November 9, 2024 • 68 mins
Be a part of the conversation!
What if our conversations about race could spark real change? Join us as we navigate the complex terrain of racial discussions in America, starting with our own technical hiccups and the invaluable role of public libraries. Our journey begins with an exploration of colorism, where we dissect the societal preference for lighter skin tones within BIPOC communities, using both personal stories and public figures like OJ Simpson to shed light on its deep-seated impact. This sets the stage for a broader discussion on Project 2025 and the intricate web of politics and perceptions that define our world today.
Buckle up as we critically examine Project 2025 and the Heritage Foundation's formidable influence on American political landscapes. The conversation takes a sharp turn as we question the foundation's real intentions behind their conservative maneuvers, especially in the context of significant political shifts like the overturning of Roe v. Wade. We probe the dynamics of power, autonomy, and the often unseen strings that guide political leaders, daring to ask who truly holds the reins in shaping our nation's future.
Our dialogue doesn't stop there; it extends into the realm of media and its powerful role in molding societal views on race. By reflecting on century-old narratives and their persistent effects on modern perceptions, we highlight the continued portrayal of black individuals in stereotypical roles. We also grapple with the crucial themes of police transparency and the nuanced nature of white allyship in social justice movements, sharing personal encounters and observations that emphasize authenticity over superficial support. Tune in as we strive to connect these intricate themes, offering a thought-provoking look at race, identity, and the stories we tell ourselves.
Mark as Played
Transcript
Episode Transcript
Available transcripts are automatically generated. Complete accuracy is not guaranteed.
Speaker 1 (00:00):
Hi, I'm Odeko.
Speaker 2 (00:02):
And I'm Rocket88.
Speaker 1 (00:04):
And this is Conversations in Black and White
.
Speaker 2 (00:08):
Where we talk about race and racism in America.
Speaker 1 (00:14):
So to start, I had asked Rocket well, to start.
We're in a completely new setup, so if we sound different,
we're no longer recording in thesame room anymore.
Right, we've kind of upgraded,I would argue.
Speaker 2 (00:33):
You've upgraded, I've just gotten better.
Speaker 1 (00:36):
I'm using a public library right now.
Shout out to public libraries.
You can put your tax dollar towork.
Speaker 2 (00:44):
I I absolutely recommend it, um totally support
your public libraries people,because they're uh battling some
ish right now yeah, yeah, um.
Speaker 1 (00:56):
So this setup has taken a while to get um, which
is why we haven't been recordingthat.
And I don't have internet at myapartment anymore no Wi-Fi, no
Ethernet, nothing.
So I'm using a public libraryRocket and I have been trying to
get something to work here forquite a while now Over a month,
(01:19):
it seems like.
Speaker 2 (01:20):
Yeah, like almost two months actually, Because.
I think we started trying thisout in September.
Yeah, and then your Internetwas failing, yep, and then I had
an awesome idea that worked,but your phone did not hold up
my phone could not handle it atall.
(01:41):
No, you really need to upgradeyour phone.
Speaker 1 (01:46):
Yeah, I looked at that yesterday.
Actually, okay, it's tooexpensive.
But last week we had tried that, we had tried a different
method and I had asked Rocket tolook into somebody.
Speaker 2 (02:00):
Oh, God that.
I have not done that yet.
Speaker 1 (02:03):
For the life of me, oh God, that I have not done
that yet.
For the life of me, I believeit's just playing devil's
advocate.
But I think a part of him.
Speaker 2 (02:19):
Okay, so I don't want to get into that, mostly
because I haven't looked intothat yet.
Sure Um, because I mean, uh,you know again, I, I can't.
We never know necessarily whatsomeone's intent is.
And then I am the type ofperson where, for me, intent
(02:40):
doesn't mean a whole lot.
I, intent doesn't mean a wholelot.
Intent doesn't mean a whole lot, particularly when you have to
take a look at the outcome.
Speaker 1 (02:52):
Okay, I see what you're saying.
Speaker 2 (02:55):
I'm just like you know, because people can have
good intentions for all kinds ofthings and have, and that has
gone disastrously.
So I'm kind of like, well, whatgood was the intent?
If the result was disaster, whocares what your intentions were
?
Speaker 1 (03:14):
I think, without the intent.
Like if I don't have the intentto do good, then what drive do
I have to do good?
Why, why go and do good then ifI have no intention of doing
good?
Speaker 2 (03:27):
you're, um, you're more focused on the why and I am
the uh, the how and the result.
The how and the what is is myfocus, and you're a you're the
why and the how and I'm the howand the what yeah, which is what
?
Happened.
(03:47):
What was the result?
Speaker 1 (03:49):
yeah, pretty much pretty much pretty much, getting
a little bit of both sides onthis, for sure.
All right, um so.
Speaker 2 (03:57):
So that was your question, though, was did I look
into that thing?
Speaker 1 (04:00):
yeah no I will do.
Speaker 2 (04:03):
I will definitely do that by the time we do this next
time, and we'll have to figurethat out, um, once we're done
with this session.
So I did have a topic that Ithought about, um, that I want
to talk about before we talkabout, uh, project 2025, because
that is a thing that ishappening for sure, and I kind
(04:26):
of thought of something to sortof like lead into that a little
bit in a way.
Speaker 1 (04:33):
Okay.
Speaker 2 (04:34):
So I wanted to talk about what is colorism.
Speaker 1 (04:42):
No idea.
Speaker 2 (04:44):
No idea.
Okay, so you actually do have.
You actually do have somewhatof an idea, because in a way, we
all do.
Um, so colorism is the, uh, theconcept, and sometimes it's
blatant, sometimes it's latent,but it's the concept that the
(05:08):
lighter your skin color is,particularly if you're BIPOC,
that makes you better, that isperceived to be better, and the
darker your skin is puts youmore into the I guess, the bad
(05:30):
category.
I don't like saying it that way.
Speaker 1 (05:32):
Sure right, because yeah, yeah exactly.
I see what you're saying, butyou shouldn't.
I don't think.
I think there's a better way tophrase that.
Speaker 2 (05:39):
You're right, there's a better way to phrase it, but
I sure can't think of it.
Right Um so let's see peoplewho are, uh, particularly, we're
talking specifically about whenyou're a bipoc.
Uh, when you're bipoc, um, theconcept of colorism is that the
lighter your skin is, uh, thebetter, the better you are okay
(06:05):
um yes, I have.
Speaker 1 (06:08):
I have dated somebody who has had experience with
that, but it was reverse for her.
Um, right well, I guesstechnically she experienced both
ways, where she would try tohang out with black kids and
black kids would tell her no,you're too, you're too white.
And she would try to hang outwith white kids and they would
tell her no, you're too black.
Speaker 2 (06:26):
Sure, yeah, absolutely.
Speaker 1 (06:27):
Colorism.
It sounds like the way you'redescribing.
It is only one way, and that'sthe lighter your skin is, people
are going to have a betterperception of you, and the
darker your skin is, people aregoing to have less of that
better perception.
Speaker 2 (06:43):
Yeah, and there are many examples of that.
A really good one that isdefinitely polarizing, but it's
still an example, is OJ'sprofile in the news.
They actually darkened thelighting of his picture to make
(07:08):
him look darker, complectedbecause that kind of conveyed
more malice when they were doingthe profile.
Speaker 1 (07:19):
Okay, I've heard, not for OJ, but other stars.
If you will, I don't want tocall anyone out, but other stars
have done similar things.
Well, maybe not they themselves, but the people who take their
(07:42):
photos.
Speaker 2 (07:42):
Oh sure, yeah, yeah, yeah, yeah.
Speaker 1 (07:43):
They'll either try to make their, depending on what
they're going for, will try tomake their skin look lighter or
darker, depending on who their Iguess target audience is.
That's what it seems like, atleast.
I don't want to necessarily saythat's exactly what they're
doing, but that's what it seemslike.
Speaker 2 (08:01):
Like I said, sometimes it's blatant.
In the case of what I wastalking about with, like og's
profile, sometimes that wasblatant, that was definitely
blatant, that was intent, um,and then sometimes it's latent,
like we don't really realizethat we are doing that right
(08:21):
that's okay.
Speaker 1 (08:23):
So how does that lead into our next subject?
Speaker 2 (08:30):
um, it's more like, uh, how we perceive, how we
perceive things, um, based on, Iguess, how they're presented.
Um, um, let's see, particularlyum speaking for myself, uh, as
a lighter complected person, um,a lot of people assume that I'm
(08:55):
biracial right which uh doesn'tnecessarily offend me, um,
because it's not necessarily anunfair assumption, because I
look biracial.
Um so I think for me, um, whereI perceive it like as uh, in a
(09:17):
way a kind of colorism, is,there have been white people
that have said racist things notto me but, let's see, not
directed towards me but theyhave said racist things about
people who are darker than me,thinking that I'm half white,
(09:38):
which means that the white halfof me will agree with that.
Speaker 1 (09:42):
Right, I see what you're saying, that is.
That's an interestingpredicament to be in.
Speaker 2 (09:47):
Uh, yeah, um, because what's funny is that?
So my daughter is is biracial,right, um, and she has run into
the exact same thing, um, andshe does look.
She looks white, she looks likea white person, like you kind
of have to squint to see theafrican-american features that
(10:08):
she has, um, but yeah, she hassaid the same thing.
Like you know, white peoplehave said, uh, racist things to
her about black people, eithernot realizing that she's
biracial or knowing that andthinking that that means that
the part of her that's white isgoing to agree with it.
Speaker 1 (10:28):
Right.
Speaker 2 (10:29):
And I'm just like WTF , mofo.
How how does that work?
Speaker 1 (10:37):
I.
That's a.
That's a good question.
I'm I can't necessarily wrap myhead around why somebody.
Speaker 2 (10:46):
So that is definitely a situation where I don't care
about the why, but I'm verycurious about the why.
And you're a white guy and whenI presented that predicament
you totally got it.
So do you have any insight?
Speaker 1 (11:10):
I'm very curious.
I I don't.
All my insight is going to comefrom other people, essentially
and stories I've heard fromother people, oh sure, or or not
necessarily stories from otherpeople, I mean my own
experiences too, but that's notgoing to weigh in as much as,
like, like things you've told me, you know, because I'm not.
You've seen my skin?
(11:32):
I'm not black, I'm not nowherenear.
So nope, I'm not going toexperience some of those same
things, but I will experience.
How do you say this?
I will experience things so, so, like going off of that.
You know, a white guy talks toyou or your daughter, hoping the
white side of you will, willagree.
(11:52):
Right, they'll, they'll rip onon black people, hoping the
white side of you will agree.
I can speak in a similarexperience, where other white
people will talk to me in asimilar manner and expect that,
because I'm white, I mustautomatically agree.
Right, exactly, but I don't havethe experience where it's.
(12:13):
I haven't had to go through thesame things black people have
had to go through, so it's it iskind of interesting to me.
Speaker 2 (12:21):
It's something that I noticed around the time of 2017
.
I kind of noticed and I don'tnecessarily think it was
necessarily that they thoughtthat because I'm half white
which again I'm not that youknow that half of me was going
to agree with the stuff thatthey said.
(12:42):
I have noticed that there iskind of like a sort of a blanket
conception among many, manywhite people that the way they
think is the way that everyoneelse thinks it's part of white
privilege.
Actually, it's one of thosewhite privilege type deals.
Speaker 1 (13:06):
Yeah, I see what you're saying.
It's a common trope, if youwill, to see that amongst white
people.
I don't necessarily want tolump everyone together and say,
oh, everybody is like that, uhwell, no because I feel like
(13:26):
that that's why I said kind ofis blanketed right a blanket you
know, what I'm trying to stresshere is that, um, just because
you meet somebody, they're notnecessarily going to be, uh,
racist towards you just becausethey're white um, so you're kind
of doing the hashtag, not allwhite people thing.
Speaker 2 (13:47):
You get that right.
Speaker 1 (13:49):
A bit sure sure.
Speaker 2 (13:51):
You do realize you don't have to do that.
Speaker 1 (13:55):
I never know, I never know, okay.
Speaker 2 (13:58):
So, when black people commit crimes and that's
portrayed in the media, I don'tautomatically jump to my own
defense and say not all blackpeople.
So when we are talking aboutsome kind of common concepts
(14:20):
that fall into the category ofbeing a white person in America,
particularly in this day andage, uh, so you're kind of doing
the same thing, um, so thething about the whole not all
white people thing firstly, it'snot necessary, um, and then
secondly, uh, you are jumping toyour own defense over, I guess,
(14:47):
the topic that we're talkingabout.
Does that make sense?
Speaker 1 (14:51):
A bit, yeah, absolutely.
Speaker 2 (14:55):
That's one of the things that makes that a bad
thing, actually.
Speaker 1 (14:59):
Well, thank you for bringing that to my attention.
That's not something I'm goingto be actively thinking about.
Speaker 2 (15:06):
And that's why I'm telling you about it, because a
lot of I've heard that from many, many white people and I keep
trying to explain like, firstly,that's not necessary.
And secondly, when youimmediately jump, when you meet,
when you immediately do that,you are jumping to your own
defense and prioritizing thatover the topic of discussion or
(15:28):
what's the topic at hand, likethe main topic.
You see what I'm saying.
Speaker 1 (15:32):
Yeah, I got you.
Speaker 2 (15:36):
Because I do not feel the need to jump to my own
defense when Candace Owens sayssomething that like triggers me.
Speaker 1 (15:45):
Phrasing it that way absolutely makes sense.
Again, thank you for bringingthat to my attention.
Speaker 2 (15:51):
Absolutely, and that's why we do this.
That is why we do this Becauseyou know, like I'm very glad to
know for a fact, that there arewhite allies for the cause of
minorities.
You know that's awesome, butyou don't have to prop up your
(16:13):
own defense, it's not necessary.
Speaker 1 (16:17):
Okay, let's get back to our topic at hand, then, and
that would be before before wedelved into that.
Where, where did we leave off?
Speaker 2 (16:33):
oh geez, that was forever in a day ago.
Um, because we were supposed tobe talking about virtuous
victim narrative and then wefound out about project 2025 and
I was like okay, we need totable virtuous victim narrative
and build up to project 2025okay, so do we just jump into
(16:56):
that?
Speaker 1 (16:57):
do we just want to jump into project?
Speaker 2 (16:58):
2020 have you looked into project 2025?
Speaker 1 (17:02):
I've heard of it and that's it.
I have not seen anything on it.
I haven't bothered looking intoit because it feels like one of
those.
If you, how do you say this?
If you give it, if you startlooking into it and you start
doing the research, you'regiving it credence, like you're
(17:22):
giving it substance, you'regiving it life, you're breathing
life into it and saying okay, Itotally get what you're saying.
Speaker 2 (17:30):
So the unfortunate thing is that Project 25 is an
actual thing.
Speaker 1 (17:36):
That's what I've heard, but according to who you
know?
Yeah, okay, I see your pointyou know, yeah, okay, I see your
point.
If it's cnn or nbc or or fox orwhatever, you know me, I'm a
conspiracy theorist of sorts.
Uh, who runs those?
Speaker 2 (17:54):
the thing is that project 2025 is an actual
conspiracy oh, it's a conspiracy, okay, well it's, in itself,
the project 25, and that's why Iwant you to look into it.
So I guess what we can do is wecan talk about um and maybe the
audience can do this as welllike, follow along with us.
(18:15):
We can talk about the thingsthat you and then look into what
Project 2025 itself actually is, and I will go ahead and warn
you that it is 900 pages long ifyou want to read the actual
(18:35):
document.
Speaker 1 (18:36):
I don't think so.
It's by the Heritage Foundation.
Speaker 2 (18:40):
Correct.
So a really important thing tolook into is what the Heritage
Foundation is, because theHeritage Foundation will tell
you a whole lot of things thatit isn't, which is for me and it
should be for you as well agigantic, freaking red flag.
Speaker 1 (19:01):
A research and educational institution.
Which would be great if I endedthe sentence there.
Right mission is to build andpromote conservative public
policies based on washington dc.
I gotta'm in their page and thefirst thing become a member,
(19:28):
donate no, thank you and thenyou have to, you have to look at
all the things that it says itisn't.
Speaker 2 (19:39):
And then look at some of the members of project 2020
of the Heritage Foundation, and,as I'm saying this, I am going
to go ahead and say out loud,because this is true the
Heritage Foundation wasresponsible for how Trump and
(20:03):
there's no other way to say thiswithout talking about politics
um, and politics is a big partof project 2025 um, the heritage
foundation is responsible fortrump being able to get so many
seats on um, the supreme court,and then, like, the first thing
(20:24):
that they did was overturn Roe vWade.
Speaker 1 (20:28):
The Heritage Foundation was able to
accomplish that you're saying.
Speaker 2 (20:31):
Yes, the Heritage Foundation basically gave Trump
a you know, a play by play ofeverything that he needed to do
to secure I think it was threeSupreme Court seats.
Conservative On theconservative side.
Speaker 1 (20:52):
Right.
Speaker 2 (20:53):
And because they were able to help him to do that.
That's how they were able tooverturn Roe v Wade as fast as
they were.
Speaker 1 (21:07):
Interesting.
Speaker 2 (21:10):
So right there, that kind of gives you an idea of the
kind of influence that thisorganization has.
Speaker 1 (21:21):
Okay, I'm in their website.
I'll read a bit of what they'resaying if you don't mind.
Sure, now more than ever, theAmerican people need a champion
to preserve the great Americanexperiment and everything good
and just that.
It represents Good and justthat it represents.
Oh boy.
(21:42):
I don't want to necessarilycherry pick, but I'm also trying
to skim through some of this tofind some stuff.
Heritage is also more than athink tank.
Every day, heritage works onour nation.
We're not able to build anAmerica where freedom,
opportunity, prosperity andcivil society flourish which I
(22:03):
mean.
That sounds good.
Freedom, opportunity,prosperity and civil society
flourish which I mean.
That sounds good.
Freedom, opportunity,prosperity that sounds good.
But unlike so many otherorganizations in Washington DC,
the Heritage Foundation's focusisn't on putting more power into
the hands of government.
It's on returning power to thepeople.
Speaker 2 (22:27):
So they say that and then you have to read project
2025 um, because, yes, I havealso been on their website and I
have also um seen, like theirrecruiting videos and um
articles that they've writtenabout all the things that they
quote, unquote, aren't and don'trepresent, and you know,
(22:51):
liberal conspiracies which haveyou believe that we do this
thing.
And then I'm like but you did,you did do that thing, so what
gives?
Speaker 1 (23:05):
it goes on to say our team then takes the.
Okay, I'll skip past that.
Heritage has been consistentlyranked the number one think tank
in the world for it.
Okay, but by who?
It doesn't tell you who'sranking it like I I'm number one
in the world.
I've constantly been ranked asthe number one person in the
world by me and my cats.
You know so.
And I'm the number one boss,ass, black bitch right, me and
my cats, you know so, and I'mthe number one boss-ass black
(23:26):
bitch.
Right, exactly, you've got thatgoing for you.
I've got this going for me.
Speaker 2 (23:30):
We're doing great.
Speaker 1 (23:31):
We're constantly number one, but we don't stop
there.
We also communicate to citizenshow government can work more
effectively for all Americansthrough traditional oh my God
for all Americans.
Through traditional oh my God,I can't even talk through
traditional media and socialmedia platforms.
Engage with the internationalcommunity to promote freedom,
(23:52):
peace and trade that benefitsAmerica and the world.
Train the leaders of tomorrowwho will lead America.
See, that's where I'm kind ofhaving a problem with it.
If you're trying to put powerinto the hands of people, then
why are you training the leadersof tomorrow who will lead
America to a better or brighterfuture?
And help unite theconservatives around principles
(24:12):
and ideas that strengthen ourcause, our cause, ok, well, see,
and the nation?
Dot, dot, dot.
And the nation is what it saystechnically.
Speaker 2 (24:19):
Right.
Speaker 1 (24:20):
So yeah, I'm like how far do you lose me Right you?
Speaker 2 (24:23):
lose me right.
Speaker 1 (24:25):
No, no.
Some of their ideas were yeah,like I, I can understand um
better and brighter future,promoting freedom, peace and
trade um prosperity, that thatsort of stuff.
But through our own ideas iswhat it's essentially saying
through the conservative.
We're going to do this, but'sessentially saying Through the
(24:47):
conservative.
Speaker 2 (24:48):
We're going to do this, but we want to do it.
The conservative it's onlythrough the conservative lens
and right there I'm like, okay,and that would be where you lose
me.
Speaker 1 (24:58):
Right.
Speaker 2 (25:07):
Because, well, I've seen what conservatives do, have
done and what they promote andbelieve, and it's pretty much
like a Christian-drivenautocracy.
Speaker 1 (25:18):
Yeah.
Speaker 2 (25:26):
In a country where church and state are supposed to
be separate.
So there's that In a countrywhere not everyone is Christian.
So you know that's important tothink about.
Speaker 1 (25:49):
What is the?
Isn't there a stat on that?
Speaker 2 (25:50):
um, and I think that the christian population is, or
christians, people who identifyas christian, is going down um.
It is actually the islam nation.
Is um becoming the fastestgrowing religion in the country
is it really um?
Yes, actually in the world.
So it's like approximately 70%of the country is Christian.
Speaker 1 (26:13):
Sure.
Speaker 2 (26:14):
Approximately 6% is non-Christian and approximately
23% is religiously unaffiliated.
Speaker 1 (26:23):
Yes, that sounds about right.
So I think therein sort of liesthe answer for why people are
so pro-conservative right now.
And I think give it four, well,four years, eight years, give
it 10 years.
You know, we're going to slowlysee that drop, like it has been
(26:44):
.
I project.
Speaker 2 (26:45):
It has been slowly dropping.
Speaker 1 (26:47):
That's going to keep going down and then at some
point we'll get that shift, oncewe're about 50-50, but until as
long as you've got 60% ofpeople believing in one religion
, primarily one religion,they're going to vote for those
people.
One religion primarily onereligion, they're going to vote
for those people.
Speaker 2 (27:07):
So my thing is that, again, we shouldn't be voting
for people based on theirreligious beliefs with the idea
that they're going to institutereligious constructs that govern
everyone in the country.
Speaker 1 (27:23):
Right, but how do you stop that?
How do you stop people fromvoting religiously, with
religion in mind?
Speaker 2 (27:31):
I don't think that there has been a whole lot of
emphasis placed on the fact thatchurch and state are supposed
to be separate.
Also, I can go ahead and tellyou that Trump is not a
Christian.
What is he?
The Antichrist.
Speaker 1 (27:50):
What religion?
Speaker 2 (27:53):
Oh boy, I mean, I can tell you what he says, he is.
Speaker 1 (27:58):
Oh my God, he sells like a $60 Bible.
Okay, whoa, whoa, whoa.
The last five presidents havebeen Christian.
Speaker 2 (28:10):
Uh yeah.
Speaker 1 (28:12):
Yep, oh, biden, christian, well, the last, I'm
sorry, they've all beenChristian.
Yeah, every single president.
Well, except for ThomasJefferson, who was non-specified
deism, every president, uh, hasbeen Christian.
Speaker 2 (28:32):
Yes, and I'm going to go ahead and say this out loud
that does include Barack Obama,who is not a Muslim.
Speaker 1 (28:43):
Are we questioning that?
Is our audience questioningthat Some?
Speaker 2 (28:47):
people might still be , because again this man had to
release his birth certificate.
Speaker 1 (28:52):
Still wrapped up in the 2008 debates.
I know right.
Speaker 2 (29:00):
So I'm kind of like that's the only thing worth
saying out loud.
Speaker 1 (29:05):
Joe Biden was Catholic.
And then we, the one, two,three, four, five, six, seven,
eight, nine, all the way back toRichard Nixon.
So Richard Nixon to DonaldTrump.
They were all Protestant.
Speaker 2 (29:17):
Yeah, I can see that.
Speaker 1 (29:19):
That's insane, I mean .
But if you're, how do you saythis?
If you know, like we justestablished 60% and the further
back you go it's a higherpercentage.
So many people are Christian.
Speaker 2 (29:37):
Of course you're going to play to that, of course
I suppose, Um, I, I think, like, uh, I mean, presidents have
governed this country without umusing religion as a platform.
Speaker 1 (30:01):
As a platform.
I can't speak to that.
Speaker 2 (30:03):
I've only as a political platform is what I'm
talking about.
Speaker 1 (30:08):
I feel like every president does, though they
speak to it in some way.
Speaker 2 (30:12):
That's not what I mean.
So when I say that I don't meanlike a platform as in you know,
like what their policies areand you know what their promises
are going to be, that kind ofthing.
I mean more like withoutinstituting religion to govern
(30:36):
us, that kind of platform, aplatform for this country, for
how we operate as both a countryand a society.
Speaker 1 (30:48):
So because we're talking about separation of
church and state, because we'retalking about separation of
church and state, my questionstill kind of stands is like how
do you do that?
How do you separate the churchand the state?
Speaker 2 (31:05):
It was supposed to always be that way.
Speaker 1 (31:09):
You want, and you said something earlier that
there's not enough emphasis onseparation of church and state.
Do you think that would help,emphasizing separation of church
and state, because I don't wantto call them I don't want to
say that because that soundskind of mean People who are
really religious.
Do you really think they'regoing to separate them
(31:31):
themselves, like if somebodywere to tell me you can't,
you're listen, odeko, beat myname for me, please.
Yeah, I will Listen, odeko.
You're agnostic.
Okay, you can't vote with youragnosticism.
Agnostic, you can't vote withthat Agnosticism.
(31:52):
Agnostic, you can't vote withthat agnosticism.
I don't know, you can't are wemaking words?
I mean we can, I wouldn't beable to, I, I wouldn't be able
to do that.
And to me that's the same asgoing up to to somebody who is
religious and saying, listen, Iknow you were raised protestant,
(32:12):
I know you were raised Baptistor through the Latin church,
whatever, but you can't votewith that in mind, because those
things made those people whatthey are, they were raised with
that.
And to tell them you can't,when you're voting, you can't do
any of that, and not justvoting.
(32:33):
But when you're running foroffice, you can't do any of that
, and not just voting.
But when you're running foroffice, you can't do that.
Speaker 2 (32:38):
Um, okay.
Speaker 1 (32:40):
That's a core part of it.
Speaker 2 (32:43):
There is a thing called compartmentalism, which
is how I pretty much live mylife.
Speaker 1 (32:51):
Aren't you supposed to not compartmentalize?
I'm sorry, who are you talkingto?
I don't know.
Like I'm just saying, I thoughtI never.
Speaker 2 (33:00):
Are you going to tell me what I can and can't do now?
Speaker 1 (33:02):
I went to therapy once 20 years ago, you know.
So I mean I don't know.
Speaker 2 (33:08):
Okay at some point we're going to have to talk
about race and therapy, becausethat is a whole thing.
Okay, so when I saycompartmentalization, I'm saying
more like I have certainreligious beliefs, which means,
yeah, I'm going to go ahead andsay it because I'm not ashamed,
(33:31):
I'm an atheist.
How often have I ever talkedabout being an atheist?
Speaker 1 (33:38):
Um, I don't know, uh, offhand, cause I I'm not
keeping track of all of that.
I'm not just like oh man,rocket 88 today, dear diary,
rocket 88 again talked about her.
Speaker 2 (33:55):
So there's a.
Let's see, let me do it thisway, all righty.
So let's see a vegan, anatheist and a CrossFit
enthusiast walk into a bar.
Speaker 1 (34:08):
Oh, I feel like I already know where this is going
yeah.
Speaker 2 (34:10):
So that sounds like a joke, right, but it's not.
I know that because they allstarted talking about it as soon
as they walked in.
Speaker 1 (34:17):
Right.
Speaker 2 (34:20):
And it is a.
It is pretty much kind of acommon trope that vegans,
atheists and CrossFitenthusiasts kind of can't shut
up about it.
I've never been a vegan, but Iam an atheist and I have done
CrossFit.
Speaker 1 (34:38):
So I was going to say , to be fair, going off of what
I was saying earlier, like Ihaven't been documenting how
often you talk about you beingatheist, but I can't.
I can't recall a time where weexpressly talked about it either
, so obviously it doesn't comeup that much, but maybe why
doesn't it come up there?
(34:58):
That's what I'm kind of gettingto.
Maybe that's something youdon't discuss with me very often
.
I don't know how often you talkabout it with other people.
You know we kind of actdifferently around different
people.
Speaker 2 (35:13):
And in different settings.
Speaker 1 (35:14):
Absolutely.
We try to elate people.
Speaker 2 (35:17):
And I do that more than most.
Speaker 1 (35:20):
So maybe maybe you do , but to me you definitely don't
.
You don't talk about youratheism, so are you saying that
you're capable of disregardingthat when it comes time for
politics?
Speaker 2 (35:43):
Let's see.
The best way that I can thinkto put it is there are things
about myself that don'tnecessarily that don't.
They definitely don't define me, but they also don't govern my
judgment and my actions.
(36:03):
Right For me when makingcertain decisions.
Me when making certaindecisions.
The fact that I don't believein the God that Christians
(36:24):
believe in, has literallynothing to do with a statement I
make or an action that Iperform.
I'm going based off of thethings that I think are right,
Usually for me, sometimes forother people, because I mean, I
do work in healthcare, Right,and I think, because I work in
(36:49):
healthcare, I am able to notonly compartmentalize because
how else would I, you know, nothave blown my brains out by now
but also I'm able to look at asituation and be like, well, is
this the best situation for thepatient?
Speaker 1 (37:12):
Right.
Speaker 2 (37:12):
That's part of my job .
Speaker 1 (37:14):
So that's compartmentalizing.
Speaker 2 (37:17):
That's compartmentalizing.
I don't bring it home with meunless I have to, just so I can
get it out.
Speaker 1 (37:24):
Right, that's what that would be called, yeah.
Speaker 2 (37:27):
Yeah, but other than that, you know, I'm not
constantly.
Sometimes it's sitting in theback of my mind.
It depends on how bad it is.
But in general, when I comehome I am no longer in work mode
, I am in rocket needs a drinkmode.
Yeah, I can.
(37:51):
Hallelujah.
Yeah so that's what I mean, andI think that particularly what
we're seeing now is there arepeople who, well, can't
compartmentalize, can't makethose distinctions, can't
(38:14):
compartmentalize, can't makethose distinctions, but they're
making decisions that are bestfor them, that affect literally
everyone else.
Speaker 1 (38:22):
Okay, so that's.
That's what I want to talkabout, too, is let's, let's
bring this back to to HeritageFoundation real quick.
Okay, sure, they're a thinktank, they're a conservative
think tank, and they're not theonly one.
There's not just one think tank.
There are, I don't know, dozensof these, maybe more than that.
Speaker 2 (38:43):
Yeah, like a couple hundred.
Speaker 1 (38:44):
For each political association.
So so it's not just one onthink tank.
And that's where.
Where I struggle with this isis we're we're constantly saying
, we're constantly placing blameon the current president, Like
I can blame Biden all day foranything, you know, anybody
(39:06):
could, but it's him making thosedecisions.
Um same same with go go back toTrump, go back to Obama, go
back to Bush.
Is it always them making thatdecision or do they have that
think tank behind them?
Do they have a group of peoplethat they go, they talk to, they
sit down, they have some ofthese discussions and that group
(39:28):
of people, that think tank,decides okay, what is best,
what's our best move from hereon out?
What do we do next?
Speaker 2 (39:35):
Yeah, okay, I see, I see.
Speaker 1 (39:38):
And that's where we start to get into the conspiracy
of is the president a puppet?
And I don't want to.
I don't really want to delveinto that.
I would very much like to thinkthat the president isn't a
puppet, but separate.
I would say, like you know,certain situations and this is
just a puppet, but separate Iwould say certain situations,
and this is just a fact.
Speaker 2 (39:56):
Certain situations are out of the president's hands
, which is why we have the whatis it called?
But that's why we have thepresident, the Supreme Court, uh
, the house and the senate yeah,the three branches the checks
(40:18):
and balances system.
Speaker 1 (40:19):
Thank you guys.
They're supposed to to lookafter one another, but right,
unfortunately, when one has morepower than the other.
And and also, how do youdistinguish, how do you
determine amount?
Speaker 2 (40:31):
To talk about this a little bit.
When Obama was in office, hedid not have the support of the
House and the Senate.
When Trump got into office, hefired everybody who.
He fired everyone he could andput into place his own weird
(40:52):
version of nepotism and put intoplace like his own weird
version of nepotism.
Speaker 1 (40:54):
Well, that's my understanding is that you're
allowed to.
You don't have to keep theprevious person's people in.
So why would you, if I don'tlike somebody say you were
president and you go in, or viceversa, one of us was president
(41:17):
and the opposite will be goingin after?
Okay, are you going to keepeverybody that I I have on?
No, uh, that's, the odds arenot same in reverse.
I come in after you, I'm notgoing to keep on everybody you
have, um, but.
But I will see to uh, thenepotism point for that that.
You said that he installed somepeople for nepotistic reasons.
Speaker 2 (41:43):
Yeah, but.
And then they hired peopleRight.
You know also so.
Speaker 1 (41:51):
Something I've learned in my job through
nepotism, as much as I don'tlike it, is if I like somebody,
I trust them Right.
So am I going to go for theoutside, hire who I don't know,
who I don't trust, and hope thatin six months time I trust them
?
Or am I going to go with theguy I've known for a while, who
(42:17):
I can trust and that's stillnepotism.
That's happened in a few of myjobs and some of the lower
employees don't agree with it.
But at the end of the day, it'snot up to the lower employees.
At the end of the day, it's notup to the civilians, the people
voting who Trump's going tohire, who Biden's going to hire
(42:39):
for their teams.
It's up to them.
Speaker 2 (42:44):
Yeah, but is that person always the best person
for the job?
Speaker 1 (42:52):
No, and even if even the outside hire it's, it's both
.
This is that two way streetwhere I guess the only way the
civilian, the average citizen,can vote or can sway that is by
voting for who they want.
Ok, like do do I know Trump isgoing to hire, nepotistic, make
nepotism hires or nepotistichires Is.
(43:14):
Will I like the people he hires?
Speaker 2 (43:17):
So this is why we are both going to have to look into
Project 2025, because it ispretty much a playbook for the
next conservative president butthat's if they follow it,
(43:39):
because, again, that's one thinktank.
Speaker 1 (43:41):
Just just because how do I say this?
Just because they're the numberone think tank and I say that.
Speaker 2 (43:50):
I say that with air quotes, um, because yes, we're
gonna stress the air, air quotes, because according to whom um?
That doesn't mean the nextconservative president is going
to to follow them, right youknow um, let's see I can't
(44:11):
really talk much more aboutproject 2025 without doing the
due diligence of proper researchright, let's not talk about
things we don't anything aboutthat will be something that we
can talk about next time, um,particularly since uh election
week is coming up.
Speaker 1 (44:33):
Oh yeah, that's fun.
That's real fun.
Speaker 2 (44:36):
And it will probably be a minute for the
president-elect to get announced.
You think so that might take asecond.
Speaker 1 (44:48):
Why do you think that ?
Speaker 2 (44:51):
Oh, because of a lot of-unquote safeguards that have
been put in place to preventelection fraud.
Speaker 1 (45:00):
Is that really a week away?
Eight days, wow, I didn't thinkit was so close.
I thought it was another twoweeks or something.
No Time flies when you'rehaving.
Well, it's not fun watching theelection stuff, but it is what
it is yeah, no I'm tired of.
Speaker 2 (45:21):
I'm so tired of, uh, in a way kind of stressing about
it I?
Speaker 1 (45:28):
I wouldn't remember.
This is what People stressedabout.
People have been stressingabout the last couple of
elections now Um yeah, like atleast the last three.
Nothing really, I would argue.
Changes yes, some laws dochange, but the most part, day
(45:49):
to day life doesn't seem tochange too much.
Speaker 2 (45:55):
It depends on your perspective, which is again a
really good reason to look intoProject 2025.
Speaker 1 (46:04):
Okay, well, we'll do that.
We'll do that and talk about itnext week.
Speaker 2 (46:10):
Next week.
Okay, so let's see, I figure,since we still have time, we can
talk about a topic on thepyramid of white supremacy.
Speaker 1 (46:20):
I guess let's get into fearing people of color.
Speaker 2 (46:24):
Sure.
Speaker 1 (46:26):
What?
Where do you think that stemsfrom?
Speaker 2 (46:34):
uh, uh, it's systemic , um, and it's generational, um.
Okay.
So in our very first recording,um and I haven't put the second
part of that up yet, but wewere talking about movies, and
(46:58):
remember what I was talkingabout?
The Birth of a Nation, vaguelyOkay.
So the Birth of a Nation is oneof the first full-length
feature films.
It was a silent film.
Oh, right, right, I remember itwas featured at the White House
, and Woodrow Wilson touted itpretty hard, which I guess tells
(47:24):
you what he thought aboutslavery.
Speaker 1 (47:28):
But the movie is about a black slave and these
were blackface characterscharacters, by the way, right, I
remember you telling me thatand that the video was hard to
find nowadays yeah, but you can.
You can see it on um youtubeokay you can see I haven't
(47:49):
bothered trying to find it.
Speaker 2 (47:50):
Maybe one day I'll I'll have the yeah one day with
all that'll be, something tolike take a look at and then you
know, digest slowly, but it'sabout a black slave who uh rapes
a white woman and gets lynchedum, that's the kind of the very,
(48:15):
very short version.
There are a couple of differentthings that are going on in
that film, but I that's kind ofthe central narrative.
So that film is uh teaching uhwhite.
Specifically, it's teaching umwhite men to protect their white
(48:37):
daughters from black men,because black men like
inherently uh lust after whitewomen okay, that movie is.
Speaker 1 (48:49):
How old now?
Speaker 2 (48:58):
movie is how old now?
Uh, it's really old um 100years.
That sounds like over 100 yearsit might be about 100 years.
Speaker 1 (49:01):
Yeah, okay is it?
1915 over 100 years, 110 yearsalmost over 100 years is it safe
to say that that's Well, Idon't want to say it like that.
We all know that.
How do you say that no idea isa new idea?
(49:28):
We're kind of working off ofprevious ideas.
To when another movie is made,say a movie is made in 1925,
that carries some of previousideas.
To when another movie is made,say a movie is made in 1925 that
carries some of the ideas.
So say the the artist of the1925 movie saw that 1950 film,
1915 film.
They're going to carry some ofthose ideas into their 1925 and
(49:49):
then it propagates down.
But I think the returns arediminishing after so long.
Speaker 2 (49:58):
Some things just leave a really deep impression
and I would say fearing peopleof color, particularly if you
are darker skinned, is a verydeeply ingrained impression.
Um, I've seen, like I've livedin baltimore, and seen, um, you
(50:23):
know, like a, a white womanpassed by a group of like, uh,
black teenagers and she likeskirts around them and is
clutching her purse, that kindof thing.
Right, let's see, a black womanmight get loud and people are
thinking that she is beingultra-aggressive and are
(50:48):
intimidated by that or afraid ofthat.
A lot of people who are victimsof stand-your-ground laws have
been black people, and thisincludes Trayvon Martin.
Speaker 1 (51:04):
Okay, these people haven't seen that 100-year-old
movie.
That's not my point, I know, Iknow, but what I'm trying to,
get at is go ahead, you go, no,no my point was these people
(51:24):
haven't seen these.
Speaker 2 (51:25):
This movie keep going , so where?
How?
Speaker 1 (51:27):
has that propagated?
Is what I'm trying to.
What I want to discuss is howhas that propagated?
Is what I'm trying to.
What I want to discuss is howhas how has that propagated into
what we're seeing today?
You know, I'm not I'm nottrying to discount it or
anything.
I'm trying to discuss it.
That's that's what I'm tryingto do.
I don't want it to sound likeI'm my point isn't necessarily
(51:48):
about the movie itself.
My point is that there arecertain impressions that have
some deep, deep roots, that dogo back to slavery okay, and
that is why, like that's what'sled us to do this, um section on
(52:16):
on this pyramid is people ofcolor is well, I just told you
what the.
Speaker 2 (52:24):
I told you what the movie was about.
Right and um, the uh, the, um,the message that it was sending.
That is kind of a big thingabout the acts behind lynchings
(52:46):
and slave regrades, that kind ofthing.
Speaker 1 (52:54):
That's what I'm trying to get at is is, um, that
understanding?
Okay, so that, so, seeing thatmovie like that movie is made in
1915, that propagates to thethings that are now happening in
in the twenties, the thirtiesOkay, there we go Now, now, now
(53:16):
are now happening in in the 20s,the 30s okay, there we go now.
Now, now we're on.
I think we're on to something.
Now we're we're starting to getinto um where that comes from,
where that, um, hearing peopleof color, part of this, um,
white supremacy comes frompyramid, uh, pyramid of white
supremacy comes from, uh,because of white supremacy comes
from, because these ideas, Idon't think are just going to
pop up on their own, you know,and then propagate more and more
(53:40):
as time goes on.
If that makes sense, I thinkit's going to start somewhere,
and I'm not trying to say that,oh, it's because that movie was
made.
Speaker 2 (53:48):
Well, you can also look at the way that black
people are portrayed in themedia.
Nowadays, it seems like there'sbeen a shift um yes, nowadays
it does seem like there's been ashift let's say, within the
past 20 years again, like I said, um, there are certain uh
(54:08):
concepts and ideas that leave avery, very deep impression.
Right, and the media tends tocelebrate particularly
black-on-black crime.
But, yeah, the media tends tocelebrate black violent crimes
(54:48):
when you watch like tv showsblack people are gangsters
usually drug dealers and italianpeople, having having been um
married to an italian personyeah, and what's really funny?
uh, what her like great, greatgrandfather or uncle, something
(55:08):
like that was a famous gangsterin balt.
Speaker 1 (55:11):
Jesus, that's fun Like.
Speaker 2 (55:16):
I wish I was making that up.
But yeah, he was a famousgangster, I think in the 20s.
Speaker 1 (55:23):
Jesus.
Speaker 2 (55:24):
I want to say the Baltimore, the Maryland slash,
new Jersey area.
That Kind of upper east coastor yeah yeah, upper, east coast
(55:51):
oh, um, yeah.
I would say uh, yeah.
Well, that it's a, it'steaching people to um inherently
think of us that way right andthat bleeds into um society that
.
Speaker 1 (56:09):
that bleeds into what people think of the portrayal
in these, these adaptations,these films or shows.
That bleeds into what societyin general thinks Right and
that's where that fearing peopleof color comes from.
Speaker 2 (56:24):
Right, I would say that would be a case,
particularly like when you'retalking about movies and TV
shows, where I I feel like Ihave to say hashtag not all
black people.
Speaker 1 (56:38):
Okay, okay, that's interesting.
Offhand, I can't think of anymovie.
Well, to be fair, I'm notreally going to movies or shows
anymore.
Speaker 2 (56:53):
Yeah, you're not a big movie and TV show type
person, so this is kind of likea tone deaf conversation that
we're having.
Speaker 1 (57:02):
A bit, a bit, and I apologize for that, but I am
trying to understand as well, aslong as talk about this and and
open up that avenue ofconversation and for our
audience to to hear these things.
Up that avenue of conversationand for our audience to to hear
these things, um, becauseperhaps people are like me too,
where where they're tone deaf inthis as well and they don't,
they don't see where it's comingfrom necessarily right to
(57:23):
discuss it, I think, isabsolutely helpful.
Um, but that that's that's aninteresting thought, that the
way media portrays people, andnow that it's being said, now
that I'm actually verbalizing it, I'm kind of like, oh yeah,
that does make sense.
You might not actively bethinking about it, but there's
(57:46):
that subconsciously.
Speaker 2 (57:48):
It's subconscious, right, it's subconscious, and
that's kind of like.
The underlying message that'sbeing sent is that, you know, if
all you see in the media isblack violent crimes, well
you're going to think that allblack people are violent and
(58:08):
something to be afraid of.
Right something to be afraid of,right?
It's um, one of those thingslike um again, like I was
talking about, uh, stand yourground laws, and um, I mean
those scare me because they dotend to disproportionately
affect black people right I Idon't have statistics on that
(58:36):
and I don't I don't know if Iwant to use it.
They are hard to find, myfriend, are they Okay, but they
are there.
Speaker 1 (58:43):
I don't want to use the public library to try and
find.
Speaker 2 (58:46):
Every every couple of years, um, a reporter will do
their due diligence and, uh, dotheir research so that they can
get those statistics out there,because, conspiratorially,
police don't really publish that.
(59:08):
They have them.
They have those records.
Speaker 1 (59:12):
They do have those records, but they're not made
public.
Foya that.
Why wouldn't somebody foya thatFreedom of Information Act?
Let's get that information.
Speaker 2 (59:22):
One would think yeah, One would think.
Speaker 1 (59:25):
I'm obviously not a lawyer.
Speaker 2 (59:26):
You're not a lawyer either, right, I wouldn't be
able to tell you, but I do knowthat the way that the police
force operates is that they haveto keep the faith of the
community in order to beeffective.
So if they were to publishstatistics that didn't paint
(59:48):
them in the best light, theywould lose the faith and then
the support of the communitythat they're supposed to be
quote unquote serving andprotecting.
Speaker 1 (59:58):
Got it.
That makes sense.
I hadn't considered that.
Speaker 2 (01:00:04):
That's just me working through some logic.
Speaker 1 (01:00:06):
Once you verbalize something, people aren't going
to understand everything rightoff the bat.
You can say A equals B, butthat doesn't mean they're going
to understand that B equals ARight, if that makes sense.
That's a very oversimplifiedway of saying things, but sure.
Speaker 2 (01:00:21):
Yeah, like I said, I had to work back through some,
some logic to get there.
Speaker 1 (01:00:26):
Right, all right.
Do you want to move on toself-appointed white ally?
Speaker 2 (01:00:34):
Sure white guy.
Speaker 1 (01:00:35):
About 15 minutes.
Oh, I'm not self-appointed,though If I take this to mean it
at face value, I would not sayI'm self-appointed, but it does
make me.
I guess I have questions onthat, on that, and it's more.
I don't know the right way tosay this.
(01:00:59):
So if we need to edit this,we'll need to edit this or take
it out entirely, which I'm finewith.
I'm absolutely fine If we everneed to take something out or
you feel something needs to betaken out.
By all means, go for it.
I'm, I do it often okay um.
So when I see self-appointedwhite ally, you know, the first
(01:01:22):
thing I think of are um, and Icould be way off.
Base is uh, is white womenprotesting in the streets for
black violence?
I don't want to say blackviolence, it would be for Black.
Speaker 2 (01:01:44):
Lives Matter.
Speaker 1 (01:01:45):
Yeah, on that, there we go yeah.
Speaker 2 (01:01:48):
Okay, so in that sense I don't see that as
self-appointed.
So if you talk the talk butyou're not walking the walk,
that would put you in thatself-appointed category.
Oh, okay, okay, that makessense or if you say something
(01:02:09):
that sounds uh, for lack of abetter word pun maybe intended
off color, and then turn aroundand be like, but I'm an ally,
got it.
Speaker 1 (01:02:19):
Got it.
Speaker 2 (01:02:20):
You know like who are you really aligning?
Speaker 1 (01:02:25):
with Right.
What side are you really onhere?
Yeah, where do your ideas stand?
Where does your ideology lineup?
That makes more sense, okay,yeah.
Where do your ideas stand?
Where does your ideology lineup?
That makes more sense?
Speaker 2 (01:02:37):
Okay, yeah, I would say, you know, like if you see,
you know white people, whetherthey're male or female,
protesting Black Lives Matter.
They are making a statement andthey are also putting
themselves at risk.
Speaker 1 (01:02:53):
That's not OK, those protests have gotten violent.
Yes.
Speaker 2 (01:02:59):
Particularly when police and certain individuals
get involved, like that guy thatsaw the Black Lives Matter
protest in New York and then puthis foot on the gas into the
crowd and killed two people.
Speaker 1 (01:03:18):
Oh, I don't think I heard about that.
Speaker 2 (01:03:21):
Yeah, he was driving a Dodge Charger, I believe.
Oh boy, that's.
And I would say yeah, like whenpeople protest in their Antifa,
you know, they wear masksbecause, well, they get arrested
(01:03:43):
a lot and they also they can'tidentify themselves because they
can't put themselves and theirfamily at risk.
Speaker 1 (01:03:50):
Right, so that's why they protest wearing masks at
risk.
Speaker 2 (01:03:51):
That's why they protest wearing masks.
I've actually met someone whogot arrested in the town that I
lived in protesting under Antifain the town that I'm from in
Georgia.
That was kind of a thank youfor your service moment, because
(01:04:14):
he could have gotten worse thanthe rest did.
How long ago was that?
Oh geez.
Speaker 1 (01:04:21):
I had already been hit.
Speaker 2 (01:04:21):
So 2018.
It was in 2018.
It was like a month after I gothit.
Speaker 1 (01:04:27):
Not terribly long ago then Okay, no.
Speaker 2 (01:04:30):
And then I met him.
I met this guy about three,four months after msi proposed
okay, oh wow it was a funnyenough it was at a bridal expo
and um, he had a booth and um,yeah, I was talking about, uh,
(01:04:51):
how far out I had come because Idrove two hours.
Wow, Uh to go to this bridalexpo and he had a booth and he
was like well, where did youcome from?
And when I told him, he waslike, oh, I've been in Union.
And I was like, really, and hewas like, yep, got arrested
there.
And I was like uh, that's a wayto start a conversation, that
(01:05:13):
that certainly is a way so, yeah, so when he yeah, and then he
gave me the timeline and he,yeah, this was um, yeah, this
was, uh, I had already been hit,um, I was still housebound um
april of 2018.
And I met that guy in June, Ithink.
Speaker 1 (01:05:41):
So you were able to move shortly after thing hit.
Speaker 2 (01:05:50):
What do you mean by move?
Speaker 1 (01:05:52):
Like were you?
I guess I'm just assuming Wereyou walking two months after,
because you said you had to gotwo hours to this bridal, my
timeline might be a little bitoff because my memory is kind of
screwy.
Okay, okay.
Speaker 2 (01:06:10):
I know that it was so , jor.
It might have been um in thefall, uh, because wedding season
in georgia is like from maytill october, so it might have
been in the fall.
I'm pretty sure I was still oncrutches okay, I wasn't sure.
Speaker 1 (01:06:31):
I was like well, maybe you were using a
wheelchair.
To be fair, you know, I wasn'tsure.
Oh, I am.
Speaker 2 (01:06:38):
My timeline is wrong.
This was because M-Siteproposed the December of 2018.
So this would have been 2019that I met the guy, okay.
And yeah that was in the spring, but I think it was the late
spring because I found out aboutthe Bridal Expo, because I was
(01:06:59):
working about two hours awayfrom where I lived.
Speaker 1 (01:07:03):
Got it Okay, so yeah, okay Now.
Speaker 2 (01:07:05):
I'm starting to get the details right.
I didn't mean to go off on atangent with that, I was just oh
no, that's fine because youknow know, you helped me kind of
remember something and linesomething up that wasn't quite
working out well knowing what Iknow about you.
Speaker 1 (01:07:20):
I was just interested in in hearing more about that
too, um oh sure, no, that's fairuh, do we want to call this a
good stopping point?
Speaker 2 (01:07:33):
We can.
I know that you've got to breakdown soon.
Speaker 1 (01:07:36):
Yeah, the next one I want to talk about.
I want to talk about it now,but I'm not going to have enough
time If I launch into this now.
I don't think we're going to.
I'm going to go way past mytime.
My booking is done at three.
It's 2.52.
Speaker 2 (01:07:51):
Right.
Speaker 1 (01:07:52):
So, but just moving down the pyramid, I'm more um.
Seeing the next one, I'm like,oh, I really want to talk about
that.
I think we'll uh Rocket and Iwill have a fun time talking
about that one.
Speaker 2 (01:08:05):
What is it?
Speaker 1 (01:08:05):
Um, you've got the pyramid.
You can, you can look at it.
Oh, just say it.
Just say it.
Expecting people of color toteach white people.
Speaker 2 (01:08:20):
I think that'll be a oh, that's going to be a fun one
, especially since it's me andyou doing this.
Speaker 1 (01:08:23):
Exactly, that's exactly what I'm saying.
That's going to be a fun one,okay, all right, so I guess
we'll cut it here.
Speaker 2 (01:08:36):
I've been Odeko Yep and I'm Rocket88.
Thank you guys so much forlistening to our podcast.
Speaker 1 (01:08:45):
Talk to you guys next time.
Hi, I'm Odeko.
Speaker 2 (00:02):
And I'm Rocket88.
Speaker 1 (00:04):
And this is Conversations in Black and White
.
Speaker 2 (00:08):
Where we talk about race and racism in America.
Speaker 1 (00:14):
So to start, I had asked Rocket well, to start.
We're in a completely new setup, so if we sound different,
we're no longer recording in thesame room anymore.
Right, we've kind of upgraded,I would argue.
Speaker 2 (00:33):
You've upgraded, I've just gotten better.
Speaker 1 (00:36):
I'm using a public library right now.
Shout out to public libraries.
You can put your tax dollar towork.
Speaker 2 (00:44):
I I absolutely recommend it, um totally support
your public libraries people,because they're uh battling some
ish right now yeah, yeah, um.
Speaker 1 (00:56):
So this setup has taken a while to get um, which
is why we haven't been recordingthat.
And I don't have internet at myapartment anymore no Wi-Fi, no
Ethernet, nothing.
So I'm using a public libraryRocket and I have been trying to
get something to work here forquite a while now Over a month,
(01:19):
it seems like.
Speaker 2 (01:20):
Yeah, like almost two months actually, Because.
I think we started trying thisout in September.
Yeah, and then your Internetwas failing, yep, and then I had
an awesome idea that worked,but your phone did not hold up
my phone could not handle it atall.
(01:41):
No, you really need to upgradeyour phone.
Speaker 1 (01:46):
Yeah, I looked at that yesterday.
Actually, okay, it's tooexpensive.
But last week we had tried that, we had tried a different
method and I had asked Rocket tolook into somebody.
Speaker 2 (02:00):
Oh, God that.
I have not done that yet.
Speaker 1 (02:03):
For the life of me, oh God, that I have not done
that yet.
For the life of me, I believeit's just playing devil's
advocate.
But I think a part of him.
Speaker 2 (02:19):
Okay, so I don't want to get into that, mostly
because I haven't looked intothat yet.
Sure Um, because I mean, uh,you know again, I, I can't.
We never know necessarily whatsomeone's intent is.
And then I am the type ofperson where, for me, intent
(02:40):
doesn't mean a whole lot.
I, intent doesn't mean a wholelot.
Intent doesn't mean a whole lot, particularly when you have to
take a look at the outcome.
Speaker 1 (02:52):
Okay, I see what you're saying.
Speaker 2 (02:55):
I'm just like you know, because people can have
good intentions for all kinds ofthings and have, and that has
gone disastrously.
So I'm kind of like, well, whatgood was the intent?
If the result was disaster, whocares what your intentions were
?
Speaker 1 (03:14):
I think, without the intent.
Like if I don't have the intentto do good, then what drive do
I have to do good?
Why, why go and do good then ifI have no intention of doing
good?
Speaker 2 (03:27):
you're, um, you're more focused on the why and I am
the uh, the how and the result.
The how and the what is is myfocus, and you're a you're the
why and the how and I'm the howand the what yeah, which is what
?
Happened.
(03:47):
What was the result?
Speaker 1 (03:49):
yeah, pretty much pretty much pretty much, getting
a little bit of both sides onthis, for sure.
All right, um so.
Speaker 2 (03:57):
So that was your question, though, was did I look
into that thing?
Speaker 1 (04:00):
yeah no I will do.
Speaker 2 (04:03):
I will definitely do that by the time we do this next
time, and we'll have to figurethat out, um, once we're done
with this session.
So I did have a topic that Ithought about, um, that I want
to talk about before we talkabout, uh, project 2025, because
that is a thing that ishappening for sure, and I kind
(04:26):
of thought of something to sortof like lead into that a little
bit in a way.
Speaker 1 (04:33):
Okay.
Speaker 2 (04:34):
So I wanted to talk about what is colorism.
Speaker 1 (04:42):
No idea.
Speaker 2 (04:44):
No idea.
Okay, so you actually do have.
You actually do have somewhatof an idea, because in a way, we
all do.
Um, so colorism is the, uh, theconcept, and sometimes it's
blatant, sometimes it's latent,but it's the concept that the
(05:08):
lighter your skin color is,particularly if you're BIPOC,
that makes you better, that isperceived to be better, and the
darker your skin is puts youmore into the I guess, the bad
(05:30):
category.
I don't like saying it that way.
Speaker 1 (05:32):
Sure right, because yeah, yeah exactly.
I see what you're saying, butyou shouldn't.
I don't think.
I think there's a better way tophrase that.
Speaker 2 (05:39):
You're right, there's a better way to phrase it, but
I sure can't think of it.
Right Um so let's see peoplewho are, uh, particularly, we're
talking specifically about whenyou're a bipoc.
Uh, when you're bipoc, um, theconcept of colorism is that the
lighter your skin is, uh, thebetter, the better you are okay
(06:05):
um yes, I have.
Speaker 1 (06:08):
I have dated somebody who has had experience with
that, but it was reverse for her.
Um, right well, I guesstechnically she experienced both
ways, where she would try tohang out with black kids and
black kids would tell her no,you're too, you're too white.
And she would try to hang outwith white kids and they would
tell her no, you're too black.
Speaker 2 (06:26):
Sure, yeah, absolutely.
Speaker 1 (06:27):
Colorism.
It sounds like the way you'redescribing.
It is only one way, and that'sthe lighter your skin is, people
are going to have a betterperception of you, and the
darker your skin is, people aregoing to have less of that
better perception.
Speaker 2 (06:43):
Yeah, and there are many examples of that.
A really good one that isdefinitely polarizing, but it's
still an example, is OJ'sprofile in the news.
They actually darkened thelighting of his picture to make
(07:08):
him look darker, complectedbecause that kind of conveyed
more malice when they were doingthe profile.
Speaker 1 (07:19):
Okay, I've heard, not for OJ, but other stars.
If you will, I don't want tocall anyone out, but other stars
have done similar things.
Well, maybe not they themselves, but the people who take their
(07:42):
photos.
Speaker 2 (07:42):
Oh sure, yeah, yeah, yeah, yeah.
Speaker 1 (07:43):
They'll either try to make their, depending on what
they're going for, will try tomake their skin look lighter or
darker, depending on who their Iguess target audience is.
That's what it seems like, atleast.
I don't want to necessarily saythat's exactly what they're
doing, but that's what it seemslike.
Speaker 2 (08:01):
Like I said, sometimes it's blatant.
In the case of what I wastalking about with, like og's
profile, sometimes that wasblatant, that was definitely
blatant, that was intent, um,and then sometimes it's latent,
like we don't really realizethat we are doing that right
(08:21):
that's okay.
Speaker 1 (08:23):
So how does that lead into our next subject?
Speaker 2 (08:30):
um, it's more like, uh, how we perceive, how we
perceive things, um, based on, Iguess, how they're presented.
Um, um, let's see, particularlyum speaking for myself, uh, as
a lighter complected person, um,a lot of people assume that I'm
(08:55):
biracial right which uh doesn'tnecessarily offend me, um,
because it's not necessarily anunfair assumption, because I
look biracial.
Um so I think for me, um, whereI perceive it like as uh, in a
(09:17):
way a kind of colorism, is,there have been white people
that have said racist things notto me but, let's see, not
directed towards me but theyhave said racist things about
people who are darker than me,thinking that I'm half white,
(09:38):
which means that the white halfof me will agree with that.
Speaker 1 (09:42):
Right, I see what you're saying, that is.
That's an interestingpredicament to be in.
Speaker 2 (09:47):
Uh, yeah, um, because what's funny is that?
So my daughter is is biracial,right, um, and she has run into
the exact same thing, um, andshe does look.
She looks white, she looks likea white person, like you kind
of have to squint to see theafrican-american features that
(10:08):
she has, um, but yeah, she hassaid the same thing.
Like you know, white peoplehave said, uh, racist things to
her about black people, eithernot realizing that she's
biracial or knowing that andthinking that that means that
the part of her that's white isgoing to agree with it.
Speaker 1 (10:28):
Right.
Speaker 2 (10:29):
And I'm just like WTF , mofo.
How how does that work?
Speaker 1 (10:37):
I.
That's a.
That's a good question.
I'm I can't necessarily wrap myhead around why somebody.
Speaker 2 (10:46):
So that is definitely a situation where I don't care
about the why, but I'm verycurious about the why.
And you're a white guy and whenI presented that predicament
you totally got it.
So do you have any insight?
Speaker 1 (11:10):
I'm very curious.
I I don't.
All my insight is going to comefrom other people, essentially
and stories I've heard fromother people, oh sure, or or not
necessarily stories from otherpeople, I mean my own
experiences too, but that's notgoing to weigh in as much as,
like, like things you've told me, you know, because I'm not.
You've seen my skin?
(11:32):
I'm not black, I'm not nowherenear.
So nope, I'm not going toexperience some of those same
things, but I will experience.
How do you say this?
I will experience things so, so, like going off of that.
You know, a white guy talks toyou or your daughter, hoping the
white side of you will, willagree.
(11:52):
Right, they'll, they'll rip onon black people, hoping the
white side of you will agree.
I can speak in a similarexperience, where other white
people will talk to me in asimilar manner and expect that,
because I'm white, I mustautomatically agree.
Right, exactly, but I don't havethe experience where it's.
(12:13):
I haven't had to go through thesame things black people have
had to go through, so it's it iskind of interesting to me.
Speaker 2 (12:21):
It's something that I noticed around the time of 2017
.
I kind of noticed and I don'tnecessarily think it was
necessarily that they thoughtthat because I'm half white
which again I'm not that youknow that half of me was going
to agree with the stuff thatthey said.
(12:42):
I have noticed that there iskind of like a sort of a blanket
conception among many, manywhite people that the way they
think is the way that everyoneelse thinks it's part of white
privilege.
Actually, it's one of thosewhite privilege type deals.
Speaker 1 (13:06):
Yeah, I see what you're saying.
It's a common trope, if youwill, to see that amongst white
people.
I don't necessarily want tolump everyone together and say,
oh, everybody is like that, uhwell, no because I feel like
(13:26):
that that's why I said kind ofis blanketed right a blanket you
know, what I'm trying to stresshere is that, um, just because
you meet somebody, they're notnecessarily going to be, uh,
racist towards you just becausethey're white um, so you're kind
of doing the hashtag, not allwhite people thing.
Speaker 2 (13:47):
You get that right.
Speaker 1 (13:49):
A bit sure sure.
Speaker 2 (13:51):
You do realize you don't have to do that.
Speaker 1 (13:55):
I never know, I never know, okay.
Speaker 2 (13:58):
So, when black people commit crimes and that's
portrayed in the media, I don'tautomatically jump to my own
defense and say not all blackpeople.
So when we are talking aboutsome kind of common concepts
(14:20):
that fall into the category ofbeing a white person in America,
particularly in this day andage, uh, so you're kind of doing
the same thing, um, so thething about the whole not all
white people thing firstly, it'snot necessary, um, and then
secondly, uh, you are jumping toyour own defense over, I guess,
(14:47):
the topic that we're talkingabout.
Does that make sense?
Speaker 1 (14:51):
A bit, yeah, absolutely.
Speaker 2 (14:55):
That's one of the things that makes that a bad
thing, actually.
Speaker 1 (14:59):
Well, thank you for bringing that to my attention.
That's not something I'm goingto be actively thinking about.
Speaker 2 (15:06):
And that's why I'm telling you about it, because a
lot of I've heard that from many, many white people and I keep
trying to explain like, firstly,that's not necessary.
And secondly, when youimmediately jump, when you meet,
when you immediately do that,you are jumping to your own
defense and prioritizing thatover the topic of discussion or
(15:28):
what's the topic at hand, likethe main topic.
You see what I'm saying.
Speaker 1 (15:32):
Yeah, I got you.
Speaker 2 (15:36):
Because I do not feel the need to jump to my own
defense when Candace Owens sayssomething that like triggers me.
Speaker 1 (15:45):
Phrasing it that way absolutely makes sense.
Again, thank you for bringingthat to my attention.
Speaker 2 (15:51):
Absolutely, and that's why we do this.
That is why we do this Becauseyou know, like I'm very glad to
know for a fact, that there arewhite allies for the cause of
minorities.
You know that's awesome, butyou don't have to prop up your
(16:13):
own defense, it's not necessary.
Speaker 1 (16:17):
Okay, let's get back to our topic at hand, then, and
that would be before before wedelved into that.
Where, where did we leave off?
Speaker 2 (16:33):
oh geez, that was forever in a day ago.
Um, because we were supposed tobe talking about virtuous
victim narrative and then wefound out about project 2025 and
I was like okay, we need totable virtuous victim narrative
and build up to project 2025okay, so do we just jump into
(16:56):
that?
Speaker 1 (16:57):
do we just want to jump into project?
Speaker 2 (16:58):
2020 have you looked into project 2025?
Speaker 1 (17:02):
I've heard of it and that's it.
I have not seen anything on it.
I haven't bothered looking intoit because it feels like one of
those.
If you, how do you say this?
If you give it, if you startlooking into it and you start
doing the research, you'regiving it credence, like you're
(17:22):
giving it substance, you'regiving it life, you're breathing
life into it and saying okay, Itotally get what you're saying.
Speaker 2 (17:30):
So the unfortunate thing is that Project 25 is an
actual thing.
Speaker 1 (17:36):
That's what I've heard, but according to who you
know?
Yeah, okay, I see your pointyou know, yeah, okay, I see your
point.
If it's cnn or nbc or or fox orwhatever, you know me, I'm a
conspiracy theorist of sorts.
Uh, who runs those?
Speaker 2 (17:54):
the thing is that project 2025 is an actual
conspiracy oh, it's a conspiracy, okay, well it's, in itself,
the project 25, and that's why Iwant you to look into it.
So I guess what we can do is wecan talk about um and maybe the
audience can do this as welllike, follow along with us.
(18:15):
We can talk about the thingsthat you and then look into what
Project 2025 itself actually is, and I will go ahead and warn
you that it is 900 pages long ifyou want to read the actual
(18:35):
document.
Speaker 1 (18:36):
I don't think so.
It's by the Heritage Foundation.
Speaker 2 (18:40):
Correct.
So a really important thing tolook into is what the Heritage
Foundation is, because theHeritage Foundation will tell
you a whole lot of things thatit isn't, which is for me and it
should be for you as well agigantic, freaking red flag.
Speaker 1 (19:01):
A research and educational institution.
Which would be great if I endedthe sentence there.
Right mission is to build andpromote conservative public
policies based on washington dc.
I gotta'm in their page and thefirst thing become a member,
(19:28):
donate no, thank you and thenyou have to, you have to look at
all the things that it says itisn't.
Speaker 2 (19:39):
And then look at some of the members of project 2020
of the Heritage Foundation, and,as I'm saying this, I am going
to go ahead and say out loud,because this is true the
Heritage Foundation wasresponsible for how Trump and
(20:03):
there's no other way to say thiswithout talking about politics
um, and politics is a big partof project 2025 um, the heritage
foundation is responsible fortrump being able to get so many
seats on um, the supreme court,and then, like, the first thing
(20:24):
that they did was overturn Roe vWade.
Speaker 1 (20:28):
The Heritage Foundation was able to
accomplish that you're saying.
Speaker 2 (20:31):
Yes, the Heritage Foundation basically gave Trump
a you know, a play by play ofeverything that he needed to do
to secure I think it was threeSupreme Court seats.
Conservative On theconservative side.
Speaker 1 (20:52):
Right.
Speaker 2 (20:53):
And because they were able to help him to do that.
That's how they were able tooverturn Roe v Wade as fast as
they were.
Speaker 1 (21:07):
Interesting.
Speaker 2 (21:10):
So right there, that kind of gives you an idea of the
kind of influence that thisorganization has.
Speaker 1 (21:21):
Okay, I'm in their website.
I'll read a bit of what they'resaying if you don't mind.
Sure, now more than ever, theAmerican people need a champion
to preserve the great Americanexperiment and everything good
and just that.
It represents Good and justthat it represents.
Oh boy.
(21:42):
I don't want to necessarilycherry pick, but I'm also trying
to skim through some of this tofind some stuff.
Heritage is also more than athink tank.
Every day, heritage works onour nation.
We're not able to build anAmerica where freedom,
opportunity, prosperity andcivil society flourish which I
(22:03):
mean.
That sounds good.
Freedom, opportunity,prosperity and civil society
flourish which I mean.
That sounds good.
Freedom, opportunity,prosperity that sounds good.
But unlike so many otherorganizations in Washington DC,
the Heritage Foundation's focusisn't on putting more power into
the hands of government.
It's on returning power to thepeople.
Speaker 2 (22:27):
So they say that and then you have to read project
2025 um, because, yes, I havealso been on their website and I
have also um seen, like theirrecruiting videos and um
articles that they've writtenabout all the things that they
quote, unquote, aren't and don'trepresent, and you know,
(22:51):
liberal conspiracies which haveyou believe that we do this
thing.
And then I'm like but you did,you did do that thing, so what
gives?
Speaker 1 (23:05):
it goes on to say our team then takes the.
Okay, I'll skip past that.
Heritage has been consistentlyranked the number one think tank
in the world for it.
Okay, but by who?
It doesn't tell you who'sranking it like I I'm number one
in the world.
I've constantly been ranked asthe number one person in the
world by me and my cats.
You know so.
And I'm the number one boss,ass, black bitch right, me and
my cats, you know so, and I'mthe number one boss-ass black
(23:26):
bitch.
Right, exactly, you've got thatgoing for you.
I've got this going for me.
Speaker 2 (23:30):
We're doing great.
Speaker 1 (23:31):
We're constantly number one, but we don't stop
there.
We also communicate to citizenshow government can work more
effectively for all Americansthrough traditional oh my God
for all Americans.
Through traditional oh my God,I can't even talk through
traditional media and socialmedia platforms.
Engage with the internationalcommunity to promote freedom,
(23:52):
peace and trade that benefitsAmerica and the world.
Train the leaders of tomorrowwho will lead America.
See, that's where I'm kind ofhaving a problem with it.
If you're trying to put powerinto the hands of people, then
why are you training the leadersof tomorrow who will lead
America to a better or brighterfuture?
And help unite theconservatives around principles
(24:12):
and ideas that strengthen ourcause, our cause, ok, well, see,
and the nation?
Dot, dot, dot.
And the nation is what it saystechnically.
Speaker 2 (24:19):
Right.
Speaker 1 (24:20):
So yeah, I'm like how far do you lose me Right you?
Speaker 2 (24:23):
lose me right.
Speaker 1 (24:25):
No, no.
Some of their ideas were yeah,like I, I can understand um
better and brighter future,promoting freedom, peace and
trade um prosperity, that thatsort of stuff.
But through our own ideas iswhat it's essentially saying
through the conservative.
We're going to do this, but'sessentially saying Through the
(24:47):
conservative.
Speaker 2 (24:48):
We're going to do this, but we want to do it.
The conservative it's onlythrough the conservative lens
and right there I'm like, okay,and that would be where you lose
me.
Speaker 1 (24:58):
Right.
Speaker 2 (25:07):
Because, well, I've seen what conservatives do, have
done and what they promote andbelieve, and it's pretty much
like a Christian-drivenautocracy.
Speaker 1 (25:18):
Yeah.
Speaker 2 (25:26):
In a country where church and state are supposed to
be separate.
So there's that In a countrywhere not everyone is Christian.
So you know that's important tothink about.
Speaker 1 (25:49):
What is the?
Isn't there a stat on that?
Speaker 2 (25:50):
um, and I think that the christian population is, or
christians, people who identifyas christian, is going down um.
It is actually the islam nation.
Is um becoming the fastestgrowing religion in the country
is it really um?
Yes, actually in the world.
So it's like approximately 70%of the country is Christian.
Speaker 1 (26:13):
Sure.
Speaker 2 (26:14):
Approximately 6% is non-Christian and approximately
23% is religiously unaffiliated.
Speaker 1 (26:23):
Yes, that sounds about right.
So I think therein sort of liesthe answer for why people are
so pro-conservative right now.
And I think give it four, well,four years, eight years, give
it 10 years.
You know, we're going to slowlysee that drop, like it has been
(26:44):
.
I project.
Speaker 2 (26:45):
It has been slowly dropping.
Speaker 1 (26:47):
That's going to keep going down and then at some
point we'll get that shift, oncewe're about 50-50, but until as
long as you've got 60% ofpeople believing in one religion
, primarily one religion,they're going to vote for those
people.
One religion primarily onereligion, they're going to vote
for those people.
Speaker 2 (27:07):
So my thing is that, again, we shouldn't be voting
for people based on theirreligious beliefs with the idea
that they're going to institutereligious constructs that govern
everyone in the country.
Speaker 1 (27:23):
Right, but how do you stop that?
How do you stop people fromvoting religiously, with
religion in mind?
Speaker 2 (27:31):
I don't think that there has been a whole lot of
emphasis placed on the fact thatchurch and state are supposed
to be separate.
Also, I can go ahead and tellyou that Trump is not a
Christian.
What is he?
The Antichrist.
Speaker 1 (27:50):
What religion?
Speaker 2 (27:53):
Oh boy, I mean, I can tell you what he says, he is.
Speaker 1 (27:58):
Oh my God, he sells like a $60 Bible.
Okay, whoa, whoa, whoa.
The last five presidents havebeen Christian.
Speaker 2 (28:10):
Uh yeah.
Speaker 1 (28:12):
Yep, oh, biden, christian, well, the last, I'm
sorry, they've all beenChristian.
Yeah, every single president.
Well, except for ThomasJefferson, who was non-specified
deism, every president, uh, hasbeen Christian.
Speaker 2 (28:32):
Yes, and I'm going to go ahead and say this out loud
that does include Barack Obama,who is not a Muslim.
Speaker 1 (28:43):
Are we questioning that?
Is our audience questioningthat Some?
Speaker 2 (28:47):
people might still be , because again this man had to
release his birth certificate.
Speaker 1 (28:52):
Still wrapped up in the 2008 debates.
I know right.
Speaker 2 (29:00):
So I'm kind of like that's the only thing worth
saying out loud.
Speaker 1 (29:05):
Joe Biden was Catholic.
And then we, the one, two,three, four, five, six, seven,
eight, nine, all the way back toRichard Nixon.
So Richard Nixon to DonaldTrump.
They were all Protestant.
Speaker 2 (29:17):
Yeah, I can see that.
Speaker 1 (29:19):
That's insane, I mean .
But if you're, how do you saythis?
If you know, like we justestablished 60% and the further
back you go it's a higherpercentage.
So many people are Christian.
Speaker 2 (29:37):
Of course you're going to play to that, of course
I suppose, Um, I, I think, like, uh, I mean, presidents have
governed this country without umusing religion as a platform.
Speaker 1 (30:01):
As a platform.
I can't speak to that.
Speaker 2 (30:03):
I've only as a political platform is what I'm
talking about.
Speaker 1 (30:08):
I feel like every president does, though they
speak to it in some way.
Speaker 2 (30:12):
That's not what I mean.
So when I say that I don't meanlike a platform as in you know,
like what their policies areand you know what their promises
are going to be, that kind ofthing.
I mean more like withoutinstituting religion to govern
(30:36):
us, that kind of platform, aplatform for this country, for
how we operate as both a countryand a society.
Speaker 1 (30:48):
So because we're talking about separation of
church and state, because we'retalking about separation of
church and state, my questionstill kind of stands is like how
do you do that?
How do you separate the churchand the state?
Speaker 2 (31:05):
It was supposed to always be that way.
Speaker 1 (31:09):
You want, and you said something earlier that
there's not enough emphasis onseparation of church and state.
Do you think that would help,emphasizing separation of church
and state, because I don't wantto call them I don't want to
say that because that soundskind of mean People who are
really religious.
Do you really think they'regoing to separate them
(31:31):
themselves, like if somebodywere to tell me you can't,
you're listen, odeko, beat myname for me, please.
Yeah, I will Listen, odeko.
You're agnostic.
Okay, you can't vote with youragnosticism.
Agnostic, you can't vote withthat Agnosticism.
(31:52):
Agnostic, you can't vote withthat agnosticism.
I don't know, you can't are wemaking words?
I mean we can, I wouldn't beable to, I, I wouldn't be able
to do that.
And to me that's the same asgoing up to to somebody who is
religious and saying, listen, Iknow you were raised protestant,
(32:12):
I know you were raised Baptistor through the Latin church,
whatever, but you can't votewith that in mind, because those
things made those people whatthey are, they were raised with
that.
And to tell them you can't,when you're voting, you can't do
any of that, and not justvoting.
(32:33):
But when you're running foroffice, you can't do any of that
, and not just voting.
But when you're running foroffice, you can't do that.
Speaker 2 (32:38):
Um, okay.
Speaker 1 (32:40):
That's a core part of it.
Speaker 2 (32:43):
There is a thing called compartmentalism, which
is how I pretty much live mylife.
Speaker 1 (32:51):
Aren't you supposed to not compartmentalize?
I'm sorry, who are you talkingto?
I don't know.
Like I'm just saying, I thoughtI never.
Speaker 2 (33:00):
Are you going to tell me what I can and can't do now?
Speaker 1 (33:02):
I went to therapy once 20 years ago, you know.
So I mean I don't know.
Speaker 2 (33:08):
Okay at some point we're going to have to talk
about race and therapy, becausethat is a whole thing.
Okay, so when I saycompartmentalization, I'm saying
more like I have certainreligious beliefs, which means,
yeah, I'm going to go ahead andsay it because I'm not ashamed,
(33:31):
I'm an atheist.
How often have I ever talkedabout being an atheist?
Speaker 1 (33:38):
Um, I don't know, uh, offhand, cause I I'm not
keeping track of all of that.
I'm not just like oh man,rocket 88 today, dear diary,
rocket 88 again talked about her.
Speaker 2 (33:55):
So there's a.
Let's see, let me do it thisway, all righty.
So let's see a vegan, anatheist and a CrossFit
enthusiast walk into a bar.
Speaker 1 (34:08):
Oh, I feel like I already know where this is going
yeah.
Speaker 2 (34:10):
So that sounds like a joke, right, but it's not.
I know that because they allstarted talking about it as soon
as they walked in.
Speaker 1 (34:17):
Right.
Speaker 2 (34:20):
And it is a.
It is pretty much kind of acommon trope that vegans,
atheists and CrossFitenthusiasts kind of can't shut
up about it.
I've never been a vegan, but Iam an atheist and I have done
CrossFit.
Speaker 1 (34:38):
So I was going to say , to be fair, going off of what
I was saying earlier, like Ihaven't been documenting how
often you talk about you beingatheist, but I can't.
I can't recall a time where weexpressly talked about it either
, so obviously it doesn't comeup that much, but maybe why
doesn't it come up there?
(34:58):
That's what I'm kind of gettingto.
Maybe that's something youdon't discuss with me very often
.
I don't know how often you talkabout it with other people.
You know we kind of actdifferently around different
people.
Speaker 2 (35:13):
And in different settings.
Speaker 1 (35:14):
Absolutely.
We try to elate people.
Speaker 2 (35:17):
And I do that more than most.
Speaker 1 (35:20):
So maybe maybe you do , but to me you definitely don't
.
You don't talk about youratheism, so are you saying that
you're capable of disregardingthat when it comes time for
politics?
Speaker 2 (35:43):
Let's see.
The best way that I can thinkto put it is there are things
about myself that don'tnecessarily that don't.
They definitely don't define me, but they also don't govern my
judgment and my actions.
(36:03):
Right For me when makingcertain decisions.
Me when making certaindecisions.
The fact that I don't believein the God that Christians
(36:24):
believe in, has literallynothing to do with a statement I
make or an action that Iperform.
I'm going based off of thethings that I think are right,
Usually for me, sometimes forother people, because I mean, I
do work in healthcare, Right,and I think, because I work in
(36:49):
healthcare, I am able to notonly compartmentalize because
how else would I, you know, nothave blown my brains out by now
but also I'm able to look at asituation and be like, well, is
this the best situation for thepatient?
Speaker 1 (37:12):
Right.
Speaker 2 (37:12):
That's part of my job .
Speaker 1 (37:14):
So that's compartmentalizing.
Speaker 2 (37:17):
That's compartmentalizing.
I don't bring it home with meunless I have to, just so I can
get it out.
Speaker 1 (37:24):
Right, that's what that would be called, yeah.
Speaker 2 (37:27):
Yeah, but other than that, you know, I'm not
constantly.
Sometimes it's sitting in theback of my mind.
It depends on how bad it is.
But in general, when I comehome I am no longer in work mode
, I am in rocket needs a drinkmode.
Yeah, I can.
(37:51):
Hallelujah.
Yeah so that's what I mean, andI think that particularly what
we're seeing now is there arepeople who, well, can't
compartmentalize, can't makethose distinctions, can't
(38:14):
compartmentalize, can't makethose distinctions, but they're
making decisions that are bestfor them, that affect literally
everyone else.
Speaker 1 (38:22):
Okay, so that's.
That's what I want to talkabout, too, is let's, let's
bring this back to to HeritageFoundation real quick.
Okay, sure, they're a thinktank, they're a conservative
think tank, and they're not theonly one.
There's not just one think tank.
There are, I don't know, dozensof these, maybe more than that.
Speaker 2 (38:43):
Yeah, like a couple hundred.
Speaker 1 (38:44):
For each political association.
So so it's not just one onthink tank.
And that's where.
Where I struggle with this isis we're we're constantly saying
, we're constantly placing blameon the current president, Like
I can blame Biden all day foranything, you know, anybody
(39:06):
could, but it's him making thosedecisions.
Um same same with go go back toTrump, go back to Obama, go
back to Bush.
Is it always them making thatdecision or do they have that
think tank behind them?
Do they have a group of peoplethat they go, they talk to, they
sit down, they have some ofthese discussions and that group
(39:28):
of people, that think tank,decides okay, what is best,
what's our best move from hereon out?
What do we do next?
Speaker 2 (39:35):
Yeah, okay, I see, I see.
Speaker 1 (39:38):
And that's where we start to get into the conspiracy
of is the president a puppet?
And I don't want to.
I don't really want to delveinto that.
I would very much like to thinkthat the president isn't a
puppet, but separate.
I would say, like you know,certain situations and this is
just a puppet, but separate Iwould say certain situations,
and this is just a fact.
Speaker 2 (39:56):
Certain situations are out of the president's hands
, which is why we have the whatis it called?
But that's why we have thepresident, the Supreme Court, uh
, the house and the senate yeah,the three branches the checks
(40:18):
and balances system.
Speaker 1 (40:19):
Thank you guys.
They're supposed to to lookafter one another, but right,
unfortunately, when one has morepower than the other.
And and also, how do youdistinguish, how do you
determine amount?
Speaker 2 (40:31):
To talk about this a little bit.
When Obama was in office, hedid not have the support of the
House and the Senate.
When Trump got into office, hefired everybody who.
He fired everyone he could andput into place his own weird
(40:52):
version of nepotism and put intoplace like his own weird
version of nepotism.
Speaker 1 (40:54):
Well, that's my understanding is that you're
allowed to.
You don't have to keep theprevious person's people in.
So why would you, if I don'tlike somebody say you were
president and you go in, or viceversa, one of us was president
(41:17):
and the opposite will be goingin after?
Okay, are you going to keepeverybody that I I have on?
No, uh, that's, the odds arenot same in reverse.
I come in after you, I'm notgoing to keep on everybody you
have, um, but.
But I will see to uh, thenepotism point for that that.
You said that he installed somepeople for nepotistic reasons.
Speaker 2 (41:43):
Yeah, but.
And then they hired peopleRight.
You know also so.
Speaker 1 (41:51):
Something I've learned in my job through
nepotism, as much as I don'tlike it, is if I like somebody,
I trust them Right.
So am I going to go for theoutside, hire who I don't know,
who I don't trust, and hope thatin six months time I trust them
?
Or am I going to go with theguy I've known for a while, who
(42:17):
I can trust and that's stillnepotism.
That's happened in a few of myjobs and some of the lower
employees don't agree with it.
But at the end of the day, it'snot up to the lower employees.
At the end of the day, it's notup to the civilians, the people
voting who Trump's going tohire, who Biden's going to hire
(42:39):
for their teams.
It's up to them.
Speaker 2 (42:44):
Yeah, but is that person always the best person
for the job?
Speaker 1 (42:52):
No, and even if even the outside hire it's, it's both
.
This is that two way streetwhere I guess the only way the
civilian, the average citizen,can vote or can sway that is by
voting for who they want.
Ok, like do do I know Trump isgoing to hire, nepotistic, make
nepotism hires or nepotistichires Is.
(43:14):
Will I like the people he hires?
Speaker 2 (43:17):
So this is why we are both going to have to look into
Project 2025, because it ispretty much a playbook for the
next conservative president butthat's if they follow it,
(43:39):
because, again, that's one thinktank.
Speaker 1 (43:41):
Just just because how do I say this?
Just because they're the numberone think tank and I say that.
Speaker 2 (43:50):
I say that with air quotes, um, because yes, we're
gonna stress the air, air quotes, because according to whom um?
That doesn't mean the nextconservative president is going
to to follow them, right youknow um, let's see I can't
(44:11):
really talk much more aboutproject 2025 without doing the
due diligence of proper researchright, let's not talk about
things we don't anything aboutthat will be something that we
can talk about next time, um,particularly since uh election
week is coming up.
Speaker 1 (44:33):
Oh yeah, that's fun.
That's real fun.
Speaker 2 (44:36):
And it will probably be a minute for the
president-elect to get announced.
You think so that might take asecond.
Speaker 1 (44:48):
Why do you think that ?
Speaker 2 (44:51):
Oh, because of a lot of-unquote safeguards that have
been put in place to preventelection fraud.
Speaker 1 (45:00):
Is that really a week away?
Eight days, wow, I didn't thinkit was so close.
I thought it was another twoweeks or something.
No Time flies when you'rehaving.
Well, it's not fun watching theelection stuff, but it is what
it is yeah, no I'm tired of.
Speaker 2 (45:21):
I'm so tired of, uh, in a way kind of stressing about
it I?
Speaker 1 (45:28):
I wouldn't remember.
This is what People stressedabout.
People have been stressingabout the last couple of
elections now Um yeah, like atleast the last three.
Nothing really, I would argue.
Changes yes, some laws dochange, but the most part, day
(45:49):
to day life doesn't seem tochange too much.
Speaker 2 (45:55):
It depends on your perspective, which is again a
really good reason to look intoProject 2025.
Speaker 1 (46:04):
Okay, well, we'll do that.
We'll do that and talk about itnext week.
Speaker 2 (46:10):
Next week.
Okay, so let's see, I figure,since we still have time, we can
talk about a topic on thepyramid of white supremacy.
Speaker 1 (46:20):
I guess let's get into fearing people of color.
Speaker 2 (46:24):
Sure.
Speaker 1 (46:26):
What?
Where do you think that stemsfrom?
Speaker 2 (46:34):
uh, uh, it's systemic , um, and it's generational, um.
Okay.
So in our very first recording,um and I haven't put the second
part of that up yet, but wewere talking about movies, and
(46:58):
remember what I was talkingabout?
The Birth of a Nation, vaguelyOkay.
So the Birth of a Nation is oneof the first full-length
feature films.
It was a silent film.
Oh, right, right, I remember itwas featured at the White House
, and Woodrow Wilson touted itpretty hard, which I guess tells
(47:24):
you what he thought aboutslavery.
Speaker 1 (47:28):
But the movie is about a black slave and these
were blackface characterscharacters, by the way, right, I
remember you telling me thatand that the video was hard to
find nowadays yeah, but you can.
You can see it on um youtubeokay you can see I haven't
(47:49):
bothered trying to find it.
Speaker 2 (47:50):
Maybe one day I'll I'll have the yeah one day with
all that'll be, something tolike take a look at and then you
know, digest slowly, but it'sabout a black slave who uh rapes
a white woman and gets lynchedum, that's the kind of the very,
(48:15):
very short version.
There are a couple of differentthings that are going on in
that film, but I that's kind ofthe central narrative.
So that film is uh teaching uhwhite.
Specifically, it's teaching umwhite men to protect their white
(48:37):
daughters from black men,because black men like
inherently uh lust after whitewomen okay, that movie is.
Speaker 1 (48:49):
How old now?
Speaker 2 (48:58):
movie is how old now?
Uh, it's really old um 100years.
That sounds like over 100 yearsit might be about 100 years.
Speaker 1 (49:01):
Yeah, okay is it?
1915 over 100 years, 110 yearsalmost over 100 years is it safe
to say that that's Well, Idon't want to say it like that.
We all know that.
How do you say that no idea isa new idea?
(49:28):
We're kind of working off ofprevious ideas.
To when another movie is made,say a movie is made in 1925,
that carries some of previousideas.
To when another movie is made,say a movie is made in 1925 that
carries some of the ideas.
So say the the artist of the1925 movie saw that 1950 film,
1915 film.
They're going to carry some ofthose ideas into their 1925 and
(49:49):
then it propagates down.
But I think the returns arediminishing after so long.
Speaker 2 (49:58):
Some things just leave a really deep impression
and I would say fearing peopleof color, particularly if you
are darker skinned, is a verydeeply ingrained impression.
Um, I've seen, like I've livedin baltimore, and seen, um, you
(50:23):
know, like a, a white womanpassed by a group of like, uh,
black teenagers and she likeskirts around them and is
clutching her purse, that kindof thing.
Right, let's see, a black womanmight get loud and people are
thinking that she is beingultra-aggressive and are
(50:48):
intimidated by that or afraid ofthat.
A lot of people who are victimsof stand-your-ground laws have
been black people, and thisincludes Trayvon Martin.
Speaker 1 (51:04):
Okay, these people haven't seen that 100-year-old
movie.
That's not my point, I know, Iknow, but what I'm trying to,
get at is go ahead, you go, no,no my point was these people
(51:24):
haven't seen these.
Speaker 2 (51:25):
This movie keep going , so where?
How?
Speaker 1 (51:27):
has that propagated?
Is what I'm trying to.
What I want to discuss is howhas that propagated?
Is what I'm trying to.
What I want to discuss is howhas how has that propagated into
what we're seeing today?
You know, I'm not I'm nottrying to discount it or
anything.
I'm trying to discuss it.
That's that's what I'm tryingto do.
I don't want it to sound likeI'm my point isn't necessarily
(51:48):
about the movie itself.
My point is that there arecertain impressions that have
some deep, deep roots, that dogo back to slavery okay, and
that is why, like that's what'sled us to do this, um section on
(52:16):
on this pyramid is people ofcolor is well, I just told you
what the.
Speaker 2 (52:24):
I told you what the movie was about.
Right and um, the uh, the, um,the message that it was sending.
That is kind of a big thingabout the acts behind lynchings
(52:46):
and slave regrades, that kind ofthing.
Speaker 1 (52:54):
That's what I'm trying to get at is is, um, that
understanding?
Okay, so that, so, seeing thatmovie like that movie is made in
1915, that propagates to thethings that are now happening in
in the twenties, the thirtiesOkay, there we go Now, now, now
(53:16):
are now happening in in the 20s,the 30s okay, there we go now.
Now, now we're on.
I think we're on to something.
Now we're we're starting to getinto um where that comes from,
where that, um, hearing peopleof color, part of this, um,
white supremacy comes frompyramid, uh, pyramid of white
supremacy comes from, uh,because of white supremacy comes
from, because these ideas, Idon't think are just going to
pop up on their own, you know,and then propagate more and more
(53:40):
as time goes on.
If that makes sense, I thinkit's going to start somewhere,
and I'm not trying to say that,oh, it's because that movie was
made.
Speaker 2 (53:48):
Well, you can also look at the way that black
people are portrayed in themedia.
Nowadays, it seems like there'sbeen a shift um yes, nowadays
it does seem like there's been ashift let's say, within the
past 20 years again, like I said, um, there are certain uh
(54:08):
concepts and ideas that leave avery, very deep impression.
Right, and the media tends tocelebrate particularly
black-on-black crime.
But, yeah, the media tends tocelebrate black violent crimes
(54:48):
when you watch like tv showsblack people are gangsters
usually drug dealers and italianpeople, having having been um
married to an italian personyeah, and what's really funny?
uh, what her like great, greatgrandfather or uncle, something
(55:08):
like that was a famous gangsterin balt.
Speaker 1 (55:11):
Jesus, that's fun Like.
Speaker 2 (55:16):
I wish I was making that up.
But yeah, he was a famousgangster, I think in the 20s.
Speaker 1 (55:23):
Jesus.
Speaker 2 (55:24):
I want to say the Baltimore, the Maryland slash,
new Jersey area.
That Kind of upper east coastor yeah yeah, upper, east coast
(55:51):
oh, um, yeah.
I would say uh, yeah.
Well, that it's a, it'steaching people to um inherently
think of us that way right andthat bleeds into um society that
.
Speaker 1 (56:09):
that bleeds into what people think of the portrayal
in these, these adaptations,these films or shows.
That bleeds into what societyin general thinks Right and
that's where that fearing peopleof color comes from.
Speaker 2 (56:24):
Right, I would say that would be a case,
particularly like when you'retalking about movies and TV
shows, where I I feel like Ihave to say hashtag not all
black people.
Speaker 1 (56:38):
Okay, okay, that's interesting.
Offhand, I can't think of anymovie.
Well, to be fair, I'm notreally going to movies or shows
anymore.
Speaker 2 (56:53):
Yeah, you're not a big movie and TV show type
person, so this is kind of likea tone deaf conversation that
we're having.
Speaker 1 (57:02):
A bit, a bit, and I apologize for that, but I am
trying to understand as well, aslong as talk about this and and
open up that avenue ofconversation and for our
audience to to hear these things.
Up that avenue of conversationand for our audience to to hear
these things, um, becauseperhaps people are like me too,
where where they're tone deaf inthis as well and they don't,
they don't see where it's comingfrom necessarily right to
(57:23):
discuss it, I think, isabsolutely helpful.
Um, but that that's that's aninteresting thought, that the
way media portrays people, andnow that it's being said, now
that I'm actually verbalizing it, I'm kind of like, oh yeah,
that does make sense.
You might not actively bethinking about it, but there's
(57:46):
that subconsciously.
Speaker 2 (57:48):
It's subconscious, right, it's subconscious, and
that's kind of like.
The underlying message that'sbeing sent is that, you know, if
all you see in the media isblack violent crimes, well
you're going to think that allblack people are violent and
(58:08):
something to be afraid of.
Right something to be afraid of,right?
It's um, one of those thingslike um again, like I was
talking about, uh, stand yourground laws, and um, I mean
those scare me because they dotend to disproportionately
affect black people right I Idon't have statistics on that
(58:36):
and I don't I don't know if Iwant to use it.
They are hard to find, myfriend, are they Okay, but they
are there.
Speaker 1 (58:43):
I don't want to use the public library to try and
find.
Speaker 2 (58:46):
Every every couple of years, um, a reporter will do
their due diligence and, uh, dotheir research so that they can
get those statistics out there,because, conspiratorially,
police don't really publish that.
(59:08):
They have them.
They have those records.
Speaker 1 (59:12):
They do have those records, but they're not made
public.
Foya that.
Why wouldn't somebody foya thatFreedom of Information Act?
Let's get that information.
Speaker 2 (59:22):
One would think yeah, One would think.
Speaker 1 (59:25):
I'm obviously not a lawyer.
Speaker 2 (59:26):
You're not a lawyer either, right, I wouldn't be
able to tell you, but I do knowthat the way that the police
force operates is that they haveto keep the faith of the
community in order to beeffective.
So if they were to publishstatistics that didn't paint
(59:48):
them in the best light, theywould lose the faith and then
the support of the communitythat they're supposed to be
quote unquote serving andprotecting.
Speaker 1 (59:58):
Got it.
That makes sense.
I hadn't considered that.
Speaker 2 (01:00:04):
That's just me working through some logic.
Speaker 1 (01:00:06):
Once you verbalize something, people aren't going
to understand everything rightoff the bat.
You can say A equals B, butthat doesn't mean they're going
to understand that B equals ARight, if that makes sense.
That's a very oversimplifiedway of saying things, but sure.
Speaker 2 (01:00:21):
Yeah, like I said, I had to work back through some,
some logic to get there.
Speaker 1 (01:00:26):
Right, all right.
Do you want to move on toself-appointed white ally?
Speaker 2 (01:00:34):
Sure white guy.
Speaker 1 (01:00:35):
About 15 minutes.
Oh, I'm not self-appointed,though If I take this to mean it
at face value, I would not sayI'm self-appointed, but it does
make me.
I guess I have questions onthat, on that, and it's more.
I don't know the right way tosay this.
(01:00:59):
So if we need to edit this,we'll need to edit this or take
it out entirely, which I'm finewith.
I'm absolutely fine If we everneed to take something out or
you feel something needs to betaken out.
By all means, go for it.
I'm, I do it often okay um.
So when I see self-appointedwhite ally, you know, the first
(01:01:22):
thing I think of are um, and Icould be way off.
Base is uh, is white womenprotesting in the streets for
black violence?
I don't want to say blackviolence, it would be for Black.
Speaker 2 (01:01:44):
Lives Matter.
Speaker 1 (01:01:45):
Yeah, on that, there we go yeah.
Speaker 2 (01:01:48):
Okay, so in that sense I don't see that as
self-appointed.
So if you talk the talk butyou're not walking the walk,
that would put you in thatself-appointed category.
Oh, okay, okay, that makessense or if you say something
(01:02:09):
that sounds uh, for lack of abetter word pun maybe intended
off color, and then turn aroundand be like, but I'm an ally,
got it.
Speaker 1 (01:02:19):
Got it.
Speaker 2 (01:02:20):
You know like who are you really aligning?
Speaker 1 (01:02:25):
with Right.
What side are you really onhere?
Yeah, where do your ideas stand?
Where does your ideology lineup?
That makes more sense, okay,yeah.
Where do your ideas stand?
Where does your ideology lineup?
That makes more sense?
Speaker 2 (01:02:37):
Okay, yeah, I would say, you know, like if you see,
you know white people, whetherthey're male or female,
protesting Black Lives Matter.
They are making a statement andthey are also putting
themselves at risk.
Speaker 1 (01:02:53):
That's not OK, those protests have gotten violent.
Yes.
Speaker 2 (01:02:59):
Particularly when police and certain individuals
get involved, like that guy thatsaw the Black Lives Matter
protest in New York and then puthis foot on the gas into the
crowd and killed two people.
Speaker 1 (01:03:18):
Oh, I don't think I heard about that.
Speaker 2 (01:03:21):
Yeah, he was driving a Dodge Charger, I believe.
Oh boy, that's.
And I would say yeah, like whenpeople protest in their Antifa,
you know, they wear masksbecause, well, they get arrested
(01:03:43):
a lot and they also they can'tidentify themselves because they
can't put themselves and theirfamily at risk.
Speaker 1 (01:03:50):
Right, so that's why they protest wearing masks at
risk.
Speaker 2 (01:03:51):
That's why they protest wearing masks.
I've actually met someone whogot arrested in the town that I
lived in protesting under Antifain the town that I'm from in
Georgia.
That was kind of a thank youfor your service moment, because
(01:04:14):
he could have gotten worse thanthe rest did.
How long ago was that?
Oh geez.
Speaker 1 (01:04:21):
I had already been hit.
Speaker 2 (01:04:21):
So 2018.
It was in 2018.
It was like a month after I gothit.
Speaker 1 (01:04:27):
Not terribly long ago then Okay, no.
Speaker 2 (01:04:30):
And then I met him.
I met this guy about three,four months after msi proposed
okay, oh wow it was a funnyenough it was at a bridal expo
and um, he had a booth and um,yeah, I was talking about, uh,
(01:04:51):
how far out I had come because Idrove two hours.
Wow, Uh to go to this bridalexpo and he had a booth and he
was like well, where did youcome from?
And when I told him, he waslike, oh, I've been in Union.
And I was like, really, and hewas like, yep, got arrested
there.
And I was like uh, that's a wayto start a conversation, that
(01:05:13):
that certainly is a way so, yeah, so when he yeah, and then he
gave me the timeline and he,yeah, this was um, yeah, this
was, uh, I had already been hit,um, I was still housebound um
april of 2018.
And I met that guy in June, Ithink.
Speaker 1 (01:05:41):
So you were able to move shortly after thing hit.
Speaker 2 (01:05:50):
What do you mean by move?
Speaker 1 (01:05:52):
Like were you?
I guess I'm just assuming Wereyou walking two months after,
because you said you had to gotwo hours to this bridal, my
timeline might be a little bitoff because my memory is kind of
screwy.
Okay, okay.
Speaker 2 (01:06:10):
I know that it was so , jor.
It might have been um in thefall, uh, because wedding season
in georgia is like from maytill october, so it might have
been in the fall.
I'm pretty sure I was still oncrutches okay, I wasn't sure.
Speaker 1 (01:06:31):
I was like well, maybe you were using a
wheelchair.
To be fair, you know, I wasn'tsure.
Oh, I am.
Speaker 2 (01:06:38):
My timeline is wrong.
This was because M-Siteproposed the December of 2018.
So this would have been 2019that I met the guy, okay.
And yeah that was in the spring, but I think it was the late
spring because I found out aboutthe Bridal Expo, because I was
(01:06:59):
working about two hours awayfrom where I lived.
Speaker 1 (01:07:03):
Got it Okay, so yeah, okay Now.
Speaker 2 (01:07:05):
I'm starting to get the details right.
I didn't mean to go off on atangent with that, I was just oh
no, that's fine because youknow know, you helped me kind of
remember something and linesomething up that wasn't quite
working out well knowing what Iknow about you.
Speaker 1 (01:07:20):
I was just interested in in hearing more about that
too, um oh sure, no, that's fairuh, do we want to call this a
good stopping point?
Speaker 2 (01:07:33):
We can.
I know that you've got to breakdown soon.
Speaker 1 (01:07:36):
Yeah, the next one I want to talk about.
I want to talk about it now,but I'm not going to have enough
time If I launch into this now.
I don't think we're going to.
I'm going to go way past mytime.
My booking is done at three.
It's 2.52.
Speaker 2 (01:07:51):
Right.
Speaker 1 (01:07:52):
So, but just moving down the pyramid, I'm more um.
Seeing the next one, I'm like,oh, I really want to talk about
that.
I think we'll uh Rocket and Iwill have a fun time talking
about that one.
Speaker 2 (01:08:05):
What is it?
Speaker 1 (01:08:05):
Um, you've got the pyramid.
You can, you can look at it.
Oh, just say it.
Just say it.
Expecting people of color toteach white people.
Speaker 2 (01:08:20):
I think that'll be a oh, that's going to be a fun one
, especially since it's me andyou doing this.
Speaker 1 (01:08:23):
Exactly, that's exactly what I'm saying.
That's going to be a fun one,okay, all right, so I guess
we'll cut it here.
Speaker 2 (01:08:36):
I've been Odeko Yep and I'm Rocket88.
Thank you guys so much forlistening to our podcast.
Speaker 1 (01:08:45):
Talk to you guys next time.
Popular Podcasts
United States of Kennedy
United States of Kennedy is a podcast about our cultural fascination with the Kennedy dynasty. Every week, hosts Lyra Smith and George Civeris go into one aspect of the Kennedy story.
Stuff You Should Know
If you've ever wanted to know about champagne, satanism, the Stonewall Uprising, chaos theory, LSD, El Nino, true crime and Rosa Parks, then look no further. Josh and Chuck have you covered.
Dateline NBC
Current and classic episodes, featuring compelling true-crime mysteries, powerful documentaries and in-depth investigations. Follow now to get the latest episodes of Dateline NBC completely free, or subscribe to Dateline Premium for ad-free listening and exclusive bonus content: DatelinePremium.com