at the level of, of how we make meaning,which is, which has a kind of impressionistic quality, right, butyou can't, as much as you know, those of us, I am, one of my hatsis a literary critic, right, as much as we try to describe, thereis something that lies beyond description, right, that we're alwaystrying to impart and parched, partially, that's a disposition,right? Uhm, for me, it's a disposition is very much connected tothe black south, right? Uhm, where the, the, the terror was closeup, we carry that in our honestly, feels in our bodies, right, andso trying to get catch it, catch a hold of that, uhm, to impartthat in a way that feels true. Right, and not so, not so arrogant,as to think that it can be laid out in a kind of straightforwardway. But, but, but also (20:00)thinking that, you know, the beautyis part of the point.
Eddie Glaude: Yeah, you know, when I read, when I read andbreathe, and it's beautiful, and it's packed with a kind of wisdomand grace that your sons are going to uhm really, really cherish, Ibelieve. But it's a book that also carries with it when I saypacked, it carries with it, the other books.
Imani Perry: Oh, yeah.
Eddie Glaude: Cause they were all written. Right? in someway together.
Imani Perry: Right.
Eddie Glaude: So I'm thinking of, of the power of thetradition, of, of the sociality of black life, of the, of thisimportance, this instant black institutional culture that you chartin May We Forever Stand and the gift that comes to usthrough that.
Imani Perry: Right.
Eddie Glaude: The way in which Vexy insists on a kind ofcritical, right, a laboratory praxis, as we take seriously, right,the operations of patriarch and how it organizes the world andshape how, shapes how we see, and how we be, how weexist.
Imani Perry: Hmm-hmm
Eddie Glaude: Right? So this way of thinking about how weinhabit space, and what's impinging upon us
Imani Perry: Yeah
Eddie Glaude: ..and what does it mean to be attentive tothese operations of power. And then the exemplar ofLorraine
Imani Perry: Yeah
Eddie Glaude: Uhm, as someone who, whose imaginationallowed her to see beyond all of these to imagine, and otherwiseinteresting sorts of ways.
Imani Perry: Yes
Eddie Glaude: And then to see all of that distill, rightin this in, in, in a way that is attentive to the very distinctnature of your two children, cause they are not thesame.
Imani Perry: Right. They're, they're, they're individuals.And really, as we all are.
Eddie Glaude: As we all are.
Imani Perry: Right? So in some sense of-
Eddie Glaude: But then, they are radically differentpeople.(22:00)[laughs]
Imani Perry: Yes, yes. You're right. They're radicallydifferent people. But, but, but in a sense, it's sort of, you know,we, we, we find ourselves, uhm I think, and encounters with, withpeople we love, and in particular children, um where we are tryingto, uhm, sort of impart values and ideals, right, and ethics. Andthen we also uhm have a responsibility, I think, to respond to thatparticular magic of, of each young person.
Eddie Glaude: Yes.
Imani Perry: And so it's directed to, to my children, butit's also kind of a message for those of us who are adults. Uhm Ithink about having some sensitivity to that. And I, I'm, I'mparticularly aware of that, because part of the anxiety, right, inthis moment, I think, for black parents is can become sooverwhelming about making sure your children do the right thing andare completely protected. And the reality is that we cannot protectthem in the way we would like to. And not just black children. Butthat's the case for most parents in this world. Right, across theglobe. And so when you understand that, I think there's anopportunity to take that as an occasion, to actually have a kind ofdeeper reckoning with their humanity. Right?
Eddie Glaude: Yeah, absolutely.
Imani Perry: So not just to reside in fear, but say, okay,given that we can't protect them against, what can we see? And thenwhat can we do? What can we recognize? How can we love at thedeepest level? Right? And also, to not, you know, so the beginningof the book is a riff on, you know, uhm the Souls of BlackFolk, right, and the voice saying, how does it feel to be aproblem? I refuse. And I think we should all refuse (24:00)toconceive of black children as fundamentally a problem or toconceive of ourselves, as by is fundamentally a problem. There's alot in this the order of this world, that is a problem, but ourhumanity is not a problem.
Eddie Glaude: To the question. We sell them.
Imani Perry: We sell them and say a word. Right. Cause ithad, right.
Eddie Glaude: Right. Well, this has been wonderful. Webegan our conversation talking about the 1619 project and theimportance of stories, importance of beginning. We transition withA Mercy, the late Toni Morrison and thinking about complexhistories, how we even make that story more complex. And then weend with the story that you've passed on, the story of how to lovein this moment, how to exist in grace. So Imani, it has been anabsolute pleasure, as it always..
Imani Perry: Yeah. Thank you so much.
Eddie Glaude: ...feels chatting with you today. So I lookforward to our next conversation, particularly aboutBreathe, and I can't wait. And there's another book on theway guys, she's working on what about the South, can'twait.
Imani Perry: Yeah we need to talk about that. All right.Thank you.
Eddie Glaude: Up next, an interview with Julian Zelizer,looking forward to-
[musicplaying]
Eddie Glaude: Man, it's so good to have, have thisopportunity to sit down and talk with you, Julian. I mean, we bothare doing this interesting work, at least according to us, ofstraddling the academic world. And this broader public world, Iwanted you to talk a little bit about the way you understand doingpublic history. Because you're intervening in a particular sort ofway that I just find fascinating. You're always trying tocontextualize and historicize to give people a broader sense of theway in which we're kind of grappling with the current problems oftoday. So what does it mean(26:00) for you to do public history inthe way that you do it?
Julian Zelizer: You know, one, one objective, always animmediate objective is to take things I learned and study about inthe academy, and to translate them to make them intelligible, andthen to connect them to what's happening on a daily basis. Andthat's tough to do. But at some level, that's always my mission. Asecond thing is to offer analysis and opinion that isn't alwaysdirectly connected to what I do, but is obviously informed fromeverything I write, study and teach. And at some level, I hope thatexpertise comes out, even if I'm talking for 20 seconds on TV,about what just happened in the news. But I think it's a vitalrole. It's not for everyone, but it is a space that needs to befilled. And it's important to have people who are thinking, try tounderstand the context and try and understand where things comefrom and are going through history. To add to theconversation.
Eddie Glaude: One of the things that I find mostchallenging about this is, is, is try, you know, we, you know, yousaid 20 seconds, the twenty second sound bite. We could begrappling with something that's really complex that requires nuancethinking, and you have to figure out how to say what you wanna say,within a very short period of time, and you don't even know whetheror not the interviewer will follow what you're saying. But you try,you're trying to make this intervention, I find that the mostchallenging aspect of what we do what, what are some of thechallenges you face in the moments that you've tried to in someways add a little depth to a conversation that's driven by thesound bite in some way?
Julian Zelizer: Yeah, it's difficult. So I have differentways in which I intervene. My, the heart and soul of what I do isopted writing for me. And so there I have a little more space, Ihave 800 to a thousand words, to try to explain something, it's myplatform. And I can control the tenor and the substance and at somelevel, the structure. So I always have that, and that's my go to.Uhm, radio, I usually have a little more time as well,(28:00) I doa lot of NPR and they give you more than the 20 seconds to developa thought, although it's hard there too. Television is reallydifficult. Because a, you don't know what's coming at you so, soyou have to think and try to crystallize your thoughts veryquickly. And then you have a short space of time to say things thatyou know in the back of your head are incomplete, or they need muchmore nuance and analysis. So there is a trade off you make and atsome level, you're doing the best you can, within that short space.Understanding the interviewer might not follow all of yourreferences, and you don't even know the audience well, but you'retrying to at least put that into the conversation and, and hopethat it, it leaves it to a better place. And on these panels, it'salso difficult because the other panelists have very differentstyles. They're not there to debate, they're not there todeliberate. They're there to really just argue. And so that doesn'tlend itself to the kind of work we do here at Princeton, forexample. And so you have to find ways to work. I've been doing thissince 1998, in different places, way before CNN. So I've just triedto negotiate a way to do that, that I'm satisfied, there's a valueadded to hearing my 20 seconds, even if I know that 20 seconds isincomplete.
Eddie Glaude: You know, I've always tried to struggle, Istruggle with this, you know, trying not to slip into crossfirekind of mode where you know, you have the, you know, the left andthe right and you're trying to somehow you get pigeonholed into oneof those ideological currents, where you try really just sit downand just think about the question that's just been asked, asopposed to having your talking point. Uhm, and, and, and just andjust making it no matter what the question has been. I've seenpeople say, you know, you know, if they ask you something youreally don't, yet you're not prepared for just turn it to what youwanna talk about and, and make your move. So cause I think it'simportant as, as scholars, for us to intervene in the public(30:00)conversation in a very different way, right to bring ourskill sets to bear on the problem at hand, but it's, it's, it'sachallenge. And so you've done it in a very, on a -- on avariety of different platforms. Was that deliberatethat--
Julian Zelizer: No--
Eddie Glaude: [inaudible] or just kind ofevolved?
Julian Zelizer: --none of this was deliberate, I'd neverintended to do anything like this. I'm just--
Eddie Glaude: How do they come -- how do they come to doit?
Julian Zelizer: Well, I, my first job was at SUNYAlbany.
Eddie Glaude: Right.
Julian Zelizer: And in 1998, the impeachment of BillClinton was taking place and the local CBS TV show asked me to comeon and do the morning show, just explain what impeachment was andwhat was gonna happen. So I did, uh, and they liked it a lot andthey kept inviting me to do it. And it was a small station, Albany,Schenectady. But I did it. I said, "I'll practice and learn." Andthat continued and gradually the opportunities expanded and thesame happened with radio, local NPRs and upstate New York wouldinvite me gradually national NPR did. And, and same with thewriting of Op-eds. I did a few for the LA Times. I had a greateditor who found me and really started to nurture me and teach mein some ways how to do this. Um, and then when I reached BU, thingsexploded. It was in 2004 that was my next job and the media marketwas much greater and BU really emphasize getting their scholars outand I took advantage of it. Uhm, so I've always continued then towork across different platforms. CNN became my major one. Um, butI, I enjoyed doing lots of different things.
Eddie Glaude: So - so you, it wasn't a kind of deliberatething, so for you, right.
Julian Zelizer: No.
Eddie Glaude: So it just happened, just happens to be thecase. But you're committed to public history though,right?
Julian Zelizer: Yeah, I am. And I write about politics.I've always done that. So I went to graduate school wanting tocontribute. I was either going to be a journalist actually, or anacademic. I chose academics. I thought I was more practical to geta job. That was my thought in college at Brandeis, I went and so Iwas already writing about Washington.
(32:00)
I waswriting about history. That was very relevant to what was going ontoday. I always saw the connections. The jump was then gettinginvolved in the media and getting involved at this level where it'sa weekly, daily part of my life at this point. That was really theshift, but it was uh, there was a natural relationship between whatI do when I'm doing research or teaching and what people wereasking me to talk about in public.
Eddie Glaude: Do you ever find yourself confronting, um, aquestion about the seriousness of the work? So once you make thattransition, right, so you publish with, uhm, of trade press, uhm,although historians are more inclined to have access to those sortsof publishing houses, but you find yourself in - in engaged in thisbroader conversation and some - some of our colleagues actuallyassume that -that - that you've in some ways gone over to the darkside, that you've--
Julian Zelizer: Right.
Eddie Glaude: --that you give up a kind of seriousness.The moment you engage in that work. What do you -- do you confrontthat and how do you -- how do you respond?
Julian Zelizer: So I, I always know that is there. I havenever actually heard it to my face.
Eddie Glaude: We never hear it to our face.
Julian Zelizer: We never hear it. I assume there's peoplewho say it, uh, or think that. The good thing for a historian is,it's true in terms of your publications, your books, you can writetrade books, you can write popular books and do them in a way thathas all the credibility in the world and the academy. There's lotsof historians who do that. The - the material itself, like what youwrite about as well lends itself to a broad audience. It's notnarrow.
Eddie Glaude: Right.
Julian Zelizer: Statistical requiring a level ofexpertise. Uh, the rest of it, sure. I, there are some people whothink that there's others who will come up to me. "Love yourop-ed". "I saw you on TV. It was great. It was really helpful." Andso you have to live with - with that. Uh, I ultimately believe inthe value of what we do and I think it's important to do. And, um,if there are some in the academy who don't like that, so be it. Uh,and they can
(34:00)
theycan not do it. And that's fine with me as well.
Eddie Glaude: Itend to imagine myself in - in - inthe tradition of the generalist of - of the early part of the 20thcentury.
Julian Zelizer: Yeah.
Eddie Glaude: When you think of Richard Hofstetter, whenyou think of John Dewey, you think of scholars who - who were ableto do, um, see I mean, Walter Lippmann others, right? Who weredoing serious work?
Julian Zelizer: Yeah.
Eddie Glaude: Um, uh, thinking at - at - at a particularlevel of sophistication. But they were a journalist as well. Theywere trying to - to in some ways engage a broader public, uh, in away that could open up new pathways for inquiring new ways of doingand being. And often times, people think about what we do is kindof just simply a market decision as opposed to being a kind of areflection of actually an intellectual position. You know, as apragmatist of sorts, this is what I take myself to be doing, right?That is to bring my skill sets to bear on the problems that weconfront in our current set of arrangements, right. Um, and itseems to me that it's often difficult to do that in a -- in a -- inan academy that is increasing -- increasingly specialized. Whereprofessionalization and specialization define what we do, where youkind of get in your niche corner and you do you speak your very,um, how would you say very unique speak. And, and that's - that'swhere you reside. So then when we show up people who are actuallyaspiring to be journalists and speak to broader publics, oftentimes we get, and I'd love to get your reaction to this, oftentimeswe get, um, kind of, shall we say, red in terms of the variousmarket forces that are defining the academy. Anyway, that we'rejust out there trying to get paid. And it's all about branding.It's all about this sort of thing. What--
Julian Zelizer: I think. Yeah, I think there's somethingthat's a good point. There's two ways in which you read that isdifferent than the Lippman era.
Eddie Glaude: Exactly.
Julian Zelizer: One is that there's this kind of cynicismabout what happens in the academy or what professors are uptoor generally
(36:00)
justin society. Everyone's out to make a buck. And so there's anelement for some people, they see a professor, "Oh, they're justselling their stuff. They're plugging their books, they're, uh,making some extra money, and that's why they do it." Uh, the otherpart, which has intensified in the course of my own life doing thisis as the political world hardens, uh, politically, everything isread through the lens of where are you coming from and what's yourpoint with it.
Eddie Glaude: Right.
Julian Zelizer: That's often frustrating to me cause thatI do try to make points, uh, that I see how they could easily feedinto one side of the political spectrum. But I'm not saying exactlywhat they want me to say. Uhm, but it's hard to be read in adifferent way. Uh, everyone reads through red and blue, uh, in someways and or - or listens and watches. And I mean, literally sincethe 90s, I think it's gotten much worse. Uhm, and so then some ofthe subtleties of what you're even able to do in - in the publicsquare, uh, are difficult or they're often lost in translation. Andthat's unfortunate as well. In addition to the market-oriented uhm,perception many people have of why you're doing what you want todo. But I think your first point is important for me. Uh, it's thesame as what you said. This was genuinely driven by, boy, this isan interesting opportunity. And I tell people this all the time tohave the privilege and I see it as a privilege to write and to saythings about how I see what's going on or where we got to thispoint and share them with people I ordinarily am not going to beable to share this information with. And uh, to have people listenand digest that at some level, even if it's for a few seconds. It'sreally a privilege to have that kind of role in American society.Uh, and it's a great, uh, not benefit, not an economic benefit,intellectual benefit from this job that thatopportunity
(38:00)
sometimescan emerge. And that's what I believe. And no one makes that casereally. But it is -- that's what drives this from the start tofinish.
Eddie Glaude: I mean, we have it, we actually haveopportunities to shape conversations.
Julian Zelizer: Yeah.
Eddie Glaude: I mean in the corridors of power, right? Soto - to sit down and have a conversation. If I'm on Morning Joe andI'm talking with Pete Buddha Judge or, or you know, having anexchange with, uh, Amy Klobuchar or - or arguing, uh, with somecongressperson about, um, uh, current policy issues and - andtrying to offer a different frame. The frame that in some ways thatcould, uh, bring to light a different way of seeing the problem athand. It makes it in some-- in some senses worthwhile, you know,and interesting sorts of ways. So one more question about this andthen I want to turn to you as the political historian who can helpus think about this moment. You know, oh my, this is interesting.Uh, the news has become, and I'm here, I'm focusing more on - onyour television appearances than your written stuff.
Thenews has become like entertainment. It's like a, it's not quite asitcom, but it's a drama that folk are watching regularly. Do youever find yourself surprised by the way in which people react toyou as you walk the street? Cause it's not like it's the nightlynews with Tom Brokaw or David Brinkley. I just dated myself,right?
Julian Zelizer: Right.
Eddie Glaude: But - but, but okay. Peter Jennings, I'mstill dating myself. Um, but it's, it's really striking to see howpeople consume the news and how as a person who participates inthat environment. How you are then read in the public domain. What,what do you make? Am I -- am I getting, am I reaching forsomething?
Julian Zelizer: No, I think it--
Eddie Glaude: I'm not trying to say you're a celebrity,but it's - it's - it has some residences there.
Julian Zelizer: Well, it's -- the way the news is - is,uh, has unfold on television. Uh, it has it there -there isn't it,there's two parts of it. One
(40:00)
isjust the commercialization of news, which really starts in theeighties through today. And you have networks devoted just to, uh,the dissemination of news. That's their business. And that's howthey earn their money. That's how they make their revenue. Uh, andso at some level, uh, it -it -- that is the entertainment provided.It's substantive. It matters what is being discussed. Um, but thereis an element where there's a drama to it.
Eddie Glaude: Right.
Julian Zelizer: And I do think since PresidentTrump's election, for sure, uh, people I get that response all thetime, are watching with this level of passion and engagement thatordinarily, I can't remember ever, you know, in the Obama years forexample, people said, "I can't -- I can't stop watching, you know,CNN or MSNBC, I can't -- I can't keep my eyes off the TV set." Uh,there is this element. So - so part of it is the dramatic way inwhich news is packaged. Apart from it is the drama of the momentwe're living in where I think people are like, what is going on?How does this unfold? What comes next? Which is a real-lifepolitical drama that is grounded in reality?
Eddie Glaude: So - so let's, let's shift gears. I thinkthat's absolutely right. It is grounded in reality and people aretrying to in some significant way, figure out how they're going tomake sense of it. That is make sense of the reality that they'reexperiencing, navigated. And how do they acquire the - the abilityto imagine, uh, the situation being otherwise, you know, folk aretrying to figure out, right? How do we get out from under it andthat, and that varies, right? They reached backwards or they - theytry to reach for a broader vision that's not necessarily aretrieval of the past, but something has to emerge. And it seemslike we're doing some work in that sort of space, which - which Ithink more academics or more scholars should do if they -- ifthey're so inclined.
(42:00)
"Faultlines"came out in January.
Julian Zelizer: Yep.
Eddie Glaude: It's extraordinary. A book is your historyof the U.S. since 1974, right?
Julian Zelizer: Yup.
Eddie Glaude: And I take it the book had a present justkind of motivation cause it - it helps. It seems like the arc of itis to help us understand our moments a little bit more. You'llcoauthor it with our colleague Kevin Kruse.
Julian Zelizer: Yeah. It has a president -- it goesright up through today and it has an epilogue. Uh, and -- and itdefinitely informs what's going on. You are reading about the rootsof our current politics and culture. It was written and finishedbefore President Trump was a candidate, really a serious candidate.We updated it before production to add, you know, a section on himand the election and what it meant. Uh, so the -- it comesout of a class that we taught here. I still teach it. And it wasreally trying to understand in some ways the roots and evolution ofpolarization and then the rest of American society, the differentsocial movements that we read about from conservatism to the, uh,black lives matters to the gay rights.Where do all these comefrom? How do they fit into the period? And to think of the periodfrom 74 through today as a distinct period in American history.Seventy-four being a bit artificial.
Eddie Glaude: Right.
Julian Zelizer: But it is when Nixon resigned. And so itwas an important take-off. But in the end, uh, I do think as wefinished it and it's being read now and we're watching what happenson the news and reading about it, uh, you see the relevance and yousee the origins of - of what's going on today, that it's not simplycreated in January 2017. That there were roots to the dysfunction.There were roots to the kinds of media politics we see. Uh, and thereal -- very real movement divisions that exist right now over keyissues about our future.
Eddie Glaude: Well, you know, on this podcast, uh, we werealways talking about the issue of race, uhm,
(44:00)
andtrying in some significant way to think about it with - with - withour colleagues and with others, uh, at a certain level ofsophistication, uh, because we think it's one of the, uhm, uh, thekey antinomies of American democracy.Uhm, and it seems to bein the forefront, uh, in our current moment, uhm, in a number ofdifferent ways. And it's not so much about the access of black andwhite, but it feels as if there's a kind of crisis of Whiteness,uh, that we're experiencing. You know, we've seen this in politicalscience studies around the 2016 election. John CDs and others havetried to kind of accept it become -- they made an argument thatpolitical identification right, has now hardened in such a way that- that these kinds of racial views are then mapped onto how oneunderstands oneself as a Republican or Democratic. That there arethese correlations between political identities and one's racialviews in the lie.Talk a little bit about what you see fromthe vantage point of the various platforms that you use, whetherit's your op-ed pieces, whether it's your wonderful podcasts,politics, and pose with - with Sam Wong and - and the way in whichyou use Twitter, right. How are you seeing the current crisisaround race at this moment?
Julian Zelizer: It - it's going from bad to worse inmany ways. Uh, you know, I've written a lot about the civil rightsstruggle in the 60s. I'm actually writing another book that, uh,goes back to that period right now about Rabbi AbrahamHeschel.
Eddie Glaude: Right.
Julian Zelizer: And looking at the movement in that earlyperiod I've written since the 70's, a lot, including with faultlines on institutional racism. And that's the traditional storythat we shift explicit legalized forms of, um, racialdiscrimination. Some of them are
(46:00)
eliminated.And then the - the - the bigger problem is how it's just inscribeduntil almost every institution. And that is never resolved. Infact, you have a backlash to dealing with that by the 70's and80's. But what's very notable now to me just observing and watchingthis is the very explicit racialized politics that's unfolded fromthe president to, uh, various, uh, groups, um, politicalgroups.And - and within the Republican Party.
Eddie Glaude: Right.
Julian Zelizer: Where whiteness in some ways eitherexplicitly or implicitly, is a defining theme of what the Party isabout and an opposition to a much more diversified, pluralisticsociety, uh, which is undeniable at this point. And that's veryobviously traveling and problematic. Uh, and - and so the two arenow working at the same time, and that's very explosive. And Ithink what's disturbing off and about the way the President handlesthis as he plays in into that politics of whiteness with - withrelish, uhm, abandon. And when that comes from up top for those whoare in that camp already, it gives it a kind of - oflegitimacy.
Eddie Glaude: Yeah. You know, I've been thinking aboutthis a lot in my own work and often times we tell the story ofDonald Trump, for example, and you've, you've heard this before,I'm sure, where they traced the, you know, the -- if they were todo a kind of political - political lineage, what Pat Buchanan inthe from Buchanan to George Wallace and dah, dah, and the like. ButI've been thinking about Donald Trump in a broader sense as a kindof the latest instance or example of a kind of ongoing betrayalwhere the country has a breakthrough and you've used the languageof backlash or your colleague Van Jones would call it a whitelash.And then there's a kind of retrenchment. That kind of return to,uh, a particular, um,
(48:00)
orlet me say it differently reorganization of - of the racial regimein light of the -- of the previous advance. So whether we'retalking about the end of slavery and then of course, uh, uhm,reconstruction and the slavery by another name and the lost causeand redemption, all this stuff that happens in the aftermath ofthat. Or we can think about the civil rights movement and then, ofcourse, call for law and order and - and, um, the tax revolt inCalifornia. You know, double down and Ronald Reagan's elected andthen Barack Obama black, like, you know, this stuff. And so we readDonald Trump through Buchanan and, and, and Wallace actually seeDonald Trump more in the line of Reagan, not in terms of hispersonality, but in terms of a kind of betrayal. So Ronald Reagan,and I wanna test this on you--
Julian Zelizer: Aha, go ahead.
Eddie Glaude: --and see what you think. Ronald Reagan isto black power withGeorge Wallace was to the civil rightsmovement. So you as a figure, you know, this is the guy who, who -who - who - who -who fired Angela Davis. This is the guy who wasthe face of the state's repression of the Black Panther Party. Sofor him to be elected in 1980--
Julian Zelizer: Right.
Eddie Glaude: --signals of black folk across the country,not only because he came out of the Goldwater Camp and you've -you've written a wonderful book on this as well. This is aconservative turn, which is--
Julian Zelizer: Oh,that I -- the Fierce Urgencyof Now.
Eddie Glaude: The Fierce Urgency of Now, and thenbefore that, you wrote Conservatives in Power, the Reaganyears with--
Julian Zelizer: Yeah, I did.
Eddie Glaude: --Meg Jacobs, right?
Julian Zelizer: Yup, my wife.
Eddie Glaude: Um, uh, so - so there's this sense in whichwhen Reagan is elected, it's an announcement, right? That - that -that the country is turning his back on whatever happened prior tothat moment. And so Trump's election, right, isn't just simply akind of reactivation of the ugliness of say Pat Buchanan's nativismor George Wallace racism. Um, it's actually something much morekeen to. The latest example of
(50:00)
thecountry turning its back on real serious transformation given thefact that many people thought we were turning a corner with theelection of our first party.
Julian Zelizer: I think that's a very important point. Andthere's people who are gonna re-examine the history of theRepublican Party since Goldwater. And there was this story linethat the party became more coalitional and it included differentfactions. And there was this one element in it, uh, on the side,sometimes played to sometimes not, which was reactionary. It, uh,was, uh, playing and supporting racism and racial politics andnativism and - and it was there, but the history tended to be aboutthe bridge builders and the people kept putting that back in thebox. Uh, and I think there'll be it now serious moment ofintrospection and historical examination that there may be that gotthe story wrong and it's not back and forth. It's not backlash,front lash. This is integral, uh, to the party since the 1960's. It- it is a key element. And, uh, leaders knew it was there, theyused it.They often either explicitly or subtlyappeal tothis. Uh, and - and what Trump does, as with many things, is hebrings out into the open the sicknesses and dysfunctions of ourpolitics. And he relishes in them. But he doesn't always createthem. And I think what the history of, of Republican politics, it'simportant. And - and Reagan is a key figure. Um, it's - it's notthe first time that criticism has been raised.
Eddie Glaude: Right.
Julian Zelizer: And, uh, from, uh, his, uh, attacks on thewelfare queen, which were loaded in racial imagery, um, to hisstate's rights speech at the beginning of his campaign in the showBucani, these are -- these are ongoing questions. And I think I canpaint all kinds of moments like this. The 1988 campaignwhere
(52:00)
GeorgeH. W. Bush, the, you know, icon of civility and respectability goesdeep into the Willie Horton ad and having Lee Atwater unleash aferocious, uh, racialized, uh, attack. And the tea party, um, thiswas being discussed, the birther element of the tea party and manyother things.This has been there. So there comes a momentwhere you say, "Well, this wasn't simply an aberration or asideline faction," it actually was part of the Republicancoalition. And - and we have to as a nation, not just theRepublican Party, reckon with how that was legitimate. Uh, and, andwhy you know, all of that remains so integral in post-sixtiespolitics.
Eddie Glaude: So the last question, thank you so much foryour time. We're not prognosticators, but, um, we find ourselvesand in a very interesting moment as a country. I -- when I watchedBill Barr, uh recently at, uh, you know, at his press conferencetalking about the Mueller Report, not the four-page op-ed, but -but you know, uh, framing - framing the Mueller Report, um, I - Icouldn't help but think about this in a broader way. Um, that Barrwasn't just simply throwing his career away for Donald Trump. Thatwhat we were witnessing was an extended argument about executivepower. The Bar comes out of a camp of folk who have been arguingfor the Imperial Presidency since Nixon. And that this is anextended argument. Um, and so now we have, uh, the Mueller Report.It's been handed over to - to Congress. There's talk aboutimpeachment and I tend to put that conversation not so muchin-- not only in the context of - of the wrongdoing of Donald Trumpand his
(54:00)
issuebut within that broader context about the question of executivepower. The role of the executive in relation to the other twobranches of government. So I'm - I'm thinking Congress has to stepup and it has to be mindful of the politics, but it has to bemindful of this broader argument that has in some ways, uh,shadowed our democracy for - for generations now. Where do youthink we're heading? Um, now that the Mueller Report has beendelivered? Now that Bill Barr has been revealed, uh, his framinghas been revealed for what it -- for what it is and what it was.Where are we headed at this moment? In your--
Julian Zelizer: Can I say I'mnotsure.
Eddie Glaude: Yeah, of course.
Julian Zelizer: But look, the, I - I see it in a similarlight and there - there has been this embrace of - of presidentialpower and there's been a conservative line of that argument, whichis very important. Starts with Nixon accelerates really underReagan. That's when a lot of the thinkers behind this idea thatthere should be almost no limit to what a president cando.
Eddie Glaude: Right.
Julian Zelizer: Dick Cheney was a big proponent of thatand that was a defense in Iran Contra.
Eddie Glaude: Sure.
Julian Zelizer: We might have circumvented the law, but aPresident has to do what's right if Congress won't come along withthem. And we saw this with the Bush presidency or right throughtoday. And Barr comes out of that tradition.
Eddie Glaude: Exactly.
Julian Zelizer: And it's going to be that -- it's in someways the principle defense, uh, uh, other that and a stupiditydefense. Literally that President didn't know what he was doing andnot no one around him knew what they were doing. And so that shouldexcuse it. But what's really an issue is not simply Donald Trump.It's not simply what's the best political strategy, which is thiscircular conversation based on speculation and prediction asopposed to are there restraints to presidential power? Uh, do webelieve in those anymore? I think Donald Trump in some ways made abet that "No," that there are no limits to what he can do. He saidthat. That's how he acts.
(56:00)
Andoften he's right. He goes there and nothing happens and everyoneexpects this is when something will happen. But now you have it invery dramatic fashion. You've a very long, lengthy, detailedreport. It is not subtle in the ways that the President tried toobstruct justice lays out a case that arguably is the strongestthing we've seen. Uh, stronger than Nixon.
Eddie Glaude: Right.
Julian Zelizer: Nixon really revolves around one tapewhere he says one thing.
Eddie Glaude: Right.
Julian Zelizer: This is just ongoing efforts combined withwhat we've seen in public, where I argue that you can see hisTwitter feed. That is a form of obstruction when it was going on.But will anyone do anything? Or will Congress sit this one out?Meaning Republicans because of Partisanship, say "We're not goingthere." And Democrats because of political fears say, " Better notto deal with this." That would be a statement about where we arewith presidential power. It - it is the strongest statementpossible in terms of an imperial presidency is what we have. Uh,and so I think Nancy Speaker Pelosi has a huge decision. Iunderstand. She's -- I - I don't know what her politics are. Partof me says she doesn't want to do this. Part of me says she wantsto keep doing and just say that's not what they're doing.Uh,kind of play both parts.
Eddie Glaude: Right.
Julian Zelizer: But I think there is a debate that has togo now beyond what's the best political move for 2000. It's notabout that. It's about what's the obligation of Congress when thishas been exposed so clearly, uh, in terms of restraining thepresidency.
Eddie Glaude: Yes, so people are waiting for theconstitutional crisis in some dramatic form. It seemslike--
Julian Zelizer: It's here.
Eddie Glaude: --it's here.
Julian Zelizer: Right.
Eddie Glaude: It's been here for a minute.
Julian Zelizer: And it's really a matter of - of, uh, doesCongress react, respond. Uh, and all we're talking about now, justso people understand is not impeaching President Trump. It'sstarting an impeachment proceeding to consider that. And that'swhere this
(58:00)
rhetoricalmess has, I think it confuses people. And so to take this reportand say there are not grounds for the House Judiciary Committee tostart a proceed and say, "Hey, are we there?" Uh, if you don't doit for this, I don't know what a President has to do, uh, for thatto ever happen.
Eddie Glaude: And the -- Professor. Julian Zelizer, thankyou so much for taking time out to talk with us on the ASMR 21podcast. Keep doing what you're doing. We certainly need yourvoice.
[musicplaying]
Julian Zelizer: Thanks for having me. It's an honor to beon this.
Eddie Glaude: Take care.
Julian Zelizer: Bye-bye.
Eddie Glaude: That concludes episode 17 of AfricanAmerican studies at Princeton University. We were grateful to havewith us Julian Zelizer and our colleague Imani Perry. But before weclose, here are a few public events involving our faculty. There'sa book talk Race After Technology, uh, with Ruha Benjaminand myself, it scheduled for September 19th, uh, at 6:30 at thePrinceton Public Library. And then there's another book talkRace For Profit: How Banks and The Real Estate IndustryUndermine Black Ownership and that's a conversation betweenProfessor Keeanga-Yamahtta Taylor and Imani Perry. That's onWednesday, October 23rd at 6:00 PM at Labyrinth Bookstore here atPrinceton. Also, we wish to thank Courtney Brian for providing themusic for the show. To the staff of the Department of AfricanAmerican Studies at Princeton, our Departmental Manager, AprilPeters, my Assistant and Events Coordinator, Deon Worder], ourCommunications and Media Specialist, Anthony Gibbons, and ourTechnical Support Specialist in Audio Engineer, Elio Leah. Thankyou for listening. We'll see you again next month.
[musicbackground]
(60:00)
[end]
