In this thought-provoking conversation, Marco Ciappelli interviews Juliet Hooker, a professor of political science at Brown University and the author of "Black Grief, White Grievance: The Politics of Loss." The episode focuses on the impact of loss on democratic institutions and the ways in which different groups mobilize in response to these losses in society.
Guests: Juliet Hooker, Royce Family Professor of Teaching Excellence in Political Science at Brown University [@BrownUniversity]
On Twitter | https://www.twitter.com/@creoleprof
Website | https://juliethooker.com
_____________________________
Host: Marco Ciappelli, Co-Founder at ITSPmagazine [@ITSPmagazine] and Host of Redefining Society Podcast & Audio Signals Podcast
On ITSPmagazine | https://www.itspmagazine.com/itspmagazine-podcast-radio-hosts/marco-ciappelli
_____________________________
This Episode’s Sponsors
Are you interested in sponsoring an ITSPmagazine Channel?
👉 https://www.itspmagazine.com/sponsor-the-itspmagazine-podcast-network
_____________________________
Episode Introduction
Welcome to a new episode of Audio Signals, hosted by me, Marco Ciappelli. Today, we dive into into a compelling and intricate topic in our episode titled "Black Grief, White Grievance: The Politics of Loss," featuring a special guest, Professor Juliet Hooker. A renowned academic and author, Professor Hooker brings her expertise in political science to explore the multifaceted dynamics of loss within democratic societies and the often politicized nature of racism and loss.
Our conversation begins with an insightful analysis of Professor Hooker's book, "Black Grief, White Grievance: The Politics of Loss." This exploration is not just an academic exercise; it's a journey through the emotional and political landscapes of grief and grievance. We unravel the subtle yet profound differences between these two experiences – grief, an emotional response to loss, and grievance, a reaction to perceived harm or injustice.
As we navigate through these concepts, Professor Hooker brings to light the critical role that state actions, or inactions, play in transforming grief into grievance, especially in the context of social injustice. This transformation is not merely individual; it reflects in the mobilization of various groups within society, influencing the very fabric of democratic institutions.
The discussion takes a deeper turn as we examine the influence of privilege in shaping responses to loss. This part of the conversation is particularly revealing, highlighting how societal status and identity can dictate not only the experience of loss but also the visibility and legitimacy of grief and grievance. The impact of race, ethnicity, and historical power dynamics are central to this dialogue, offering insights into the struggles of marginalized communities for justice and recognition.
We also draw connections with historical and contemporary racial activism. By referencing the significant contributions of figures like Harriet Jacobs and Ida B. Wells, and relating them to modern movements and events like the 2020 racial justice protests and the January 2021 Capitol insurrection, the conversation illuminates the continuous thread of loss and activism through history. The role of technology, notably photographs and social media, in highlighting these stories of loss is another critical aspect of our discussion.
Expanding our gaze globally, we explore how the themes of loss and political mobilization transcend national boundaries. Professor Hooker points to international examples, such as the Mothers of the Plaza de Mayo in Argentina, to illustrate the universal nature of grieving activism.
In wrapping up this episode, we reflect on the profound implications of our discussion. "Black Grief, White Grievance: The Politics of Loss with Juliet Hooker" is more than an examination of societal dynamics; it's an invitation to our listeners to engage in a deeper understanding of the complexities of power, privilege, and social justice. Through this understanding, we hope to contribute to building a more inclusive and empathetic society that values the lives and struggles of all its members. Join us in this enlightening conversation, as we explore the nuances of grief, grievance, and their impact on democracy.
Listen, share, and subscribes for many more stories and storytellers that will make you think. Thinking is good!
About the Book
In democracies, citizens must accept loss; we can’t always be on the winning side. But in the United States, the fundamental civic capacity of being able to lose is not distributed equally. Propped up by white supremacy, whites (as a group) are accustomed to winning; they have generally been able to exercise political rule without having to accept sharing it. Black citizens, on the other hand, are expected to be political heroes whose civic suffering enables progress toward racial justice. In this book, Juliet Hooker, a leading thinker on democracy and race, argues that the two most important forces driving racial politics in the United States today are Black grief and white grievance. Black grief is exemplified by current protests against police violence—the latest in a tradition of violent death and subsequent public mourning spurring Black political mobilization. The potent politics of white grievance, meanwhile, which is also not new, imagines the United States as a white country under siege. Drawing on African American political thought, Hooker examines key moments in US racial politics that illuminate the problem of loss in democracy. She connects today’s Black Lives Matter protests to the use of lynching photographs to arouse public outrage over post–Reconstruction era racial terror, and she discusses Emmett Till’s funeral as a catalyst for the civil rights struggles of the 1950s and 1960s. She also traces the political weaponization of white victimhood during the Obama and Trump presidencies. Calling for an expansion of Black and white political imaginations, Hooker argues that both must learn to sit with loss, for different reasons and to different ends.
_____________________________
Resources
Black Grief/White Grievance: The Politics of Loss: https://juliethooker.com/books/black-grief-white-grievance/
_____________________________
For more podcast stories from Audio Signals:
https://www.itspmagazine.com/audio-signals
Watch the video version on-demand on YouTube: https://www.youtube.com/playlist?list=PLnYu0psdcllQvnJ8eHUlVX8AuyhehtexA
Are you interested in sponsoring an ITSPmagazine Channel?
👉 https://www.itspmagazine.com/sponsor-the-itspmagazine-podcast-network
Please note that this transcript was created using AI technology and may contain inaccuracies or deviations from the original audio file. The transcript is provided for informational purposes only and should not be relied upon as a substitute for the original recording, as errors may exist. At this time, we provide it “as it is,” and we hope it can be helpful for our audience.
_________________________________________
[00:00:00] Marco Ciappelli: All right, everybody. This is Marco Ciappelli. Welcome to another episode of Audio Signals on ITSP Magazine. As you know, lately, I have repositioned the antenna to talk a little bit more about stories and storytellers. Today it's not really a story in terms of, uh, um, an adventure, although in a way it is.
It's our human adventures, if I may define it so, and it's of course based on reality. It's uh, it's something that we are facing, um, every day here in America, but Also in other parts of the world. And I look at this as the relationship between different people that live, especially in a democracy and in our society.
An analysis from what I understand of, um, the situation of racism and how politics are somehow. instrumentalizing the story, and maybe, again, we go back in the story, you can tell the same story from different perspective and is received and, again, instrumentalized for politics, sometimes in a, unfortunately, in a, in a different way.
I am not the one qualified to talk about this, so we actually have a person, a professor, Uh, Juliet Hooker from Brown University, professor of political science, and then she wrote a book called Black Grief, White Grievance, The Politics of Loss. And uh, we are going to talk about that. So for the people already looking at the video, you see, she's here with me.
For the people listening, here she is, Juliet, welcome to the show.
[00:01:43] Juliet Hooker: Thanks for having me. Happy to be here.
[00:01:45] Marco Ciappelli: I'm very happy to be here and I have many questions. I'm sure the audience will have many questions, so I'll try to guess what they will want to know, but let's start with who you are, your background, and what made you decide to write this book?
I know you wrote other before, but this one in particular, so to get the conversation started.
[00:02:07] Juliet Hooker: Of course, so I'm currently the Royce Family Professor of Teaching Excellence in Political Science. Sorry, that's a mouthful, um, at Brown University. And, um, my work over the course of my career has been, um, really focused on, I'm a political theorist.
And so I've been thinking a lot about racial justice, about how we might, um, you know, have a, about democratic theory. And I draw a lot of my work from, um, African American political thought. And so this current book is, is a book about political loss. It's about the way in which Various responses to loss, the ways in which people have mobilized around real and perceived loss in U.
S. democracy and how that affects the strength and resilience of democratic institutions. And so, um, the title of the book is Black Grief, White Grievance, the Politics of Loss. And it basically argues that black grief and white grievance are two of the things that are Really driving, um, contemporary, um, you know, mobilizations around race in the U.
S. right now. And, um, two examples of those, for example, are the Movement for Black Lives and all of the racial justice protests of 2020 that were really mobilized by police killings of Black people. And then on the one hand, um, the other hand, of course, you know, things like the January 2021 insurrection at the Capitol that were driven in part by this sense of, of, of a loss that had happened.
And that was a primarily, white, set of folks who, who felt like they, they had been, you know, that even though the, the election was legitimate, that they had, um, been cheated out of their, um, uh, of their candidate winning. And so the book is trying to think about how we respond to loss and how that becomes a force in politics.
[00:04:20] Marco Ciappelli: Right. And so the first thought to me, especially because I often talk about society and technology, it goes immediately into social media, echo chambers, and amplifying this conversation for one gain and another loss. And again, spinning this cube to show one facet of it. according to what your main interest is.
But from what I understand in the book, you also go back before social media and highlight the fact that this kind of conversations have been already strumentalized and also Help in the past, the civil rights movement as well. So can we start from maybe the beginning, chronologically speaking, and then we can see what's going on now.
[00:05:12] Juliet Hooker: Absolutely. So, you know, so in the book, I go back to earlier moments in U. S. history in the 19th and early 20th century, when we saw these mobilizations around Um, particularly black activism, and they were often followed by these moments of, of white resistance. And, and so, you know, both, you know, mobilization driven by black grief and white grievance are not new.
Um, and, you know, I I talk about different moments. Um, in the book, one of those moments is, um, there's a chapter in the book that looks at the work of Harriet Jacobs and Ida B. Wells. And Jacobs is writing, of course, during, she was an enslaved woman, and she writes this narrative in which she talks about the horrors of slavery and the ways in which she tried to resist.
So she's writing about the, You know, the pre Civil War in the pre Civil War era, and then Wells is right, is, is writing at the end of the 19th century, early 20th century, during the height of lynching and, you know, these white race massacres that are happening throughout the country. And what's really fascinating, I think, in thinking about, you know, The use of technology is that she is one of, Wells is one of the first people to start using photographs of lynchings to try to, uh, impel people to, um, to oppose the.
These horrible, um, you know, spectacles where, you know, the lynching photographs are a really interesting artifact because they're not taken as evidence that the lynching happened. They're taken as souvenirs, and so people are taking these photographs and smiling and taking them as a memento. of these horrible moments of, of, um, of violence and, and racial terror.
And she turns that on its head and instead starts using them to prove to audiences that when she's telling them these massacres are happening, that it's true. So that's an interesting moment, right? Where this new technology, the photograph starts to be used in these struggles over how to tell. the story of racial violence, how to get an audience to believe you.
And then, um, you know, we see some of the same kind of, um, debates happening that, you know, you see later in now with the videos of police violence or the ways in which people, you know, misinformation and the ways in which people talk about, um, you know, what might have happened or how. Um, whether to believe the evidence that, you know, an atrocity happened that we see on in these discussions on social media,
[00:08:01] Marco Ciappelli: right?
And I understand , you focus on the condition in the United States, the democracy and how it gets affected here. But I was reading your, your background. You actually, you have studies and I believe you, you come from Latin America. So I'm from Europe. I like to think about the differences in the way that certain culture affect, uh, certain topic.
And do you feel like this is a, a very unique and belonging to the, the United State Democracy type of conversation? Or it can be spinned into a more wider sociological angle, in other part of the world?
[00:08:46] Juliet Hooker: Yeah, this is a really good question. So I think in, you know, the book itself is, is, It's certainly focused and draws most of its examples and its analysis from the history of the United States, particularly 19th and 20th century, but I think the the questions that I raised about political loss and how people respond to it, I think.
Um, are, are applicable beyond the United States. So, you know, so for example, one of the things that I talk about in the book is this idea of grieving activism, right? How people who have lost, um, loved ones in particular become activists in the wake of their death to try to get justice for. their loved ones, um, who, who suffered, um, some kind of injustice.
And this is something that we see all over the world, right? If you look at Latin America, where I am from, um, you know, one of the iconic examples of particularly mothers doing this kind of grieving activism is the mothers of the Plaza de Mayo, whose, you know, peaceful protests became so central, um, you know, in actually, um, you know, making.
The case for the the brutality of the of the dictatorship in Argentina that they were opposing. And so I think these kinds of, um. You know, these ways in which the book tries to think through how people mobilize around loss go beyond the examples of racial politics in the U. S. that I focused on in the book.
[00:10:28] Marco Ciappelli: And is there some recurring Some kind of, you know, like, I like to talk about propaganda that has always existed, except that now we have different technology. I go back to that and we can amplify, we can use different media, compare with dropping flyers on a war zone in the enemy line. Now we are doing it on social media and I don't want to compare these with an enemy.
I don't, I, Don't like personally to go into us and them conversation, but it certainly drives towards that us and them like, okay, this is what happened. How do I strumentalize this? How do I not? So I guess to go back, it's, do you see analyzing the past and the present, some recurring Technique, uh, some, maybe, I don't want to say mistake, but maybe some way that the conversation could be amplified better, even when you do the griefing or the, the griefing, maybe part, because I don't want to help the grievance for that.
[00:11:39] Juliet Hooker: Right. Yeah. I mean, I think, you know, there, there are a number of, of, um, of strategies that I think we see recurring over time when people are trying to do this kind of activism to make the losses or the injustices that they have suffered visible. One of them is, is, is. enumeration, quantification, right? So if you think about, um, you know, when people put out these, these benchmarks of like a hundred thousand people have died from the, or a million people have died, let's say from the coronavirus pandemic most recently, or, you know, or how many people have died in war, um, these are ways of, of trying to, to, to bring home.
Right. The cost of, um, of, of, uh, of a conflict. Um, and often the, the, the critique of that is that it, it's, it doesn't give us a sense of who the victims were as people, right? That they become just these, these numbers. And so the other, um, strategy that I think we see throughout is the attempt to humanize.
CHAT GPT. The victim's right to say, you know, to tell the stories of individual people that they were, um, members of families that they leave people behind who care about him to tell their stories, um, so that people will care about them. Now, the danger there is that, you know, I, I saw a recent, um, you know, critique of, of the ways in which, um, the, the case of a, of a journalist who was a dual American citizen, how that was a, responded to when it's like suddenly it was, it became what was important was that she was an American citizen and therefore you should care as opposed to she had been killed.
And we should care even if she wasn't an American citizen. Right. So the, I think the, you know, those are some of the dominant strategies and each has. risks, right? Or, or has, um, dangers that come with it. Um, but I think beyond that, the other issue is this question of, of, you know, why we We attend or we care more about the losses of some people than others and why some people have to prove their humanity before we'll care about their suffering and so that there's always a cost for people who, who have to convince us that we need to care about the losses that they're suffering.
[00:14:12] Marco Ciappelli: Which is usually the point where I shake my, my head because it shouldn't be like this, right? Can you define maybe in a little bit more detail for people that haven't read the book yet? This, this difference between the grief and the grievance so that the meaning and and how we apply that in our social psychology, per se.
[00:14:41] Juliet Hooker: Yeah, of course. So, um, you know, so grief and grievance have the same etymological origin. But when we we talk about them, I think when we think about grief, we're thinking about sadness, right? The, the feelings that, um, that come from, from a loss. Grievance refers instead to the, to the sense that, um, you have suffered a harm or injury.
And then, um, the complaint that people make, um, based on having suffered. In the book, I talk about the move from grief to grievance. That you can suffer a loss. Sometimes it's, it's, you know, if someone dies of natural causes, of course, there's grief, but there isn't a move to grievance because it wasn't caused by someone else, but in the case of a loss that is the result, let's say of state inaction, right?
There was supposed to be some kind of, um, you know, regulation that could have prevented a fire and someone dies in it. Then often, you know, there's this, the move to grievance to try to say, oh, how do we change the situation so this doesn't happen to anyone else? Or so the parties that were responsible are held responsible.
So this is what I mean by grief and grievance.
[00:16:07] Marco Ciappelli: And in there, it comes the, the concept of privilege, right? So one thing is to lose life and, and be considered at a different level as a human from others versus, well, I'm sad because I don't have that privilege anymore. It, it, I don't know why we need to explain this, but we probably have to.
So let's, let's go there.
[00:16:35] Juliet Hooker: Right. So, you know, so I'm, one of the things that I'm doing in the book is saying, Black grief and white grievance are two ways in which people are mobilizing in response to loss in the United States. But I want to be clear, and I'm glad you brought this up, that I'm not saying they're equivalent, right?
So the losses that, um, African Americans are usually, are often having to mobilize in response to are, are, you know, of life itself, right? People who are killed, for example, by police violence, or people who were lynched, um, or the, the losses associated with, um, segregation when the country was segregated and not being able to vote.
Whereas white grievance is often motivated not so much by, um, material losses, right? Even though You know, there's a lot of, um, talk about economic anxiety, motivating, um, you know, racial resentment, um, in the United States among, um, uh, white working class people. But when you look, for example, at things like the January 2021 insurrection, um, a lot of those people were CEOs, they were doctors, they were lawyers, they weren't.
suffering economic losses. So they were motivated by other form sense of being displaced, right? So often, um, it's this fear that the country's changing, that they're not at the center of political debates anymore. Their interests aren't, um, the ones that are predominating. And so there's a sense of, of displacement or fear often, actually, it's not even that they have been displaced, but the fear that they will be displaced in the future that then motivates, um, you know, um, I think, um, people who have been used to being the dominant group then to, to mobilize, to try to defend, um, what they see as their, their rightful, um,
[00:18:33] Marco Ciappelli: so I think you, you talk about, um, accepting the fact that, and here we can go in, uh, in some, uh, as a political science, uh, professor explaining democracy, uh, if it's needed, where, you know, it's not a hundred percent. We're not in the polis of the, of the classic Greek. We are a 51. So there is always going to be somebody that win and somebody that lose.
And I think you make a point in your book where, first of all, we probably in America, we don't know how to deal with that. We don't know how to accept it. Maybe more than in other places. Maybe. And, and, is this a lack of culture? Is this a lack of education? I mean, what, What do you do find out here?
And maybe how, what can we do to kind of have this conversation? I mean, it's a social contract in the end.
[00:19:36] Juliet Hooker: Yeah. No, I mean, one of the, the, you know, the things that I, I emphasize in the book is that we often think about democracy in terms of empowerment, right? So you go out, you organize, you get people together and you get your, your candidate, um, to, to win or you get your, your policy to be adapted and it's, and it all feels good.
But in fact, right, if you won, that means someone else lost, right? So democracy is as much about losing as it is about winning, but we don't talk about that other side of it. Um, and this is, I think what we see is that when you have a, you know, Um, you know, I think in the United States you have a democracy that has been shaped by, by white supremacy, and this has meant that some groups, um, the dominant group, whites as a group, have had to suffer fewer losses.
And so they're less accustomed to having to accept even legitimate loss. I think, you know, your point probably about the U. S. because of its position as a world power and, you know, being a superpower, you know, one of the dominant economies in the world. I think you're right that in general, probably the U. S. has has been as a country less accustomed to loss than let's say, you know, I'm from Nicaragua, which is a little country that is. Repeatedly invaded or fought over by major powers throughout its history. Like you just, you know, You you know that you are kind of at the mercy of these larger geopolitical forces.
That's not an experience that most US citizens have.
[00:21:22] Marco Ciappelli: Now, it makes sense. Um, but what surprised me a little bit, too, is how this conversation has been going, I think, for, for quite a while with ups and downs in, in the news. And unfortunately, lately, they're not, you know, they're kind of hammering on the same, on the same bell.
And. Uh, do you see some progress, um, happening and maybe even looking at the upcoming election soon? I mean, the, the, the whole political environment, I, I feel like it's, it's much more extreme. I remember when I was studying back in the nineties, um, political government, you know, the U. S. was still looked at as a bipartisan, solid, With very few differences, well, now we're actually looking at kind of like going to the extreme, and I feel like the people that suffer the most in this are again, the minority and the immigrants and you know, the black movement that again, why does it need to, why is strumentalized so much by the other?
So I know it's a big question, but if you can give me some of your opinion, that'd be great.
[00:22:41] Juliet Hooker: Yeah. So I think, you know, we're, we're in a moment that is, um, so I would say two things in response to that. One of them is that, um, the first is that we're in a moment of, of deep. Backlash. Um, where I think in, in 2020, you know, you saw these, these enormous, um, multiracial but black led protests and this, this moment when people were really trying to think about what racial justice would require and what we needed to do.
And I think, um, and, and this was coming on the heels of a very energized, uh, Um, black protest movement. And I think what we're seeing now is, is a, you know, a very sustained and deep backlash to that. A sense that we need to, that that was a moment of, of gains that need to be reversed and are being reversed.
If you think, look at things that, you know, the Supreme Court decisions on affirmative action, the attack on voting rights, I mean, there is a, there's a clear sense of, um, That people are trying to undermine whatever gains were made, um, in the past couple of decades, uh, trying to move forward in terms of greater racial equality.
And I think that, you know, that has been the pattern throughout U. S. history. And I think the, you know, the moment in which we find ourselves is also one that I think tells us something about U. S. democracy, right? That That in the past when we thought U. S. Democracy was healthy and when we thought, Oh, you know, everything is fine.
We were probably not looking some of the ways in which minorities in particular was still having a really hard time participating politically. And so from the perspective of maybe the dominant parties, you know, I think, or or was there a smooth hand, you know, handover of power, things of that sort. It seemed like it It was healthy, but when you looked more deeply, there were always these, these issues that had never been resolved and continued to undermine U.
S. democracy. And I think now, you know, unfortunately, one of the major parties has become a very right wing. radicalized party. And, and, and we find ourselves in a, in a moment when, when a lot of them are, are, um, unwilling to accept that , you know, the wins of their opponent might be legitimate.
And so they're willing to dispense with democracy for the sake of of not having to share power.
[00:25:26] Marco Ciappelli: And that's probably the most dangerous thing that could happen. Um, for politics. And I think you're right. I mean, uh, history has always been written by the, the powerful. So, um, I think that's why we are rewriting history.
Lately and it's not for the sake of rewriting. It's just because to be honest Into what really happened and not what have been told us by those that were printing the book Let's go back to that, right? so, um talking about The storytelling. I mean I I have to touch before we end this conversation in In the role of media and and then using all of this.
Um Um, yeah, but that's the question, but how much is the media influencing the wrong narrative and what maybe can be and should be done to have a, an honest view on things?
[00:26:34] Juliet Hooker: Yeah, no, you know, I think there's a, there's been a lot of, of critiques of the media, um, for good reason, because I think there is, um, there is a, you know, a sense in which the, the sort of defaults of, of, um, of journalism don't serve us well in this moment, right?
The, the sort of idea that to, to, To tell an, you know, an accurate story, you have to tell both sides. Well, what happens if actually there is, you know, a symmetry, right? So one side is more radical than the other, but you're, you're forcing it into this, Oh, we have two extremes and, and that actually going back to the, to the way this played out, you know, in the 1960s, people would talk about, um, the NAACP and the KKK, like they were two extremes.
So again, Um, the sense that we, we have a hard time talking about, um, radical radicalization. I think, um, when it's not, when it doesn't fit into this, this, um, this both sides narrative. And, and similarly with the way in which people talk about polarization, right? So this sense that the problem is that we're not getting along or the problem is that we're not, um, you know, working together as opposed to the problem is.
That we have, let's say, um, injustice and people are calling that out, um, and, and, and facing, um, backlash for it. So I think it's, it's, you know, I think there is, there is, um, the, the media in some ways is, has a hard time. I think being clear about what the stakes are and about what the conflicts, what the source of the conflicts are rather than trying to tell it in this, um, this kind of horse race narrative of there's two sides and they're competing as opposed to saying, you know, this is the substance of the disagreement.
And both of these positions are not, let's say, morally or, um, equivalent, for example.
[00:28:43] Marco Ciappelli: Right. Yeah, this two sides narrative, it's, uh, I don't know. You can't really ride two horses. That's my point. That's a good one. Eventually you can for a little bit, but you're not going to write one correctly. And again, apart from that kind of joke, it's the fact that even if you limit yourself to just report in an objective way, you will probably see that it doesn't add up to put it on the same level.
So that's, that's up for leaving to the audience to think about it. Talking about the audience, I'd like to, to finish this with, um, who did you envision? Um, as the audience for your book. Um, is it somebody more for one side or the other? Is it more of a academic text or is for anybody interested in in this?
So who, who did you have in mind when you were writing this book?
[00:29:44] Juliet Hooker: So that's a great question. So I think, um, obviously, you know, I'm, I'm hoping that my colleagues and, um, you know, and students will read it. And, um, but I also think it is, um, it's an accessible text. And I think it's talking about issues and questions that we all face in our daily lives and that we see on our TV screens and in our, you know, in, in, in our, um, in our politics.
And so I think I hope that, um, you know, folks will, will find it helpful for trying to think about this moment that we find ourselves in and thinking about, you know, the, the challenges that U. S. democracy is facing. So I'm hoping that it will be of interest to, to folks who, who care about. You know, being a good citizen and, and, and how to move forward, um, in the United States.
[00:30:39] Marco Ciappelli: And not only in the United States, it's about understanding. I, I, I'm going to close with what I usually say, that if we, if we let the listener and, or the viewers in this case to, uh, leave this conversation with more, Questions and thinking a little bit more than when they started. I think we did a good job Um, i'm sure your book does exactly that I will have links to your Profile to your website to the book as well again It's just called black grief white grievance the political of loss And I want to thank you for your time.
And uh, you sure made me think And I and I think everybody should inform themselves before jumping to any conclusion. That's always a very good lesson, I think. So thank you again, Juliet.
[00:31:34] Juliet Hooker: Thanks for having me.
[00:31:35] Marco Ciappelli: All right. Bye, everybody. Everybody stay tuned. Check the book, check the links and subscribe for more stories that hopefully would make you think.
Thank you very much.