issued.cc the knowledge about the inaccuracy of the measures are very well accepted and agreed to and there's no way left for people to gogo and not to sound like they are using it to advance their own agenda is my view so it's been a great discussion. [applause] homework can be hard but squatting in a diner for internetwork is even harder

that's why we are providing lower income students access to affordable internet so homework can just be homework. supporting c-span2 as a public service. >> today we will be talking with carol anderson who was the german professor and chair of african-american studies at emory university and also the author of many wonderful books i'm sure many of you have read on the national book critics

circle award, one person one vote talking about a vote that should be talked about right now with all the voter suppression things happening in the country and different statewide initiatives to. but today we will be talking about the new book the second which is as you may guess the second amendment, race and guns. lots to talk about here and we will dive right into it. welcome virtually and thank you for joining us. >> thank you for having me. i what's interesting when i sold a book about the scope that you covered here i think a lot of times we talk about the second amendment and very contemporary terms about arguments we may be having about the national rifle association resolve those contemporary problems but this

book takes us in the way back machine centuries into the past and talks about the seeds that were planted at that lead there. maybe we can begin with where you start this narrative and how you solve the arc of the story beginning. >> it was the landing of the landro casteel in 2015. here you had a black man pulled over by the police and said officer i have a licensed weapon and they started shooting at him so he was gunned down for having a licensed weapon. he wasn't doing anything perilous, but he died and the nra went silent and that struck me the virtual silence of the nra and you have a journalist

saying don't people have second amendment rights and i thought lias a historian that is a great question. my research covers the civil and human rights of african-americans and looking at what i call a fracture of citizenship. i ended up back in the 17th century and a 17th century virginia, carolina looking at the slave code, the law that dealt with the fear, the fear of the enslaved and the law and architecture that was put in place to deal with it to provide security against the slave revolt. that for me becomes the genesis of the amendment that here.

..at and then come about it, understoodme the irony within ts injustice. but i knew if you could wit another way could cause problems with and they kinda painted themselves into this corner or they are scared of the problem they created.

i hadn't thought about it in those terms that fear may have impeded the people who had some reservations about the general concept of slavery. but hey, he can't give this people guns. i am afraid he will get retribution. this you have the skittishness who were, look at slavery said this is an abomination. you have those who i feel god is just. basically it comes back to this. there's like nothing we can do about it. kicking the can down the street, being unwilling to dismantle slavery. beingk unwilling to even conceptualize what freedom would look like with black people.

aunt afraid that the language, the freedom of democracy that's coursing through that era move outside the confines and into that inflames community. that black community but that community crude freedom was. knew that wasn't it. the banks, the fear that'she coursing through you had a slavery revolt and you have attempted slight results. with each one response was not slavery is wrong. instead the response was we need to double down. see tighter and tighter laws

about access to guns. access to weapons, access to books. access to literacy. this is where you also see the rise of the architecture and the militia. which were designed keep thatla enslaved population under control. and so the doubling down and facts did provide the legitimacy for from an illegitimate enterprise. >> what often goes unspoken with second advocates is a second part about the well-regulated militia. so longtudied it for people who may not fully understand the breadth of the amendmentt, talk about what they meant or possibly intended by that wrote jet well forget it militia the right to bear arms in the well-regulated militia. excellent backup and the narrative we currently have this militia of the heroic folks who

fended off the british. the are there to fight back the domestic tyranny in a foreign invasion. they were bedrock to saving the creation of america. this thing iss really swaddled n the black. actually during the war for independence the militia could not meet countable. sometimes they would show up, sometimes they wouldn't. sometimes they would fight, sometimes they wouldn't. george washington was beside himself on hon how unreliable the militia were. morse of new york said the militia, against a professional army is like relying on a broken read. they new at the time no match full-blown professional army.

but here you have a government shays rebellion that happened constitutional amendments. white men who were attacking the massachusetts governmenter over taxation and seizure of property. for nonpayment of taxes. and it required boston merchants who had to pay for basically a mercenary army to put down shays rebellion. what you note the time was you can't count on that militia to fight against domestic tyranny. instead what they would do as they would attack the government that was just trying to government functions. once the militia it was really, really good at for putting on slave results. that's we see happening there at

thee rail welt railing militia. we do not want the mom of shays rebellion we wanted a right well regulated militia in the coming out of ratification convention and virginia were patrick henry andd george mason are going toe to toe with the federalist and james mattis. because the draft constitution has put control of the militia under the federal government. and mason and henry were like we were left defenseless. is if there is a slave results will be left defenseless.e you know they detest slavery. that meant those folks from pennsylvania could not be counted upon sent the militia down to virginia if there was a slavery revolt. they wanted protection breadth and been very clear they wanted

protection. i'm just like in the debate over the constitution they were willing to play a game of hardball. we were kids we used to call playing a game of chicken who was going to dodge, who is going to blink apart who thought their life is more important that whatever that thing was out there. they were willing to play a game of chicken with the united states of america and o the constitution in order to get the militia protection that they wanted. that well-regulated militia to quell a slave revolt. currentings up to the day a little bit when we were having the commemoration of the massacre of 1921 there were a lot of different things that happened around that. one of the things that happened was a second amendment gun owners marked out on greenwood.

it was black gun owners. cause consternation among the community here. you see anyone terrifically toxic you could any local news social needed to see the cesspool of comments and like that. we have done things like that all the time but we have a shows we have second amendment marching this is not something new. what's new sick color people partaking in the march. there's questions when they get the permit and all kinds of sillyki things. eventually ended up happening is totally peaceful there's no big problem with it. you could hear local business owners essentially close my business all these things people would not say if it was otherwise. that was just two weeks ago, we can a half ago. it's rooted in this problem that's been there originally

think about that when you have to say about something like that happening in 2021? >> i'm not surprised. that's what i'm laying out in this book. the insight blackness which i define dangerous. casting a black people as a threat to the white community. the casting of the african americans as toxic. that courses through our history. and so as you knoww i attracted from the 17th century all the the 21st century. so the response of black ownership is not surprising in the 21st century. one things we said with the instruction at the capitol onn january 6. that if that had been a group of black folk storming the capitol would have been a massacre.

part of what i'm doing with this book is to t make legible the things that we know what happened. because of the cultural ethos that black is dangerous. it is what led to the white teenager who went to kenosha, wisconsin and was a welcome by the police as he is carrying an ar-15 and shoots three men, killing two of the seriously wounding one. walks up with his hands up they do not see him as a threat and he goes home. but a 12-year-old black child is playing alone in a park with a toy gun didn't have the orange tip on it. but ohio is it open carry stage. he is in the pavilion by himself. he was not a threat.

within two seconds he was gunned down within two seconds of the police officers arrival he is gun down. oh my gosh, black folks carrying guns, should i close my business? what are we going to do? that is standard. think about the tripwire for the tulsa race massacre in the first place. it was a black man coming to the courthouse project was being held to try to make sure justice actually happens. and that young was not going to be lynched. so when they came to the courthouseou arms, it infuriated that white mom. it was like how dear you, how dear you believe that you have

the right to bear arms. you have the right to challenge us and what we are going to do. and the result was 35 -- 40 blocks just wipedju out. hundreds of peoplef killed. toxins interesting too because as far as we know on the steps of the courthouse it wasas a skirmish, someone tried to take someone's gun from them and the gun that went off supposedly the gun played very much a pivotal role in that. sparking that moment. you have spoken so much about white rage which is in the book iwh encourage people to read th. i think all of these books -- meant you are seeing a much larger picture here's what you're writing about. that issue you brought up about fear of blackness is such a fascinating concept in a sense of so much to write about

started several hundred years ago. but i do wonder if we, as a society still have this irrational fear of black men for the most part because there is this unconscious sense we are owed something. we deserve some kind of retribution. we know what happen historically and not me saying that the right way but maybe you can understand where i'm going with that. is there a sense of society being aware of what happened? we areyb not dealing with it but we feel like we are scared because we feel like we deserve it in the way. >> one of the things they laid out in the period of enslavement was the fear of retribution. that the enslaved would be so angry at what was being done to

them that if they got free they would just wipe out the white community. retribution just coursed through that. that's one of the other things i talk about in the framing of the constitution. how the word slavery is not mentioned in the constitution. but it isn't there, the words are in the constitution. and one of the men said it is not just fear, it is guilt. it is guilt that we are as to let the word slavery come into the constitution. and so there is this recognition and you mentioned that i think in the first part of the conversation about this recognition what is being done to black people via slavery is wrong, just fundamentally, basically wrong.

but it gets all this cloaking around it. justification around it very difficult justification. it is scientific justification. political and legal justification. all of that edifice is constructed based on what we know is wrong. and so when thomas jefferson says i fear that god is just, that sense of retribution is. there. they are going to do to us what we did to w them. but when you really look at what the movement for equality are about, it is to be able to live free. it is to be able to live a whole life. it's not about retribution. it is about being able to have a job and get paid what you are

worth. about being having quality education. access to quality healthcare. have your full citizenship rights. >> once again everybody, the book we are speaking about is the second of unequal america encourage all of you to get a copy of this book, read it and hopefully discuss it with people in your life. if youe have questions for professor anderson please put them here will get there in just a bit. i am curious, let's move on 1950s , 60s civil rights era. you have these parallel tracks where you have a more militant wing of it. this could be the malcolm x of the world. you have the non- violent trayvon martin luther king side of its which is somewhat like a malcolm x discussion early part of his career literally walking on the streets withpa armed guas

and more of an intimidating presence than say some like trayvon martin luther king jr. and how that played into this larger narrative about who gets to be powerful and you get to have guns and things like that. >> one of the things we have to remember is the strategy of nonviolence was a way to guilty narrative are inherently incriminal way to bring camerasn for america could see how violent jim crow really was like people to sit at a lunch counter and condiment all over them short-circuits the narrative

what did they do to get that? they didn't know their place you saw there being violence. you saw there being threatened. they were just being black. the non- violence was a way to short-circuit that traditional fallback narrative what did he dodo i must've been something to get shot. withwi that movement also black folks armed who were protecting these nonviolent protesters that was raining down on them than it needs to be you had the militants, i'd talk about the

black panther party withh the black panther party of self-defense they wrote as a response to the massive police brutality that was raining down on black folks. there is no accountability within the system to bring these police officers to justice. to make that violent stop. they were killings, there were beatings, there were false arrests. their acts of humiliation and degradation. and not a mumbling word out of the political legal establishment. the black panther party arose because of that. and one of the things they did was they knew the law. they knew california's law. california's law at the time allowed open carry. california's law the time also allowed for civilians to have to stand a certain distance away

from a police officer doing his or her duty. and so the panthers would stand there with their guns open seat carrying, watching the police arresting black folks. the police did not like it. they did not like the policing the police thank at all. and so they ran to jon who was an assembly met in a california assembly man and said we neede help. and he obliged with the mulford act as written with the help of the nra. that band open carrying of weapons. it d, made illegal what the panthers were doing that was illegal in order to bring down police violence in the black community. in the panthers with their sent a shockwave through white americath.

and this is where you get this in narrative that has trayvon martin luther king as nonviolent. but remember the violence he faced. because what they were doing was disrupting a power structure. in that was seen. it was way to try to put these two against each other. king was doing at the right way. the panthers were doing it the wrong way. but whent he think about the violence the civil rights movements faced here in the south, this is seen as doing at the wrong way because they were not being silent and accepting jim crow. >> i have had a few conversations the black messiah came out about fred hampton some of the things around there.

it's so interesting to me that so many young people don't have any real awareness of the black panther party. especially its heyday and how much it wasnv in the conversatin nationally for it how important it was but how unique it was just something like that happen. i think it is somewhat faded in people's mind that kind of potency of that moment for them. it's interesting to pop cultural things bring that to the forefront a little bit more. why do you think the black panther party of the civil rights and early -- the vietnam era kind of seem to have made from the national dialogue and not have the same level of impact? >> i think it was several things. one is that got reduced to just guns. the black panther party was about communityt empowerment ad

they had a free breakfast program. they ran medical clinics because these were the things of the community needed in order to be strong. that breakfast program was defined as being a nefarious activity by j edgar hoover of the fbi. a nefarious activity that had to be stopped. the law enforcement pressure put on the panthers to define them as illegal just crush them and to define them as an outlier that they were not meeting the needs of the community when in fact they were. you think about fred hampton that work hampton was doing in chicago. trying to worktr with the blackstone arranger of the largest gang there to figure out how to turn that gang into a

purveyor of something really positive and uplifting in the black community. and the response coming of the chicago pd and the fbi was like thwe have got to stop that political head from hooking up with that black body. the counterintelligence program. and so sending information to hampton into jeff fort say they've got a hit out for you ther other has a hit out for their trying to take you out so just trust. and i think the labeling of the panthers not as this organization put in place to defend the black community from police violence. from the ravages of a system that just extracted resources

from that community. input that community in harm's way. that you got this sense of lots of paint them nefarious, as of violence, as a threat to the white community. that will shrink their base. that will make them not viable. let's put the incredible resources of federal law enforcement and of state and local law enforcement and bear down on this organization until we can cripple it. >> you mentioned kyle a little bit ago it made me think about -- in the 21st century which basically began right after columbine the conversation about guns in america is inextricably linked to mass shootings and specifically school shootings, those two things. they are still happening rlregularly unfortunately.

i have not seen one that i can remember that was not for the most part a young white male. and it is almost to the point you could almost guess it before they talk about who did it unfortunately. it isit so specific that a persn you would be looking for. if for the last 20 years all these mass shootings at all the school shootings had been done by black men would we have different gun laws now? >> oh yes. oh yes. one of the things i laid out in the guardian is we have these twin pandemic. the twin pandemic of mass shootings, hitting up against the pandemic of antiblack movement.

we stoke the fears so long in this nation of black people that in the face of these mass shootings weas cannot get a reasonable response, a regional will gun safety response because we've got this in narrative of the simple nest. it almost ends like george mason back in the 18th century. if you take our militia we will be left defenseless against all these black people. you think, about the couple in st. louis with black lives matter marsh and they came out of their homes with their guns aimed at these people who did not have weapons. when you think about the language of ron johnson document i wasn't afraid about that insurrection because these were law-abiding people. but if that had been black lives matter -- so that narrative of

being left with gun safety laws is being left defenseless to black people and we get the narrative, jonathan guide to whiteness does a piece on this building guns but families dealt with gun violence white families have dealt with gun violence are in a support group. the issue of gun safety comes up. they're like no, no we don't any of those f laws they will take r guns and the folks from st. louis will come and take everything that we have. and that is what we are looking at. how anti- blackness short-circuits common sense. and it says that we are billing willing to be unsafe in our schools. we are willing to be unsafe at the grocery store. we are willing to be unsafe in

church. just so we can supposedly defend ourselves from this lack of hoard that's coming everything that we have. >> is not because it's impossible tot' truly be afraid and fully rational the same time? meaning how are we ever going to get past this if we are operating in that space? and whatever the cause was for a large swathth of society to have this inherent fear of black men and blackness in that sense or at least the fear of giving certain tools and power to black community, i am always kind of like word we go from here? i do not want to be like in total despair is that a generational thing? how do you teach people to not be afraid of the other? >> and so what you can see right now is a back lash of teaching

people not to be a free brickwork's critical race was just outlawed in oklahoma. works bright, critical race theory, the 1619 project getting banned so teaching this history about how we got here is being banned because that kind of information, that kind of education is seen as destructive and detrimental to a project that is about maintaining power. not about how you have a healthy, strong, vibrant society, how you have a vibrant multiracial multiethnic religious democracy. but it is about maintaining power for small swath of people in being willing to pray on fear to make that happen. cooks you know, i wonder often

if the terminology we use impedes us in a certain sense pretty good example of this. i often worry people hear the term white supremacy for example think aboutd they is the ku klux klan and like crosses burning in people's yards. they don't think about in terms of societal structures. they are easy to say i am not, i am not those people. i'm not obviously racist in that sense or it's not really about you as a person puts very much about the societal structures that we have in place to keep certain people in power. sometimes i worry we use different language. and it creates . this barrier we you cannot get past that labeling. it's kind of civil rights era language were using a 21st century that may not apply exactly to what we are trying to do.

>> the thing that becomes clear is that there isan no language that the structure will tolerate. the way the nonviolent movement in the civilit rights movement s absolutely intolerable to that power structure. it is the way kneeling was intolerable as a means of protest. it is the way saying slavery is foundational and has to be examined in the way it has affected our nation. the way it has affected our laws. the way it has affected ourur religion. the way it has affected our politics. to say that no, that never happens there is nothing that is acceptable to the power structure because it is all seen

as an attack, an assault, a threat. and so it is dealt with that way. one of things i talked about in white rage is how you roll back civil rights? one of those keyways was to redefine racism. racism is the clan. racism is the cross burning. but racism is not a regularly identifiable black name that does not get the job. >> redlining. >> yes. all of those things. that is not that racism. and racism in this narrative is not the concern that black men are marching with guns just the way white men march with guns. that if you are not afraid of white men marching with gums why

are you afraid of black men marching with guns? but that's not seen as racism. that is seen as being concerned. it is what happens that anti- blackness that i'm talking about that is coursing through history is affecting the ways we live and die in america. >> to talk about american exceptionalism a lot cheaper it is a controversial topic. but one way america is quite exceptional is in her problem with gun violence around the world. with a question from one of our viewers says are there any societies the u.s. could use as a model for reform? or is the second amendment with its unacknowledged racial underpinnings the poison pill of u.s. civil society? big question for.. >> oh wendy, i love that, i love that language the poison pill. i have been likening the second

amendment and that we need to treat the second amendment the way we have treated as a foundational principle embedded in our constitution for. >> could you explain to people what that is who may not know? >> the clause was the deal that wass cut between northern delegates and southern delegates because the south was afraid it would not have enough congressional representation in the legislature, and the federal legislature to be able to block any kind of anti- slavery legislation cominghr through. so they argued strenuously. they actually argued that their enslaved population needed to bh counted as on the same inequality as white men. and you have the northern delegates going excuse me? i am sorry, you count them for your state legislature?

do they vote? and they are like no but we will leave unless we get representation. so the three fifths clause was the compromise where, the language is so opaque in the constitution about you how you count theag representation. it but it was like anybody else they get counted three fifths of your being and that is what gave the south disproportionate power congress.. and so in that you have the three fifths clause that is predicated for black inhumanity about not recognizing the basic rights of african-americans. in the second amendment you have an amendment sitting in the bill of rights, and the bill of rights that is about the denialc of black people's rates.

and so that second amendment, it is a poison pill, i love that language. is there a nation we can replicate? that we can model after? what we need to model after our aspirations. when we say we hold these truths, that is what we need to model. we need to model what a truly vibrant multiracial multiethnic multi- religious democracy looks like. how it operates. we move the anti- black that is in there. that means we remove the misogyny that is in there. we remove the xenophobia that is in there. and we really begin to think about this nation has enormous resources. we began to think about what it takes to be a vibrant nation where people's basic needs are met. that is what we need to model. we need to model our aspirations. that means we are not denying

people the right to vote who are eligible. >> people talk a lot about the covid-19 pandemic and the fact it is so widespread now that even with vaccines than virus we present around the world pope just basically have to make sure we are staying vaccinated. but it's not as ever going to eradicate it anytime soon. i wonder about the same thing with proliferation of guns in america. meaning there are so many literal physical guns in this country more than there are people, millions and millions and millions of guns. the idea we would have a society without them is i think foolish and irrational. and so when you see it laws like you mention california one point have this open carry law back on the early days of the black panther party, texas is about to her on the verge of passing what they call a constitutional carry which basically means no permit,

no license, no registration just anybody in their grandma can carry a gun around. do you see things likee that and go okay, and i will say for their part the police unions, everybody in texas were against that and kind of went up against those power structures. but, when those things happen to see that's just one more pathway to killing more black men? they're going to have the same right to carry guns as everybody else is constitutional carry. are they going to payhi the bigr price for that? >> because of black is the default threats. you think about castille, he had a licensed weapon and he was gunned down because he was a threat. he was dangerous. yes, yes. that's why i have a chapter in the book how can be unarmed when

it is my blackness that you fear? that is whether you are armed or unarmed black is the danger. it's with a black man has a cell phone he is gunned down because they thought he had a weapon. he was carrying a gun with him. we have too many of these instances that put black people in the crosshairs of this violence. black is a default threat in the society. so if you have a gun i'm automatically threatens. it's the danger of stand your ground law. with the stand your ground says that anywhere you have a right to be, you have a right to defend yourself. and if you feel threatened if you perceive a threat than you have a right to defend yourself.

well, black is the perception of threat. anywhere i have a right to be in i see black, i can perceive threat and that puts me in the crosshairs. it is how george zimmerman walks retrieve on margin who was unarmed. >> the crime of wearing a hoodie. having read your work, what do eryou see as your overarching thesis for your work together but i was you're dealing with american things likeyo that. do you kind of see it like you're tackling the vote, you're tackling white rage were tackling the second amendment. do you see this is a larger mosaic of something or trying to put together? or do you just go from issue to issue? >> it's really part of a larger mosaic. my first book was called ice off the price for the united nations and the african-american struggle for human rights.

they are and look at the broad array of human rights and how african-americans in the 1940s saw their struggle like the naacp saw the struggle not as a civil rights issue but a human rights issue. a civil rights issue basically deals with thede right to vote, the right to not be illegally searched and seized for the right to a fair trial, the right to assembly, the right to not have cruel and unusual punishment. but human rights deal with the right to education for those rights to housing. the right toth employment. they sawnd this large and envisn what slavery and jim crow had done to eviscerate the human rights of african-americans. and so it was to take a human rights solution in order to build the human rights assault. and the cold war just that.rated

it allowed those rights to healthcare, to be labeled as communistic. this is what the soviets want. the right to education for the right to housing, that is socialism. that's what those reds at once. that's the communist savior advocating for that, during the mccarthy area it you must be a communist, you must be a communist led organization. as a scholar i the right structure and the fractured citizenship african-americans have. what created those rights and what are the strategies have been deployed to try to overcome the denial of those rights? the fractured citizenship african-americans have?

>> once again but if we wrap up the book is the second period you can bite quite easily it's a wonderfului book to read, digest and have conversations in your community with your friends and peers andnd family. i would like to wrap up by talking about what this work does to you. i read these books but i don't get a sense you have given up. they are topics it will be easy to be despondent and totally aimless. these problems are too big i don't know what to do that with them. i do not get that sense from you that you feel like these are bridges that cannot be crossed. how do you maintain any sense of optimism? especially going so deep into some these issues that have a lot of darkness to them? >> i look at the ways that

americans have fought back. that there is been a a consistet understanding of the horrific conditions that black people have had to endure. and there has also been this pushback, this refusal to accept that subjugation coming out of the black community. have those in the white community who were also like no, this is not the america i signed up for. i want to be in a better america. so that fights, that struggle has been consistent. that is where the hope is. so you think about after the u.s. supreme court gutted the voting rights act of 2013 decision. you had a slew of voter suppression laws they were so intent than the 2016 election black voter turnoutut went downy

7%. that would havee been enough, organizations mobilized, mobilized. i knew saw this massive voter turnout in the midterms and in 2020. we arege also sink like a white rage the policies being pushed back. no were not having them. you are also seeing mobilization. my hope is folks do not capitulate. that they are really resting on a history of fighting for democracy. fighting for a vibrant real democracy. 's are. what my hopes >> before it let you go, i will tell everybody professor anderson's family is from right here in oklahoma. and so it's a bit of a virtual homecoming, more in the central part of the state around oklahoma city area. but i do hope at some point we will get to have you visit here in person.

and i cannot tell you with the experience it was and i wish you the best with it i would encourage all of you guys to get a copy and read the book bright and go back. if you have not went red white rage are one person one vote, spend some time with these books. go out and do the work great thank you professor anderson and take care everybody. we will see you very soon. ♪ weekends of cspan2 are an intellectual feast. every saturday american history tv documents america's storyn sunday's book tv brings you the latest and nonfiction books and authors. funding for cspan2 cons of these television companies and more including buckeye broadband. ♪ ♪ ♪ ♪