genes" from books on the common. thank you so much, abigail. that was really interesting. >> thank you. >> good night. >> good night. >> weekends on c-span2 are an intellectual feast. every saturday american history tv document america's stories and on sundays booktv brings you the latest in nonfiction books and authors. .. charter is connecting us. >> charter communications along with these television comedy support c-span2 is a public service.

>> is jeff in tulsa, oklahoma, i am thrilled to have you joining us for our ongoing virtual event which we have been doing for about 16 months. we've had the great privilege and problem which of posting 160 plus other events in that time and talked to amazing talk about a lot of great books and it's a great way to stay connected with all of you in this strange time. and reach new people, i don't we have a lot of new people watching from outside of oklahoma and probably all over the country and outside the country. thank you for joining us. if you'd like to know more about everything coming up, we're going to keep you in this virtual thing for a little while but we are slowly transitioning into real and present human beings, you can see this on our website.e. one thing i will mention if you're in our area july 13 next

week we're going to do an event with the united states, a wonderful conversation. you can get tickets on our website magic city books.com. tonight's event, excited for tonight's event because i get to be an audience member like you and watche conversations, always a thrill. our moderators tonight, i first got to meet virtually last fall when we did an event for a novel called the water dancer. i would encourage you to watch that. that's a conversation we had where the creator of watchmen, wonderful event got to meet them virtually for the centennial of

the jefferson, he joined us as well. an in person event here in the greenwood district a couple of blocks from our bookstore, there was a great way. without that, we probably would not have had but so a welcome and thank you to our moderators. our guest of honor who just dropped on the new york times bestseller list. please as of today, the atlantic and creator of our an article from 2018k will go down as a signature piece of this area we live in her cruelty will go down much like the economy stupid or follow the money in our history of political discourse is something that defines an era, i was thrilled toou see the piece adam broke for the atlantic and growing deeper to what he had to

say about this strange era we are living in. in conversation for about 45 minutes. i encourage you to ask questions like you and i will reports from those at the end asked well and get to some of those questions. if you need more copies of this book, everyone who is watching crack copy but if you need more for friends and family and coworkers, tough conversations, you can get a bunch there at that link in the check. thank you all for watching and thank you to our guest, adam and i will turn it over to you to begin the conversation. you for having me back, a little more comfortable as a moderator. it is my complete -- i don't

have enough adjectives to describe it but i'll just say it's my honor to be here. new york times bestseller, it's not a small thing. i want to divide this conversation into two parts, i want to talk about implications of arms o book because i think there are many and they are profound and implications we don't usually like to think about and want to talk about the possibility of solutions. then i want to talk about adam as a writer because sometimes people see something, a phrase like that and that phrase went everywhere. what people don't realize is

when adam came up with that, he was doing essential job as a writer, to clarify, folks see something happening in the world, they are not quite sure how to give language to it. in those short words, adam gave us language for what we were seeing during the trump era. >> if i could, i would like to read an excerpt from a centerpiece in the book. it's not just perpetrated of this cruelty, is that they enjoy it with one another. shared the suffering of others, the adhesive that binds them to one another. taking joy in that suffering is more humid than most like to admit. someone in the spectrum between adolescent in the wightman of the winching photographs other trump supporters whose community are rejoicing in the english of those who they see is unlike

them. they have shared cruelty and answer to the loneliness of modern life. it's cruelty and the delight it brings them up binds trumps most reported to him and share those they hate and fear. immigrants, black voters, trees must wightman to empathize with any of most who would steal their birthright. their ability to execute their cruelty through word and deed makes them your fork and feel good, it makes them feel proud and happy, it makes them feel united. as long as it makes theml feel that way, but it will let them get away with anything no matter what it costs. i think those words stinging clarifying as cold as they are, offer a challenge to contemporary labor discourse and

broader about what happens and there is a line through the book that talks about the traditional notion, we saw this, shut up and asked the question -- i think there is comfort in the idea that if youy could just reward people with things and make the government function in their daily lives of americans, voters see that reduced racism, bigotry, sexism cap etc. what you argue in the book, that is not actually correct. it's not up. by product, it's te points. obviously that kind of breaks existing political notion of how you address things. adam, i wonder what we do we have a portion of your electric not there for the social

programs thatt would forgo the program if it meant somebody else being punished where cruelty is ann idea and off like in which they unite around. what is someone who wished to see if democracy that responds to a broad electric supposed to do? how do you forge the country out of that? >> thank you for that kind introduction. i think talking about the founding of the country, you have a country where you say all are created w equal but you sevr a tremendous amount of the people from country to that ideal. i applaud that it doesn't apply to black people or the enslaved, it doesn't apply to women at the time so to justify that, you have to come up with a reason for why these are the right of

all humanity, right this segment is not entitled to them. this is fighting as a country sympathetic, we've done it during reconstruction, product during the civiluc rights movemt and every year in between. i think you can understand that america fragile experiment with democracy only really started in 1965. month and it becomes much more understandable that it as bernal broke vulnerable as it is. long three days strong. basically what we have in

where the structure of our system allows a party to hold power without winning a majority of the vote because of the ideal geographic distribution of those people. so the party that represents that group becomes even more urgent for them to persuade them there on the verge of annihilation, their way of life is about to be destroyed. you can see that with donald trump in his rhetoric, he says i'm going to be the want to protect you from everything, i want to protect you from what the liberals are going to do, take everything away from you that matters to you and that's how you stand up justifying disenfranchising, trying to violently overthrow an election, it's all tied to this idea that there is a legitimate group of americans that has a legitimate right, permanent cultural weight

in the u.s. and anything to john that is a a threat to the county as it's meant to be. trump didn't invent back or come up with it, it's as old as the country itself but he was a talented practitioner affect on of politics because he watched fox news everyday and repeated what he saw on fox news the audience, validating the things they had come to believe were responsible for all the problems in their life. so to say that economic struggle creates racism is wrong because your trouble is mediated, it you don't simply come to a conclusion, it's not like we are robots, you don't type in a program and you have a particular reaction. what happens is your problems are mediated through the values

you have belief about the way the world works. what's interesting is trump is him never managed a majority. it's reliance on the levers of americans democracy to remain viable. the offers a solution to say you have a system designed to be unfair in many ways to be more fair. you have to make a structural alteration in the system because the only way parties respond or change is by responding to their ability to hold power. the democratic party one of the most white supremacist organizations in american life and in 1932 beginning 1932 when black borders begin to become part of the coalition, fat

coalition, labor union liberals, black voters they change the course of the party which up until then martha party in the south. let us powerful and tells you how you ultimately defeat this, you have to make it less rewarding. as long as i can win power and do the stuff they're doing right now, they're going to do it as long as they can alter rules to diminish the influence of voters they consider illegitimate and naturally american, they will continue to pursue thatt path. on the one hand it dark but on the other hand, this is probably the first time in american history that a collision that opposes that ideology is as big as it is. it wasn't this big during reconstruction.

it wasn't this big in 1968. richard nixon won that election and subsequently he won reelection, that was a genuine majority. richard nixon was not representing and ideally geographically distributed minority, he actually had -- most americans were on his side and trump really never had most americans on his side so in some ways, that's the kind of thing that sort of hopeful. on the othernd hand as long as this system enhances the political influence the must consider conservative elector, there's no reason for the republican party to change course. >> it's like going to a football gameu and the other team scores

ten points every time. >> what's interesting is the fact that their power is artificially enhanced by the structure of our system. for some reason they don't process that, because of this ideology when they consider themselves the only legitimate american tradition. they don't see that as an on earned advantage or the earned advantage it is. they see the other side taking advantage of things they are not entitled to when it's really that they are -- their power is enhanced beyond what it should be in a more democratic system. >> i just want to play this out, you seem to be pointing to they need to be democratic reforms, it needs to be one way to look

at d.c. statehood, one for the cap redistricting, all the saved things yout said about the advantage, the audience for this cruelty, you have a political situation where i argue the thing that disciplines the director party is diversity and that's equipping and part of that kyrsten sinema and jump mansion so what is the prognosiy that feeds our faculty and on earned advantage, and another party but can't really unite in opposition or in defense of democracy thus far at least, what is that leave you long-term?

>> so -- the democratic party represents majority but does not have a unity of purpose that comes with being a smaller party. the republic party does not represent a majority because of its homogeneity usually religiously ideological, it has a unity of purpose at the democratic party doesn't have. i think -- i don't know what the answer is joe manchin and kyrsten sinema is because during reconstruction, republicans were not believers and racial equality. there were couple of people who were, charles sumner, stevens but often on defense of same political rights does not mean you have to serve a black person in your establishment or that a

black person to marry your daughter, we're not talking about that. they came to understand, people with the 14th and 15th amendments assess -- most of us do anyway, a great accomplishment but they were both partisan and ideological republican party had an ideologicall interest defending the black vote because the republican party was not viable in theli south without black votes. the democratic party is in a similar position today to the extent that this is one reason why joe mentioned objection to the potting protection is ridiculous because that's how we got the 14th and 15th amendment. if you are willing feed veto power to the court willing to write the 15th amendment out of existence when it comes to

the right to black voters in a party that simply sees interest in continuing to restrict the electric so it does not have to be responsive to a more diverse group of fighters. sometimes you have to decide whether the quorum of the senate is more important than the fundamental rights of your constituents -- when the democrats can't do that -- i don't know republican voting six will succeed in the power for the electric it's what they are i don't knowout that it will work. what i will say is that if it does work, it's less likely republican democrat party --

they will have to move to the right to r compete in a conservative electorate that doesn't represent a majority of the country. that's when you have tremendousr -- when this happens in the 1870s, it had tremendous cost for black people in particular because when you are -- the whole reason for democracy is politicians are responsible to the people. when you can take a quick certain group of people and make it so you no longer have to be responsible because you are disenfranchised from that opens them up to being mistreated in their rights not being respected so if we get there with these restrictions, are not sure they are going to work, that's a very dangerouss thing for vulnerable constituencies in which the democratic party has the power and onar whom -- these constituencies are reliant on the democratic party to defend

theirr rights. i want to make predictions, i just don't know what's goingow o happen but i do think it's a dangerous place to be. >> one of these -- i had a comet, in our pieces i believe early on, maybe one trump was running, you did some reporting. one of theru things i cap wondering or hoped you might address here, you talk about this idea that we underestimate the appeal, we underestimate -- is not something we talked about. you sit back and watch and analyze why a candidate did well and someone says it's because ted cruz was particularly cruel

tonight. it is not a way to think about ourselves but i wonder whether you yourself have thought much about what this actually is and not just among americans but groups of people, if you look at cruelty, you can see cruelty certainly in this. to some extent you can see the cruelty but i wonder if you could talk about the target group, the target of the message out about. >> i think it makes them feel powerful and it makes them feel love for the people who are being acted upon. this deep politicized version of this, ifit you have repent a child. [laughter] you seen cool kids trying to

make front of the nerdy kids and maybe huge ointment because you want to be part of the cool kids group or if you are one of the rare few who stick up for the kids getting picked on or maybe you simply staying silent because you don't want to be the next target. the kids teasing the nerdy kids, they have formed a kind of community t through that act of transgression, doing something they are not supposed to be doing and they have bonded with each other over there shared cruelty toward the person on the outside. so it creates and justifies what they do to them. all humans are capable of this cruelty, i try toty emphasize is not something about conservatives or republican party, i can member when i was

sitting in my house in texas going through social media and i could see him scrolling, i can see people, running for abbott, shouldn't have voted for abbott. to me, that kind of cruelty -- the distinction between that and what you see at the trump level is the democratic party's by virtue of diversity cannot behave that wayiv toward opposition so when california was having rolling blackouts, ted cruz was on twitter talking about california's failed state when texas was having its blackout in the myrtle of the worst front and ten years, the governor of california was like best wishes to texas, we'll help however we can. liberals are better people

inherently, when you are reliant on a diverse coalition, you will try to win people over. we can look at that through history and seen for them democratic party was in that position and was behaving with these rituals of cruelty to create hard lines between their communities and the one they wanted to explore. now we see the republican party is in a similar position and it behaving with that contempt toward humans who are outside the coalition so it's an essential part of human nature and the only way to prevent her from dominating politics is to have a system that diminishes the reward for engaging in it. >> an example of that where in men or communities, to dominate public space must talking to eachat other --

>> theyy don't think that women will respond. the power over her by accumulating her showing their boys that the kind of person who can do this. that is a great example. >> why do you think it is -- trump did not recently become racist. it's throughout his career since his entrance really into the public from being sued by the justice department, calling for the death penalty for central park five books written about him and etc., this is not new. i do think it was so many -- he got where people ultimately

would call trump racist etc., why do you think folks have been so resistant to speak to the appeal of that? >> i think it's implicating. white people are the demographic majority in the u.s. and they tend to be better off than other demographic so as consumers, they hold a lot of power and if you are a mainstream outlet newspaper, channel, you don't want to alienate a huge section of your audience. tens of millions of people voted so if that is the case, you don't want to alienate these people. if you're democrat, you might

need some of them to vote for you. if you're the new york times, yorty have readers, you want to get these people who do not currently trust you to listen to you and if you suggest racism has to do with something of their political choices when you put yourself in a position to lose their money, their trust and viewership, their leadership and i believe at first that because of this market incentive that would be hard for people to look you in the eye. i think what happened was donald trump was so blunt and repetitive and why he believed what he believed in what he did the things he did that instead of eventually people just had to accept it was what it was. when you say cory booker will come in had threatened housewives, it's so racist but

on the other hand is so absurd that life itself to someone being like hey -- [laughter] and i think what's interesting is i think there's not a lot of disagreement between me and donald trump, what donald trump believes in and whether that is good but there's not a lot of disagreement on whether or not his audience enjoys his cruelty hetoward individuals, whether or not race this part of it. he said the new york times after calling kaepernick a son about -- he said my people love this stuff. the disagreement i think billy is between -- not between me and

donald trump worked on a truck and most of his left-wing, it's between those critics and the people in between us and donald trump who like donald trump and want to support him and tell them stuff but the things we are describing are not what they are supporting so they have to say you didn't mean it like that, he's not a politician, this is a bad thing, liberal misinterpretation donald trump sent from a fake news, rationalization, i think ultimately is his worst critic, in agreement about what donald trump is about. i think the people who want to defend him or the ones dissenting from back consensus.

>> i want to go over that a little bit. one of the things i love about adam if he has great clarity in his writing. i was talking about the at the top, that really is the job. i want to get you into too much trouble but i certainly know if you conversations with you, you know how to write. we've talked about this language in terms of activists invent a language that i would say somebody like you -- it's very different. i like this portion of the conversation because it's never the case the audience, would you talk about philosophy and writing, what you're trying to do how you do it a little bit? >> i would say the past five years, there's a book called black reconstruction in america

and it, he has at the time he's writing, the mainstream historical consent which was a tragic veiled thing, corruptpt,t was niekro tierney, a mistake to enfranchise black w men and therefore jim crow system is a moral justified bullish experiment. he writes in his book and says book is for people black people are just as capable, talented and flawed as other human beings and if you do not believe this, you will be unable to read and understand this book. i'm not even trying to convince you if you are that person, trying too write the truth. for me, i think it's very

tempting, there's an idea of dollars in general that our role is to persuade people who don't already agree with us to agree with us. it would be nice happened but i don't think that's my job. fundamentally my job is similar to objective journalists, my job is to write what's happening best i can also the public can make the decision based on whatever information they get they feel is useful. i feel like my job is to put down a record of events as acuras i can get, not to say but my argument in a way that will persuade be in my way. if you do that, ultimately you end up risking the you will be dishonest in your argument because you want to be

persuasive. there's a possibility for argument becomes corrupted by your desire to appeal to a hypothetical person who does not already agree with you. whether you agree with me or not, i'm simply trying to describe this as accurately as possible. obviously not everybody feels that way but it's important to approach the job that way because it helps me have a clarity to focus on what i want to say. >> went to use that in my back a little bit. what are somee other books in your household? >> a lot of books. my father works the state department and my mother the smithsonian.

that value that kind of learning and knowledge and i can remember my parents giving me children's of malcolm x and muhammad ali when i was like 16 years old. it's interesting because it didn't necessarily tell me to think about those things but clearly were trying to shape my understanding of the world so i grew up and was expected to read a lot of books as a child. >> did you enjoy it? >> i did but a much preferred comic book. [laughter] i was a tremendous reader of comic books more than anything else, if my parents wanted to

punish me, they would come into my room and take all the comic books from my room and shoved them into a box take them out and say you get these back when you -- >> blended the light switch come on -- one for you like i can do this? was the earliest moment you can remember going from leader to writer? >> i started writing bad poetry on the buses in washington d.c. [laughter] i went to vassar college and made it in english, i was fortunate enough to have a great novelist as a teacher. he was important in my life in terms of making me think about how to be a writer.

>> did he tell you you could do it? the first y person who said you could do thiss? >> u.s. encouraging but he was respectful of whatever it was he were trying to do with writing. he would ask questions meant to guide you in that direction without telling you -- he didn't give you answers because i think his philosophy, and i hope i'm not misstating but i think his philosophy, he wanted to guide you toward thee writer you wantd to be, not the one that he think you might should be. i wanted to make documentaries original, that's what i went into journalism for but i was also logging onto side, this is dating myself but it was 2007,

2008, the late block era in the immature sense which is how we met, ie was a reader of yours ad i noticed your blog and you are trying your hand at blogging. that's how we originally met was on the internet. [laughter] but i was blogging and had a decently well regarded blog, it wasn't like heavily trafficked or anything but the american prospect asked me to give a block for them as i was graduating journalism school and i couldn't get any job, job sorry public television, or if there are just not a lot of the companies, they are hard to get so the american prospect job

seemed appealing to me because it was a chance to retain my own political voice and that's what i find precious about magazines in general is that they allow you to see with your i and another medium, icy used to because they tragically are falling by the wayside but this cityro paper, the village voice, they encourage you to both report and be open about your personal ideological perspective and fuse, to me that was the kind of journalism that appealed to me so i was fortunate to start off the american prospect enforcement to come into a

magazine that is an intellectual project. that was sort of my crooked pat- it was not like i woke up one day and said i want to be a journalist and worked this paper, it was sort of a stumbling into and it turned out to be a rewarding career for me. especially considering the state of the industry, there aren't as many jobs as they used to be a lot of talented people who don't have them, people just as talented as i am are in the different situation as i am so i am very grateful where i am. >> one thing i think about, i believe it's about time for our q&a but one thing when i read your writing, i feel like i'm

going to use a word that gets a bad rap but i think it's important, i can feel the emotion in a book like this, i can feel the anger. it's controlled, like bubbling, not overflowing or ruining everything, is not overdone but there bubbling at the appropriate level and i think what that does is used to write appear at nyu and i would tell my kids contrary to what you think, you have to put your heart and something. there has to be some of you, it doesn't mean it has to be first person but there has to be a kind of energy in yourself that has to be conducted through your fingers into the keyboard. i wonder your ritual, you have to calm down? obviously we have conversations about this whetherer you rights,

when you're feeling it, what you do? >> i think exercise focusing, i run a lot and listen to music. these days i mostly listen to wordless t music so i have a jaz playlist that helps me focus and a weird loaf i beat playlist i listen to that's just for me and full of weird mixes of songs you wouldn't expect to hear beats to. i find it best to write in the morning for me, i think in college i could just right at any time the of the date and i could see the older i a get, its harder for me so i find a lot of

comfort in keeping my rituals predictable and having specific times of the day right do specific things but the number one thing is i always have to run. the adrenaline from running reese's the wheels in your brain and get to thinking about what you want to say and how you want to say it. >> you have to do itt before or after? >> before. better place after i run that if i try to write before. >> obviously i could be here all day but go ahead. >> we do have quite a a few credits from questions from our audience. you can take this who would ever like to go on this. paul says, the truck announcing

lawsuit against the social media company today, how can social media held accountable for its collective role inr the promotin of cruelty? >> i don't know the answer to that, i would say something to the promise, social media thrives on conflict and incentivizes particular kind of conflict between people where we are as uncharitable as possible to each other and contesting arguments. i don't know what the solution to that is. we have a first amendment, you can't force the companies to use algorithms that reward

contactless progress i suppose the only way to do that would be to leave the platform in the first place. a decision that i respect and admire, we have the power to change that by telling the platforms as consumers that's not what we want. >> one of our viewers says, do you have any recommendations for ways to engage with trump supporters and hold a mirror to their actions so they can accurately see their reflection? >> i don't think there's a special way, trump supporters are people. people who disagree with so i

don't really have -- it's not a magic way to get someone who disagree with to agree with you. you just approach them you would approach anybody else who disagree with and tell them why to the extent that is appropriate. i'm not recommending anybody start arguments with strangers. it's like anything else. to some extent, this agreement is part of democracy and the purpose of democracy is to resolve conflict without bloodshed, not for no conflict at all, we will always have political disagreements and in people with conservative views on religion and immigration and enormous and one think we should do in general is understand we are never going to have a world

without disagreement. my objection to trump is him is it that they disagree, it's that there discriminate let them to a place where they are attempting to change the politicalha system so they are no longer accountable for those who disagree with them politically by severing them from the franchise or diminishing political power to the extent they are no longer able to fully participate equally in our political system. we will always have disagreements and democracies. >> this is a question this applies to you all, i feel like many individuals with comic book reading backgrounds, those speaking and writing with oral

clarity in the trump error, you have comics important to you and helps your moral understanding works. >> this is going to get a little weird. my favorite comic character is superman. >> i've been hearing a lot about this. [laughter] >> i think there's so muchho interesting about a character who's powerful as superman is besides consciously to use his power in a way to help people but not gain dominion over the earth. superman is so baffling, he's constantly trying to reimagine superman as an evil dictator. i think as an artifact of

jewish-american culture, he's fascinating. everything from the destruction of québec to the idea of an alien assimilating into american life to a farm in kansas still remaining apart from american society, i think? are a folktale andnd we have american folktales that are but i think there's shared moral universe there that precious. i can understand why some are saturated or tired of being saturated by commercial ubiquity but as a young person growing up i found comics to be a wonderful

way to explore more complexity and how to be good. i can't speak for anybody else but that was my attraction. >> where windy spent the last ten minutes talking about the schneider. >> i think it is prohibited, trying to get him and trouble. >> this is a question from nicholas who said how could people who want to create structural changes to talk about take steps to help the system as of this can make one feel powerless, or should we start and put our energy? >> i perfectly understand why he would ask, i am not the person

to answer that. this is a question from work in the different democrats do? i'm not a political strategist or an activist, i don't know the steps to creating the world better and more just world. i can describe the world we are in and why we are in it but in terms of changing the world for the better, there are wonderful and beautiful people working on that would be better people to address the question to. >> on a question is this, we just celebrated juneteenth around the country, everyone knows it was just made a federal holiday which has been commented on for many different sides. last year on juneteenth the pandemic was raging and weeks after floyd murder, trump

decided to host his first rally on juneteenth a few blocks from our shop here which before they changed it, it was the most cruel act. the hurricane died right after that. the changes he helps no one had heard about juneteenth until he makes a famous. that moment and date there was an overt acter to meet of exampe of cruelty and the strategy you talk about. a year later we are in a different places where the celebration of juneteenth was a different thing. do you feel like the one your time you see progression with

this anomaly, we think things are getting better quickly works that moment specifically you see it as an example of the larger trump team somewhat subtle way of these acts on this submissive level. >> as long as we are talking about tulsa, or to shout out to fletcher, the remaining survivor of the tulsa massacre, very precious and we still have their witness to those events. not simply as an act of cruelty

but making people mad. i think the ability to make people mad was a source of pleasure for many of his supporters especially the provocation even if it was deliberate, it was unjustified, the more they dried it and i think whether or not it was oral or trump even understood what who is doing it in that instance, i'm note sure trump understood the significance of juneteenth or having a rally at that time. the economy of the attention so precious that was an example of it.

they keep themselves relevant whether or not he pursues the presidency again. >> i'm sure many of you have dived into this already, i t thk it's going to beks one of the mt important books of the year end a conversation you want to be part of so i hope you all spend some time reading that in the coming days. a big thank you and congratulations on your new gig at the university, accepted to hear about that in your special guest, new york times bestseller, much-deserved. i hope you both well and hope to talk to you down the road. >> take care, everybody. >> one hour author interview program "afterwards" from a the

16th 19 project replaces history with a more polarizing version interviewed by howard university law professor, here is a portion of that. >> we wrote this in response to the new york times publication of 1619, a series of essays led by nicole hannah jones. it redefines americans from 177621619 at the time when slaves first arrived on the shores of virginia and it goes on to say revolutionary war was slavery it made other false claims but tries to redefine america as systemically racist and always are villains and black are victims.

it is a dire picture of the country makes the claims that the challenges facing many in the black, they are a direct legacy or shadow of slavery and jim crow so since the messenger here was black, the counter narrative should be offered by a black but we didn't want to offer a debate or rebuttal, we wanted to offer an inspirational aspirational alternative narrative that acknowledges what 1619 did, slavery has been underreported and poorly examined. the conclusions we reached are

very different than that which is reticulated in 1619 so we brought together a group of scholars, journalists and activists, ideological strikes so we offered essays to offer, establish the fact that 1776 is the birthday of america and the values of our founders, doesn't matter how far, the foundation, blacks are able to revive it, the foundation of family attitude of self-determination so we felt it was important for this book to be written to give an alternative to america. we should never be defined b