The Great Migration: Searching for Freedom, Finding Injustice

The Great Migration: Searching for Freedom, Finding Injustice


– Okay, good evening. Welcome to this Brennan
Center for Justice event at New York University School of Law. I’m Ted Johnson, a senior fellow
here at the Brennan Center. As many of you know, the Brennan Center is a non-partisan law and policy institute that works to reform and revitalize, and, when necessary, defend the systems of democracy and justice. Tonight we’re extremely excited to bring you this conversation as part of Carnegie Hall’s
second annual citywide festival. The theme of this year’s festival is Migrations: The Making of America. It celebrates the movement
of people seeking new lives and how their contributions
shape the nation and define what it means to be American. Tonight’s discussion, however, is going to explore an
intranational migration. At the turn of the century, 90% of black Americans lived in the South, but by 1970, that number decreased to 53%. The outflow of black citizens from the South to the North,
the Midwest and the West, is what we call the Great Migration. Between 1910 and 1970,
six million descendants of enslaved black people left the South in search of civil rights protections and economic opportunities. What they often found, however, was more racial discrimination. The impact of their journey created seismic cultural,
economic and political changes that continue to reverberate today, and this is the discussion
we’ll be having tonight. We gave the first word
of tonight’s discussion to the migrants themselves, and now I’d like to
invite up our panelists, Mark Whitaker, Marcia
Chatelain and Keneshia Grant. (attendees applauding) Oops. – Dropping the mic already. – Drop, that’s right. The video dropped the mic, if anything. – Hello, everybody. I’m Mark Whitaker. Thanks for coming. Really looking forward to this discussion. Thanks to everybody at the Brennan Center and to our friends at Carnegie Hall for putting this together. I am a recovering journalist. (laughs) I’ve spent most of my career in print and television journalism. But, more recently, I’ve
become a book author. My latest book is about the legacy of the black community of
Pittsburgh during this period. It’s called “Smoketown: The Untold Story “of the Other Great Black Renaissance.” On the panel today, we have a number of other scholars who come at this subject from different vantage
points and expertise. Marcia Chatelain is associate professor of history and African-American
studies at Georgetown, and the author of “South Side Girls: “Growing Up in the Great Migration,” which looks at the generation
of young black women who grew up in Chicago, is
that right, during this period. Keneshia Grant is an assistant professor of political science at Howard University. She has a book coming out soon called “Relocation & Realignment:
How the Great Migration “Changed the Face of
the Democratic Party.” There’s a Pittsburgh
connection in that too, which maybe we can talk about. Then, of course, our impresario tonight, a person who put this all together, Ted Johnson, a senior fellow
at the Brennan Center. So, it’s gonna be great to
discuss all this with you. I’m gonna start. Eventually we’ll get to audience Q&A. But I think I wanted to start just by, since all of us have either written books or have books coming out, and have spent a lot
of time looking at this from that perspective, to just tell you a little bit about, sort of, what we discovered in our books. Then we can get, by the end, I hope, both
in our own discussion and then also in the Q&A, to some of the relevance of this history to what’s happening today. Because, in addition to it being one of the most seismic historical
events of the 20th century, I think what happened
in the Great Migration explains a lot of what is still happening in black America and in
America in general today. In my book, I looked at black Pittsburgh, which, although it was small, the black community of
Pittsburgh was small in relation to Harlem, Chicago, some of the bigger black communities, in the period that I look at, from the late ’20s until the early ’60s, was arguably after Harlem, New York and Chicago, the most influential black
community in a variety of areas. One was journalism, where
the Pittsburgh Courier, during this period, was the
most influential black paper. It had overtaken, at least for a while, the Chicago Defender, which was the original great
national black newspaper. The two greatest Negro
league teams of the 1930s both came from Pittsburgh,
the Crawfords and the Grays. Some of the greatest jazz
musicians of that era came from Pittsburgh, Billy Strayhorn, Billy Eckstine, Mary Lou Williams. And, in the middle of
all of this, in 1945, August Wilson, our
greatest black playwright was born in Pittsburgh. So, to a large extent,
my book is a celebration of the accomplishment of this community despite everything they were up against. I talk in the book about how, and I think one of the things that’s interesting about
the Great Migration is, that you can make broad generalizations about the experience of all the migrants, but I think the actual, the story of the communities
in individuals cities varies partly on where
the migrants came from and the conditions that they encountered when they got there. In the case of Pittsburgh, one of the things that sort of made for this great period of
creativity and entrepreneurship was a lot of the migrants
who came from Pittsburgh, particularly in the first
waves of the Migration, came not from the Deep South, but from the northern and
eastern parts of the South. Some of them came from families that had been freed for generations. Those who were descendants of slaves, often they had been house slaves, and therefore had learned to read and read music and play instruments. So they arrived in Pittsburgh
with a lot of culture. Second, in the wake of the
Gilded Age in Pittsburgh, Andrew Carnegie and the Mellon family, and so forth and so on, the public schools in
Pittsburgh were very well-funded in the early part of the 20th century, and they admitted, not in huge numbers, but they admitted black students. So, a lot of the people
I write about in my book were beneficiaries of that public school system and that era. The third was that there was a sort of a spirit of entrepreneurship. Pittsburgh was a kind
of an industrial town where black folks, often they were serving
the black community, but were starting
businesses, and so forth. That’s what created this renaissance. But then, I talk at the end of the book about what destroyed it. I think a lot of the factors here I think are common to a
lot of these communities. Number one, obviously,
was industrial decline. The migrants in Pittsburgh had come, as migrants did to Chicago
and all the other cities, for jobs in the factories or other jobs that would depend on the
strength of those industries, and all of a sudden, those
industries very quickly started to go into
decline at a period when white folks could get loans
and move to the suburbs and transition to other kinds of jobs. Black folks were stuck in the city to deal with that. The second, in Pittsburgh, but
I think in other cities too, was the disastrous
effect of urban renewal, particularly in the early
waves of urban renewal, where, in the case of
Pittsburgh, the Hill District, which anybody who has
seen August Wilson plays, you know about the Hill District, was literally torn down
to build a civic arena in the late ’50s. And, in addition to destroying the most historic and vibrant part of the black community of Pittsburgh, it cut the rest of the black
community off from downtown. But then the third
factor that I talk about at the end of my book is what I call, there was white flight, there was also black middle-class flight, that, when starting in the ’60s and ’70s, you had black folks, thanks
to the civil rights movement, affirmative action, who had opportunities, educational opportunities to
go to college, to move away, to make careers elsewhere, and a lot of them didn’t come back. I got interested in Pittsburgh because my dad grew up in Pittsburgh, and he was part of that generation. He went away to college and
became a college professor and he never went back, and you had a whole
generation that, previously, ironically, under segregation,
would have stayed. The most ambitious, the most educated members of the community,
the so-called talented 10th, would have stayed in
those black communities and become leaders, and, instead, they went on to
lives and careers elsewhere. And at precisely the point when those black communities
needed leadership, they were left without it. So anyway, so that’s the story of my book. As I say, largely a celebration
of the accomplishments, but then, with a really
sad, poignant, tragic end, very quickly starting as early
as in the ’50s and the ’60s, and, unfortunately, for the most part, it just got worse after that. So just to sort of stay in order here, in the way we got on the stage, (laughing) Keneshia, why don’t you go next – Okay.
– and talk about your focus, which is
on the political impact of the Migration? – Hello, everybody. Special shout-out to the students. Hey, I see you. I see you back there. My book is about the political impact of the Great Migration. Hey students. I came to it because I got to grad school and I knew I wanted to
write about black people, and I’ve been interested in
politics since I was very young, and I knew that lots of
black people were Democrats, but I was not sure what that was about. So I set off on this
journey to try to figure out why all these black people were Democrats. I’m a Democrat, was a
Democrat in the story, but I still wanted to
know what was happening. So I go back and I go back and I go back and I reached a point where
black people are Republicans, when the Republican
Party is a liberal party, not the Republican Party of today. So, I’m trying to figure out
what’s going on in this switch, and, in the political science literature, there is no answer. They don’t say, well, this
is kinda how black folks got into the Party in ways
that made sense to me. One of the big things that was missing is this large movement of
black people out of the South. The story as they had written it it was like all these black
people lived in the North. They were Republicans one day, and then the next day they were Democrats. That story’s not really right. There are a bunch of black
people who live in the North, a small bunch of black
people who live in the North, and then there are
millions of black people who go from the South to the North. So who are those millions of people who could not vote in
the South before 1965, and then how do they show up? So my book is, primarily, trying to kinda reshape the way we think about how black folks get into
the Democratic Party, and we use the lens of the
Great Migration to say, all these people who could
not participate in the past, go to the North, and in the
North, they can participate. So how do they show up in politics? I think they show up as Democrats because the Democratic
Party kinda works hard in the cities I write about, to get them out to vote and
to have them participate. The book has three chapters, and the chapters exist in kinda two parts. The first part is about
how white politicians respond to the migrants. White politicians have varying
responses to the migrants. In a place like New York, Mayor LaGuardia is interested in having
black folks in his coalition because he is interested in
defeating the Democratic Party. So he works kind of harder
than some of the other mayors to get black folks on board with his work. In a place like Detroit, it’s not so. Detroit doesn’t have parties in the way that Chicago
or New York has parties. So, the people who are
running for office in Detroit, run campaigns that are very racist, that say, these black people
are coming from the South, they are going to integrate
your neighborhoods, and if you want a pure white neighborhood, you need to vote against
these white liberal people. So, kinda how white politicians interact varies from city to city. But not only that. I wanted to write a book
that was about black people. Many of the books that
exist in political science that are talking about civil rights and talking about black people, don’t have black people in them. So I wanted it to be the case that we had a book about black people with black people in it. So, the second half of each chapter is about the black people who migrated, who moved to these cities
and got elected to office. One of my favorite stories is about a man who lived in New York. His name is Edward Austin Johnson. Edward Austin Johnson is
from Raleigh, North Carolina. In Raleigh, North Carolina, he is elected to the city
council in the year 1898, and he is a Republican in that story. He’s in coalition with white Republicans. The white Republicans
decide, later that year, that they don’t wanna work together with black people anymore. Instead, they wanna be in coalition with Southern white Democrats, who were kinda racist at the
time, very racist at the time. As a part of that, he loses
his seat on the city council. He’s not able to participate
in politics in the same way. He’s furious about it. In 1907, he decides that he
wants to move to New York City, and so he does. He moves here, he
establishes a law practice, and he gets involved in
politics, kind of immediately. 10 years later, he gets elected as the first person to be seated in the New York State Legislature. If you can imagine, in your own life, moving to a place, and 10 years later, not only being registered,
not only being active, but getting elected to office,
that’s what these people did. So the second half of each
chapter is dedicated to them, where we get to talk about their stories, who they are and what they
thought was important. – So Marcia. – My book is called “South Side Girls: “Growing up in the Great Migration.” Previous to that, I had very
bad titles for the book. Then, in 2008, Michelle
Obama introduced herself at the Democratic National
Convention in Denver, with a short film entitled,
“South Side Girl,” which not only opened up an opportunity for more people to buy my book, (attendees laughing)
but it allowed for a reframing of what the South Side of Chicago had been previously a shorthand for. If we think of South Side as a way of people talking about a
series of urban failures, the Obamas opened up the opportunity to think of the South Side of Chicago as a generative and creative space, where dynamic leadership
could be cultivated. If the title of my book is
dedicated to Michelle Obama, the shadow title of my book, which I would say is the
audacity of hopelessness, is a shout-out to the president, because one of the things that I
thought was really important in writing a book about the experiences of girls and young women during a period of time that
is often framed as a triumph, right, African Americans leave the South and they find new
opportunity in the North, and that’s absolutely true. But if we see this history through the lens of girls and young women, people who are most vulnerable to harm, and who do not always have the agency to make the decisions, when they arrive in Chicago, what kind of story do we get? So, I try to be very
attentive, in the book, to the poignancy of the
experience of opportunity. I think that my orientation toward looking at the mixed emotions
that change engenders comes from the fact that I’m
from an immigrant family, that on one hand, we
move to another country because there’s so many opportunity, and then there’s a deep sadness because so much of our
experience is about separation, separation from family
members, from loved ones, from community and a sense of space. I wanted to really honor
and appreciate that, that girls had mixed
emotions about an experience that, for their parents, they not only imagined as
providing economic benefit or relief from the terrorism
of the Ku Klux Klan, or the opportunity to
engage in a leisure culture that was designed for African Americans. All of those things are true,
and it was deeply difficult. So the book looks at different responses to the presence of
African-American girls in Chicago. The first is the work of
African-American women, like Ida B. Wells-Barnett, who is battling the white-dominated
philanthropy structure to make a case that the care of orphaned African-American girls should stay within the community, and not be outsourced to a
new model of child keeping that makes girls vulnerable. So there’s these really
contentious moments with Julius Rosenwald, the
creator of Sears and Roebuck, and if you’re of a certain age, you have no idea what I’m talking about. It was a department store. (laughing) It was before Amazon. You got all your stuff at Sears. (attendees laughing) He’s incredibly generous in the South, but he also has a presence in the North. And, in many ways, it’s this idea of, who really knows what our girls need? The remaining chapters look at African-American girls in churches, and the fact that, for
many African Americans, they are not welcomed by black churches. They are very uncomfortable with the presence of all of these people who have not socialized themselves in the same ways that they have. They have this tense
relationship, and, at some point, church leaders are actually
telling African Americans to stay in the South and figure it out, maybe it’ll get better, knowing full well the ways that communities were vulnerable. So I talk about the
Moorish Science Temple, which was the precursor
to the Nation of Islam, and the ways that girls figured as objects of modesty and
purity within that framework. I talk about girls at
school and the challenges that a lot of African-American
girls in the South had, going to school. So, so much of the
Great Migration rhetoric is the fact that, in some cities, Chicago wasn’t one of them, did not have room for
African-American children. So the children who actually go to school, the teachers are a little
hostile towards them. They really question whether
these girls can succeed. Then, on the other end of the spectrum, are these really talented
African-American girls who finish high school and
maybe even complete college, and they realize that the only
economic opportunity for them is domestic work. So they say, like, why did
we uproot ourselves for this? The last thing I’ll say about the book, that I’m particularly proud of, is that, as a, I’ll still
call myself a young historian, but as a younger historian, when I said that I was writing a book about African-American girls, people would say, well,
there’s no archive. Where are you going to get their stories? How are we gonna get their voices? One of the things I learned
from doing this project is that we cannot assume
that we are the first one to come up with an idea. So I’m not the first one
who ever did research on African-American girls. But, I am of a generation that actually has a platform
to publish about it. So when I went to the
University of Chicago archives, there were beautifully-written
dissertations about African-American girls, but because they were written by women, because they were written
by African-American women, prior to the 1960s, no one published them. The other kind of major discovery
that I made for the book was I was at Howard University’s archives, it was a very hot day in August, and it was Washington, D. C., so you can only imagine
how beleaguered I was by the time I got to the library, and I said, let me go through the papers of E. Franklin Frazier, who, I think, is probably one of the
most important sociologists in the United States, and everything that E.
Franklin Frazier thought, he wrote it down and
found a way to publish it. But one of the things that
I found in his papers, is that he had an entire notebook of interviews with African-American girls who had participated in the Migration, who were in a special program for girls who had unplanned pregnancies. What that discovery revealed to me was, these voices were always there. The question is, what
were the social shifts that needed to happen for me to emerge and be able to be a
professor and a historian to take those voices seriously. I think that the Great
Migration is a topic that we can always think that we’ve heard all of the stories. But so much of the storytelling
is mediated by the politics of who has the opportunity
to write those stories, and who we think we should listen to in understanding this period of time. – Ted, tell us what you’ve been up to. – I wanna approach the
topic from the perspective of the work we do at the Brennan Center, some of which has been
touched on here tonight. Certainly, the Brennan Center
cares about voting rights and about liberty and national security, but one of our other thrusts is around ending mass incarceration. We know the story. It’s well-known that the United States locks up a lotta folks, 2.3
million people locked up. The highest rate in the world. In real numbers, more people than any other
country in the world, including China and India, that have a billion more
people each than us. It’s also well-known, that
a disproportionate amount of our prison population are black folks. Black people make up 13%
of the nation’s population, but comprise over 33% of
the prison population. Because these two facts are well-known, we tend to conflate them and
assume that they’re related. That is, when the war on drugs was enacted and the prison population
spun out of control, there was also aggressive
policing of black communities in racially disparate ways, that also led to racial disparity showing up in our prison system. However, the racial disparity
in our prison population predates the war on drugs. It goes all the way
back to Reconstruction. In 1880, black people
were 2.4 times more likely to be locked up than white people. In 1940, black folks were
five times more likely to be locked up than white people. Today, that’s about six times. So, between Reconstruction
and the Great Migration, the racial disparity in
our prison population more than doubled, 110% increase. Since the Great Migration, since 1940, including the war on drugs in to today, that ratio of disparity
has increased by 20%. So, the Great Migration did more for racial disparity in our prison system than the war on drugs. So, the problem we see
in our country today is not a new one. This is baked in, and the migration of black
folks to Northern cities exacerbated racial disparities that were already existing in our society to a level that we haven’t seen since. The question, though, is why? Why is it that black folks that are looking for economic opportunity suddenly find themselves imprisoned? Why is it that black folks running away from racial terrorism find themselves incarcerated? What is it about moving to
pursue the American dream that makes folks intolerable? The question, of course,
is rooted in racism, but it’s animated, it’s
exacerbated by something else, and that is immigration,
but European immigration. Between 1890 and 1910, you get about 12 million
European immigrants, white European immigrants,
coming to the United States. Shortly thereafter, you have black folks moving from the South to the North. When white immigrants
came to the United States, they weren’t seen as white folks
like American white people, they were seen as second-class citizens. So, while they’re trying to
figure out their way in America, you get a lotta black
people that arrive too. Now they’re arriving in these very congested
urban northern cities, where the social order
has not been worked out, where the racial hierarchy isn’t as binary as black and white. It’s sort of white American,
those white immigrants, and then those black
people from Down South. So, because white European immigrants arrived before black folks
migrated to the North, they were able to establish themselves politically and socially,
through patronage jobs, law enforcement jobs, that sort of thing, that once black people began to arrive, they were able to leverage those positions to establish their own economic security, security for their own communities, and the black migrants bore the brunt of their search for
freedom and opportunity. So, you now have white immigrants who are seeking the security of becoming white like white Americans, and black migrants
bearing the brunt of that. This isn’t just punditry. This is what the data actually show. Irish immigrants, for example, were arrested disproportionately
in northern cities, but once black folks began to show up, the arrest rates for those
who immigrated from Ireland decreased, while black folks’ increased. We saw it in Pittsburgh, for example, 78% increase in black arrests, and they were never for serious things. Things like being suspicious. Things like being disorderly in public. These were petty crimes that wouldn’t send them
to jail for a long time, but long enough to miss work tomorrow, which would lead to firing
in an overcrowded market. White immigrants were trying to establish themselves in these cities, which put them in competition,
economic competition, residential competition,
social status competition, with black migrants. So, every time a black
person was criminalized, they became less competition for an already-limited job market. 78% in Pittsburgh I think. For New York, Detroit
and a few places in Ohio, we see the same thing. It becomes a problem in the North and leads us to where we are today. What we all have, after a hundred-year
sweep of history here, you have black people in the South who were enslaved and then
freed after the 13th Amendment. Then they criminalized, in order to help replace the labor force that slavery had abolished. So the 13th Amendment,
I’m sure as you all know, has that little clause in there that says, slavery’s over except if you’ve
been committed for a crime. Then it’s justified. So black folks were criminalized there to replace the labor force. So they’d get outta there
and they’d come North. Then, they’re criminalized so that they can’t get
into the labor force and present competition to the white immigrants who
are now in these cities. Criminalization of black folks happens to keep us in the labor force in the South and out of the labor force in the North. Taken together, you
get mass incarceration, which is terribly racially disparate, and that’s what we’re
seeing the effects of today. – I wanna follow up with
a question for all of you, which, perhaps, kind of pulls this forward to talk about what’s going
on now, which is that, the very moving film that we watched and necessarily short, so it can’t really get
into all the nuances, but basically, sort
of, paints a picture of black folks in the South who were suffering under
the worst of Jim Crow in the post-Reconstruction era, moving North and immediately
facing all of the same problems “Up South,” as they called it. What I found in studying Pittsburgh is that it was a little
more complicated than that. I think that, in fact, what happened, as with Reconstruction where there was a brief period
following the Civil War, of great advancement, politically and socially and culturally, and optimism within the black community, that led to a severe backlash. It actually, in fact, as we all know, a lot of the worst of Jim Crow sort of came into being in
the wake of Reconstruction, and that’s what black folks were escaping. In Pittsburgh, at least,
at least for a while, even though things were never great, they were better than
they were down South, even through the Depression, until you get to World War II, when there was a period of real hope that black folks would be able, as did a lot of these poor migrant groups, by supporting the war, going
off and fighting for America, proving their patriotism, they would come back and
they would finally get a greater measure of equality. In fact the opposite happened. So once you have another period, a brief period of black
progress and optimism, it’s totally shut down after the war. That’s when you start to see even worse housing discrimination. You see white flight
from urban neighborhoods. The schools get worse. We have the problems with
the criminal justice system. Here we are today (laughing) in the wake of eight years
of our first black president, when a lotta people will be saying the same thing is happening. We finally got to a
point in racial progress where we could elect Barack Obama, and then we get what we have now (attendees laughing)
with this president. So, is this a pattern in American history, and, if so, did you find that in the areas and the
cities that you covered? And if so, what do we do about it? Because it suggests
that it’s not hopeless. We do have these periods
when things move forward, but then we have these savage
backlash periods afterward. – I think the short answer is, yes. I got in trouble in 2016 because I was trying to tell my friends that I thought Donald
Trump was going to win. They looked at me like I had a third eye. I was like, “Listen,” well
maybe not a third eye, but a second head. And I said, “If history is any indication, “when there is great progress “in the United States of America, “there is great sadness afterwards.” They called the period after
the Reconstruction the nadir. Black people did. So, I don’t think that having
Donald Trump as the president is a surprise. I think that, in my book, at least, I saw the same kinds of things happening. In Chicago, for example,
there’s a mayor, Kelly, who is kinda doin’ okay, and then we have liberal
mayors who come after him, and as soon as a liberal
mayor gets elected, is in office, does their
thing, supports black causes, they are immediately followed
by conservative mayors, who run on these platforms of, we just had this liberal person
who supported black people. I know that you all out there don’t like this kind of progress that’s happening for black people. If you are upset by that
progress, vote for me. And, members of the
white community come out and vote for the more
conservative candidate. That happens in a number of cases in the cities that I studied. – I think, yes, that we
understand that progress backlash is the kind of force of history. But I think that, upon reflection over the changes in the political
climate in the past few years, I think that we are witnessing something that we have yet to really reckon with, and it’s the fact that,
in the United States, we never stick to any of our good ideas. Our very good ideas, there’s always a
mechanism to abandon them, and then minimize them. We never really did Reconstruction. It was a great idea, that the second it showed its return, there was a mechanism to take it away. We never did the war on poverty. When I show these things to my students, sometimes they say, well why
were these people so naive? And I said, “They weren’t naive, “because, in their own lifetime, “they had gone from a Jim Crow regime “to seeing the registration
of voters in the South.” “So, of course, they think to themselves, “by 1980, we won’t have
these problems anymore, “because they saw this rapid change.” But again, we never gave school
integration a real chance. We never did open housing a good chance. Right now, the students
at Georgetown University are working on a referendum in which they would collect student fees as a reparations gesture towards the fact that the university
sold 272 people in 1838. These young people are being ridiculed, and I’m thinking to myself,
they have a good idea. Let us see an opportunity. So, all of this is to say that, when I look at the ways that
people from the Deep South saw something in front of them, in the migration process, they saw the good idea
of freedom and mobility, and the second that could be realized, even in the smallest way,
like a guaranteed wage, or maybe a labor union that would accept them as equal members, or maybe an opportunity that their child could go to a school that had real books in it, that was taken away. So I think it’s a
cautionary tale to all of us to, perhaps, invest more
in our radical imaginations than our deep desire to suggest that we invalidate any
idea that seems new to us. Because perhaps this is what has been missing this whole time. – It’s almost like we believe,
or the nations believes, that there’s not enough America
to go around for everyone. What that really suggests is that there’s not
enough power for everyone. United States history would
agree with that assertion. The Compromise of 1877 is
when Rutherford B. Hayes is out of Ohio, Republican. Samuel Tilden is the
Democrat from New York. Tilden wins the popular vote. He’s winning the Electoral College, and there are 20 disputed electoral votes, and what the Republican Party says is, we will effectively end Reconstruction, we will pull federal
troops out of the South, if you allow to shift those
20 electoral votes in dispute to us and allow our
Republican candidate, Hayes, to win the election of 1876. This was agreed to. Hayes becomes the president
on March 4th, 1877, and within a month, he pulls federal protections
out of the South, that ensured black folks’ right to vote, that ensures black folks’
right to own property, in exchange for the White House. So the 13th, 14th and 15th Amendments that the nation effectively
went to war over, a million casualties, was undone in exchange for the White House. In sociology, they would sort
of categorize this generally as the group threat theory, the idea that when an outgroup moves in, the ingroup feels a
threat to their interests, and develop negative
attitudes about the outgroup. They use that threat to their interests and those negative attitudes as a way to justify the
subjugation of those new arrivals. After Reconstruction, when
you enfranchise black folks, there is a threat to
the ingroup’s interests, and that has to be repelled. After the Civil Rights, Great Society legislation of the ’60s, there’s a threat to white
social status, agency, whatever, that needs to be put on the back burner and the war on drugs becomes a vehicle to criminalize a lot of black communities. Back to Mark’s point, or his observation, folks have talked about quite a bit now, that after eight years
of a black president, we get this backlash in the
election of Donald Trump and the idea is that
there was a sense of loss, the word was economic
anxiety, but it really was, was a sense of loss of social status, that something had happened to
white people in this country that they were being put
in the back of the line behind immigrants, behind
ungrateful black folks who kneel when the
national anthem is played, and they needed to recapture their status, recapture their place in the hierarchy. So the backlash is often
about some sense of loss, real or imagined, and I don’t know what the solution is to allow people to feel like
America can be expansive and that’s it’s not a zero-sum game, that you can actually grow the democracy without disenfranchising
people in the process. – Questions from the audience? Anybody? Sir?
– Yeah. – Can you just?
– A mic’s coming to you. – I’m hoping to get in as
many questions as possible, so if we can keep our questions brief. If anybody has – [Woman] (mumbles) here you go. – an observation, they can come
up and talk to us afterward. – [Man] Yeah, I saw. I’m a Chicagoan. – Oh.
– Okay. – [Man] Parents migrated from the South. – Wonderful. – Indiana to Chicago. Had family in both places. He just said something
that was very important, that we must understand. As educators, which all of you are, you made a point. you said, you don’t know. One thing that we do know is that there has been a plan against African-American
people since our existence. There was a plan to keep us in slavery. There was a plan to
destroy Reconstruction. There was a plan to start Jim Crow. All of these things were
set by people and plans. Even today, we’re still living
up under someone else’s plan. But never have our educators come through with a justifiable plan
to say, political party, Democratic Party, if you want
our vote, this is our plan. This is exactly what we want. We don’t do that.
– So do you have a question? Sorry, do you have a question? – The question of it is, is that, could you address anything that would do to bring us into a political structure to wheres we can set our own plans and not depend upon other
people’s plans, as educators? – This actually, we were
talking a little bit about this, and I don’t wanna, I think it’s basically the
same question, which is, it is true that, because
of the Great Migration, because of the fight for the
right to vote and so forth, black folks have acquired
a lot of political power and, right now, I think, it’s pretty clear that they, for a while now, have been the most reliable
part of the Democratic base. But, the question is, what
are they getting in return? If they’re not getting enough, is that because of some structural
problem with our politics or is it also a function
of black leadership in terms of settling for what, in many cases, are sort of symbolic gestures as opposed to real policy changes? – I’m gonna take up
something that you said that I think is really important, that if we have a vision
of an expansive America, then we have to have a vision of an expansive political process. We know that so many
people are disenfranchised because of their citizen status, their citizenship status, their age, felony conviction records. There are a number of people who are just out of that process. And, at the same time,
these are also people who are on the ground leading
incredible political movements like the City of Chicago. If you see the kind of organizing, that Black Youth Project 100, all of those young people
are not voter-eligible, but boy did they send a message to Alvarez about being the county prosecutor. Boy did they send a
message to Rahm Emanuel about the way he was running the city. So I think that these concerns
about the Democratic Party are very important, and while
we raise those concerns, I think we have to remind people of the power that they
have in other capacities, because it’s usually in those
capacities on the local level, if we look at the civil rights movement, those people weren’t voters either. But they had an ability to
organize and, through education, bring people closer to political processes to get those needs met. So I think it’s a both/and. – Yeah, I think that’s right. That’s something I talk
about a lot at school. I think that the greatest
possibility for us to have impact is at the state and local level, and it is most often the case that even for those of
us who do participate, we are generally thinking
about the presidential election as the most important thing, when the truth is, your
city council person matters. In D.C. this week, we
had this big discussion about go-go music and whether go-go music, which is like a native
black music in D.C., should be able to play
in the streets of D.C., and that was settled by people who represent
local constituency. So, I think that’s a
good place to get started if we’re thinking about what you wanna do in order to get working. I think, in terms of the
national question though, there’s so much that we have to reimagine. So, one of the things that is different about today than about the
time that I write about, and that we write about, is that, kind of the issues, some
of them are the same, but some of them are different. Black people have kind of
very wide-ranging notions of what the world should be,
as they did at that time, but there was, in most of
the things that I found, a common goal. We want to end discrimination in X Y Z. So, I think that’s the case still today, but the way that manifests looks different for different people. I think that we also live in a place where this idea of a singular
leader is kinda dead. I think, as soon as we kind of figure out, how we manage that, and
how we make the idea of dispersed leadership
work in a political party, on behalf of a people, then we’ll be kinda moving
in the right direction. But, I try to be honest with the students, and tell them I don’t know. But I don’t know means like,
let’s think about it together. Let’s work on it. Let’s test some stuff. Not, I don’t know so let’s stop. So, I don’t know, but let’s
work to figure it out. – One of the things we work
on at the Brennan Center is trying to get more states to adopt automatic voter registration, to do exactly what you’re talking about, which is expand the electorate and get more people involved
in the political process, and we’ve had some really good success over the last couple of years. But, to your question
about black interests, unfortunately, if history is a guide, the black interest is never
the national interest, and when it is, when we
realize racial progress, it’s because it is in
the nation’s interest to expand rights to black folks. So, the Civil War didn’t come about because Abraham Lincoln
had a moral epiphany about the condition of black people. He knew that, if the Union
was allowed to break up, that internecine warfare
was gonna break out in the Continental United States in the same way it did Europe. So saving the Union, and this is from Lincoln’s
words, his own mouth, saving the Union was the
priority for the Civil War. If black folks got freed in the process, good, and I’m happy for it, but let’s just be real
pragmatic about why it happened. In the civil rights movement,
really from ’48 to ’68, in that time period, that progress from the Desegregation of the Armed Forces through to the Fair Housing Act of ’68, you had presidents who realized that being the champions of democracy
and liberty and freedom on the world stage, while black folks were being
lynched and disenfranchised, wasn’t a good look. And the Russians knew it
too, the Soviets knew it too, because every time we
would get on our high horse about democracy, they would
say, and you lynch Negroes. That’s a hard thing to come back from. So a lot of civil rights
progress benefited from the fact that we were in a cold war with a communist nation that called us hypocrites
on the world stage. The book I’m currently writing is about how do we find a way to
create multiracial solidarity and create racial progress without having to latch a black interest to something that’s
unrelated to black people. The idea, at least in my own thinking, is to show that racism is not just about how to subjugate black people. Racism is a crime of the
state against all of us. White Americans get less from their nation when they allow their nation
to practice racist things. Black folks get less than less, but none of us benefit
from a racist society. We all come up short. From Bacon’s Rebellion in 1676 or the postal strike of 1970, every time a multiracial
coalition is formed, the elites, political economic elites, find a way to break that coalition by pulling out the racial cleavages. – [Woman] Do you believe that – Do you wanna go to a microphone? – [Woman] Do you guys
believe that young people have the capacity, as
young, budding voters, to try and move forward after the decline following
the Trump election? – Yes. (attendees laughing)
Yes. Hi. Yes, I think that, when you, She has a whole book about that, right? When you go and read the history, when you start to kind of
dig through the archives, you will find that the people
who are doing the hard work and the people who are telling the truth and like unashamed to tell the truth, are young people, your age. So yes, I absolutely think
that you have political power and that you can change the world, when you are in coalition
with your friends and have strong ideas. – [Woman] Thanks. – I’m curious what,
just to latch onto that, what you guys think about the conversation of lowering the voting age. – Sure, I mean, as long
as people can vote. (attendees laughing) I am so disgusted by the
mechanisms of voter suppression and I am not over what happened
to Stacey Abrams in Georgia, and every time I have a
public platform, I say this. Because, like you said, if
you don’t know what kind of, if you’re never running a fair race, you don’t know how good or bad you are. So, all of these mechanisms of disenfran, the thing that concerns me, is that I think we could
possibly, in my lifetime, elect another president
of color, heaven help us, because we have opportunities
to expand the electorate. But expanding the
electorate is only useful if people can actually vote. And this is something that, lowering the voting age is fine, but I am so concerned about all of the dirty
tricks around voting. Furthermore, if the
young people in this room were super excited about elective office, I think that a progressive campaign to vote in secretaries of state, to have a 50-state ground
game in changing voter laws, would probably be one
of the best movements that could be ignited right now. Not very sexy, not very interesting. But if you get a bunch of people who understand the importance
of access to the ballot, then the ballot can
actually mean something. I think that these are
the types of strategies that we did see after 2014, with the rise of the
movement for black lives, that people were running for local office. And young people are
running for local office on these really progressive platforms. So, I think that lowering the voting age, reducing voter suppression,
is the first step, and then having a popular
education-based national movement to teach people about the different ways that they have power, how exciting is that? Is anyone else excited? – I wonder if you all could,
– I’m so excited. – Since we’re talking
about migrations, comment, ’cause this is actually something I hear young people debating, which is, there is now a reverse migration going on, that actually a lot of
the black populations, as the black populations
of the northern cities continue to decline, black populations are
increasing again in the South. There are cultural reasons for that. But there is also a
debate, or an argument, that if you were young and mobile, and wanting to have a political influence, that you, potentially, could have a far greater
political influence moving back to the South, or maybe just some other
currently red state and trying to make a difference there, rather than staying in a place where you can be active
and militant, and so forth, but ultimately, it’s not
gonna change anything in terms of the electoral map. What do you guys think about that? – I’ll just say, very quickly, ’cause I think this is an area
where the other two panelists here have more to offer from
the scholarly standpoint and based on research, but there was a great
New York Times op ed, maybe a year or two ago,
about this very thing, and it was written by a
black woman who was saying, “I think I’m gonna move to
Atlanta and leave New York.” Her reason was, racism is everywhere, but it’s expensive as hell in New York. (attendees laughing) So, if I’m going to to– – Retweet!
– experience racism, I must as well have a lower mortgage, and be able to buy a home
and stretch my dollar. So a lot of that reverse migration is still about black folks seeking some sort of economic security that’s very hard to find in bigger cities. So the motivations aren’t
really that different. The last thing I’ll say is, I know a number of folks
who have left the North to move to North Carolina,
where I’m originally from, to Atlanta, even to Charleston, and they say, I come to
Atlanta, for example, and I see lots of black,
middle-class people and they’re families, and they’re driving these
fancy cars and have great jobs and live in these big neighborhoods with million dollar
homes, all black folks, and the only time I ever hear
the N-word is in hip-hop songs or, sort of, in social settings, but I’ve never been called
that in these places. It was when they lived
in Chicago and New York, where they were actually
called the N-word. So it’s not just a matter
of like economic security, but there’s also a social,
a community of blackness in the South that feels different, and a relationship across
racial lines in the South that comports itself differently
than it does in the North. – Yeah, I think that that piece about the economic motivations for moving is really important and it’s something that you
hear people talking about. If you talk to a black,
recent college grad, they’re gonna be telling you stories about Atlanta, Charlotte, Houston, and they are talking about
that thing all the time. But, another thing that I
think they’re thinking about that kinda shows up in the Great Migration is these access to middle-class networks. So I wanna to to Atlanta, but I don’t wanna just go to Atlanta, I wanna go and, like, be in Jack and Jill I wanna go and, like, play with– – [Mark] Does everybody
know what Jack and Jill is? – Oh, so Jack and Jill is
this organization of women who get together, in the
North in many instances, so that their black children will have other black
children to play with, but not just black children, like upper or middle-class black children. (Marcia speaking off mic) – I was not in Jack and Jill, so I don’t, I’m telling you what I heard, right? (attendees laughing) I think what I’m trying to say is that they’re looking for a community, but like a specific type of community that you can’t get
unless you, necessarily, have a large population of black people. I think the return migration is something that is really important. That’ll be book number two, hopefully. And, I think that that leads
to a Stacey Abrams, right? And so we’re not having–
– Yeah. – conversations about a black woman being competitive in Georgia unless the black people
in Georgia’s coalition are big enough to be in
coalition with other people and then put her in a
position to get elected, except they stole it. – In this conversation,
I’m gonna be myself and be a little bit of a downer. I think outmigration is fascinating and I remember, in Chicago, in the ’90s, my friends’ families are being like, we’re done with the snow,
we’re done with the cold, we’re done with this nonsense, we’re going to Atlanta,
we’re going to Atlanta. But if you remember, the mortgage crash and the ways that this outmigration
really, really affected the precariously middle-class
families that were searching, is, for me, reminiscent of the
family that moves to Chicago and is living in a kitchenette
with three other families for $25 a week, when they shouldn’t be
living in those conditions. So the reason why I raise this is, there is something deeply poignant about all of these
attempts at black relief that are met with an economic structure that isn’t just about the
funny mortgages that bust, but also the states
that they’re moving into don’t have the best labor laws. Las Vegas is a very good example of this. Even if you can become somewhat middle-class working at a casino, you don’t have the kind of
labor protection, sometimes, depending on what union you’re
in, in case you get sick. So, some of these
structural things, I think, we also have to imagine, because growing a black middle class, is not going to save us from
this, if this is a middle class that is a middle class on borrowed time. So some of these movements,
again, are the ways that, even when African Americans are well-educated and well-situated, they are painted into this corner that doesn’t allow for the
generational wealth-building and sometimes only allows for
temporary access to power. (man speaks off mic) (Marcia laughs) – It seems to me that an
issue that goes hand-in-hand with voter suppression is
the funding or our elections. If it takes the backing of a
billionaire to get elected, then we have elected officials who are accountable to billionaires first. Do any of you have thoughts or ideas on how to change a process so
the voices of the electorate actually help shape a political agenda? – This is where I get to plug the Brennan Center very quickly. I would invite you to go to our website where we have a lot of materials
on campaign finance reform that were not only working
federally, nationally, but also in New York State, with a pretty significant
success hopefully on the way here in the state. So, yes, we are thinking about that. And it’s necessary because there was a pretty widely-read
paper that came out in 2014 by Gilens and Page, I think. These two scholars, what they found was, they wanted to know, who is government responsive to? What they found was, it’s not the people, and it’s not movements. Government is responsive to
organized business interests and economic elites, period. In those instances where
you could get elites to line up with what the public wants or what a movement wants, then you would see
movement on those issues, but if the government only
responds to those with resources, then it looks pretty dire for the public. This is why campaign
finance reform is important, because if politicians
are self-interested folks, and they are, as most of
us are in various ways, then they care most about re-election. If their re-election is not contingent on big dollar fundraising, but it is contingent on winning the support of the
majority of the populous, to include financial
support, then, perhaps, we get a government that’s
more responsive to the public than to the monied. But I don’t know, maybe we’ve had periods
of American history where the people have
put their candidate in. And, I think, in some respects, some folks think we’re in
a period like that now. I don’t know that this is
actually a better instance. So it’s not just about being
responsive to the people, but also being a liberal democracy where the majority doesn’t
overrun the minority just because they have
subordinate numbers. – I think I’m gonna continue
to be a optimist here, and encourage you to think about
or look at local elections. I kinda come into politics at FMU, shout-out to the Rattlers, and this wonderful, very
dynamic friend of mine is running for a city commission. His name is Andrew Gillum. He just ran for governor of Florida. So Andrew Gillum is a student at FMU. He is running for the city commission against a young white man, who is so old in
Tallahassee family history that one of the main streets where Florida State University is located is named after this kid. He is the heir apparent. He’s gonna win. What they don’t recognize is that the kids at FMU have a plan. We have registered to vote. They weren’t paying attention. We stayed home for the
first summer election. They weren’t paying attention. We showed up and we voted
Andrew Gillum into office. So, yes, government, in many ways, is beholden to business
interests, elite interests, absolutely, especially
at the national level. But sometimes there is
magic at the local level, where you can get your people together, figure out what your win number is, and move folks to the
polls to upset some stuff that people might not think you can upset. – One more question. – Mark, you mentioned the impact of the brain
drain in Pittsburgh. So I had a question for all the panelists. What was the immediate
impact of the Great Migration on the black people
who stayed in the South in terms of politics and socially? – Ah, that’s a great question, yeah. – Yeah. – There is increasingly better scholarship on the people who stayed. It’s a lot kind of like
immigration to the United States. so remittances, so money sent back home is allowed to keep people alive. During periods where there’s instability in the agricultural market, people are able to send
some money back South. I think one of the big impacts is that there is a exchange of Southern
culture which becomes urban and becomes popular culture in
this really interesting way. So there are things
that are deeply Southern that become black and
then black becomes urban. So there’s some cultural exchange stuff that’s really interesting. But I think for the people who were left, the people who chose not to leave or the people who were left behind, there was this deep, I think there was a real challenge by the time the ’60s come,
about how black people were going to be in
solidarity with each other in terms of civil rights organizing. This is the classic story
of Martin Luther King going to Chicago and people are like, keep that mess in the South. So each Party is trying to say, how do we keep things at a
place where we can stay safe and not rock the boat too much as we’re trying to organize and agitate. I think that there’s
still a lot to be learned from how families survive because there are some
people who go back and forth in that North and South, but
there’s some people who said, I’m never going back to the South, and they meant it and they kept to that. So I think, on one hand, you have disruption in family systems, but you also have a kind
of connected politics that is played out, and I think Martin Luther King and the Southern Christian
Leadership Conference becomes a proxy for
some of those tensions, when people in the North are saying like, please, don’t bring this trouble here. I think we’re still in
that process of repair between Northern and
Southern black communities. – Even though, on a state level, most of those states
remain quite conservative, at the city level, I think
that you could make an argument that the sort of black establishment, business and political establishment and the white political establishment have found ways of working together that’s more productive than
what you see in the North now. I think that’s true in Atlanta. I think that’s true now in New Orleans. It’s true in a number
of other cities as well. So there was still, as awful as the worst of the
history of the South was, white folks and black folks
had to deal with each other. They always had to deal with each other. Even when it was violent they
had to deal with each other. Part of the problem of the North was that folks weren’t even
dealing with each other. Black folks increasingly
ended up in neighborhoods that were predominantly,
and then ultimately, in a lot of cases, completely black. The white folks split for the suburbs, and nobody really
learned how to get along. So, it’s sort of an irony
that, in the end of the day, I’m not saying that it was in any way easy for the folks
who stayed in the South, but I think that there
is a kind of progress that eventually happened
in parts of the South that I still don’t think
we’ve gotten to in the North. – Yeah, I think that I would add to that, that there are some people
in the writings who say … There’s a debate. There are some people in
the writings who are saying, I will not go North because I believe that my fight is here in the South. So some of the brains stay in the South. There’s also a part of the Migration, that my family is a part of
that we don’t talk about much, which is people going from
like Georgia to Florida. So sometimes, people go
from South to further south, and some of the brains
go in that direction too. The people who are in
the South intentionally are organizing folks in the
South to help the South, in addition to some of the migrants who go to New York,
Chicago, Detroit, et cetera, get elected to office, and
when they are elected to office and sitting in state legislatures, say, I want this for my people here, and you need to be careful
about what you do to the South. They say that in their state legislatures to the white people in
the state legislatures, and they say the same things
when they go to Congress. For example, Adam Clayton
Powell is representing New York, but is the black
congressman for the nation. He makes it clear that
I represent New York, but I represent all black people too. – I think we may have time
for one more question. – Hello. We have seen patterns in urban areas over voter suppression, over-policing, not having access to
(mumbles) of healthcare, no matter if it’s mental health or obstetrics and gynecology,
and food insecurity. Last week we did have a particular artist and community leader murdered in Los Angeles. And, in these urban areas, we often feel like there’s no hope when we go back and we help in communities that are underprivileged. My question is, what advice would you give to young adults in urban communities who want to better their communities, but don’t know where
to start or are scared of bettering underprivileged neighborhoods in fear of community pushback? – Just to both keep it brief,
but also sort of specific, what is something you
can do that you can do, that’s not waiting for
society to change overnight? – That is an enormous question. I think it depends on where you come from and where you come to it from. I am from a place called
Lauderhill, Florida. I haven’t been living
in Lauderhill, Florida since I was 18. So if I wanted to go and do
work in Lauderhill, Florida, even though I’m from there, I’d feel like I have to have conversations with people in Lauderhill
about what they want. So I think that’s kinda where you start. I think you work with the
people who live in these places to determine what they want and need and then you just gotta figure out how the systems are organized
to create these bad situations and then figure out how
it might be possible to shake that up. I don’t have a specific answer for you, but that would be my guess. I think you need to be in community with folks who live in the community. I think you need to think about
what you want to accomplish, put those things in order, kinda think about what
is possible, or not, and then figure out what the systems are and how you attack them. – I would add that you have to have concrete asks of the community. So, you can’t say, that we want more economic
justice in the hood, because, if the mayor were
to say, okay, let’s do that, now you don’t have a plan of action. So it has to be very concrete. It could be a $15 minimum wage. But it has to be something that a person can actually deliver on instead of broad, overarching objective. The more you’re able to narrow down, this is what my community needs, and be very specific about those needs, the more likely you are
to find an audience, or at least be able to negotiate
around that specific ask, instead of the broader principle. On both sides of the aisles, both Parties will probably say, yes, we want more economic
opportunity in the inner city. But the ideas of how to
get that in the inner city are very different on
both sides of the aisle. So, just saying economic
opportunity isn’t sufficient, you have to have some very specific asks. The other part of this, though, is that government is meant to fru, I don’t wanna say it’s
meant to frustrate you. Government bureaucracy is constructed in a way that is extremely frustrating for people who wanna get things done. So, you cannot disengage because the system is constructed
for those with resources, not just money, but time. Those are the folks that
are able to effect change. So, when you bump up against
roadblock after roadblock, it’s easy to say, these folks ain’t gonna
listen to us anyway. Let’s go find something else to do. Don’t disengage, but redouble your efforts and be very specific about your demands and fight the good fight and beyond that. – And remember, everyone
has something to offer. Everyone doesn’t have to
wait ’til they’re educated, perfect, eloquent, can
talk to 7,000 people. Someone’s good at making sandwiches. Someone’s good at babysitting. Someone can make a sign. Someone can make a phone call. Someone knows how to use social media. Everyone has something to offer. At the end of the day, the thing that really
sustains good movements, is the capacity for people
to do something well, feel empowered and try more things. Within communities that amplify that, people love each other radically. This is really the key thing
that’s going to keep any group that’s in any type of struggle together, a deep love and commitment
to what’s being done and an appreciation for
what people have to offer. – And I would just add, and I hate to be the one to bring up Martin Luther
King, in a black (mumbles) – No, it’s so true though. – The Montgomery Bus Boycott is a lesson. He was, what, 26 or something at the time? – And Rosa Parks did all
the groundwork for him, – A lot of the groundwork– – So lots of women.
– done by black women behind the scene. That’s for sure. But, they managed to boycott the bus system in Montgomery for a year. – [Marcia] Could you imagine if you stopped taking MTA for a day? – For a year! And it wasn’t like they all had cars. So they arranged car pooling,
babysitting services. They figured out a way to do without the thing they needed
most to get to their jobs. The only way they did that
was with young folks’ energy, their ideas, their sense of
community and solidarity, and the endurance to stick with it because they felt they were right, and a very narrow and concrete ask. Desegregate the buses. Period. – I think we’re gonna have to wrap up. We wanna thank, first
of all, Carnegie Hall, Ma’am, you’re welcome to come up and ask us questions afterwards, for supporting this panel and making us part of their
celebration of Migration. It’s an honor for the Brennan Center and for everybody up here. I wanna again thank our panelists, Keneshia Grant, Marcia
Chatelain and Ted Johnson. Marcia and I have our
books done and written and available, if anybody
wants to buy them, and we’d be happy to sign
them after the panel. Finally wanna thank Ted for putting this – Thank you.
– together, as well as Lisa Vosper and Adam Able, who worked on the film. And also for the footage provided by
the Library of Congress, the Louie B. Nunn Center for Oral History at the University of Kentucky, the New York Historical Society and “Up South: African-American Migration “in the Era of the Great War.” For anybody who wants to
continue to follow the work of the Brennan Center, the website is brennancenter.org. Also has a Facebook
page, a Twitter account, videos on YouTube, and now podcasts – That’s right.
– on iTunes. Welcome to the world of podcasts. It’s really been an
honor to join you tonight and, like I say, we’ll be
hanging out for a few minutes if anybody has further questions. Thanks very much. (attendees applauding)

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *