Full Debate! Norman Finkelstein vs. Barbara Smith & Robin D.G. Kelley On Identity Politics

[0:00] Thank you so much, Robin and Barbara, for joining the show. [0:09] Thank you for having us. [0:10] Yes, thanks. [0:11] Good forward to it. [0:12] So I want to start off by talking about some recent news that I'm sure, well, that I know [0:17] you're aware of, and I've heard at least one of you comment on this in the media. [0:23] And that is the College Board's revision of its curriculum for an Advanced Placement [0:29] African American Studies course. [0:31] This happened just weeks after Florida's Republican Governor Ron DeSantis threatened [0:36] to ban the class in Florida schools. [0:39] It was announced, these revisions were announced last month in February. [0:45] And Florida had raised concerns about six points in the curriculum. [0:50] Black queer studies, intersectionality, movement for Black lives, Black feminist literary thought, [0:55] the reparations movement, and Black struggle in the 21st century. [1:00] Now the College Board made its own revisions, which they claim had nothing to do with DeSantis' [1:05] decision. [1:06] And their revisions include the removal of critical race theory, Black lives matter, slavery reparations, [1:12] and queer theory as required topics. [1:15] It also removes the late James Baldwin, the author Ta-Nehisi Coates, the law professors Michelle [1:20] Alexander and Kimberly Crenshaw, Angela Davis, Barbara Ransby, the late Bell Hooks, and Robin [1:27] D.G. Kelly. [1:30] It adds, so Mazel Tov on that, by the way. [1:33] And it adds a section on Black conservatism. [1:37] So I wanted to know both of your thoughts on this removal, on these revisions, why they [1:42] were made, why they had to be done. [1:44] Um, I'll, let's start with you, Robin, because you were subject, uh, your own work was subject [1:50] to these revisions. [1:51] Right. [1:52] Not only that, I was actually in conversation with the College Board the day before it was [1:56] released. [1:57] We had this sort of private meeting. [1:59] And the short story is that, uh, the College Board claims they did not succumb to political [2:06] pressure. [2:07] Uh, but as you know, the state of Florida, the, um, Education Board basically released all [2:14] these emails to show that they were in conversation. [2:16] And they did respond, um, the short version, of course, is that, uh, what we're witnessing [2:24] now is really what's coming down the line for other states. [2:31] Uh, and that is, it's a complete assault, uh, not just on those particular topics and not [2:37] just on the work and not just on particular authors, but on any criticism of the United [2:43] States in any critical analysis that takes into consideration, uh, racism, patriarchy, [2:51] uh, uh, homophobia, transphobia, sexism, any, and even class oppression in many ways. [2:57] Uh, so that's, that's what we're, that's what's happening. [3:01] And right now there's a battle, uh, over whether or not the College Board will change its position [3:09] and then withdraw from those states or continue to try to make money off of those states. [3:15] So Barbara, what are your thoughts on this? [3:17] Well, when this first started happening, and I think it started happening before the college [3:22] board's decisions, I think that when critical race theory started being under attack a few [3:28] years ago, I would say to my friends that I am, you know, older than Robin and older than [3:33] you, Katie. [3:35] And the reason I mentioned that is because I'm in the generation of scholars, thinkers, academics [3:43] who built these fields. [3:46] When I went to college and certainly when I was in K through 12, there was no black studies. [3:51] There was no ethnic studies. [3:52] There was no women's studies. [3:53] There certainly wasn't any gender studies or queer studies. [3:57] So, as I said, people in my age group, and I graduated from college in 1969 with the clear [4:03] purpose of going to graduate school, which I started the very same year so that I could teach [4:08] African-American literature and how many courses did I have in African-American literature in [4:14] graduate school? [4:15] One. [4:16] I had one, and that was just my lucky happenstance because I had a black advisor. [4:23] But be that as it may, that is in an English department, I had a black advisor. [4:28] So, as I said, this has been an effort to erase all of the work that we have so carefully and [4:35] so with such commitment built over these decades, because unlike the kinds of education, probably [4:45] I'm sure all of us have gotten that kind of American exceptionalism education. [4:52] Unlike the education that we got, what we've been involved, and when I say we, I mean Robin [4:57] and I and so many others, we've been involved in trying to get to the truth of what has happened [5:03] in this nation. [5:04] And of course, as I said in that wonderful movie, they can't handle the truth. [5:09] So since they can't handle it, they're going to get rid of it. [5:14] And what do you think is so threatening to the people who removed it, both Ron DeSantis and [5:21] the AP College Board? [5:23] Oh, can I just say one sentence? [5:28] Because a full-fledged credible course in African American studies is a great assault on white [5:34] supremacy. [5:35] Exactly. [5:36] Exactly. [5:37] You can't have that happen. [5:38] Exactly. [5:39] And this is why this goes back to the fact that every single one of those categories is [5:43] true. [5:44] Barbara and her cohort for Generation made it possible, basically invented those fields. [5:52] Every single one. [5:53] They got rid of Black feminist literary theory. [5:55] They got rid of queer studies. [5:57] All these things come down to that work. [5:58] But where did that work come from? [6:00] That work came out of movements. [6:03] Because let's face it, the idea of Black studies, like the idea of women's studies, wasn't simply [6:09] to diversify the curriculum or try to be more inclusive, it was about transforming our society. [6:19] And that is the threat. [6:21] That is the threat. [6:22] Because if you take a class in Black studies, there's truly a class in Black studies that [6:27] is interdisciplinary, that deals with sort of, as the Combahee River Collective says, interlocking [6:33] oppressions, then what you're doing is you're critiquing and revealing the very structures [6:41] that made the United States not exceptional, right? [6:44] That made the United States what it is. [6:46] And we're trying to change this country, you know? [6:49] So I mean, look, I don't, I mean, I have lots of problems with Ron DeSantis, and I know [6:55] this is all a ploy, but there's some truth in the fact that this work is a threat to the [7:01] status quo. [7:04] Right. [7:05] That's an interesting point. [7:06] So you agree that it's a threat. [7:08] It's just a threat that you may want, and he may fear. [7:12] Yes. [7:14] But keep in mind that when we say a threat, I just want to be clear to your listeners, because [7:18] I'm not sure always who listens to your show. [7:22] The threat is not to white people. [7:25] Yeah. [7:26] That's the most ignorant thing I've ever heard. [7:28] People say this. [7:29] The threat is to the status quo, to capital. [7:34] It is to white supremacy, to patriarchy, to a system that actually extracts wealth from [7:41] our labor and continues to maintain this hierarchy. [7:46] So I think that's really, really important to recognize. [7:48] And how does it threaten these things? [7:54] How do these courses threaten the status quo, as you're both arguing? [8:00] The way they, I mean, I think it's kind of obvious in some ways, but one of the ways that [8:05] it does that is because it has young people start questioning. [8:10] They look at what's around them. [8:11] They can see what's happening because they're deeply affected by the great wealth inequality, [8:19] by their student debt, by the fact that they're not going to do any better than their parents, [8:24] or maybe even their grandparents did. [8:27] Unlike that American dream that supposedly been chugging along ever since, you know, the founding [8:32] fathers. [8:33] So they can see what's happening. [8:34] But then in the kinds of courses that are being expunged, they find out like the why of it. [8:44] And then they began to think about different possibilities and different alternatives. [8:49] They figure out, well, maybe those people who live in another neighborhood who I never knew [8:54] until I got to a college campus, maybe they're not my problem. [8:58] Maybe it's like something called the system. [9:00] That's my problem. [9:02] That's a lot that is lodged against us. [9:04] But this country has never wanted people to be critical thinkers. [9:08] They've never wanted that to be the case. [9:10] And those few of us who escaped and became critical thinkers, often we end up in prison. [9:17] Or some other places are either like an exile in some other country. [9:22] We're not popular. [9:23] You know, we're just not popular. [9:25] And that we persist. [9:28] You know, there's, you know, that black radical tradition that Robin writes about so brilliantly. [9:34] It's still in existence. [9:35] And the children, they're being born every day who are going to take that on. [9:40] That's right. [9:41] And Robin, you mentioned the Combahee River Collective. [9:44] And of course, Barbara, you were part of that collective. [9:47] And that is kind of the origin of the very misunderstood, often misunderstood, often weaponized, [9:56] often obscured term, identity politics. [10:00] Can you talk about the Combahee River Collective and what identity politics means to you and your cohort? [10:07] Go ahead, Robin. [10:09] Oh, no. [10:10] I can't. [10:11] This is a question for you. [10:12] I mean, this one may have your name all over it. [10:14] Robin has a good understanding of this, though. [10:17] Well, I could say, well, I could say what, I mean, you know, of course, and we all learn [10:22] this from you. [10:23] I mean, this is a very important question because of the way in which identity politics [10:27] has been kind of hijacked and transformed. [10:31] And what happens is that people, including people on the left, will criticize the hijacked [10:36] version and not actually go to the source. [10:39] So if you look at the Combahee River Collective, you know, it lays out what is a radical. [10:47] The statement. [10:48] Yeah. [10:49] The statement lays out what is really a truly radical understanding of identity. [10:56] Identity is not mentioned in terms of narrow interests, but it is really about a critique [11:03] of what the statement calls interlocking oppressions. [11:09] You know, the fact that to identify as a Black woman or as a queer Black woman is to recognize [11:16] the multiple vectors of oppression and extraction that they have to experience. [11:22] And there's so many movements that emerged that said, you know, that's not really important. [11:26] Well, we have to deal with racism in the man, or we have to deal with capitalism, you know, [11:31] and all this other stuff is secondary. [11:32] And trust me, after the revolution, racism will just disappear, you know, and that's not [11:37] people's realities. [11:38] And I just want to just point out to people this really important paragraph, and I could [11:43] read the whole thing, where the statement states that, you know, we're socialists, right? [11:50] They talk about material resources must be equally distributed among those who could [11:56] create these resources, you know, and we are not convinced, however, that the socialist [12:01] revolution that is not also a feminist and anti-racist revolution will guarantee our liberation. [12:07] It was a gauntlet-throwing statement for all movements of liberation to embrace. [12:15] It wasn't exclusionary, right? [12:17] And that's what identity politics was intended to mean. [12:21] It wasn't corporate diversity politics. [12:23] It wasn't representation within a multiracial ruling class. [12:27] On the contrary, what we see on the streets is a multiracial opposition to a multiracial [12:34] ruling class, which is class struggle, but we don't ever see it that way. [12:38] We often see that as, you know, not the real class struggle because the people talk about [12:42] the real class struggle or the armchair leftists who don't actually do much, but criticize every [12:47] other movement for not putting class first. [12:49] And what else can you tell us? [12:53] Thank you for that, Robin. [12:54] And your essay on black feminism, which we'll link to in the description, was really excellent. [13:00] And Barbara, what else can you tell us about your conception of identity politics? [13:06] What it meant to you when you were discussing it and how you feel like it has been hijacked? [13:11] It definitely has been hijacked. [13:13] And one of the things that's really important to understand about the place and time of origin [13:18] is what was going on around gender and sexuality and race and class politics at the time. [13:25] What we were asserting is that we, as people identified as black and female at birth and who [13:34] are also who are, you know, a part of those two groups, that we had a right to form our own political agendas. [13:44] And this was not a perspective that was widely shared or supported during the 1970s and into the late 1970s and into the early 1980s. [13:57] Because black politics and black struggle was understood to be black male defined and struggle around gender. [14:06] And also to some extent sexuality was considered to be white and white women. [14:11] So we were saying, wait a minute, wait a minute. [14:15] There's something going on here in our lives that has not been captured at all and certainly has not developed into a visible political agenda. [14:25] And we're saying we have a right to actually begin to be involved in that project. [14:30] We were not separatists. [14:31] We strongly believe in coalition and we did not see ourselves as superior to any other group of people. [14:38] And one of the things about our believing in coalition is that we have a record of practice. [14:43] You know, it's not just in the book that we say or in the statement that we say that we're committed to that. [14:49] We're committed to this day. [14:51] One of the things that I've been working on a lot this year is the situation in Ukraine. [14:56] Yes, I said the situation in Ukraine. [14:59] Why would I, as a black woman and an out black lesbian, be concerned about that? [15:05] Because it's a problem. [15:06] That's why. [15:07] And it's a problem that's susceptible to political dialogue and to political intervention. [15:12] So, I mean, as I said, we don't have to prove that we're committed to it. [15:17] We have the record of it. [15:18] And one of the things about how it has been misunderstood is that most people have never read the Combahee River collective statement. [15:26] They have no idea that those two words together, identity politics, first appeared there. [15:32] I believe that the way that it has been misunderstood and misinterpreted is because other people came up with the same concept that people on the right and the left started using the concept according to what their definitions were without ever knowing that there was like a first iteration of that in something written by black feminists. [15:55] So I don't want to be blamed. [15:57] That's one of the things I came on your show to say, do not blame me for what has happened to identity politics because people have not read the original source. [16:07] And if they did, they might feel a little more comfortable around what it was we were saying. [16:11] Do you remember discussions about this? [16:13] Like, was there an aha moment with someone like, oh, it's identity. [16:16] Let's use this word. [16:17] Was it more organic? [16:18] How did it come out? [16:19] Well, there's some like, there's like a secret history of the writing. [16:24] Of the comic you've ever felt at this statement. [16:27] And I will probably not share it here. [16:29] Oh, man. [16:30] But there were only three of us. [16:31] I'll say this. [16:32] There are only three of us. [16:33] I need to get you a drink before we did this. [16:35] Oh, I can tell the truth without a drink. [16:39] Okay. [16:40] Better woman than I am. [16:41] Just kidding. [16:42] Okay, so this is a process. [16:43] The process is that my sister Beverly, my twin sister Beverly and I, and Demita Frazier, we got together, we taped a conversation or maybe more than one conversation. [16:51] And then a certain person, namely me, was charged with going home and typing up what we had said. [16:58] So I'm not sure that if identity politics was something that we had said as a group, because that's lost to time, sadly. [17:06] Or if it was something that I just typed on my little Smith Corona portable typewriter. [17:11] Yeah, that's what we used in those days. [17:13] Yeah. [17:14] But be that as it may, I can't say. [17:17] I can't say. [17:18] Certainly the concept of identity politics evolved in the context of the Combahee River Collective among more people than just the three who I mentioned, who took on the task of writing it. [17:30] But as far as like, did we ever say those words and then, you know, I write them down or somebody say, oh, you need to put that in. [17:38] Because we came back after I'd done a draft and suggestions were made and then back to the drawing board until we had it finished. [17:46] But as I said, I can't say that definitively. [17:49] I just know it was a concept that was applicable to what we had been discussing politically. [17:54] Right. [17:55] So, so Barbara, can I ask a question about this? [17:58] So is it, it's true that Zilla Eisenstein had wanted you all to create a statement for a feminist conference at Antioch? [18:08] Is that right? [18:09] No, no, no. [18:11] This, no, she asked us to write something for her book. [18:14] For a book. [18:15] Capitalist Patriarchy and the Case for Socialist Feminism. [18:18] Right. [18:19] That conference at Antioch, which I attended, that Socialist Feminist Conference at Antioch, which I think would have been the summer of 75. [18:28] Mm-hmm. [18:29] The, the Comedy River Collective statement followed that. [18:34] I see. [18:35] Chronologically. [18:36] So, yes, Zilla Eisenstein, she didn't say write a statement, as I recollect. [18:41] Right. [18:42] I think she just asked, can you write something? [18:44] Can the collector write something for this book? [18:46] Right. [18:47] And the statement is what we came up with. [18:49] And I also say, quite honestly, I don't know that we ever would have written the statement if Zilla had not asked us to. [18:55] Right. [18:56] Because why would we have? [18:57] But the challenge of getting it down on paper, that was a great coming together of circumstances that we did do it. [19:04] Right. [19:05] And that's so important because it demonstrates, again, what it means to be in coalition, what it means to be part of a larger movement. [19:12] And also, and I just want to just hold this up. [19:16] All of you were involved in really significant struggles around reproductive rights, around- [19:24] Anti-war. [19:25] And anti-war movement, of course, and coming out of civil rights movement. [19:28] But even immediately in Boston, the violence against, vicious violence against women, black women in particular, vulnerable women, creating battered shelters, shelters for battered women. [19:42] You know, doing this work, fighting even on the tail end of Roe, these struggles around black women's right to not be sterilized, you know? [19:56] Exactly. [19:57] And you're doing that really important work. [19:58] And I think those politics are part of what shapes the radical character of the statement, you know? [20:06] That's true. [20:07] And that's what I was saying about our practice, that we have a record of practice. [20:12] And you, I know that you mentioned in your interview with Keonga Yamada Taylor, you talk about how you would, you would attend strikes, picket lines, protests for construction workers who were surprised to see you. [20:29] I was surprised to see you show up. [20:30] So how did you, how did that occur to you? [20:33] Was that an organic part of your politics? [20:35] Did you think of it? [20:36] Oh, we should be doing this? [20:37] Or was it just part of your view of the world? [20:40] Because we were so politically active and because at that time, Boston had a really interesting left, you know, leftist movement that was working on a number of issues, we would hear about most things that would have been relevant to people with our politics. [20:57] Another thing that was going on in Boston at that time was the war, I don't know what else to call it, around school desegregation. [21:07] So at the very same time that Combahee was beginning its work and doing its work, there was race war going on in the city where we were trying to do it. [21:17] And the fact is that that picket line that we described was on the site of a new high school that was being built in Roxbury, which is the central black community, or at least at the time was a central black community in Boston. [21:35] But they weren't hiring any people of color to work on the high school in the black that was cited in the black community. [21:42] So that's why we came out for that, because it was a clear, you know, workers' rights and racial rights issue. [21:49] And that's very typical, of course, of the construction, the history of the construction trades in the United States that no people of color need applied. [21:57] So that was why. [21:58] And can you, I kind of skipped this part, but can you share with people what the Combahee River Collective was and why you chose that? [22:05] And why you chose the name that you chose for it? [22:09] We were a group that grew out of the National Black Feminist Organization. [22:14] The National Black Feminist Organization started in 1973, or at least it had its first major conference in 1973. [22:24] My sister Beverly lived in New York at that time. [22:27] I was living in Boston and she found out about the conference. [22:32] She had met Margaret Sloan because she was working at Ms. Magazine. [22:37] And so we kind of had an inside scoop on what was going to happen. [22:41] And I came down to New York from Boston, attended the conference, and then we were charged with those who attended the conference. [22:48] And there were hundreds who did from all over the country. [22:51] They were charged with starting chapters of the National Black Feminist Organization in their hometowns. [22:57] And so I went back to Boston. [23:00] I think there were a couple of people there from Boston at the conference. [23:04] And we went back to Boston and started a chapter of the National Black Feminist Organization. [23:09] We, you know, were committed to those, you know, to the organization. [23:13] As I think I mentioned, I had met Margaret Sloan, who was one of the founders of NVFO. [23:19] But at a certain point, we decided that we wanted to expand our politics and that we were to the left of the National Black Feminist Organization as it had expressed its politics during that time. [23:32] And so we became an independent group. [23:35] And the Combahee River is the name of the river, which you can go see it's in South Carolina. [23:42] It's the name of the river where Harriet Tubman planned and led a raid on plantations along the river that freed over 750 enslaved people during the Civil War. [23:53] And so that's why we became the Combahee River Collective. [23:58] And again, a little fun fact is that we've been pronouncing it incorrectly all these decades. [24:04] It's actually Combahee. [24:06] Combahee. [24:07] Combahee, as if it's two syllables with no A in the middle. [24:11] And I heard a wonderful podcast about the history of the raid a few years ago. [24:16] And they interviewed people who lived there. [24:19] And these are living South Carolinians. [24:21] And they all said Combahee. [24:23] I said, okay, got that one wrong. [24:25] Right. [24:26] But anyway, that's why we named ourselves as we did. [24:30] And so what do identity politics mean to you? [24:34] It means that you have a right to have all yourselves be in the room. [24:40] And that people who have not experienced the things that you've experienced might take some heed that when you share about how your identity affects your objective material conditions, that they listen to you and that they think about their work differently. [25:04] Here's an example. [25:05] Here's an example. [25:06] The issue of violence against women. [25:07] So the movement to challenge violence against women grew up with the second wave of the women's movement. [25:15] There used to not be a single shelter in the United States. [25:18] When I first was involved with feminism, there were no shelters in the entire United States. [25:24] But one of the strategies of the violence against women movement, including sexual assault, as well as domestic violence, is that you call the police. [25:36] And of course, for women of color, that's like a non-starter. [25:40] It's like, call the police. [25:42] And what world has that ever made our situation better? [25:46] So women of color who've been directly involved in organizing around violence against women have had to both explain to the wider movement, like, this is a work for everybody who lives here. [26:03] We have different relationships to armed forces of control. [26:12] And we have different ways also of figuring out how to deal with this problem within our communities that doesn't necessarily make the first call to the police. [26:25] It's very, very complicated. [26:27] But these are complications that only people who live through it can actually share with you. [26:33] People are not generally going to come up with that on their own. [26:36] So that's a perfect example of, like, what happens when people are allowed to do political work and analysis out of their identities and build a movement that's stronger. [26:49] To have a movement of violence that is combating violence against women that takes into account racism and white supremacy, that's a stronger movement. [26:59] So that's how it works. [27:01] And Robin, do you remember hearing identity politics for the first time, the term? [27:07] Yeah, well, I guess, more than once. [27:11] I mean, the first time I actually wrote about this in the forward to this beautiful book of interviews with with Barbara, when I read, you know, the amazing collection of works on black women's studies, you know, all the women, all the men are, how is it? [27:31] All the women are white, all the men, all the blacks are men, but some of us are brave. [27:40] 1982, right. [27:41] So when I, so the statement is actually in that text, and I read it then. [27:47] But, but to me, it was framed around the whole book. [27:51] It wasn't just the, the combined river collective statement. [27:55] It was an expression. [27:57] The whole book was an expression of what interlocking oppressions and what it means to build a movement around multiple identities. [28:06] And these identities are not separate silos. [28:09] They are, they actually are mutually constitutive. [28:13] And so, you know, to go back to the story of, of, of the work that, that you all were doing in Boston around violence against women and this series of murders of black women in Roxbury and Mattapan places like that. [28:29] But one of the struggles was also to defend Willie Sanders, who was a black man, who was a janitor, who was accused, falsely accused of rape, raping white women in Brighton. [28:40] And so on the, on the, on the one hand, they're doing all these things at the same time, fighting a kind of racist judicial structure that, that, that's in some ways making white women feel safe by arresting this black man who is completely innocent and insisting that there'd be something done. [28:58] about the killing of, of these black women. [29:02] And the cops were not necessarily the most effective force to do that. [29:06] So, um, and creating ways of, of defending themselves as, as black women. [29:12] So I think all those things together represent the politics that we need to build. [29:17] And one last thing, um, one of the big frustrating things for me in talk, in terms of talking about identity politics is a way in which we don't talk about white identity. [29:28] white identity. [29:29] And that to me is the problem. [29:32] The problem has never been, uh, a matter of convincing, you know, people of color to join the class, to support the class. [29:42] Um, that's never been the issue. [29:44] The issue has always been, uh, historically, how come we can't get white workers to embrace the whole class? [29:51] I mean, that's the fundamental contradiction. [29:53] They, they, they tell us, like, leave your identities at the door, but, you know, coalesce around this idea of one worker identity. [30:05] You know, and I know Christian Parenti was on your show talking about this, and I completely disagree with the way he talked about factionalism. [30:12] But if you look at the long history of labor, it was the exclusion of black workers, the exclusion of Asian workers, the exclusion of agricultural workers, the exclusion of domestic workers. [30:21] This is why unions have historically been, you know, consistently, um, uh, opposed to, um, to changing the structure of capital. [30:33] You know, they, unions have tolerated racially segmented labor force. [30:38] They've tolerated wage differentials based on race. [30:41] These white workers have often supported housing policies that maintain segregation because they don't want their homes devalued, um, whatever that means. [30:49] And, you know, or policies that exclude black people and brown people from publicly funded institutions, better schools, better hospitals. [30:57] That is against class struggle. [31:00] So you have, it's kind of flipped. [31:03] We are saddled with a white identity politics rooted in settler colonialism, which has convinced generations of white people that somehow one day they might be a slave holder or one day they might own property. [31:13] Um, and in, in defending that position, they don't join the rest of the class. [31:18] See, so that's the point I really want to make because it's not the factionalism built into the constitution or the, um, uh, that, that James Madison had proposed. [31:31] They wanted to be promoted because how can you turn to an enslaved person or indigenous person say, well, you're a faction. [31:36] You know, when their structural relationship to capital is totally different. [31:39] You know? [31:40] So that's, that's to me, the big pet peeve. [31:42] And so identity politics in this radical iteration would basically say, we're looking at the whole class as whole people. [31:51] in terms of all the things they experience [31:53] and all the modes of progression [31:55] that they have to deal with. [31:57] I actually wanted to just go back for one second [32:00] to the original discussion we were having, [32:02] which is related, of course, to the college board. [32:05] But can you just share a little bit more, Robin, [32:08] about what your discussions were [32:09] with people on the board [32:11] and how that even happened? [32:13] Like, why were you even talking to them at that point? [32:15] Well, I was talking to them simply [32:17] because I wanted to write an article [32:18] based on what we thought the curriculum [32:20] was going to look like. [32:21] I was prepared to defend the college board [32:24] and to defend African-American Studies' AP, right? [32:27] But then we discovered [32:28] that that wasn't the same curriculum. [32:30] And so we had to go on the offensive in many ways. [32:34] So in a nutshell, [32:37] the college board defended itself by arguing [32:39] that they had already made these changes ahead of time. [32:42] And that might be true. [32:44] And if that might be true, [32:45] then that's even more damning. [32:46] You know, it says that within the institution, [32:50] those people who were designated as experts [32:53] were the ones who made these changes. [32:56] There might be truth to that. [32:57] And of course, if those changes were made, [32:59] it's always in the context of politics. [33:01] Because think about it, [33:03] the college board is a not-for-profit institution [33:05] that does a billion dollars a year in business. [33:08] And when they lose a state, [33:10] you know, a whole state, [33:11] especially Florida, [33:12] which has the largest number of students [33:15] taking AP courses [33:16] in any other state in the country, [33:18] then that's a loss of revenue for them. [33:20] And this is not the first time. [33:22] Remember, 2014, 2015, [33:25] the college board caved [33:26] when there were some mild changes [33:28] made to the U.S. history AP course. [33:32] When they simply wanted to do things [33:34] like mention racism. [33:36] Racism was eliminated [33:37] because the Republicans went crazy [33:40] because they did that. [33:41] And what did the college board do? [33:42] They caved. [33:43] So they have a history of that. [33:44] They have history [33:44] because it's a corporation, you know? [33:47] But the larger, larger issue for me still [33:50] is we have a lot of work to do [33:53] in terms of teaching [33:54] not just students who are college-bound, [33:56] but transforming the whole curriculum, [33:59] not just for AP, [34:00] but for the whole curriculum. [34:01] And we're in a war [34:03] where all these states [34:06] are passing these anti-critical race theory [34:08] laws using the power of the legislature, right? [34:14] Which the Republicans didn't have [34:16] as much in 2014. [34:19] Now they have it. [34:20] They own the legislature [34:21] and they're passing these laws [34:22] which are a direct attack, [34:25] not just on academic freedom, [34:26] but on our ability [34:29] to actually think freely. [34:31] It's propaganda [34:32] and it's downright fascism. [34:35] I mean, don't tell me [34:36] this is not fascism [34:37] because that's what it comes down to. [34:42] So let's bring on, [34:43] thank you both so much [34:45] for your contributions thus far [34:47] and we're just going to keep going [34:48] and we're going to bring on [34:49] our next guest, [34:51] Norman Finkelstein, [34:52] whose book, [34:53] whose recent book, [34:54] I'll Burn That Bridge [34:56] When I Get to It, [34:56] Heretical Thoughts on Identity Politics, [34:58] Cancer Culture, [34:59] and Academic Freedom [34:59] deals with a lot of these issues [35:02] that we're discussing. [35:03] Norman, welcome. [35:05] Thank you for having me [35:06] and I enjoyed listening [35:08] to Robin and Barbara. [35:11] So you read, [35:13] we all had kind of an assignment [35:14] where we all read, [35:17] not each other's works [35:18] because I don't have any works, [35:20] but we all read [35:20] some of Robin's work, [35:22] Norman's book, [35:24] and Barbara's interventions. [35:26] And again, [35:27] I'll link to all the, [35:29] well, I can't link to all of them [35:31] because there are too many, [35:32] but I'll link to some of your guys' [35:33] extensive bibliography. [35:35] But let's just start, [35:37] I mean, what, [35:38] Norman, do you want to respond [35:39] to some of the things [35:40] that you heard in this discussion [35:41] or Barbara and Robin, [35:43] do you want to respond [35:44] to some of the things [35:44] that you read in Norman's book? [35:46] It's up to you [35:47] how you guys want to proceed. [35:51] I'm willing to respond [35:52] to some of the things [35:55] I heard here [35:56] and I did listen very closely. [35:59] I was forewarned by Katie [36:01] about an hour ago. [36:06] Remember, [36:06] I don't want to get canceled. [36:08] No, I didn't say that. [36:09] I didn't say [36:10] I don't want to get canceled. [36:11] I said, let's be civil. [36:12] I said, let's be, [36:13] make sure that we're all civil [36:14] is what I said. [36:15] And then you made a joke [36:16] about my getting, [36:17] you said, don't worry, [36:18] you're not going to get canceled. [36:19] Yeah. [36:19] I was paraphrasing. [36:20] So I'm going to just say [36:23] a couple of things [36:24] and it's in the spirit [36:27] of trying to have [36:28] an honest conversation [36:30] and not just have bromides [36:33] feel goods [36:34] and to really engage [36:37] with each other. [36:39] Let me begin by saying [36:40] I'm not at all an expert. [36:42] I'm not even a novice [36:43] in most of these fields [36:45] that you have discussed. [36:47] I've had, [36:48] for various reasons, [36:49] I ended up special, [36:51] hyper-specializing [36:52] in a couple of topics [36:54] in my adult life. [36:55] And that was to the detriment [36:57] of many other things [36:59] I wish I had time to explore, [37:00] but I didn't. [37:02] On the other hand, [37:03] I think there's a kind [37:04] of what you might call [37:06] a minimal mental competence [37:08] such that you can go into areas [37:11] where you don't know a lot, [37:12] but nonetheless, [37:14] apply basic reasoning, [37:16] basic, [37:18] looking for basic coherence, [37:21] things like that. [37:21] Apply those ordinary standards [37:23] and reach a conclusion [37:25] about whether something [37:26] you're reading is coherent or not, [37:28] whether it's compelling or not, [37:29] whether it's convincing or not. [37:31] There, I think, [37:33] what you could call [37:34] an educated reader [37:35] can reach conclusions [37:37] even in the absence [37:38] of having steeped themselves [37:41] in the scholarly literature. [37:44] So, having said that, [37:46] let me just address [37:47] a couple of things [37:49] I heard you say. [37:50] And as I say, [37:52] I'm going to be candid, [37:53] but absolutely respectful. [37:55] You know, when I hear [37:56] you talk about your history, [37:59] I respect that. [38:00] That's a life. [38:04] It's a good life, [38:06] in my opinion, [38:07] and a life deserving [38:09] of respect and honor. [38:10] So, I hope you'll take [38:13] my comments [38:14] with that sentiment in mind. [38:18] I'll deal with two things. [38:20] I'll start with one [38:21] and then we'll move [38:21] to the second. [38:22] The question of the [38:23] African American [38:25] AP course curriculum. [38:28] I was following [38:29] the news on it. [38:31] I sat down [38:31] and I read it. [38:32] It's about, I think, [38:33] 224 pages. [38:36] I read it carefully. [38:37] I'm not an expert [38:38] in the field, [38:39] but I was curious [38:40] what topics did it cover, [38:41] or what topics did it exclude. [38:44] So, it begins with Africa [38:46] and basically, [38:47] it's a kind of [38:48] restorative depiction [38:50] of Africa. [38:51] Having been so maligned, [38:54] the emphasis [38:54] in the African section [38:56] is, I think, [38:58] fairly. [38:59] It's the achievements [39:01] of Africa, [39:02] the fact that empires [39:03] existed there, [39:04] and all sorts of things [39:05] which, even in this [39:06] present day, [39:07] most people don't know. [39:09] and even if they do know, [39:10] it goes in one ear [39:11] and out the other [39:12] because of all the [39:13] propaganda, [39:14] the imagery, [39:15] and so forth. [39:16] Okay. [39:17] It then goes to slavery, [39:19] goes to the [39:20] slave trade, [39:26] slavery, [39:28] goes through [39:28] pre-Civil War, [39:32] Civil War, [39:34] Reconstruction, [39:36] Civil Rights Movement, [39:38] Black Power Movement. [39:40] So, in terms of [39:41] general themes, [39:43] it seemed to have [39:44] covered the terrain [39:45] that one would expect [39:46] in an African American [39:48] studies curriculum. [39:50] I would say [39:51] it gives over, [39:52] we can disagree, [39:53] but I'm going to say [39:54] it nonetheless, [39:56] it gives over [39:57] super abundant [39:59] space [40:00] to contributions [40:02] of women. [40:03] I would say [40:04] there is not [40:04] a single page [40:06] in that curriculum, [40:07] not a single page, [40:09] and I would say [40:10] estimate [40:10] I don't have it [40:12] in front of me now, [40:14] I would estimate [40:15] about 20% [40:17] of the sections, [40:19] 20% of the sections [40:21] are on [40:21] African American women. [40:24] So, [40:25] the idea [40:25] that it somehow [40:26] excludes [40:27] the female [40:29] or women [40:29] contribution, [40:31] I'm not saying [40:31] you say it, [40:32] I'm just trying [40:32] to give a picture [40:33] of that curriculum. [40:35] I would say [40:35] that claim [40:36] would not be true. [40:37] Okay, [40:37] can I jump in here [40:38] because you're [40:39] taking a lot [40:40] of time [40:41] to say this. [40:42] Can I just respond [40:42] to this? [40:43] Because I've read [40:44] every page [40:44] of that curriculum [40:45] and there are [40:46] two things [40:46] to keep in mind. [40:47] One is not, [40:48] the course wasn't [40:49] supposed to be [40:50] an African American [40:50] history course, [40:52] it became that. [40:53] It was an African [40:53] American studies course, [40:54] which is to say [40:55] it was interdisciplinary. [40:58] And so much [40:58] of what was taken [40:59] out wasn't just [41:00] history, [41:01] but it was framing, [41:02] it was theoretical [41:03] interventions, [41:04] number one. [41:05] And number two, [41:06] let's just say [41:06] it's a glorified [41:07] history course. [41:08] That's fine. [41:10] But do we really [41:12] want to play [41:13] the game [41:13] of percentages? [41:15] Even if we do [41:16] play the game [41:17] of percentages, [41:17] 20% in terms [41:19] of the centrality [41:20] of black women, [41:22] that doesn't really [41:23] make sense. [41:24] Special sections. [41:25] Well, [41:26] but you don't need [41:27] special sections [41:28] because, [41:29] look, [41:29] and I'm saying [41:30] that I'm not even [41:31] arguing that DeSantis [41:32] had anything [41:33] to do with that. [41:35] I'm saying [41:35] that the way [41:37] that a lot [41:38] of us, [41:38] I can speak [41:39] for myself, [41:39] I teach African [41:40] American history. [41:42] And so, [41:43] the texts [41:43] that I use [41:44] as my major [41:44] texts [41:45] are usually [41:46] texts [41:46] that center [41:47] on black [41:49] women [41:50] as the major [41:51] texts, [41:52] not as a [41:52] supplementary [41:54] text. [41:55] And there's [41:55] lots of reasons [41:56] for that. [41:56] You can't [41:56] think about [41:57] something like [41:58] slavery without [41:59] thinking about [41:59] reproduction. [42:01] You can't [42:01] think about, [42:03] we talk about [42:04] the late [42:05] 19th century [42:05] and the period [42:06] of Booker T. [42:08] Washington [42:08] debates [42:09] Du Bois [42:10] when that's [42:10] not the [42:10] fundamental [42:11] question. [42:12] The fundamental [42:12] question is [42:12] you have [42:13] these black [42:13] women's [42:14] organizations [42:14] that are [42:14] fighting [42:15] lynching [42:16] and that [42:17] are actually [42:17] post-reconstruction [42:18] organizations [42:19] that are [42:20] resisting [42:21] segregation [42:21] in a way. [42:23] Some are [42:23] elite, [42:23] some are [42:24] working class. [42:26] So there's [42:26] a lot of [42:27] things that [42:28] really, [42:29] if we really [42:29] want to be [42:30] serious about [42:31] trying to [42:31] tell this [42:32] history, [42:33] as history, [42:34] there's no [42:34] way we [42:35] can have [42:35] separate [42:36] sections on [42:38] black women [42:38] alone and [42:40] it constitute [42:40] one-fifth when [42:42] it should be [42:42] more than [42:42] half. [42:44] That's just [42:44] my position. [42:45] I think I [42:46] said, I [42:47] don't think [42:48] there's a [42:48] single page, [42:50] I don't think [42:51] there's a [42:52] single page [42:53] that doesn't [42:54] mention [42:55] black women. [42:57] And then I [42:57] said, in [42:58] addition to [43:00] that, there [43:01] are whole [43:02] sections given [43:04] over to [43:05] black women. [43:07] Now, you [43:07] said it's [43:08] an Afro [43:09] American [43:09] studies course, [43:11] not an [43:11] African [43:11] American [43:12] history course. [43:14] It happens, [43:15] and I'm [43:16] sure you'll [43:16] agree, that [43:18] I think an [43:19] excessive [43:20] amount of [43:22] space is [43:23] given over [43:24] to black [43:25] culture, [43:26] music, [43:28] art, [43:29] photography, [43:31] many references [43:32] to black [43:33] hair. [43:35] So it's [43:36] more, in [43:37] my opinion, [43:38] in a [43:39] black history [43:40] course, I [43:41] would have [43:41] liked to see [43:42] something on [43:42] the black [43:43] working class. [43:45] There is [43:45] one section [43:46] entitled [43:48] The Growth [43:49] of the [43:51] Black [43:51] Middle [43:52] Class. [43:54] There is [43:54] virtually [43:55] nothing in [43:57] that curriculum [43:58] about the [43:59] black [44:00] working class. [44:02] I found [44:03] that very [44:03] troubling. [44:05] I saw [44:05] nothing in [44:06] that curriculum [44:07] about issues [44:08] of black [44:09] health. [44:11] Nothing in [44:12] that curriculum [44:12] except for [44:14] one tiny [44:15] section on [44:16] the 1930s. [44:19] Nothing on [44:20] black housing. [44:23] Nothing on [44:24] black [44:24] employment. [44:27] And so [44:27] when I read [44:28] this curriculum, [44:30] my thought [44:31] was it was [44:33] an awful [44:34] lot of [44:34] black [44:35] middle-class [44:35] professors [44:36] who wrote [44:38] this [44:38] curriculum. [44:40] Now, [44:40] of the [44:40] advisory [44:41] board [44:41] and the [44:42] contributors, [44:44] there are [44:44] 13. [44:46] Of those [44:46] 13, [44:47] 12 are [44:49] black. [44:50] So I have [44:50] to assume [44:51] they had [44:51] some input. [44:53] There was [44:54] one white [44:54] person whose [44:55] specialization [44:56] is African [44:58] history. [45:00] Apart from [45:01] that, [45:01] so if you [45:03] were to ask [45:03] me what's [45:04] the problem [45:05] with that [45:05] curriculum, [45:06] I would [45:07] say the [45:07] problem is [45:08] it's way [45:10] too woke, [45:13] way too [45:14] woke. [45:15] There is [45:15] a section [45:16] on black [45:17] power, [45:18] followed by [45:19] a section [45:20] on the [45:21] Black [45:21] Panthers. [45:23] This is [45:24] kind of like [45:24] a professional [45:26] black middle [45:27] class look [45:28] at the [45:28] past. [45:29] I would [45:29] have liked [45:30] to see [45:30] something [45:31] on Bob [45:31] Moses, [45:32] something on [45:33] Diane Nash, [45:35] something on [45:36] Ella Baker, [45:37] that I think [45:38] would have been [45:38] interrupted. [45:42] Yeah. [45:43] What I want [45:44] to say is [45:44] that there's [45:44] nobody talking [45:45] right now [45:46] who created [45:47] this course. [45:49] So what [45:50] we would [45:51] like to [45:51] see, [45:52] Robin and [45:53] I talked [45:54] about, [45:55] I think [45:55] we were [45:55] mostly focusing [45:56] on the [45:57] issue of [45:57] censorship [45:58] and suppression [45:59] of subject [46:01] matter about [46:02] people of [46:02] African heritage [46:03] living in the [46:04] United States. [46:05] That's what [46:06] concerns me [46:06] about it. [46:07] I have it [46:08] downloaded on [46:08] my computer [46:09] too, [46:09] but unlike [46:10] the two [46:10] of you, [46:11] I haven't [46:11] read every [46:11] page of [46:12] it. [46:13] But like [46:14] the things [46:16] that you're [46:16] saying are [46:17] missing, [46:17] I don't have [46:18] any problems [46:19] with Norman [46:20] with what [46:20] you're saying [46:21] is missing [46:21] from this [46:22] curriculum. [46:24] The fact [46:24] that you're [46:26] saying that [46:26] black middle [46:27] class people [46:28] created it, [46:29] who gets [46:29] to be college [46:30] professors at [46:31] that? [46:31] you know, [46:33] I mean, [46:33] we're not [46:33] going to [46:34] our state [46:35] prisons [46:35] where the [46:36] geniuses [46:36] are. [46:37] We're not [46:37] going to [46:38] our state [46:38] prison where [46:39] the geniuses [46:39] are to [46:40] ask them, [46:41] would you [46:41] mind having [46:42] your spare [46:42] time here [46:43] as you're [46:43] being [46:43] incarcerated [46:44] developing [46:45] some [46:45] courses [46:46] for [46:47] advanced [46:48] placement, [46:49] you know, [46:50] African [46:50] American [46:51] history. [46:51] That's not [46:51] how these [46:52] things happen. [46:53] So what [46:54] we have [46:54] is a product [46:55] of, [46:57] you know, [46:57] the college [46:58] board, [46:58] the corporation [46:59] that I [47:00] never knew [47:00] it was a [47:01] billion dollar [47:01] corporation [47:02] until now. [47:03] That is [47:04] until this [47:05] period. [47:05] I knew it [47:06] before we [47:06] started our [47:07] conversation [47:08] today. [47:08] But the [47:09] thing is [47:09] that what [47:10] we have [47:10] is a kind [47:11] of approach [47:12] and a kind [47:12] of content [47:13] that would [47:13] happen if [47:15] you created [47:16] this problem [47:16] or not [47:17] this problem. [47:18] I'm sorry. [47:18] If you created [47:19] this project [47:20] under racial [47:21] capitalism, [47:22] who would [47:22] be invited, [47:23] who would [47:24] be qualified, [47:25] who would [47:25] get asked. [47:26] Now, [47:27] as I said, [47:27] to me, [47:27] the most [47:28] important thing [47:29] is that [47:29] there are [47:29] certain [47:29] states [47:30] and state [47:31] governments [47:32] and leaders [47:33] of states [47:33] who wish [47:34] to be [47:34] president, [47:35] who wish [47:35] to erase [47:36] all of this [47:37] material, [47:38] right, [47:39] wrong, [47:39] class conscious, [47:40] gender conscious, [47:41] race conscious, [47:42] you name it. [47:42] They want to [47:43] get rid of it. [47:44] To me, [47:45] getting rid [47:46] of black [47:47] feminists [47:48] or black [47:48] women's [47:49] literary work, [47:51] that's my [47:52] baby because [47:52] I went to [47:53] grad school [47:54] in literature. [47:54] That's a [47:55] specific field [47:56] I went in [47:56] and saw [47:57] the development [47:58] of African [48:00] American literature [48:01] and black [48:02] women writers, [48:03] you know, [48:03] a trajectory, [48:05] you know, [48:05] through the years. [48:07] So that concerns me. [48:08] I think we miss, [48:09] if it's not there, [48:10] we missed a really [48:11] great historical record [48:13] and also we miss [48:16] some analytical, [48:18] you know, [48:18] some analytical tools [48:20] that would be useful. [48:21] It also bothers me [48:22] that queer studies [48:23] and queer theory [48:25] went out [48:26] because quiet [48:27] as it's kept [48:28] a lot of [48:29] the greatness [48:30] of African-American [48:31] politics, [48:32] culture, [48:33] social, [48:34] you name it, [48:35] you name it, [48:36] queer people [48:37] were involved [48:38] often closeted. [48:40] So, [48:40] I mean, [48:41] as I said, [48:42] we didn't create it. [48:43] I don't know [48:43] if we should argue [48:44] about it. [48:44] And I'm not, [48:45] we're not here [48:46] to defend it. [48:47] That wasn't the point [48:48] at all. [48:49] As a factual matter, [48:54] it mentions [48:55] black lesbians [48:57] felt excluded [48:58] from the [48:58] civil rights movement. [49:00] It mentions [49:01] that Bayard Rustin [49:02] was gay. [49:03] It mentions [49:04] not extensively, [49:06] but it's there. [49:08] And we should have [49:09] an accurate representation [49:11] of what we're [49:12] talking about [49:13] because then people [49:14] are going to just [49:15] accuse those [49:16] who are critical [49:16] of the curriculum [49:17] of being [49:18] propagandists. [49:20] We have to be honest [49:21] about those things. [49:22] It was very clear [49:23] on Bayard Rustin. [49:25] Now, [49:25] I thought it should [49:26] have been clearer [49:27] in the Harlem Renaissance [49:29] that there were [49:30] many gay people [49:32] in the Harlem Renaissance. [49:33] It should have been there. [49:35] And that to me was, [49:36] and I won't call it [49:37] inexcusable absence, [49:39] but it was [49:39] an obvious absence. [49:42] But to depict [49:43] this curriculum [49:45] as being this [49:46] wholesale [49:47] capitulation [49:49] of the college [49:51] board [49:51] to the forces [49:53] of the right, [49:54] I don't think [49:55] it's an accurate [49:56] depiction [49:56] of the curriculum. [49:57] And I don't know [49:58] how much [49:59] of that curriculum [50:00] was a result [50:01] of the agenda [50:02] of those [50:03] who wrote it. [50:05] But it's not like [50:05] we don't know [50:06] the exchanges [50:08] between [50:09] DeSantis' [50:11] education department [50:14] and the college board. [50:15] We're not talking [50:17] about the whole [50:20] curriculum. [50:21] We're talking [50:21] about specific [50:22] things that were [50:22] taken out [50:23] after there were [50:24] complaints. [50:25] That's the question. [50:27] I mean, [50:27] because if I were [50:28] to put together, [50:29] hold on, [50:30] hold on one second. [50:31] Hold on one second. [50:31] Wait, let Robin [50:33] just finish. [50:34] If any of us [50:35] were to put together [50:36] a curriculum, [50:37] it wouldn't look like that. [50:38] And it's not a defense [50:39] of the curriculum, [50:40] nor is it being dishonest. [50:41] It is talking [50:42] about specific areas [50:44] that were just removed [50:45] in response to [50:46] emails between [50:48] the Department of Education [50:50] and the college board. [50:51] That's the issue. [50:55] So maybe we can move [50:56] on to the next thing [50:57] you wanted to talk [50:58] with us about. [50:59] What I thought [51:00] would make for [51:01] an interesting discussion [51:02] is that all three of you, [51:05] and myself included, [51:06] also four of us, [51:07] we're leftists. [51:09] And I wanted [51:09] to talk about, [51:12] I guess, [51:12] one of the things [51:13] that you write about [51:13] in your book, Norman, [51:14] is identity politics [51:16] and intersectionality. [51:18] And so I thought [51:19] that would be [51:19] an interesting area [51:21] for the three of you [51:22] to discuss [51:23] because I think [51:23] you probably have [51:24] some overlapping critiques [51:26] and then you also [51:27] have divergent critiques. [51:31] And the question is? [51:33] Identity politics [51:34] and the role [51:36] of identity politics [51:38] in, I mean, okay, [51:42] I think that there's, [51:44] all of us would probably [51:45] agree that identity politics [51:46] have been hijacked [51:47] and weaponized, right? [51:48] I think what there's [51:50] debate over [51:51] is what identity politics, [51:54] when it's not hijacked [51:55] and weaponized, [51:56] what the role of that [51:57] is in the left. [51:58] And I think that [51:59] there's an interesting debate [52:00] because a lot of critics [52:01] of identity politics [52:03] frame identity politics [52:04] as something [52:05] that's excluding [52:06] and that is divisive. [52:10] Now, I think that you, [52:11] Barbara, would present it, [52:13] and I know you have [52:14] because I've read your work [52:15] and your comments on this, [52:16] but for you, [52:17] identity politics [52:18] is actually the opposite, [52:19] right? [52:19] And it allows you [52:20] as a Black feminist lesbian [52:22] to go to a picket line [52:23] supporting construction workers. [52:27] So let's discuss that. [52:31] How is it that identity politics [52:33] can actually be [52:34] instead of divisive coalition building? [52:37] Yeah, and can I just add [52:38] one more thing [52:39] to that question [52:39] to Norm [52:40] is what is your take [52:43] on Barbara's work [52:45] and on the Combahee River [52:46] collective statement [52:47] because you don't cite it [52:48] at all in your book? [52:51] Well, actually, [52:52] I mentioned this [52:53] to somebody else, [52:55] so again, [52:55] I want to be upfront [52:56] about these things [52:57] so there's no misconstrual. [52:59] I don't cite virtually [53:01] any sources in the book [53:02] except for W.E.B. Dubois [53:04] and Frederick Douglass [53:05] and that was just [53:06] to juxtapose them [53:08] against Ibram Kendi [53:10] on how you understand history. [53:13] But in terms of secondary sources, [53:15] I freely admit to being, [53:17] as I said, [53:17] I can't even call myself an amateur. [53:20] I read here and there randomly [53:22] and until I wrote the book, [53:24] I had barely read anything. [53:25] I reread a lot of Du Bois [53:26] and also read for the first time [53:28] a lot of Du Bois. [53:29] So when I don't, [53:30] that's not the only lacuna [53:33] in the book, [53:34] there's a huge, [53:35] you know, [53:35] African-American studies [53:37] is a huge field [53:38] and it's since my day, [53:40] it's exponentially increased. [53:42] I must say my day [53:43] when I took African-American [53:44] studies courses [53:45] as an undergraduate, [53:47] it's exponentially increased [53:49] and I just didn't keep up [53:50] with the literature [53:51] and I freely acknowledge that fact. [53:54] I did something else. [53:56] I tried to, [53:57] as I said originally, [53:59] sit down, [54:00] apply a educated, [54:03] readers' usual standards [54:07] of logic, reason, evidence [54:09] and see if there's [54:09] a compelling argument [54:10] here or there or not. [54:12] And my opinion was at the end [54:13] that this identity politics literature, [54:18] or you could call it [54:20] the foundational texts nowadays, [54:23] namely Robin DiAngelo, [54:25] Kendi, Ta-Nehisi Coates, [54:28] Kimberly Crenshaw, [54:29] those are the names [54:30] that you see over and over [54:31] and over and over again [54:32] and that's why I sat down [54:34] and read them, [54:35] that it's devoid [54:37] of any intellectual [54:38] or scholarly content [54:40] as far as I can tell. [54:42] On the- [54:43] I mean, I almost, [54:44] can I just say one thing, [54:44] which is that I actually thought [54:45] that it's an unintentional praise [54:51] of Barbara's work [54:53] because to me, [54:55] I don't think that your book, [54:57] it looks, [54:58] again, this is a semantics issue, [54:59] but to me, [55:00] and I don't know your thoughts, [55:03] Rodman and Barbara, [55:04] on Robin DiAngelo, [55:06] but certainly Robin DiAngelo [55:08] has entered popular culture [55:12] in a way [55:13] that the Combi River Collective [55:15] hasn't, right? [55:16] And that's a credit to you, [55:19] Barbara, in many ways. [55:20] Like, that's not an insult. [55:21] That's, you know, [55:22] I think that your work, [55:23] obviously, [55:24] it's so much more serious [55:25] than some of the work [55:26] that we see [55:27] that enters the popular culture. [55:31] I would agree fully with that. [55:33] One of the first things [55:34] that you said, Norman, [55:35] was there anybody else [55:37] from my class at Mount Holyoke [55:39] who was famous? [55:40] I'm not famous. [55:41] And if you knew [55:43] about Mount Holyoke, [55:45] we don't really play that. [55:47] Mount Holyoke [55:48] is a very serious [55:49] educational institution. [55:51] I know. [55:52] I have a very vivid recollection. [55:55] Well, you're famous [55:55] in certain circles, [55:57] but you're not [55:58] pop culture famous, right? [55:59] Oh, no. [56:00] Say that again. [56:01] Yeah, I guess you're not [56:02] on the late night shows [56:06] as a guest. [56:07] That's correct. [56:08] That's correct. [56:08] And that's probably a good thing. [56:10] But anyway, [56:11] to get back [56:13] to identity politics [56:14] and what it means [56:16] for our political struggle now, [56:20] I think that, [56:21] well, first of all, [56:22] you know, [56:22] repeating again and again, [56:24] it's so important [56:25] for people to see [56:26] what our original concept [56:28] was of identity politics [56:30] as anti-capitalist, [56:34] left-wing black feminists [56:37] of the 1970s. [56:38] So get to that. [56:39] You know, [56:40] I really urge everyone [56:42] to get to that [56:43] because I had contacted you, [56:45] Katie, as you know, [56:45] because of hearing [56:46] the show was Chris Parenti. [56:48] Right, Christian Parenti, [56:49] which we can do, [56:50] and we should have another show [56:51] where you guys defeat him. [56:52] Right. [56:53] And I was reading [56:53] the comments [56:54] during that show. [56:55] I was watching it live, [56:57] and I was reading the comments. [56:58] I said, [56:59] oh, my God. [56:59] And I said, [57:00] all these people [57:00] who, you know, [57:02] follow Katie, [57:03] you know, [57:03] watch her show, [57:04] who I think we could agree [57:06] would be members of the left, [57:08] they're just eating this stuff up. [57:10] They think Chris is right on time [57:12] around attacking identity politics. [57:14] So I'm thinking, [57:15] oh, please let me be on [57:16] so I could say [57:17] a couple of good words [57:18] about what our intentions were. [57:21] I think that what identity politics [57:22] has done [57:23] is to give people avenues [57:25] for organizing [57:27] in ways [57:28] and with effectiveness [57:30] that had it not ever been conceived of [57:33] would not have been nearly as possible. [57:36] That's what I would say. [57:38] This may seem, [57:39] I don't know if this is a good example or not. [57:41] The organizing around [57:43] the murders of Black women in 1979 [57:45] in Boston [57:46] brought together [57:48] groups of people [57:49] in a very divided city [57:51] that had never worked together previously. [57:54] They brought together [57:55] people of color [57:57] who are not all of African heritage. [57:59] I'm thinking specifically [58:00] about people [58:01] who are Latina or Latino. [58:04] So brown and black people [58:06] were working together [58:07] around the violence against, [58:10] the specific violence [58:11] and the murders of black women. [58:13] It also brought together [58:14] people from the women's movement [58:17] who were predominantly white [58:18] and who lived across the river [58:19] in Cambridge [58:20] and in Somerville [58:21] on that side of the river. [58:23] It brought them together [58:24] together with people [58:25] in Boston's working class [58:27] South End, Roxbury, [58:29] Dorchester communities. [58:31] The organization [58:32] that made that happen [58:34] was the Little Combahee River [58:36] Collective. [58:37] We did that [58:38] because we were connected [58:40] to all of those communities [58:41] in different ways. [58:42] We wrote a pamphlet [58:44] that originally was called [58:45] Six Black Women, [58:47] Why Did They Die? [58:48] And every time [58:49] a black woman was killed, [58:50] these were not serial murders. [58:53] These were not serial murders. [58:54] Some of them were done, [58:56] more than one was done [58:57] by one person, [58:58] but it wasn't one perpetrator [59:00] who killed all these black women. [59:04] And so every time [59:05] a black woman would be killed, [59:07] when we would reprint the pamphlet, [59:08] I said, [59:09] we're not going to white it out [59:10] and make it look neat. [59:11] We're going to cross it out [59:12] so that people can see [59:14] the number toll, [59:16] the toll of numbers climbing. [59:18] So that was really, [59:20] I consider that to be [59:21] kind of like the pinnacle [59:22] of our organizing [59:23] and the challenge [59:24] to our politics. [59:26] A couple of years later, [59:27] Mel King, [59:28] who you may be familiar with, [59:29] a wonderful activist [59:31] in Boston [59:33] who had run for mayor previously. [59:35] He ran for mayor [59:36] by that time [59:37] I had moved to New York [59:38] and he ran for mayor [59:40] probably in 81 or 82. [59:42] I can't remember the exact gear, [59:44] but it was the early 80s. [59:45] My friends who remained in Boston [59:47] told me that many of the people [59:49] who came together [59:50] around his mayoral campaign, [59:52] which would, [59:53] if it had been successful, [59:54] completely overturn Boston [59:57] vested interests, [59:59] patrician politics, [1:00:01] as they were, [1:00:02] that the people [1:00:03] who had worked together [1:00:04] and found each other [1:00:05] for the first time [1:00:06] working on the murders [1:00:07] were kind of the bedrock [1:00:09] of the coalition [1:00:10] around Mel King's [1:00:11] very regressive campaign. [1:00:14] And that campaign [1:00:15] used the slogan [1:00:16] of a rainbow coalition. [1:00:19] It was not Jesse Jackson [1:00:20] who first put that out there. [1:00:22] It was Mel King. [1:00:23] So that's a perfect example [1:00:24] of like how in real time [1:00:26] politics that people see [1:00:28] as marginal, [1:00:30] you know, wrongheaded, [1:00:31] whatever they see it as, [1:00:33] concrete examples, [1:00:34] organizing around [1:00:35] the murders of humans, [1:00:36] black women, [1:00:38] bringing people together [1:00:39] in a totally divided city [1:00:42] for the first time [1:00:43] in a really remarkable way. [1:00:45] And then a few years later, [1:00:47] having that coalition work [1:00:49] come to fruition [1:00:50] around a historic campaign [1:00:53] of a black left candidate. [1:00:56] So that's, [1:00:56] that's how it works. [1:00:58] Right. [1:00:58] Can I just, [1:00:59] one other thing, [1:01:00] I guess my issue [1:01:01] with not dealing [1:01:02] with this work [1:01:05] is that, [1:01:06] you know, [1:01:07] Robin DiAngelo's [1:01:08] low-hanging fruit, [1:01:09] that's easy. [1:01:10] You know, [1:01:11] I mean, [1:01:12] here's an opportunity [1:01:13] to actually understand [1:01:15] what was initially [1:01:16] meant by identity politics. [1:01:18] So what happens is [1:01:18] you have this whole group [1:01:20] of leftists, [1:01:20] of course, [1:01:21] are cheering, [1:01:22] cheering on this critique [1:01:24] because they're seeing [1:01:25] identity politics [1:01:27] as somehow getting [1:01:27] in the way [1:01:28] of real-class politics. [1:01:30] Real-class politics [1:01:30] is where you move [1:01:32] everything out the way [1:01:32] in favor of the class, [1:01:34] right? [1:01:35] When I'm making the argument, [1:01:37] many of us are making [1:01:37] the argument, [1:01:38] is that the class [1:01:39] includes all these other people [1:01:41] and all these other struggles. [1:01:42] So one of the things [1:01:43] that I find disturbing [1:01:45] was, [1:01:46] you know, [1:01:47] your critique stands in [1:01:49] for critiques [1:01:49] of all identity politics. [1:01:51] Ignore the work [1:01:53] of the Combahee River Collective [1:01:54] and then attack [1:01:55] affirmative action. [1:01:57] So what ends up happening [1:01:57] as affirmative action, [1:01:59] diversity discourse, [1:02:00] all that stuff [1:02:01] ends up being the enemy. [1:02:03] And look, [1:02:04] no one's defending [1:02:06] corporate diversity, [1:02:08] but even the idea [1:02:09] of struggling [1:02:10] to try to end [1:02:11] the remedy, [1:02:13] the historic [1:02:14] and contemporary barriers [1:02:16] to access, [1:02:19] to end discrimination [1:02:20] and race and gender, [1:02:22] to counter all [1:02:22] the old boys' networks [1:02:23] to actually create conditions [1:02:25] where you can actually [1:02:26] have searches [1:02:27] and not just have [1:02:28] white men hiring [1:02:30] other white men [1:02:30] because they're their friends, [1:02:32] all that stuff. [1:02:33] These things really matter. [1:02:35] I mean, [1:02:35] it's not just, [1:02:36] you know, [1:02:37] building a multiracial [1:02:39] ruling class. [1:02:41] You know, [1:02:41] so I think [1:02:41] what ends up happening [1:02:43] is that [1:02:43] we end up falling [1:02:46] into this silly trap [1:02:48] of race reductionism [1:02:49] versus class reductionism, [1:02:51] you know, [1:02:51] when that's really [1:02:52] not the debate. [1:02:53] You know, [1:02:53] so I think [1:02:54] it's important [1:02:54] to actually go back [1:02:55] and read [1:02:56] the Combahee River Collective [1:02:58] and actually bring it up [1:02:59] as a way [1:03:00] to rethink [1:03:01] identity [1:03:02] without having [1:03:03] to dismiss [1:03:04] the whole thing [1:03:05] hook, line, and sinker. [1:03:11] Just as a point [1:03:12] of information, [1:03:13] of course, [1:03:13] in preparation [1:03:14] for today, [1:03:15] I did read [1:03:15] the Combahee [1:03:16] River Collective [1:03:18] statement. [1:03:20] And, of course, [1:03:21] I hadn't [1:03:22] when I read [1:03:23] the book [1:03:24] for reasons [1:03:24] which I think [1:03:25] I've explained [1:03:26] to the point. [1:03:26] I don't want [1:03:27] to repeat myself [1:03:27] because time [1:03:28] is precious. [1:03:30] Let me just briefly [1:03:31] make some comments [1:03:33] in response [1:03:33] to the both of you. [1:03:36] I'm going to say [1:03:37] things which you guys [1:03:38] know, [1:03:39] all of you know, [1:03:40] but for the sake [1:03:41] of the audience. [1:03:42] Identity politics [1:03:44] has always been [1:03:44] a part of the left. [1:03:46] The left [1:03:47] has always recognized [1:03:48] there's what's called [1:03:49] the class question. [1:03:50] Sometimes it was called [1:03:52] originally [1:03:52] you talk about [1:03:53] 1900s, [1:03:55] late 1800s. [1:03:56] It was called [1:03:57] the social question [1:03:58] or the class question. [1:03:59] And then [1:04:00] some questions [1:04:02] it was understood [1:04:03] from the get-go [1:04:04] weren't reducible [1:04:06] to the class question. [1:04:08] So if you go back [1:04:09] then, [1:04:09] you'll see all these [1:04:10] pamphlets by leftists. [1:04:12] They would be called [1:04:13] the woman question. [1:04:15] The Jewish question. [1:04:15] Then there would be [1:04:16] the Negro question. [1:04:18] And then there would be [1:04:19] the Jewish question. [1:04:21] These are by leftists. [1:04:23] People trying [1:04:23] to wrestle [1:04:24] with the idea [1:04:25] that there's [1:04:27] something about [1:04:27] these oppressions [1:04:29] which are not [1:04:31] reducible [1:04:32] to the class [1:04:33] question. [1:04:34] So recently [1:04:35] I was reading [1:04:36] Rosa Luxembourg [1:04:37] and this is a statement [1:04:40] she makes [1:04:41] in 1907. [1:04:43] So we're talking [1:04:43] about over [1:04:44] a century ago. [1:04:45] She says, [1:04:46] proletarian women, [1:04:50] the poorest [1:04:51] of the poor, [1:04:53] the most [1:04:54] disempowered [1:04:55] of the disempowered. [1:04:58] That is, [1:04:59] there's a special [1:05:00] category of [1:05:01] proletarian women [1:05:03] who are [1:05:04] more disempowered [1:05:06] than anybody else [1:05:07] in the class [1:05:08] of working people. [1:05:09] They have a special [1:05:11] kind of burden, [1:05:13] a special kind [1:05:14] of oppression, [1:05:15] the disempowered [1:05:16] of the dis, [1:05:17] the most disempowered [1:05:18] of the disempowered. [1:05:21] So the idea [1:05:22] of identity politics [1:05:24] without the terminology [1:05:25] but the concept [1:05:26] was there [1:05:27] from the get-go. [1:05:28] And then the question [1:05:30] was, [1:05:31] how do these [1:05:32] two kinds [1:05:33] of oppression [1:05:33] interact, [1:05:35] both at a theoretical [1:05:36] level [1:05:37] and at a practical [1:05:38] level? [1:05:39] Should women [1:05:40] organize [1:05:41] separately [1:05:42] from the [1:05:43] socialist movement [1:05:44] or should they [1:05:45] only organize [1:05:46] from within [1:05:47] the socialist [1:05:47] movement? [1:05:49] Should bourgeois [1:05:50] women be included [1:05:52] in the category [1:05:53] of oppressed [1:05:54] women? [1:05:55] All those sorts [1:05:55] of things. [1:05:56] I'm not saying [1:05:57] necessarily [1:05:58] successfully, [1:06:00] but they were [1:06:00] all wrestled [1:06:01] with and they [1:06:02] all have a history [1:06:04] that goes back [1:06:04] more than a century. [1:06:06] Now, [1:06:07] Barbara mentions [1:06:08] the case [1:06:09] of the [1:06:11] women [1:06:11] who were [1:06:12] murdered [1:06:13] in Boston [1:06:13] and of course [1:06:14] she knows, [1:06:15] again I'm saying [1:06:15] something which [1:06:16] you all know [1:06:16] but maybe [1:06:17] the listeners [1:06:17] don't know, [1:06:18] the Communist [1:06:19] Party played [1:06:20] a big role [1:06:20] in the [1:06:21] Scottsboro Boys [1:06:22] case. [1:06:23] Namely, [1:06:24] they recognized [1:06:25] that blacks [1:06:26] experience [1:06:29] a special [1:06:30] kind of [1:06:30] racial oppression [1:06:32] which everybody [1:06:33] else, [1:06:34] even the white [1:06:34] working class [1:06:35] movement, [1:06:36] recoiled at [1:06:37] defending. [1:06:38] The Communist [1:06:38] Party plays [1:06:39] a big role. [1:06:40] There was the [1:06:41] Willie McGee [1:06:41] case. [1:06:42] There are [1:06:42] many cases [1:06:43] you can [1:06:44] list [1:06:44] and I know [1:06:45] Robin Kelly [1:06:46] knows 10,000 [1:06:47] times more [1:06:48] about this [1:06:48] than me. [1:06:49] He's written [1:06:50] on it [1:06:50] extensively. [1:06:51] I'm just [1:06:52] saying it's [1:06:53] not something [1:06:53] new. [1:06:55] Ms. [1:06:55] Crenshaw, [1:06:56] she came up [1:06:58] with a nifty [1:06:59] buzzword, [1:07:00] intersectionality, [1:07:01] and she seems [1:07:02] to be of the [1:07:03] opinion that [1:07:04] a buzzword [1:07:05] is a concept. [1:07:06] No, [1:07:06] a buzzword [1:07:07] is a buzzword. [1:07:08] The concept, [1:07:10] I'm not saying [1:07:11] it was [1:07:11] successfully [1:07:12] resolved, [1:07:14] but it has [1:07:14] been debated. [1:07:16] There are [1:07:16] many black [1:07:17] people who [1:07:17] went into [1:07:18] the Communist [1:07:18] Party, [1:07:19] like Richard [1:07:19] Wright, [1:07:20] the author, [1:07:21] and then [1:07:21] who were [1:07:22] not pleased [1:07:23] with the way [1:07:23] the Communist [1:07:24] Party was [1:07:24] handling the [1:07:25] Negro question, [1:07:27] and he left [1:07:28] the Communist [1:07:28] Party. [1:07:29] If you read, [1:07:30] which I did [1:07:31] read in my [1:07:31] 20s, [1:07:33] Harold Cruz's, [1:07:34] the crisis [1:07:35] of the [1:07:35] Negro [1:07:37] intellectual, [1:07:39] a large [1:07:39] part of it [1:07:40] is how he [1:07:41] felt the [1:07:41] Communist [1:07:42] Party misused [1:07:43] blacks. [1:07:44] But that [1:07:44] issue has [1:07:45] always been [1:07:47] there. [1:07:48] The notion [1:07:48] of [1:07:48] intersexuality, [1:07:50] multiple [1:07:50] oppression. [1:07:51] Sectionality. [1:07:51] Freudian slip [1:07:52] there. [1:07:53] What did I say? [1:07:54] Intersexuality. [1:07:57] Intersectionality, [1:07:58] double, [1:08:01] triple [1:08:01] oppressions. [1:08:02] As I said, [1:08:03] Fran Deal was [1:08:03] already talking [1:08:04] about triple [1:08:04] jeopardy in [1:08:06] the mid-1970s [1:08:07] when I knew [1:08:07] her. [1:08:08] Those are, [1:08:09] as I said [1:08:09] the other [1:08:10] day to [1:08:10] somebody who [1:08:11] was not [1:08:11] happy with [1:08:12] what I [1:08:12] said, [1:08:12] that's as [1:08:13] old as [1:08:13] the hills. [1:08:15] Now, [1:08:15] what then [1:08:16] is this [1:08:17] new thing, [1:08:18] this newfangled [1:08:19] thing called [1:08:20] identity [1:08:20] politics? [1:08:22] What identity [1:08:22] politics nowadays [1:08:24] is, [1:08:25] it's the [1:08:26] identity [1:08:27] stripped of [1:08:29] the class [1:08:30] component. [1:08:31] If you [1:08:31] read, [1:08:32] if you [1:08:33] read [1:08:33] Robin [1:08:34] D'Angelo, [1:08:35] if you [1:08:36] read [1:08:36] Ibram [1:08:38] X. [1:08:38] Kendi, [1:08:39] if you [1:08:39] read all [1:08:40] of them, [1:08:41] you'll see, [1:08:42] and Kimberly [1:08:43] Crenshaw, [1:08:44] you'll see a [1:08:45] couple of [1:08:45] stray passing [1:08:47] phrases to [1:08:48] class. [1:08:49] You know, [1:08:49] you have to [1:08:49] throw it in. [1:08:50] You have to [1:08:51] throw it in, [1:08:51] otherwise you're [1:08:52] not bona fide [1:08:53] radical. [1:08:54] But they [1:08:55] strip it of [1:08:55] the class [1:08:56] content, [1:08:57] and the [1:08:58] essence of [1:08:58] identity [1:08:59] politics now [1:09:00] is, [1:09:01] we want [1:09:02] to get [1:09:03] a fair [1:09:04] share [1:09:05] of that [1:09:06] 1%. [1:09:07] We want [1:09:08] to end [1:09:09] the [1:09:09] disparities, [1:09:10] as they [1:09:10] call it. [1:09:11] And what's [1:09:11] the disparity [1:09:12] that concerns [1:09:13] them? [1:09:14] That they [1:09:14] are 13% [1:09:16] African-Americans, [1:09:17] they're 13% [1:09:18] of the [1:09:18] population, [1:09:19] but they [1:09:20] don't hold [1:09:21] 13% [1:09:22] of the [1:09:23] positions [1:09:23] among the [1:09:24] 1% [1:09:25] who control [1:09:26] everything. [1:09:27] Actually, [1:09:27] I think it's [1:09:27] more like 20%. [1:09:28] It's not [1:09:29] really 1%, [1:09:30] but since [1:09:30] we know [1:09:31] the slogan, [1:09:32] we are [1:09:32] the 99%, [1:09:33] and the [1:09:33] 1%, [1:09:34] I'll just [1:09:34] use [1:09:34] metaphorically, [1:09:35] the 1%. [1:09:36] And that's [1:09:38] what identity [1:09:38] politics has [1:09:40] come to [1:09:41] mean, [1:09:42] whatever you [1:09:42] might say [1:09:43] it means [1:09:44] in theory. [1:09:45] And then [1:09:45] for me, [1:09:47] the proof [1:09:47] of the [1:09:47] pudding [1:09:48] is in [1:09:49] the eating, [1:09:50] which is [1:09:50] to say, [1:09:51] let's set [1:09:51] aside the [1:09:52] theory, [1:09:53] let's set [1:09:54] aside the [1:09:54] theorizing, [1:09:56] and let's [1:09:56] look at the [1:09:57] practical facts. [1:09:59] It was [1:09:59] very striking [1:10:00] that the [1:10:02] main venues [1:10:04] of identity [1:10:05] politics now, [1:10:07] like the [1:10:07] New York [1:10:08] Times, [1:10:09] like MSNBC, [1:10:12] those venues [1:10:13] were also [1:10:14] the most [1:10:15] venomous, [1:10:17] virulent [1:10:18] attackers of [1:10:19] the Bernie [1:10:20] Sanders [1:10:20] campaign. [1:10:22] It was [1:10:22] no holds [1:10:24] barred to [1:10:25] destroy the [1:10:26] Bernie [1:10:26] campaign, [1:10:27] a class-based [1:10:28] politics. [1:10:29] And then [1:10:30] all the [1:10:31] identity [1:10:32] politics [1:10:33] spokespersons, [1:10:35] Angela [1:10:35] Davis, [1:10:37] Ta-Nehisi [1:10:37] Coates, [1:10:39] Kimberly [1:10:39] Crenshaw, [1:10:40] they all [1:10:41] joined in [1:10:42] attacking [1:10:43] Bernie. [1:10:44] Ta-Nehisi [1:10:45] Coates, [1:10:46] Bernie's weak [1:10:47] on the [1:10:47] reparations [1:10:48] question. [1:10:50] Angela [1:10:50] Davis, [1:10:51] Bernie's weak [1:10:52] on the [1:10:52] black [1:10:53] question. [1:10:54] Kimberly [1:10:55] Crenshaw, [1:10:56] well, [1:10:56] Bernie, [1:10:57] I'm paraphrasing, [1:10:58] Bernie's this [1:10:59] old Jewish [1:11:00] socialist [1:11:01] schmuck. [1:11:02] The real [1:11:02] action is [1:11:03] Amazon, [1:11:04] Bezos, [1:11:05] the corporations, [1:11:07] they're the [1:11:08] ones who are [1:11:08] really advancing [1:11:09] identity politics [1:11:11] now. [1:11:11] They're woke. [1:11:13] And that, [1:11:13] to me, [1:11:14] spoke to the [1:11:15] reality of [1:11:17] identity politics. [1:11:18] At the moment [1:11:19] of truth, [1:11:20] when you had [1:11:21] the most [1:11:21] radical [1:11:22] political [1:11:23] movement in [1:11:24] the United [1:11:24] States [1:11:25] in a [1:11:26] century, [1:11:27] since the [1:11:28] New Deal, [1:11:30] since the [1:11:31] 1930s, [1:11:32] the whole [1:11:33] identity [1:11:34] politics [1:11:34] coalesced, [1:11:38] converged, [1:11:40] formed a [1:11:41] juggernaut [1:11:42] to stop [1:11:44] the Bernie [1:11:45] campaign. [1:11:46] I have to [1:11:47] say something. [1:11:47] Norman, [1:11:48] please let me [1:11:48] say something, [1:11:49] which is [1:11:50] this. [1:11:51] I was down [1:11:52] with Bernie [1:11:53] in 2016, [1:11:53] and I was a [1:11:55] national surrogate [1:11:56] for Bernie [1:11:56] and 2020. [1:11:58] I wrote an [1:11:59] article for [1:12:00] The Guardian [1:12:01] about how [1:12:02] identity politics [1:12:03] and why [1:12:04] identity politics [1:12:05] makes me [1:12:06] support and [1:12:08] leads me to [1:12:09] support Bernie. [1:12:09] If you go to [1:12:10] my Twitter, [1:12:11] I don't know if [1:12:11] you're on [1:12:12] Twitter or not. [1:12:13] Very few smart [1:12:14] people are. [1:12:15] But I am. [1:12:17] Be that as [1:12:18] Katie is, [1:12:19] but in any [1:12:19] event, [1:12:20] if you go to [1:12:20] my Twitter [1:12:21] page at the [1:12:21] top, [1:12:22] you will see [1:12:22] Bernie 2020. [1:12:24] I've never [1:12:24] taken it down. [1:12:25] I don't have [1:12:25] any plans to [1:12:26] take it down. [1:12:27] And I also [1:12:28] will say [1:12:29] that those [1:12:30] of us [1:12:30] who are [1:12:31] within the [1:12:31] campaign, [1:12:33] and I will [1:12:34] name Barbara [1:12:35] Ransby because [1:12:36] she was a [1:12:36] visible national [1:12:37] surrogate for [1:12:38] Bernie as [1:12:38] well, [1:12:39] we were quite [1:12:39] concerned about [1:12:41] getting to [1:12:42] a better [1:12:42] set of [1:12:44] understandings [1:12:45] and also [1:12:45] messaging [1:12:46] around racial [1:12:47] politics to [1:12:48] support the [1:12:49] campaign. [1:12:50] So it's [1:12:51] never like [1:12:51] just, you [1:12:52] know, [1:12:52] swallowing [1:12:53] everything [1:12:53] without even [1:12:54] thinking about [1:12:55] you talked [1:12:55] about the [1:12:56] proof [1:12:57] isn't the [1:12:57] eating. [1:12:58] We don't [1:12:58] just like [1:12:58] do that [1:12:59] without having [1:13:00] a little [1:13:00] taste test [1:13:01] or whatever. [1:13:02] But the [1:13:02] thing is [1:13:03] that the [1:13:05] people who [1:13:06] you mentioned [1:13:06] who were [1:13:08] criticizing [1:13:09] Bernie, [1:13:09] I was not [1:13:10] invited to [1:13:10] that party [1:13:11] and I [1:13:12] generally [1:13:12] don't get [1:13:13] invited to [1:13:14] any of the [1:13:14] parties which [1:13:15] those people [1:13:16] attend. [1:13:17] I'm going [1:13:18] to be quite [1:13:18] honest. [1:13:19] Listen to [1:13:19] what I [1:13:20] say. [1:13:20] Yes. [1:13:21] Okay. [1:13:21] I'm very [1:13:22] grateful to [1:13:23] Katie that I [1:13:24] got to hear [1:13:25] you today [1:13:25] because that [1:13:26] really puts [1:13:29] you on a [1:13:29] pedestal. [1:13:30] Now, [1:13:30] the fact [1:13:31] that I'm [1:13:31] with Bernie [1:13:31] now, [1:13:34] I think [1:13:35] it's the [1:13:35] other thing. [1:13:35] The other [1:13:36] side of what [1:13:36] you said [1:13:37] to what [1:13:39] you originally [1:13:40] originally stood [1:13:41] for. [1:13:42] And that's [1:13:43] not easy. [1:13:44] Right. [1:13:44] That is not [1:13:45] easy. [1:13:47] You could [1:13:47] have, you [1:13:48] know, went [1:13:48] around. [1:13:51] I authored [1:13:51] this [1:13:52] statement, [1:13:55] gotten [1:13:56] invited, [1:13:57] probably [1:13:57] gotten MSNBC, [1:13:58] maybe even [1:13:59] gotten a [1:14:00] SWAT there. [1:14:02] And you [1:14:02] didn't do [1:14:03] that. [1:14:04] I had [1:14:04] nothing to [1:14:04] say that [1:14:04] they were [1:14:05] interested in. [1:14:06] I have [1:14:07] a very high [1:14:09] regard for [1:14:10] that. [1:14:10] And I'm [1:14:11] glad I [1:14:11] got to [1:14:12] hear you [1:14:12] and it [1:14:12] serves as [1:14:13] a corrective [1:14:13] for me. [1:14:14] You know? [1:14:15] Thank you, [1:14:15] Norman. [1:14:16] It serves as [1:14:16] a corrective [1:14:17] for me. [1:14:17] Well, I [1:14:17] hope, [1:14:18] I hope. [1:14:20] Well, [1:14:20] can I just [1:14:21] throw something [1:14:21] in there? [1:14:22] Okay. [1:14:23] Eventually, [1:14:23] I'll get to [1:14:24] say, can I [1:14:24] say something? [1:14:25] No, Robin, [1:14:25] say something. [1:14:25] No, no, [1:14:26] I just want [1:14:26] to say that I [1:14:27] hope it's [1:14:27] also a [1:14:28] corrective in [1:14:28] terms of [1:14:29] not being [1:14:31] part of [1:14:31] that cabal [1:14:33] that's [1:14:33] constantly [1:14:33] attacking [1:14:34] anything that [1:14:37] elites do [1:14:38] and call it [1:14:38] identity [1:14:39] politics. [1:14:40] I don't [1:14:40] know how [1:14:41] you could [1:14:41] come to [1:14:42] the conclusion [1:14:42] that the [1:14:43] New York [1:14:43] Times was [1:14:44] looking like [1:14:44] Ebony [1:14:44] Magazine [1:14:45] or that [1:14:46] Ta-Nehisi, [1:14:47] who I [1:14:48] know, [1:14:48] actually [1:14:49] endorsed [1:14:49] Bernie. [1:14:51] He did [1:14:52] endorse [1:14:52] Bernie. [1:14:54] And of [1:14:55] course, [1:14:55] I supported [1:14:55] Bernie. [1:14:56] My good [1:14:57] friend Cornel [1:14:58] West supported [1:14:58] Bernie. [1:14:58] I mean, [1:14:59] there's lots [1:14:59] of people [1:15:00] who supported [1:15:01] Bernie who [1:15:01] actually take [1:15:02] a very [1:15:02] different take [1:15:03] on the [1:15:05] question of [1:15:06] identity [1:15:06] politics. [1:15:08] But the [1:15:08] thing that [1:15:09] I think [1:15:10] is important [1:15:12] once again [1:15:14] is that [1:15:15] we can [1:15:17] still be [1:15:17] critical of [1:15:19] aspects of [1:15:21] people who [1:15:22] support Bernie [1:15:22] Sanders who [1:15:23] are saying, [1:15:24] Black Lives [1:15:26] Matter, [1:15:26] leave that [1:15:27] stuff at [1:15:28] the door. [1:15:29] Anti-racism, [1:15:30] we don't [1:15:30] really need [1:15:31] that. [1:15:32] And you [1:15:33] know for [1:15:34] a fact, [1:15:34] lots of [1:15:35] people who [1:15:35] are Bernie [1:15:35] supporters [1:15:36] were basically [1:15:37] saying any [1:15:38] critique of [1:15:39] racism is [1:15:42] race [1:15:43] reductionism. [1:15:44] And we [1:15:45] just have to [1:15:45] do better. [1:15:47] We don't [1:15:47] have a [1:15:47] choice. [1:15:48] We have [1:15:48] to do [1:15:48] better than [1:15:49] that. [1:15:50] And that [1:15:50] part of [1:15:51] embracing and [1:15:52] understanding a [1:15:53] radical definition [1:15:54] of identity [1:15:55] politics is [1:15:56] to be able [1:15:57] to understand [1:15:57] why we [1:15:58] shouldn't be [1:15:59] using terms [1:15:59] like woke [1:16:00] as a way [1:16:01] to disparage [1:16:02] movements that [1:16:03] might be [1:16:03] trans movements [1:16:04] or LGBTQ [1:16:05] movements. [1:16:06] We shouldn't [1:16:07] be doing [1:16:07] that. [1:16:08] We should [1:16:08] be really [1:16:08] listening to [1:16:09] people and [1:16:09] understanding [1:16:10] where they [1:16:10] are and [1:16:11] build our [1:16:12] movements by [1:16:13] trying to [1:16:14] persuade people [1:16:15] that yes, [1:16:16] you don't [1:16:17] have to give [1:16:18] up everything [1:16:19] to fight [1:16:20] for the [1:16:20] class. [1:16:21] But it [1:16:23] means to [1:16:23] be part [1:16:24] of the [1:16:24] class. [1:16:25] And at [1:16:25] the same [1:16:26] time, [1:16:26] I think [1:16:26] it's [1:16:26] important [1:16:27] even for [1:16:29] people who [1:16:29] might be [1:16:30] considered [1:16:31] elites, [1:16:32] if they're [1:16:32] dealing with [1:16:33] vicious racism, [1:16:34] sexism, [1:16:35] violence, [1:16:36] homophobia, [1:16:36] transphobia, [1:16:37] there's nothing [1:16:38] wrong with [1:16:38] actually trying [1:16:39] to defend [1:16:39] them for [1:16:40] the sake [1:16:40] of basic [1:16:41] rights. [1:16:42] That's not [1:16:43] necessarily [1:16:43] against the [1:16:44] class either. [1:16:45] So that's [1:16:47] why I'm [1:16:47] really concerned [1:16:48] about when [1:16:49] we say [1:16:50] diversity, [1:16:51] equity, [1:16:51] inclusion [1:16:51] is just [1:16:52] ruling [1:16:52] class [1:16:53] ideology. [1:16:53] We need [1:16:54] to not [1:16:54] do that. [1:16:56] I think [1:16:56] about Brandon [1:16:58] Johnson, [1:16:59] who's running [1:16:59] for mayor [1:17:00] of Chicago, [1:17:02] who's a [1:17:04] working class [1:17:04] position, [1:17:07] who's fought [1:17:07] really hard [1:17:08] to make [1:17:08] sure that [1:17:09] classrooms could [1:17:09] actually be [1:17:10] diverse, [1:17:11] that schools [1:17:13] could be [1:17:13] built, [1:17:14] that people [1:17:16] don't get [1:17:16] fired because [1:17:17] of their race [1:17:18] or gender. [1:17:19] Those things [1:17:20] really do [1:17:20] matter. [1:17:21] and we [1:17:22] can't just [1:17:23] fall back [1:17:24] in the trap [1:17:24] of being [1:17:24] the left [1:17:25] wing of [1:17:25] DeSantis' [1:17:26] ideology of [1:17:26] anti-wokeness. [1:17:27] Since there's [1:17:36] a pause here, [1:17:38] I'll just [1:17:38] say I agree [1:17:40] with that. [1:17:41] I said the [1:17:43] left has [1:17:44] always wrestled [1:17:45] with those [1:17:45] questions, [1:17:46] and I was [1:17:47] very careful [1:17:47] to repeat, [1:17:48] I'm not so [1:17:49] sure how [1:17:50] successful they [1:17:51] were. [1:17:52] I recognize [1:17:52] that these [1:17:53] things are [1:17:54] not easy [1:17:55] to resolve. [1:17:58] However, [1:18:00] I do [1:18:01] believe that [1:18:03] in the [1:18:04] 19, [1:18:06] in 2016, [1:18:08] 2020, [1:18:08] and even [1:18:09] in the [1:18:09] interim, [1:18:11] it was [1:18:11] very hard [1:18:12] not to [1:18:13] notice that [1:18:15] the Times, [1:18:16] for example, [1:18:17] the Times, [1:18:17] and also [1:18:18] MSNBC, [1:18:19] it was just [1:18:19] very hard [1:18:20] not to [1:18:20] notice that [1:18:22] the very [1:18:22] same people [1:18:23] who were [1:18:23] playing the [1:18:24] identity [1:18:25] politics card [1:18:26] to the [1:18:27] hilt, [1:18:27] the headlines [1:18:29] of the [1:18:30] New York [1:18:30] Times were [1:18:31] almost [1:18:31] unbelievable [1:18:32] during that [1:18:33] period. [1:18:34] They were [1:18:35] attacking our [1:18:36] mayor and [1:18:37] governor, [1:18:38] and I know [1:18:39] New York [1:18:39] pretty well, [1:18:40] I grew up [1:18:41] here, [1:18:41] I lived [1:18:41] here, [1:18:41] I never [1:18:42] left here, [1:18:43] attacking [1:18:44] them for [1:18:44] not being [1:18:45] strong enough [1:18:45] on police [1:18:46] brutality. [1:18:48] This was [1:18:48] a very [1:18:49] unusual thing [1:18:51] to read [1:18:52] in the [1:18:52] New York [1:18:52] Times. [1:18:54] And the [1:18:54] fact that [1:18:55] they were [1:18:55] covering all [1:18:56] the George [1:18:57] Floyd [1:18:57] demonstrations, [1:18:58] 24-7, [1:19:00] very strange. [1:19:02] And it [1:19:02] was the [1:19:03] very same [1:19:04] elements which [1:19:06] were playing [1:19:06] the identity [1:19:07] politics to [1:19:08] the hilt, [1:19:10] which were [1:19:10] also doing [1:19:11] everything within [1:19:12] their power [1:19:13] simultaneously to [1:19:16] stop the [1:19:16] Bernie campaign [1:19:17] to the point [1:19:19] that Joy [1:19:19] Reid brings [1:19:21] on a body [1:19:22] language reader [1:19:23] to prove [1:19:24] that Bernie [1:19:25] Sanders' [1:19:26] body language [1:19:27] showed he [1:19:28] was a liar, [1:19:29] he was a [1:19:29] congenital [1:19:30] liar. [1:19:31] But I [1:19:31] think we [1:19:32] agree, [1:19:33] I think [1:19:33] everyone [1:19:33] here agrees [1:19:34] that there's [1:19:36] been a [1:19:37] weaponization [1:19:37] of identity [1:19:38] politics by [1:19:39] cynical [1:19:39] people that [1:19:41] then of [1:19:42] course [1:19:42] ironically [1:19:44] helped [1:19:46] kind of [1:19:48] batter the [1:19:49] candidacy of [1:19:49] someone who [1:19:50] just to put [1:19:51] one example [1:19:52] cared about [1:19:53] Fight for [1:19:54] 15. [1:19:54] And obviously [1:19:55] if you care [1:19:56] about women [1:19:58] and people [1:19:59] of color, [1:19:59] you care about [1:20:01] the minimum [1:20:01] wage. [1:20:02] I mean, [1:20:02] I think we'd [1:20:02] all agree [1:20:03] that that was [1:20:03] a very cynical [1:20:04] and upsetting [1:20:06] thing to [1:20:06] witness. [1:20:08] And it was, [1:20:10] I mean, [1:20:10] it was really [1:20:11] just, I mean, [1:20:12] yeah, [1:20:12] the body language [1:20:14] expert talking [1:20:15] about his body [1:20:16] language, [1:20:16] how he was a [1:20:16] liar, [1:20:17] that was [1:20:17] absolutely [1:20:17] disgusting. [1:20:18] But I guess [1:20:19] the question [1:20:19] that I think [1:20:20] is there still [1:20:21] is the way, [1:20:22] just because [1:20:23] something's been [1:20:23] misused and [1:20:24] weaponized, [1:20:25] that doesn't [1:20:26] mean it doesn't, [1:20:26] its original [1:20:27] ideology or [1:20:31] its original [1:20:32] conception can't [1:20:33] be useful. [1:20:35] Because, [1:20:35] yeah. [1:20:36] I think that was [1:20:37] a point of us [1:20:39] having this [1:20:40] conversation. [1:20:41] This is one [1:20:42] intervention to [1:20:43] try to get [1:20:44] accuracy out [1:20:45] about, [1:20:46] there's another [1:20:47] way to think [1:20:48] about this term [1:20:49] that has been [1:20:50] vilified and [1:20:51] attacked for [1:20:52] quite a few [1:20:53] years now, [1:20:55] and that term [1:20:55] is identity [1:20:56] politics. [1:20:56] it would be [1:20:57] okay with me [1:20:58] if the term [1:21:00] was not used [1:21:00] any longer, [1:21:02] just so the [1:21:03] political [1:21:03] understandings [1:21:04] and practice [1:21:06] remain. [1:21:07] I mean, [1:21:07] it's not about [1:21:09] being so [1:21:10] invested, [1:21:10] because what has [1:21:11] become of [1:21:12] identity politics, [1:21:12] I don't want [1:21:13] anything to do [1:21:14] with it. [1:21:15] Robin and I [1:21:15] did a panel [1:21:16] a couple years [1:21:17] ago at the [1:21:18] Schomburg, [1:21:19] and one of the [1:21:19] things that I [1:21:19] said is that [1:21:21] it's like they [1:21:21] took the identity, [1:21:23] and by they I [1:21:23] mean the people [1:21:24] who you would [1:21:24] probably describe [1:21:25] as woke, [1:21:26] Norman, [1:21:27] that they took [1:21:27] the identity [1:21:28] and they left [1:21:29] the politics [1:21:29] on the floor. [1:21:31] That's what I [1:21:31] said, [1:21:32] because that's [1:21:34] a phenomenon [1:21:35] that is true [1:21:36] and that we [1:21:37] see. [1:21:38] So it's not [1:21:38] about, [1:21:39] you know, [1:21:39] we can, [1:21:40] you know, [1:21:40] until the cows [1:21:41] come home, [1:21:42] we can argue [1:21:43] about what does [1:21:45] identity politics [1:21:46] mean, [1:21:46] is it right, [1:21:47] is it wrong, [1:21:47] is it woke, [1:21:47] is it not woke, [1:21:48] is it asleep, [1:21:49] whatever. [1:21:50] But the thing [1:21:50] is, [1:21:51] at the end [1:21:51] of the day, [1:21:52] what I would [1:21:53] like to see [1:21:54] is that people [1:21:54] get up off [1:21:56] of it and [1:21:57] understand that [1:21:57] the bottom line [1:21:58] is about struggle [1:21:59] and that one [1:22:01] way that people [1:22:02] are empowered [1:22:03] to struggle [1:22:03] is that they [1:22:04] feel that they [1:22:05] do not have [1:22:06] to hide who [1:22:07] they are in [1:22:08] the room [1:22:09] or who they [1:22:10] are outside [1:22:11] of the room. [1:22:11] And that 1977 [1:22:13] statement is still [1:22:14] relevant today, [1:22:16] every single [1:22:17] word of it. [1:22:18] And I think [1:22:18] people need to [1:22:19] go back and [1:22:19] read it. [1:22:21] This has been [1:22:21] very interesting. [1:22:22] I'm really glad [1:22:23] that you brought [1:22:24] us together. [1:22:25] And one of the [1:22:27] things that I [1:22:27] thought as I was [1:22:28] reading your book, [1:22:30] Norman, [1:22:31] is that we do [1:22:34] have some ideas [1:22:35] and some perspectives [1:22:37] in common. [1:22:38] And I think that [1:22:39] for everyone who [1:22:40] is partaking of [1:22:42] this, that's [1:22:43] something to get [1:22:44] out of this [1:22:44] conversation that [1:22:45] we've just had. [1:22:46] Here are two [1:22:47] people who are [1:22:48] aligned, that is [1:22:48] Robin and myself [1:22:49] aligned in a [1:22:50] certain way around [1:22:51] a certain set of [1:22:52] ideas. [1:22:53] We share an [1:22:55] identity as people [1:22:56] of African heritage [1:22:57] living in the [1:22:58] United States. [1:22:59] And yet, you [1:23:01] know, we can [1:23:02] have some [1:23:03] possibility of [1:23:05] communication, you [1:23:07] know, that makes [1:23:07] sense across our [1:23:09] differences of [1:23:10] identity and our [1:23:11] origins, et cetera. [1:23:13] That's something to [1:23:14] take out of this [1:23:14] conversation. [1:23:16] I'm not saying I [1:23:16] agree with you, [1:23:17] Norman, whole hog. [1:23:19] And I know you're [1:23:20] not saying the same [1:23:20] thing to me. [1:23:22] But the thing is, [1:23:22] we have, at least [1:23:24] for this period of [1:23:26] time, demonstrated [1:23:27] that what identity [1:23:29] politics and what [1:23:30] the politics of [1:23:31] Combahee are [1:23:32] about, we've shown [1:23:33] that it could work [1:23:34] possibly, that we [1:23:36] can actually engage [1:23:37] in some dialogue. [1:23:38] It's not the be-all [1:23:39] and end-all of [1:23:40] struggle, but it's [1:23:42] certainly better than, [1:23:43] you know, just [1:23:43] slicing people to [1:23:44] ribbons and [1:23:45] dismissing them and, [1:23:46] you know, canceling [1:23:48] them. [1:23:49] So that's what I get [1:23:50] out of this. [1:23:53] Yeah. [1:23:54] I agree. [1:23:55] I feel like, yeah, [1:23:56] that's a great note [1:23:57] to end on. [1:23:59] Well, I didn't, frankly, [1:24:00] I didn't find much we [1:24:01] disagreed on. [1:24:03] I'm not sure if that's [1:24:04] a good or a bad [1:24:05] thing, but I recognize [1:24:08] certain questions have [1:24:10] to be addressed. [1:24:11] They're complicated [1:24:12] questions. [1:24:13] I read the boys very [1:24:15] carefully, very [1:24:17] carefully, trying to [1:24:18] figure out how he [1:24:19] understood racism, what [1:24:21] it meant to him, and [1:24:23] then how do you go [1:24:24] about trying to [1:24:25] eradicate it? [1:24:27] I felt his is a [1:24:28] serious treatment by a [1:24:30] serious historian, a [1:24:31] person who I came to [1:24:33] tremendously respect as [1:24:35] I reread him as an, you [1:24:37] know, in my age. [1:24:38] When I read him in, in, I [1:24:41] was 20, we had to read [1:24:42] Black Reconstruction back [1:24:43] then. [1:24:44] I had no idea what the [1:24:46] debates were, what he was [1:24:48] addressing, what was novel [1:24:50] and what he was writing, [1:24:51] what was original. [1:24:53] Now I do know, and I came to [1:24:56] deeply respect him. [1:24:58] And a large part of the book [1:25:00] I wrote was juxtaposing how [1:25:04] the boys conceived history, [1:25:06] how Frederick Douglass [1:25:08] conceived history, as [1:25:10] against how Ibram X. [1:25:12] Kendi goes about writing [1:25:13] history, and I stick with [1:25:18] the way the boys did it. [1:25:20] Right. [1:25:21] I think that's real history. [1:25:23] I don't think history is [1:25:24] about super villains and [1:25:26] superheroes. [1:25:27] That's comic books. [1:25:28] That's fanzines. [1:25:31] Yeah, I don't know anyone [1:25:32] who's going to disagree with [1:25:33] the boys, you know, in his [1:25:36] brilliance as a historian. [1:25:37] Can I say one final thing, [1:25:39] though? [1:25:39] Just to encourage everyone [1:25:42] that the best way to know [1:25:45] things is actually to read [1:25:47] the source. [1:25:48] And I really want to [1:25:49] encourage people that, you [1:25:50] know, whatever differences [1:25:52] you may have with some of [1:25:53] these authors, it's important [1:25:55] to read the authors [1:25:56] themselves. [1:25:57] And so I just want to remind [1:25:58] us of one small thing. [1:25:59] No matter what you think [1:26:00] about Kimberley Crenshaw or [1:26:02] the concept of [1:26:03] intersectionality, we have to [1:26:05] remember how it came about. [1:26:07] It was coined in response [1:26:10] to a lawsuit by black women [1:26:13] who lost their jobs at [1:26:15] General Motors because they [1:26:17] were fired as the lowest [1:26:18] paid workers. [1:26:19] And so it was intentional or [1:26:21] not. [1:26:22] It became a way to understand [1:26:25] the intersectionality of [1:26:27] class, race, and gender. [1:26:28] It may not have emerged [1:26:30] later that way, but go back [1:26:32] to the source. [1:26:33] And because it was a labor [1:26:35] lawsuit and very much about [1:26:37] capitalism's effort to, to [1:26:39] extract surplus value from a [1:26:40] working class, that's [1:26:42] differential, that black [1:26:44] women were paid the least and [1:26:45] they were the first to go. [1:26:47] And they tried to bring the [1:26:49] suit and the judge was like [1:26:50] dismissed it because there [1:26:52] was no precedent for combining [1:26:55] anti-racism and, uh, and, and [1:26:59] gender discrimination. [1:27:00] And so that was the argument [1:27:02] she was making like it or not. [1:27:04] That was the source. [1:27:05] And that's how I want to end [1:27:07] like that. [1:27:09] Well, thank you all so much. [1:27:10] This is great. [1:27:10] We should do it again. [1:27:12] Sure. [1:27:13] Okay, great. [1:27:13] Yes, of course. [1:27:15] All right. [1:27:15] Thank you all. [1:27:17] Thank you so much. [1:27:18] Thank you. [1:27:18] We really appreciate it.