Black Grief/White Grievance: Juliet Hooker
December 14th, 2023
“We know that solving homelessness is possible.”
Juliet Hooker is the author of Black Grief/White Grievance: The Politics of Loss and the Royce Family Professor of Teaching Excellence in Political Science at Brown University. We talk about how racism has narrowed the political imagination of both black and white citizens.
In American politics and democracy, neither side is supposed to win all the time. Losing is a fundamental part of democracy, and does not make the losers victims. In a multiracial democracy, having a president or any other elected representative who is not white should not be a big deal. Democratic cultures need to be inclusive, and the nuts and bolts work of “repairing” democracy should be equally distributed among the body politic.
Follow Juliet on Twitter:
https://twitter.com/creoleprof
Follow Mila on Twitter:
Follow Future Hindsight on Instagram:
https://www.instagram.com/futurehindsightpod/
Love Future Hindsight? Take our Listener Survey!
http://survey.podtrac.com/start-survey.aspx?pubid=6tI0Zi1e78vq&ver=standard
Take the Democracy Group’s Listener Survey!
https://www.democracygroup.org/survey
Want to support the show and get it early?
https://patreon.com/futurehindsight
Credits:
Host: Mila Atmos
Guest: Dr. Juliet Hooker
Executive Producer: Mila Atmos
Producer: Zack Travis
-
Juliet Hooker Transcript
Mila Atmos: [00:00:04] Welcome to Future Hindsight, a podcast that takes big ideas about civic life and democracy and turns them into action items for you and me. I'm Mila Atmos.
Are we having the wrong conversation about racism and democracy? We are hearing the unrelenting calls to save democracy once more, and we're told it's even more urgent in 2024 than in 2020. And again, we're looking at our most disempowered and even vulnerable citizens to step up and vote. When we talk about Black voters who many consider exemplary Democratic citizens, we expect them to, say, elect Joe Biden so that we're spared another Trump presidency. But do we have unrealistic expectations about Black politics saving American democracy? We're also wringing our hands now about Democrats being divided over the war in Gaza. And will Arab and/or Muslim Americans vote for Biden... And so on? But what is the responsibility of white Americans to save democracy?
To better understand the push and pull of racism on our body politic, we are joined by Juliet Hooker. She's the Royce Family Professor of Teaching excellence in political science at Brown University, a political theorist specializing in racial justice, Black political thought, and democratic theory. Dr Hooker is the author of several books. Her most recent one is Black Grief/White Grievance: The Politics of Loss.
Welcome, Juliet. Thank you for joining us.
Juliet Hooker: [00:01:50] Thanks for having me.
Mila Atmos: [00:01:53] We talk a lot about winning elections and gaining power to pass laws and get stuff done. But the other side of winning is losing, and we've had conversations about that too on the podcast. Most notably that just because you lose an election doesn't mean it was meaningless. Sometimes the path to power is through repeated losses that narrow over time, until you finally win, like in Georgia. But losses are not equal across the board here in the US, although loss is a part of democracy, there needs to be an evening out of loss. How does race shape expectations about whose losses matter in America?
Juliet Hooker: [00:02:32] So this is one of the main questions that I take up in Black Grief/White Grievance. And one of the arguments that I make is that because of white supremacy, right, the history of racial hierarchy that has shaped the United States since its development, that we have not distributed loss evenly, and that historically, Black people have been asked to take up the burden of repeated losses throughout US history and that whites as a group, have been more insulated from loss. They have not had to lose because they're the dominant group socially, economically, politically, and that this creates this very central inequality that shapes our democracy. One way to think about this is to think about the reaction of some sectors of US whiteness to the election of Barack Obama, the first non-white president. And, you know, in a multiracial democracy, having a president who is not white should not be a big deal. But it was a very big deal to a lot of people, even though that didn't miraculously transform the US political system into one in which there was equal representation. It just meant we had elected one officeholder, albeit to the most important political office in the country. So I think that illustrates, as well as countless other examples from the history of the country, the way in which we have very different expectations about who gets to win and lose in US democracy.
Mila Atmos: [00:04:10] So you're saying that we all need to sit with loss. Because in fact, democracy requires some people to lose. And since US politics have favored the power of whites, white citizens need to practice a particular kind of loss that they're not accustomed to. So what kind of loss are you talking about here, and how does it transform into white grievance? What is white grievance?
Juliet Hooker: [00:04:38] Yeah. So two of the primary forces that are driving contemporary politics in the US right now are Black grief and white grievance. And Black grief is exemplified, for example, by the Movement for Black Lives, which is responding to the police killings of of Black persons. And white grievance refers to the ways in which many white citizens are motivated by this sense that they're being displaced from the top of the US hierarchy, that they are somehow being victimized. And this creates a racial resentment and this backlash against what are perceived as gains by other groups at their expense. And I was just reading an article this morning that was talking about the proportion of white respondents to a poll who were saying that they think there is anti-white discrimination. And it was very high among Republican
voters in particular. But when folks drilled down and asked, "well, have you experienced those things?" Most people actually couldn't point to examples. So it's this sense of anticipatory loss, right, that US demographics are changing, that the concerns of other groups are gaining visibility, that I think is really driving this sense of white displacement that is central to white grievance. So there are different elements of white grievance. I talk about, you know, one of them being the sense of anticipatory loss, right, that there's these changes that are happening and they're going to turn into defeats for Black people. Right. And not simply that there's going to be demographic change. We don't know what's going to happen with demographic change, but this sense that this is some sort of apocalyptic scenario that is coming that we need to guard against now and then, you know, there's also a sense of politics as zero sum. So this idea that if another group has a gain that their needs are met or recognized, that is necessarily a loss for me, as opposed to maybe it's their turn, or maybe we're actually attending to a problem that they are experiencing. So those are some of the ways in which I talk about white grievance.
Mila Atmos: [00:06:56] So if you think about white grievance in this way, how can the practice of sitting with loss potentially transform white grievance to something that's more constructive for our democracy?
Juliet Hooker: [00:07:10] This is a great question, and I think part of what I'm trying to suggest is that if we alter the zero sum way of thinking about politics; if we can learn to say "in democracy, we are not supposed to win all the time." You know, we think about democracy in terms of empowerment, right? You go out there, you organize, you get your policy adopted, you get your candidate to win. But as you were mentioning in the intro, sometimes you lose, right? You don't always win. That is as much a part of democracy as winning. And so I think because of the distortions in US democracy as a result of racism, some citizens, particularly white citizens, have not had to cultivate this necessary democratic capacity. And so they respond with grievance and backlash. And I think recognizing that it's okay to lose. Losing does not mean that you have somehow become a victim or that you're somehow being discriminated against. And I think if this capacity can be cultivated, it would be enormously important. And I think there are times when we have seen people respond in those ways. I mean, you know, if you think about something that motivated a lot of people, the removal of Confederate statues, right? There were some people who were very much against that, but there were others who
were like, "no, they shouldn't have been up in the first place," or "it's time for them to go. That's a loss I can accept." So I think we have to think about how to move beyond this sense that a gain for another group is a loss for my group.
Mila Atmos: [00:08:50] Um, yeah. I think the idea that politics is zero sum really has to go. And what you mentioned just now about the Confederate statues is also really important because it's really a symbol of that time. Right. So it really it doesn't affect everyday lives. Like I can still go to school, I can still drive my car, I can still go to the grocery store. It doesn't matter what race I am, whether that statue stands or not. And yet it really, for many people, symbolized a loss and a defeat and it was very hard to swallow. So in that vein, you actually argue that white grievance and white refusal to accept legitimate political loss is profoundly anti-democratic. Talk to us about that. How is the difficulty with accepting legitimate political loss dangerous to democracy?
Juliet Hooker: [00:09:47] I think a very good example of this is the January 6th insurrection, when you had folks who refused to accept what was a legitimate political loss and who tried to impede the peaceful transfer of power. And and if you look at the rhetoric around that loss, right, some of it was really about singling out, for example, large cities, large urban areas that were multiracial as places that had driven wins in battleground states, and as if somehow those votes were less legitimate. Right. Those weren't the real Americans, as Sarah Palin used to say, and therefore they shouldn't have as much of a say in the direction of the country. And you see something similar. Now, for example, there was a reaction to the victory of a referendum in Ohio about abortion rights and the opponents who were anti-abortion. One of the reactions was to say, well, maybe we should have fewer referendums, right? That not everything should be decided through direct democracy. And this, to me, is is an example of how this kind of refusal to accept loss leads people to say, "if I can't win by persuading people to my position; and if I lose, it's illegitimate; then we need to change the rules of the game." That is a enormous threat to democracy, because democracy depends on accepting legitimate loss. If you have played by the rules and you lose, you are supposed to accept that loss. If you don't, you're in an authoritarian system. And I think we're in a very dangerous moment right now in the United States where people are saying, you know, "if I lose," rather than saying, "how can I persuade more people that my position is the correct one," they're saying, "no, maybe democracy is the problem."
Mila Atmos: [00:11:47] Right. Yes. We had Steve Levitsky on and we talked exactly about this, how the anti-majoritarian institutions actually make this possible, to say, well, you know, the answer to a faulty democracy is not more democracy, but less democracy, because that is not working out for us. And like you said, then the results are deemed illegitimate. So the other side of white grievance is Black grief. And the prevailing idea that the sacrifices of the Black community fuel Black activism, a kind of source of democratic energy and renewal, though in reality it's more like political martyrdom. In your book, you included a cartoon of John Lewis in 2020 being depicted as an actual bridge lying down over a gap while people walk across his back to a voting booth. So it's clear in the popular imagination that the burden to make a multiracial democracy a reality falls squarely on the shoulders of one group. When you're thinking about democracy in the US, what is the democratic debt that you think is owed? And in your mind, what does it mean for that debt to be paid?
Juliet Hooker: [00:13:00] One of the things that I'm really want to get across in the book is that we have too often assumed that Black activism on behalf of racial justice, on behalf of racial equality, is going to save us democracy. And even when we honor that activism, we don't pay attention to the cost of that labor. And in a way, what we do is assume that this is the purview of Black people or people who are affected by racism, as opposed to saying this is an obligation for all of us, and this is an issue that we all need to take up because we're all citizens of the same political community. And there is also other problems with this. I mean, one of the things that I talk about in the book is, what are the costs of having to become an activist, right? How do you reckon with that Democratic debt? But there is also the way in which even Black activism is constrained. On the one hand, we expect the activism to take place, but then we're like, you have to do it in this way that doesn't threaten anyone. And so there's all of these constraints on even how you can carry out this activism. And at the same time, we also don't necessarily accept the leadership of Black people. Right? So another example that I point to in the book is that Vogue cover in which they had Stacey Abrams before the 2020 election. They're like, "Can Stacey Abrams save us democracy?" Right. You know, Stacey Abrams lost office and I hope she's living a fantastic life. But all her effort wasn't rewarded by, say, accepting her leadership. And I think this is emblematic of the way in which we take often Black activism for granted. And we don't necessarily embrace the political ideas or the leadership of Black people, um, even as we want them to do this nuts and bolts work of making us democracy better.
Mila Atmos: [00:15:05] Yeah. Well, here's a question that I ask myself all the time. What's it going to take for more people -- and by that I mean primarily white citizens -- to do the nuts and bolts work, because we need everybody to do this together and not just one party. We know, of course, we just discussed that for white supremacist democracy is not worth having if we actually have to have equality. Right. They know. They know that there is a cost and they they're not interested in bearing that cost. And even as far back as the civil rights movement, Dr King argued that white America had deluded itself into believing that change could be accomplished painlessly, at little to no cost, at, "bargain rates," so to speak. What will it take for the larger populace to take action in your mind? I know this is a big question.
Juliet Hooker: [00:15:59] Yeah. No, this is, I think, an enormous question. And I really think that going back to the writings of King in that moment after the civil rights victories, when he is, for example, leading protests in the North in Chicago for things like fair housing, against all of the problems that are facing Black people besides segregation, that he actually gets bottles thrown at him, that they get attacked by folks in the North. And I think we forget about that King. Right? And we forget about the Poor People's campaign, and we forget about the way in which he talked very clearly about how difficult it would be for people to move from saying, oh, we will make these changes to the law, to we will actually undertake, let's say, deep material transformations in the structures of the country that could actually bring about racial equality, that the law is the first step. But it was taken as, oh, we've done all we need to do. And so I think, this for me is really key, right? How do we move from accepting symbolic laws? I think things become more difficult for folks when maybe racial equity means that you have to think about, for example, public school funding and who has access to adequate public schooling in this country. Or when you're thinking about things like housing and what building more affordable housing would mean for property values? This is when we get into these material transformations that would need to happen to make the country more egalitarian, and this is when it becomes more difficult for people. Right? Like you said, with the Confederate statues, a lot of people are like, those don't matter, take them down. But what are the things that are more difficult for people to accept? And I think it's when we get to those kind of material structural changes that we see mounting resistance.
Mila Atmos: [00:18:01] Yeah. Although as we've just mentioned, of course this is not zero sum. Like if you expand housing, it benefits a lot of people. And I know this is a not well-known fact, but the majority of poor people are white rural Americans, you know, so in terms of numbers... And people are not cognizant of this because they have this perception of what poor people are, who poor people are. They're not who you think they are, you know.
Juliet Hooker: [00:18:30] No, that's a great point. And I think because of this zero sum way and the way in which white grievance is mobilized, people end up supporting policies that hurt themselves and don't see that certain policies would actually help everyone. I mean, another example of this is policing, right? So people who say, you know, the movement for Black Lives was an attack on the police and who rushed to defend police officers, etc.. One of the things that they're not looking at is, how would we all benefit from having less punitive policing? How would we all benefit from having mental health interventions instead of sending the police and actually having the kinds of things in place to deal with homelessness and other issues that don't need to be in the purview of the police, we would all benefit from that. But because it gets seen as, oh, you're paying attention to this thing that mainly affects Black people, then folks see themselves as having to be against it, as opposed to taking a moment to say, what are the things that they're pointing to that actually affect me negatively as well?
Mila Atmos: [00:19:35] Yeah, I feel like I need to mention here that we had a conversation about how much it costs to incarcerate someone at Rikers Island. It costs $521,000 in 2021. And imagine if we would not incarcerate so many people, many of whom are there, pretrial. So we don't know if they're innocent or guilty. And that could also be wrong. But all this to say, imagine the money we could be pouring into housing, into education, into health care that would benefit all New Yorkers -- speaking of Rikers.
Mila Atmos: [00:20:08] We're taking a short break, and we'll be back with Dr Juliet Hooker in a moment. But first, I want to tell you about a fellow democracy Group podcast that I think you'll enjoy called When the People Decide. When the People Decide is a podcast about how everyday people are shaping democracy. The first season told the stories of people who used ballot initiatives to bring issues they care about directly to their fellow voters. And this year, in their second season, when the people decide looked at cities and towns that are strengthening democracy at the local
level through reforms like participatory budgeting and civic media, When the People Decide is supported by the McCourtney Institute for Democracy at Penn State and produced by LWC Studios. Learn more at ThePeopleDecide.show.
And now let's return to my conversation with Dr Juliet Hooker.
Mila Atmos: [00:21:10] You dedicate a whole chapter to fact and affect, to discussing how Black pain, grief, death is reported, experienced and consumed. And my takeaway is that there is a long and ongoing struggle to make legible the racism, the brutality of it in US history and its effects on Americans as a society. And you noted that around World War One, the anti-lynching movement focused on the violent behavior as opposed to the racist motivations underlying the lynching, which is to say, on the "what they're doing" as opposed to the "why they're doing it." I know we're not going to solve why people are racist in this conversation, but what are your thoughts on how racism has distorted American democracy, and what are we missing out on by having a limited view on what's possible? What does an expansion of political imaginations look like to you?
Juliet Hooker: [00:22:06] So one of the things that I do call for in the book is this idea that we need to expand our political imaginations, and we need to learn to sit with loss for different reasons and to different ends. One of the ways in which racism has distorted US democracy is that the pain and suffering of some people are seen as things that we don't need to attend to, and actually getting us to attend to them requires that people prove their humanity right, requires that people show that their suffering is important and it matters. And it often takes an enormous amount of activism to make those losses visible. What would it mean if we didn't have to turn to these images of racist violence, if we didn't have to show the lynching photographs? Show the videos of police killings. For us to actually accept that racism shapes the lives of people in this country. And I think one of the things about expanding our imaginations is thinking more expansively about what US democracy would mean. You know, one of the things that I find really frustrating about how people talk about Trumpism, for example, is this sense that all we need to do is get back to normal and get back to having everyone follow the rules. But in fact, US democracy wasn't working for a lot of people before that. And so we actually need to think really critically at what kind of democracy we want to have, and how are we going to get there. Beyond this question of whether we can get back to
what seemed to be a moment where there was more adherence, let's say, to the rule of law or to the norms and conventions?
Mila Atmos: [00:23:55] Yeah. I like to say that we're in the in a period of muddling through where we really don't know where we're going, but I do think that we don't want to go back to, to the time before Trump. Like that didn't work, like you said, for a lot of people. And I think actually, I wouldn't even say that white supremacists want to go back there because that was imperfect for them, too. But I want to pivot here to talk about the politics of refusal. I thought this was a fascinating part of your book. You call on us to refuse to exchange Black suffering for white identification. How is the politics of refusal a practice of democracy? And what are good examples of what that looks like in practice?
Juliet Hooker: [00:24:35] Yeah, this is a really good question. So the book ended up being about various kinds of refusal. And one of the ways in which that became central was thinking about how Black activists and intellectuals, even as they're doing this heroic activism, refuse some of these scripts of martyrdom and sacrifice. And we see this in really interesting ways in actually, some of the work of people who were themselves doing what I call grieving activism. There are these series of happy birthday videos that were done to honor victims of police violence on their birthday, and there's one that was done for Philando Castile with his family and what would have been his birthday. And one of the family members talks about how people continually ask them, what are you going to do? What are you going to do next? And they say, "we're going to grieve," right? And so one of the the ways in which these kinds of refusals are enacted is in saying, I'm not going to play this role that has been assigned to me, and I'm not going to play it in the way that you expect. And I think we see some of that in the praxis of the the movement for Black lives. Right? When people were saying, this is not your grandparents civil rights movement, there are issues with that, such as accepting of this romanticized narrative of what the civil rights movement was, but it was the sense of, we're not going to adhere to these constraints or these limits on Black activism that have been the norm. And so those are some of the ways in which I think we can think about refusal, or you can even think about questions of visual representation. How do we depict Black suffering and Black pain in a way that's respectful and ethical? And this extends to also thinking about how can we expand our moral imaginations without requiring those images. We've become so callous. I cite someone in the book who, after
the Uvalde school shooting, said, we need to show the dead bodies of these children because we need to have another Emmett Till moment. It's like we've had the Emmett Till moments. You know? We can't keep having Emmett Till moments. We need to do something differently.
Mila Atmos: [00:26:52] Mhm. I mean I think this is one of the things that when I was reading your book that I was like, well you talk about some people saying we really want to shame white people into taking action. But like, it's not working. You know, we cannot shame people into action. I mean, it doesn't even work in a personal relationship. You know, let's be clear. I don't know how it's going to work on a whole population of people. Like, if I want to shame my child to do something, it's it's not going to work. Right. But what can we do? So we're always trying to strengthen our civic action toolkit, as we call it here at Future Hindsight. So what are two things an everyday person can do to dissolve the push and pull little by little, between Black grief and white grievance?
Juliet Hooker: [00:27:37] One thing that I think folks can do is do the nuts and bolts work of democracy, right? Go volunteer to be a poll worker. Go volunteer to be an election observer. Support initiatives to make voting easier, to make voting a holiday, to make same day registration. Like this work that is deeply unsexy, right? But that is absolutely key, as we saw in 2020, to actually having a functioning democracy. That's something that we all can do, get involved in actually the work of making our elections run more efficiently. And not that electoral politics is everything. I don't think that, but I think that's one thing that we can all do. I think the other, and this goes to the point that democracy is about more than just voting and elections is, you know, get involved in defending democracy in your backyard. And by this I mean that if institutions are central to democracy, so too are public things and democratic cultures, right? And democratic cultures need to be inclusive, not exclusive. So get involved or run for your local school board so you can prevent people from banning books so you can prevent people from censoring the curriculum and what teachers can teach and what they can do. You know, make sure your local public library doesn't do that and that it doesn't get closed down because people didn't get to ban books. And so instead they closed the library. Like, these are everyday things that I think we can all do to try to create the kind of democratic cultures that we want.
Mila Atmos: [00:29:17] Yeah. Good advice. When I was reading your book, I was wondering who did you have in mind? Who do you write this book for?
Juliet Hooker: [00:29:24] So in terms of the audience, the book was written for an academic audience, but I also wrote it, hoping that general readers would get some of the arguments in the book and would be interested in, and I think I also wrote it for the activists. Right. The people who are doing this work that makes democracy better for all of us, and who do so at enormous personal cost. You know, it's not an ethnographic book, right? I didn't go and interview activists, and it's not engaged with a particular movement, but it's really a book trying to honor that work. And also for the people who are not, to say: how do we all take up this work of making democracy, improving democracy, having the kind of democracy that we want? I think that that is really who I'm thinking about as I was writing the book, in some ways, I think probably like you think about what you're doing here.
Mila Atmos: [00:30:21] Yeah. Thank you. Thank you for writing it. You know, one one question you ask in the book really struck me. And it's the question about whether we're in a conceptual trap with the historical narratives of Black politics being recast as peaceful acquiescence to loss as a form of being exemplary democratic citizens, which makes no room for outrage at injustice and makes -- you said earlier, you know, that their work for racial justice is also helping democracy. But I think in the popular imagination, what Black activists are doing is work for democracy as opposed to justice. And I thought, this is like a really big question, and I don't know what the answer is, but I thought, I'm really going to have to sit with this and think about it some more, because if this is a conceptual trap, how do we get out?
Juliet Hooker: [00:31:13] Yeah. So I think part of what we need to think about is how do we think about what racial justice looks like, what we want, what kind of communities do we want, what kind of relations of solidarity between people do we want and how do we get there? And the answer is, and part of why I say it's a conceptual trap is because when you think about the aims of Black politics as if they are the same as perfecting US democracy, then you limit what Black activists can imagine, what they can do. You know, you get into all of these questions of the impact of this romanticized narrative of the civil rights movement and of this idea that, you know, you can only engage, let's say, in civil disobedience, because this is the way to make change within democracy. One
good example of this, actually, is thinking about the way in which liberal democracy prizes dialogue and conversation. And so the idea is that you should always be trying to meet people where they are. But if you're confronting somebody who's a fascist, or who is a dyed in the wool white supremacist, appeasement, right, trying to accommodate their goals is not actually going to work. And is, in fact, morally problematic. You know, when we think about what's good for democracy, what's good for democracy isn't always good for confronting racism. And maybe part of the answer is to say, maybe what's good for confronting racism might also be good for how we think about democracy. You know, an example of this might be the way in which people talk about polarization, right? So people who say, oh, polarization is a problem. Well, when you do that, what you lose sight of is what are people actually fighting over? If the answer is, oh, there has to be more compromise and we have to meet in the middle. Well, does that mean that we're going to compromise the goal of, you know, I don't know, racial justice, confronting sexism, Whatever the issue is, to have consensus?
Mila Atmos: [00:33:29] Mhm.
Juliet Hooker: [00:33:29] Right. So consensus isn't always a good thing. Right. So social transformation actually requires polarization because it requires people saying no I'm not going to go with the status quo, and I'm not going to stand with these practices that I now see to have been wrong.
Mila Atmos: [00:33:50] Yeah. It's a little bit like focusing on the brutality of lynching as opposed to the why they're lynching people. Right. Like focusing on the polarization as opposed to what are we really fighting for.
Juliet Hooker: [00:34:05] Exactly.
Mila Atmos: [00:34:06] So as we're closing out our conversation today looking into the
future, what makes you hopeful?
Juliet Hooker: [00:34:12] I think this is a difficult moment in which to be hopeful. There are so many terrible things happening. Wars. So many people dying. That it's it's very hard to think about what might make you hopeful in this moment. So I guess what I would say is, without being pollyannaish, that one of the things that gives me hope is
young people and young people on their activism. You know, the students on my campus who have so much moral clarity about the challenges that are facing us, right. The young climate activists who are trying to save the planet, those are the folks who give me hope. College students are being criticized left and right at the moment. But these are young people who I think are really trying to figure out in a really clear eyed way what serves them about and what doesn't about the world that we are leaving for them. And how do we imagine it differently?
Mila Atmos: [00:35:09] Mhm. Hear, hear. A lot of people say young people, but they haven't said it in the way that you have about their moral clarity. And I think that's very important. Thank you very much for joining us on Future Hindsight. It was really a pleasure to have you on the show.
Juliet Hooker: [00:35:24] Thanks for having me.
Mila Atmos: [00:35:26] Juliet Hooker is Royce Family Professor of Teaching Excellence in political science at Brown University and the author of Black Grief/White Grievance: The Politics of Loss.
Next week on Future Hindsight, we're joined by Rich Harwood, the president and founder of the Harwood Institute, which just launched a new nationwide civic campaign called Enough Time to Build. It's a call for community leaders and active citizens to reclaim the public square from the most divisive voices and unleash our capacity as builders and doers. That's next time on Future hindsight.
Did you know we have a YouTube channel? Seriously, we do! And actually quite a lot of people listen to the show there. If that's you, Hello! If not, you'll find punchy episode clips, full interviews and more. Subscribe at youtube.com/FutureHindsight.
This episode was produced by Zack Travis and me. Until next time, stay engaged. The Democracy Group: [00:36:43] This podcast is part of the democracy Group.