this week on "moyers & company," once upon a time in america. >> history is the building block of all things in society and it's the most important part of the most significant tradition thatuman ings have, which is story telling. >> fund is provided by carnegie corporation of new york, celebrating 100 years of philanthropy and committed to doing real and permanent good in the world. the kohlberg foundation. independent production fund with support from the partridge foundation, a paul and gin guj chair itn't foundation.

park foundation dedicating to heightening public awareness to critical issue, the hurt albert fodati whichs to pmote passion and consideration in our society. the john d and katharine t-mac arthur foundation, committed to creating a more just. more information found at l. the hkh foundation, barbara g. fleischman and by or seoul corporate sponsor, mutual of america, designing customized individual and group retirement products. that's why we're your retirement company. welcome. this is once again public television's pledge time when we remind you there's nowhere else on your tv dial that you can see programs like the one you're watching now. please take a moment to contribute to your local

station. congress is in the midst of its summer recess escaping the malarial heat of the washington swampland and the agonize it gridlock. most meks have went for home but manwent into the arms of th angrvoters qstioning whether they should return to office. the clamor and deconvenient reminds us of another hot and humid summer 236 years ago when the second continental congress approved the declaration of independence and riders on horseback rushed it to the far corner os testify 13 new united states. it was read aloud to cheering crowds. perhaps we will remember the deck calculation of independence itself, the product of what john adams called thomas jefferson's happy talent for composition. take some ti thiseek re ialone to yourself or aloud with others and tell me the words aren't still capable of sending them on ablaze. the founders surely knew that

when they left these ideas loose in the world, they could never again be caged. yet from the beginning, these sentiments were also a thorn in our side, a reminder of the new nation's divided soul, opponents who still sided with bryn greeted it with sarcasm. how can you declare all men are equal whout feing your aves jefferson himself was an aristocrats who inheritance of 5,000 akers and the slaves to work it mocked the notion of inequality. ty. he acknowledged it did that but would would not give his slaves their own freedom. their labor kept him financially afloat. hundreds of slaves like beast of burden from sunrise to sunset enabled him to thrive as a privileged gentleman. to pursue his intellectual interest and to rise in polics. venhe children born to him by the slave sally hemmings remains

slaved as did their mother, only an obscure provision in his will release third children after his death. all the others, scores of slaves were sold to pay off his debts. yes, thomas jefferson possessed a happy talent for composition, but he employed it for cross purposes. whatever he was thinking when he wrote all men are created equal, he also believed blacks were inferior to wtes. inferior he wrote to the whites and endowments of both the body and mind. to read his argument today is to enter once again the pathology of white superiority that attended the birth of our nation, so forcefully did he state the case and so great was his standing among the slate holding class thereafter a david walker would claim jeff soen's argument has injured us more and was as great bayier to

or emancipation as anythin tha hasve be advanced against us for it surge deep into the hearts of whites and never to be removed this side of eternity. so the idea that he proclaimed he also beltred. he got it right when he wrote about life, liberty, and the pursuant of happenness when he wrote about the core of our inspirations but he lived it wrong denying the claims himself. that's how it was the war the oldest of all. the war we know and how we live. behind the eloquent words of the declaration where human beings as flaw and conflicted as they were inspired. if they looked upon us they would likely think as they did then how much remains to be

done. with those contradictions with this this seems like a good time to talk with ka eo. brown. he grew up on chicago's south side. a member of first generation of african-americans born after the victories of the civil rights movement. he's the author of this acclaimed book, the condemnation of blackness, which brings the past to bear on race, crime, and the making urban america and connects today's headlines to their deep roots. he was teaching history at in a indiana university when the new york public library asked him to head the schaumberg center in research for the culture. >> i decided right after college thre w nothing more important to me than learning about american history and culture, really being able to learn first hand the contributions that americans have made to this country toond the world. >> the schaumberg center is known the world over for documenting the history of all

peoples of african descent with a special emphasis on the story of african-americans. among its 10 million items are classic works crystallizing that experience. i asked mohammed how we tell america's story witho white washing the past. welcome to the show. >>han youvery much, bill, for having me. >> why history? i ask the question because henry ford famously said history is bunk. >> that right. >> and you clearly disagree. >> i clearly disagree, and i think this is a moment with questions about what the founding fathers intended when they established our system of government, how large it should be, the debate between jefferson and hamilton, about whether there should be central government or a small country, a farm of republics. this question of what our original history is has shaped almost every aspect of the

american experience. in other words, history is all around us. whether or not it is an accurate description of what happened in 1776, for example, or what happened in 1865, is secondary to the point that people's ideas about the past, people's sense of memory about the past shape their own sense of identity and shape ho they imine the world should be. and, therefore, in my opinion, history is the ild being block of all knowledge in our society and is the most important part of of the most significant tradition human beings have, which is story-telling. >> how do we know or which part of the past. as you say, history is story-telling, and we all tend to reach for the facts that confirm our story,onfirm ou narrative, our interpretation of

the past. >> right. >> how do we learn which part of the past to trust? >> historians, professional historians will be the first to admit it's about a history of interpretation. it's about takinging it and crafting that argument and and doing it based on evidence. it's what they do when they try to argue the merits of case. >> but when you hear someone invoke thomas jefferson, what image comes to mind? >> i tend to think of jeffson' ideas that gafr birth to this republican with a whole lot of contradiction. and in that regard, i don't think of thomas jefferson as exceptional. the fundamental kun none drum that was established in this country, jefferson's ideas about independence is they would dissolve after slivery didn't

exist. >> it races the story o whether thisreflecked their hypocrisy or their humanity and therefore is the eternal reality that we want to do good things and we believe certain ideas and ideal, but we also act otherwise. >> so it does. contradiction is part of the human experience. we wrestle with it every single day, whether we admit it or not. thomas jefferson and half of the other slave holders who were presidents all lived daily contra dixes. they could literall look out theirindo and see in the land of the brave and the home of the free and so on and so forth. but the fact of the matter is they had a great responsibility for building what would become american democracy. and in that regard they failed miserably. >> it took me a long time, long past college and even graduate school to figure out that eight of the first ten of our

president presidents were enriched by their own land or slaves. you ver were taught that they actuly create add government, a constitution designed to protect further acquisition of property for the privileged classes. that just didn't get discussed. >> well, it's also the difference between an individual living in contradiction in terms of enslaving another as a proponent of freedom, and the ways in which those same individuals helped to build philosophical and ideological justifications for enslavement. and, aga, that'shere things get a little trick yessier. of course, thomas jefferson penned notes in virginia in 17 7 which was one of the first scientific arguments for why black people should be treated

differently from white bier virtue of their racial inferiority. as a matter of fact the way they were different in terms of hair texture or body odor which was part of jefferson's anasis gave birth tt en in eri, even in a place that represented a tradition of republicanism in the world, the first modern democracy, that yowl could actually reconcile freedom and slavery as lodge as the people who were enslaved were not equal citizens, were not made of the stuff of humanity. >> but then you had to constrict a sim to make sure they would never be seen as equal members of society. >> correct. that system was already self reinforcing by the enoms of enslavement. so you had the system that provided a modus operandi for

reproduced inferiority, but you ha to explain it still. and it was to that task that theologian, fill of fehrs, scientists, journalists and politicians weighed in. they said it all made sense. they said these people -- from a religious standpoint bs these people are not of the same god even. that they represent a different species created b god to serve white men. if youanremember, when you first heard the words "all men are created equal," do you remember how you cree aked to them. >> when i was old enough, and particularly in college when these kinds of document use have time to critically engage, you're being inspired to pay attention, i can remember having a visible, pal paable sense that this wasn't true, that the framers had lied, that t words

didn't match the reality, and that was just a response. i didn't have a sense of history enough in to sort of unpack all of that because there was so much rhetoric of equality of opportunity. i can't overemphasize the point enough. i grew up in the 1980s, right? so this is -- you know, jon wayne is the president as ronald reagan, and in all of that rhetoric of opportunity, all of the san i tieization of what king's legacy was to men was part of it at that moment and so to all of a sudden ecounter those words in a moment of reflection and then to know growing up on the south side of chicago meant that there was work to be done. there was a reconciliation, a reckoning so to speak that needed to take place. it was exciting for me when i got to graduate school to study it. >> again, it took me a long time to learn that the man who wrote all men are created equal also

wrote the words money not norality is the principal of commercial nations and so i ask you the historian, is one more true than the other. is it true that all men are created equal or is it more true that money, not reality, governs our reality? >> if you use the history of insight, it's born out that money is not the principle of ee kwalgization. at the very core when this country was building its plit can infrastructure, the center of ideas that would aimat the ci ofovement with checks and balances, define citizenship, of course, property was crucial for those who would anticipate. so it took another 100 years to enfranchise males to vote and another 50 years to enfranchise women. so in that regard history teaches us something about the relationship between citizenship

and property was. which was a contra diksz. it wuntd about all men. >> we the people did not include blac, women, native americans. >> that right. even in this conversation, and let me say this very clearly, the fact of what happened to native americans in this country in the 17th factory. the fact that it's still not the lynn ga fonta of our nation it's how little it is f our secondary education. in otr words i'm of the plicy thocuses on african-americans. but even as i talk to you and we talk about it, it's almost an afterthought to think about native americans. it's almost an afterthought to thing about how the 19th century. the moment of the expansion of

the frontiers of this nation, which was really an escape valve for european immigrants who came here whether it was from ireland or australia from english endentures was built on the acks of land owned in tinldian sense by many tribes indigenous to this country. i mean it's just a moment to reflect upon how just starting with the question of what happened to black people is not sufficient to understanding that at the end of the day, the very notion of settlement in this country was about procuring resources for the purposes of wealth accumulation. that was true for most who came to this country. maybe not true for a small bd of puritans whand in massachusetts who imagined the recreation of a very special religious community, but even

that vision of american society didn't last long. it's certainly true as far as i'm concerned that over the last 225 years thomas jefferson's second point about money has far outlasted and tested the notion of freedom. >> they refer to native americans as savages. they were written out as you say of the story very early. do you think it has smolg to be with the conscious or even uncons she understanding of the white slave holding property seeking race that we were practicing genocide, that we were practicing genocide against these people. maybe the world wasn't in currency at that time but they were removed, they were taken to a reservation, they were enclosed, and that's where they spent the last 200-some-odd years. why did we write the native americanut of the story.

>> first of all our experience in the united states was already learning from experience in south america where ingious populations in various parts of the caribbean island and various parts of south america were first rye sis stand to the encroachment of europeans. eventually showed such val ler against the inkreefing encroachment there with was no sense. so their fighti irit ki of create add feeling of con tradition of nobility, that these were a people who were willing to die to protect their way of leaf. it was disease that wiped them out at the owned testify day. that's what got the better of the indigenous population. so in that regard the pure devastation that intended to the settled europeans in the americas eventually gave birth

to population laws which was akin to that but w done by y of germ warfare and really in an unintended kwa. >> did anyone ever tell you that chief justice jon jay said those who own the country should govern it? >> no. it reminds me of a thing that george walker bush said. if you tomato own anything -- he didn't say the second part. people nd tobe empowerered through private yore nation of public services or the purpose of having a stake in it. this was evidencedpy his right to privatize social security. but the bottom line is because of the sig caps of politics and the increasing wealth in equality in this country, people

who don't own anything are often at the whim and caprice of political and elitts. >> why do they do that? >> it helps them get elected. why else do politicians do what they do. . this is pledge time for public television and some will briefly step away to ask for your support. for the rest of us we'll resume in just a minute. >> i read just the other d that %, reeuarts of college graduates are unfamiliar with the bill of rights and almost that many could not say who was america's archrival during the 40 years of the cold war. >> right, right.

>> so pretend i'm a freshman in your class at indiana university which you left to come to shomberg. how do you plan to rescue me in my ignorance of the past? >> well, if i get to meet you then i em go ilg t encoure u take a u.s. history course for starters. the problem is our colleges and our sense of the public's fear are she rinking. colleges and universities are giving increasing weight to the stem fields, science, technology, engineering and mathematic. they haven't cut out humanities. i don't want to overstate or say there's a crisis necessarily but there's a sense that university presidents, particularly in state university systems have to be responsive to state legislatures and if those state legislatures happen to be

republican, they're a lot at stake whelp it comes to what is the appropriate history lesson to be taught to our children. and i want to pout out that in texas, for example, a couple of years ago there was a move by the then state ree subsequents to remove or lessen the states own history of civil rights, activi activism. stateide and natural. they sily removed certain individuals. so say czar chavez got less attention in the textbook and ronald reagan and others got more for prak tickal purposes in terms of number of words on page for certainive history. >> and they wanted to diminish martin luther kings role and increase and enhance newt gingriches role, right. >> that in my opinion is of a piece that bothooks at the

college of history that is less important in making money. the bureau of lain bore produced records in late 2009 that identify the top ten growing fields iffer all americans. they're basically taking care of aging babier boomer population and what are we going to do about that. >> you're not studying history there's a stake for wealth distribution and the fact that money has been a motivating prince palg for shaping our society then people don't have sense responsibility for changing for reality that they live. they simply inequality is a naturalized part of the society and they will imbibe or accept anything that a silver tone politician will sell them.

history is sufficient to making the point t prect gains that have been made on behalf of something called justice and equality. the challenge is if they are historically illiterate, then they cannot have -- they don't have access to those -- that store of ideas and that evidence of experience that will help them shape whatever they need to shape for this particular moment. >> so is that what you meant when you said recently that black history for young people is, quote, life-saving? >> yes. that's exactly what i meant. >>ut that black history begins with slivery, with irons, with lynchings, wi auctions, with decades after decades of oppression and repression. how can you sate's life-saving? >> that's interesting because it doesn't begin with all of that and we could debate the finer points of the character of what

black history is, right, because that's what we're really talking about. what is it that most people conceive of when they hear black history. well, there is that history of oppression. it is a unifying experience in the uned states,nhe erin onte, but many people will argue that cultures of africa, many cultures, many tribes, many nations celebrated tremendous achievements by the standards of the world of the 15th, 16th, 17th, and even the 18th century of colonization. so depending on what it is you're trying to convey to a child, you can tell them that before the white man came, if you go to timbuktu, you will see a thriving civilization. you will see the invention of languages that preceded the lynn gaphonc of the world and that's english. but alongside that very

trajectory you just describe, the one of struggle, of pain, of repression is one of survival, of triumph, of creativity, and so part of telling the story of black history is to celebrate that ability to exist in a society that is working against you, is attempting to demonize yo and still be abl to triumph over it, still be able to produz original forms of art such as jazz music. that's powerful and that's empowering. it's because of black people's political traditions starting with political activism in the context of slavery. to this day that america actually is a more democratic society than it did 200 yes agond that i also a powerfully inspiring history because were it not for black people for example in the medial

aftermath of the civil war the south might have taken another 50 years to have public education. it was because of black political representatives in state congresses in the late 1860s and 1870s that they passed legislation to pass the first public education in the south. that's a major contribution and it demonstrates how important it is in king real democracy and this couryas many minority groups including women have to thank for that tradition of black activism. >> so i'm sitting -- i'm sitting there in the front room of your lecture in the university where you were teaching when you came to the schaumburg and i heard you say there's a thin line separating the past from the present and i raised my hand. what does that tell me about stop and frisk? i asked that question becau

our brethren at ran a series in which they reported that one in five people stopped last year by new york city police were teenager teenagers. 86% of those teenagers stop or latino, most of them boys. last year more than 120,000 stops of black and latino, the total number of boys of that age in new york city isn't much more than that. every boy that's latino in new york is likely before he graduated to have been stop and frisked by the police, so you're a historian, what does history have to tell me about stop and frisk. >> it tells us that it's an old and enduring and think about the

moment. crime has become like it was in

the jim crow south, a mechanism to control by people's movement in city. just like douglas bachmann describe >>hat happened t blacks after the civil war. >> the invention of convict leasing. the one with the economic project to rebuild the south on the back of imprisoned leased african americans sold to private industry. and the net widened because there was a lot of money to be made in doing that type of work. in the work we learn how elastic were laws like vagrancy laws intented i intended to empower any citizen or law enforcement official to check. if you couldn't prove that you

were currently employed, bound to a tenant farming contract then you were by definition a vagrant, a criminal and subject to, in this case, convict leasing. if you are a share cropper and you are being cheated and you ste away he can call the police and say this person just left my property and they don't have a job. you get picked up, you are done. you are off to a convict lease. the point is that elasticity, the ability to use the law as an instrument of control is exactly what operates in the context of it. it happened in new york. stop and frisk as a policy is not that old but as aninformal practice numerous instances happened in brooklyn and harlem.

here is the point. today's stop and frisk if you look at the form that a police officer fills out the boxes create tremendous opportunity for discretion. so suspicious behavior. probably the one that is most indicative of this is one box that says wearing clothing known to be associated with criminals. at ds ttmean for an 18-year-old black or latino boy in new york city? he has sagging pants? is that sufficient grounds for investigating whether or not he is a criminal or not? does he have a white t shirt. is he wearing a backpack that could contain drugs? in other words, it is incredibly elastic. >> it could include a hoody in florida. >> it aallows law enforcement in this city just like in alabama

to have the widest berth of discretion to challenge a person, a black male on the streets to ask them where are you going and do you belong here. if you don't have i.d. you can be subject to arrest in the city. they are the hallways monitoring program that the nypd uses to go into private buildings to make sure there are no drug dealings happenings. a young man walked out in his pajam tompty his tra and happened to come across an nypd officer. the officer asked him for his i.d. he didn't have one, he was fined. that is discretion. that is abuse of authority. that is the racial context. here is where race matters today. why race matters today and defies the logic that this is about saving black people and a

color blind public safety agenda is because no white community in america would tolrate this kind treatment in the name of public safety in its communities. you couldn't go to an east side apartment anywhere in new york city and start asking 17-year-old white boys for i.d. when they were out in their pajamas because their political power in the city and other parts of the country is sufficient to get a politician to question whether or not that is the america that we want to live in. when it comes to black and brown people today as was true 100 years ago they are subject to certain criminal justice policies. those lasted way into the civil rights era and informal practices have been going on for over 100 years. >> you have written a biography of an idea here. and the idea you are writing about is how blacks came to be

singled out nationally as an exceptionally dangerous people. >> think about it this way. there is no moment in time where races not a primary factor in the treatment of black people. and so the crime issue if you just equate crime or criminalization or racial stigma there is no moment where race is not an organizing principle for how black people's behavior is defined. policies evolved not because they were invented in that moment but because they continued in that moment. and immigrant communities got police refo and black people got police repression. >> in the north 100 years ago in your home city of chicago blacks were only about 2% of the population, maybe 4% of the

population and yet stop and frisk became very popular there. >> in the after math of reconstruction there was a meeting of the minds between progressives and white supremacists. and the meeting of the minds wasn't what we might think it was. this was also the me moment where people like jame adams and leaders started the naacp. they were deeply concern td about political disinfranchisement and civil rights. in this one space southerners were far more influential in terms of telling northerners that black people were not ready for citizenship and that they were not responsible for following the rules of society. and northeers took note an essentially developed policies and practices primarily policing

of urban space. policies help to create the ghettos of harlem of chicago, of west philadelphia that were in their infancy at the turn of the 20th century. it was only on the basis of crimnality that progressives and other liberals said that we are going to let you work out your own salvaton and le you stay in these isolated communities until you exhibit the behaviors, the respectability. all of this may sound appropriate to viewers listening today except that the same didn't hold true for european immigrants who gave so much trouble to civic reformers. they didn't speak the language. they brought old world cultural trades. they were loud. they wanted to pedal their wares. they lived in dense places.

th wer brewing wine and other liquors in their bathtub. some were extortionists. they didn't say we are going to let you work out your own salvation. they said we have to get in here and americanize these people. >> that's social welfare, public parks, job opportunities, social ability but not you say for blacks. >> they were pinned off in a way that crime became the legitimate reasoand rationale for that segregation. in other words, crime among immigrants and working class whites were understood to be a consequence, not of their moral character or of their cultural framework but of economics and class. so even europe's peasants and europe's marginalized and

dispossessed benefitted from a discourse, a way of ranking the world's peoplehat said any european no matter how dassedly or despicable has the stuff of europe, has the stuff of civilization with just a little bit of help will be on their way to greener pastures. black people were understood as being fundamentally flawed in their nature. >> you go on to say in the book that blackness was refashioned through statistics. that statistics about black crime wereue biquitous. was that deliberate? >> it was over time. the black people were enslaved. there was no point in tracking them statistically because they

weren't a population problem. once they were free the demay w turned totatistics. they eventually they turned to crime statistics. the initial point in using statistics was not to celebrate the presence of black people but to determine how much of a presence physically black people would have in the nation. and as it turns out because enslaved people don't go to prison, they are dealt with as plantation now as free people they are going to prison and in 1890 for the first time a statistician said this is disproportionate prison populaon of black people. only 12% of the population. as it turns out if we just let them be they will commit enough crime and go to prison and we won't have to worry about the

economic resources that have to be distributed amongst the irish and now amongst the black people. so the notion of refashioning their identity as a criminal identity was intended to be a mechanism to limit social resources onbeha of black communtieso s because they are criminals they don't deserve even education. >> you are not denying that there were crimes? >> i'm not denying that. >> but that somehow the black criminal became a representative of his race. >> correct. >> to think and talk about african americans as criminals you write is encoded deeply in our dna. >> correct. bu the question became, are we going to help black people like we help the immigrants?

the answer was, because they are criminals, no. and that was a rationale rooted in racial logic. it was a rationale tied to ideas that privileged europeans as people who could benefit from the help of white reformers and black people could not. it effectively created the circumstanc th gav birth to mern segregation in our biggest cities. as those populations grew the basic infrastructure we made it. >> it was amazing to me to go through and find so much of the evidence you collected. you have president roosevelt telling black college graduates that crimnalality is a greater danger to your race. onefter another saying it.

>> it is the same dominant ideology we have today. it is not packaged in the same rhetoric. consistently defend, policies such as mass incarceration. we are still living with the same basic ideas and arguments about the relationship bween black imnalitynd social responsibility between segregation and public safety today as we were in the 1890s in the country. >> here is the testimony of one of the most influential scholars of the time, a harvard scientist and prolific writer. here is what he wrote. there can be no sort of doubt that judged by the light of all

experience these people, blacks, are a danger to america, greater and more than any of thosehat mace the her states of the world. here arguing that america would self destruct if it gave blacks the right to vote saying negros could not rise to a base higher than savagery. seeing the negro does belong to an order lower why should we ever degrade and disgrace both ourselves and our postityy entering into more intimate relations with them. may god forbid that we should ever do this foul and wicked thing. this is not talk radio.

these are prominent scholars wriesing this. you are saying that in some way the ntimentstill effect today. >>soluly. we have the biggest prison system the world has ever known, one, by the way that came of age in this moment right after the end of the civil rights movement. as the moment that black people have their second shot at equality in america legally we could you know as well as anyone that we didn't need the 1964 civil rights act if the the 13, 14 and 15th amendment had been sufficient. right after that moment even under lyndon johnson there is an expansion of federal support for local law enforcement on the

basis that black people's crime is a danger to civil society. again, all of this may make sense to a viewer and to a listener if they didn't know that those same threats to civil society posed by european immigrants weren't treated in a fundamentay difere way. that's the point. crime in and of itself was not sufficient to justify a punitive law and order political response or a set of ideas that exist today as they did then that saw black people's crime as evident of some moral inferior ority. for the european immigrant in the hands it was all true. these people can't help themselves. they a a threat to ciety. therogrsivesaid no. whats mo telling about the progressives is they actually got rid of statistics.

they stopped using the language of statistics, 15% of all crimes in the city are committed by the irish and 45% by the italians. they stopped talking that way and saying these are the children of immigrants who are becoming americans and we must help them. we must put them on the path to success. that is how they started talking to them,o mu so by the 930s the federal government started collecting arrest data across the nation. this information is produced quarterly and annually called a uniform crime report. so soon you will see in the new york times the latest data which tells us whether crime is rising or falling over all in our nation's cities. that was invented in 1930. here is the point. this is a very important one. prior to that uniform crime report which nationalized and

standardized arrest atistics, local arrest dataas clect in philadelphia, new york, etc. if you pull out an annual report, the page would look like this. tracking offenses by category. it would say italian, german, irish, mexican all the way across. it would look like an excel spreadsheet. by the 1930s with the federal government systematizing national arrest data and becoming the most authoritative bas it was whites, black, foreign born, other. that was for the first three years. by 1933 it was white, black, other. effectively what it did was erase the category of the white ethnic criminal. black became the single defining measure of deviance from a white

norm. so as long as blacks in that accounting showed disproportionate levels ofny activi acrs the categories white was always normalized. in effect it made invisible white crimnality. we don't talk about the white prison population. no average person on the street can tell you how many white men are in prison or white men between the ages of 19 and 35. the truth is the number is greater now today than 30 years ago because the size of the prison system has also increased the number of white men. >> so this is how black criminality emerges as a fundamental measure of black inferiority with consequences down to the moment. >> correct. that's right. >> thank you very much. thanks for joining us. >> it's been great.

that's it for this week. see you next time.

funding is provided by --