America 250: History vs. Mythology with Annette Gordon-Reed and David Blight

When you get older, you got to have yourself a little bit of the comfort. And that's where the avocado green mattress comes in, man. And unlike most mattress brands, they'll only sell you online. They do have stores too. You can go in the store. You can try them out. Unbelievably comfortable. Avocado mattress is designed for comfort, support, helping your body stay aligned. You know, the last time my body was aligned, it's been, I think it might've been the last time the Mets won the world series. That's how long it's been since it's been aligned. But these mattresses, avocado green mattress, responsibly sourced organic materials that are built to last. So get an avocado green mattress. Avocado products are made, not manufactured and thoughtfully crafted with real materials to deliver lasting comfort and support. You can experience them in person at an avocado showroom or premier retailer near you or shop online at avocadogreenmattress.com slash TWS to check out their mattress and furniture sales. Avocado green mattress.com slash TWS, avocadogreenmattress.com slash TWS period. Look, you know, I don't know when I'm going to leave this job. I don't know when I'm going to stay in this job. I don't know how these things are going to do, but when I do, you should replace me with Indeed. You should call Indeed when you're replacing me because I, listen, this podcast, it requires space. You need a face. You need a pie hole so that you can open your pie hole and just spout. That's that not everybody can do that. And so, uh, you know, if you need to hire, you got to say to yourself, this is a job for Indeed sponsored jobs. You can reach candidates that meet your specific criteria. Like if you want them to have skills or pie hole certifications, maybe even you want to know what the location is. Only Indeed can get that stuff done efficiently. Trust me, you know, you got to, you got to kiss a lot of frogs unless you use one of these services there like Indeed. So spend less time searching and more time actually interviewing candidates who check all your boxes, less stress, less time, more results. When you need the right person to cut through the chaos, this is a job for Indeed sponsored jobs. And listeners of this show, we'll get a $75 sponsored job credit to help get your job to premium status. It deserves that indeed.com slash podcast. Just go to indeed.com slash podcast right now and support our show by saying you heard about Indeed on this podcast, indeed.com slash podcast terms and conditions apply. Ladies and gentlemen, welcome to the weekly show podcast with John Stewart. It is Tuesday, June 16th. Year of our Knicks 2026. Oh, I don't know if you hear in my voice in any way. It's a little something called life, a little something called hope. You know what? Here's, I'm going to say something before we get into the show. The Mets can suck all year. I don't give a fuck. Do what you want. Come in last, have a payroll of $500 million. I really don't give a shit. It doesn't matter. You know what? You've been granted amnesty. You have, you have a waiver. All my other teams. You have a waiver. The 53 year drought. Boy, did we have, well, I know you're sick of hearing about it probably, but, uh, seventh Avenue, 10th street, my wife, my son, Robert Smigel, one of his sons. We stood there in the heat, staring at the side of a building, projecting the game. It was just one of the most wonderful, uh, experience. Of my sporting life to just be in the city and feel the hopes and fears and ups and downs and adrenaline and, uh, negativity followed by just an absolute explosion of joy. And I have to give one along with like NYPD, NYFD, sanitation department, the people who projected up, there was one dude, two guys, actually. MVP. He's of our, uh, uh, of the, the seventh Avenue watch party. They had an igloo cooler and in that cooler was the most delightful mix of snacks and drinks. I don't know where these angels came from. They had, uh, on crustables. They had those little blue bell cheese, fucking pucks that you unwrap margaritas, beers, water, and just everything. They had a lot of different things. stories. We say, where were you born? Where did you grow up? You meet somebody and you say, where are you from? If you say, I'm from Texas, that tells people they think, rightly or wrongly, a lot about me. If you're from Brooklyn, it tells you about him. So I think we take ourselves and we look at the nation and we sort of meld them together and say, how did this country get started? Because it's going to tell us something fundamental about who we are. And we've always done this. And your first question about the polarization, I mean, history is inherently political because there's a battle about how people are supposed to think about themselves. So one person will tell an origin story that they think is all uplift and not truthful. And I think that that's one of what David is getting at there, because it's something that makes you feel good in the present. And at the same time, you can, on the other hand, you could say, well, I want a truthful story. I really want to know what happened in the past so that I can have- Right. Much more nuanced, as you said, story, a more realistic story. Now, what I face is that I write about slavery and I write about Jefferson and very difficult topics. There are people who don't want a truthful story about all of that. They want something that's a feel good. And sometimes it makes you feel good and sometimes it doesn't. But you have to have both of those things to have the kind of complexity that makes real history. David, what is the damage of a truthful story? Why is that so resisted? I mean, and that brings up a good point. And there's something in there also about people lie to themselves as well. It's not just about, you know, so I imagine for a historian, that's even a very difficult thing to tease out that you can read, you know, the difference between sort of journalism being the first draft of history and history and how you tease out, are these people lying to themselves? Are they lionizing themselves? But why would that be so resisted? Well, because it, because narratives are always in conflict. And when a powerful historical narrative, a series of stories, exhibitions in museums, great historic sites get somewhat reinterpreted, it can disorient people. It can dislodge them from the pleasing, pleasurable, familiar narrative. You know, most human beings, let's face it, we're all a little bit part of this, want to live in a kind of chosen narrative. We'd all like our great, our grandparents to be heroes. Our great grandparents, we can really make heroes if we didn't know them. You know, we always, everyone's always looking for the perfect ancestor, you know, as long as they don't have to know too much about them. And, you know, I mean, we, we, that's the man and that's what your origin story, man. Yeah. No, origin stories are self-made. Who are we? Well, let us tell you. And also, I mean, origin stories are tricky. We can't live without them. Every culture does it. Every church does it. Every institution does it. Every country does it. Always has. But they're tricky. Marc Bloch, the great French historian killed in the Holocaust, he had a little piece of an essay he entitled The Idol of Origins. And he said, well, beware. As soon as you find your origins, well, then that origin has an origin. And then that origin has an origin. And watch out. You don't really fully know the origin unless you look deeper, deeper, deeper. So the trouble with history is that it can, it can dislodge us from the comforting story we'd like to be living. And that's part of what's happened here in the last, let's say, two decades, really. It predates Trump, where the American right has become so concerned about some of the great changes in how we've interpreted, narrated American history, everything from race to gender and many other issues have, has gotten them all worked up because there was a, there was a comfortable narrative of this country. There always has been. And it, it got quite dislodged, not because as a Trump executive order said, we were trying to tell everybody nothing but shame about America. That's nonsense. That's not what we do. It's just because we've, we've learned how to tell the complexities of history. And it turns out most people want that. Oh, they definitely do. I would be sure of that. And that, is that what you've seen? That over time, you know, the fact that you're dealing with tricky issues of slavery and race and, and those kinds of issues, is that, uh, is the dividing point here that the effort is to create an origin story of the country that's more singular and more reflective of maybe a Christian origin story? Or an, a nationalist origin story that's more homogenous and that because you're dealing in the complexities of race, or as David said, gender, things that don't fit as easily, that's where the pushback comes. And have you felt that pushback grow? Oh, yes, definitely. I mean, the last, from the revolution and the historiography of slavery in particular in the forties and the fifties and, and ever since then, that goes along with the history. We ask different questions of the past, depending upon what's going on. And once we started changing, uh, laws and, and getting rid of segregation, all those kinds of things that making, transforming America, you go back and people start looking at history in a different way, asking different questions. And I think as David is suggesting, this is a reaction to all of that. There are people who want to put the genie back in the bottle and want to rewind the tape and say, no, let's go back to a more comforting narrative, mainly because we're perhaps they want to go back to a more comforting country, you know, a country that a sort of 1950s, 1940s country and everybody idolizes. But that's a time when, you know, people went to separate bathrooms, people, you know, women couldn't get credit cards. I mean, all these things, there's a lot that goes along with this nostalgic vision of history, and that is a, a nostalgic vision of the present. And so that's, what's really frightening about it. It's not just about a complaint about history. It's a complaint about where we are in history. It's a complaint about where we are now, the kind of country we have become in the past 50 or 60 years. So is the idea, Annette, that if they feel like they can control the narrative of the past, they can control the future? Exactly. I mean, the thing is, this is who we are. And this, the push for originalism, the idea we have to go back essentially to, it's always the 1789 constitution, 1787, 1789 constitution. It's not the post-civil war one that gives us the 13th, 14th, and 15th amendment. Let's go back to the original. And that is back in a time when, you know, black, there was a strict racial hierarchy, a gender hierarchy, and we can't do anything past what those people thought at the time. And that's, you know, that's, that's a complaint about history, but it's also a complaint about the new society that America has tried to make in the late 20th century, in the early 21st century. John. Yeah, David, go ahead. We live in the country that is essentially held together by the 14th and amendment. Section one of the 14th, birthright, citizenship, due process, and equality before law. Right. That's right before the Supreme Court as we speak. We were reinvented by the 14th amendment, and we still live under it if we, if we can hold it. You know, what's at stake here is more than just history. It's the social order. I mean, it's this idea that if you, if you let these, these crazy left-wing historians, and universities alter the national story that fifth graders learn, eighth graders, 10th graders, and college students, the social order could fall apart. Family values could fall apart. And, and look, it's one of the reasons the right is so exercised about gender, because that is a relatively new challenge to the, to the nature of history, if you like. But it's ultimately here, a question of who controls the social and cultural order. History is always at the center of that. It's always the first problem. Absolutely. I mean, and, and the 14th amendment basically animated by the declaration of independence that gives us a creed that says all men are created equal. And the progress of America since that moment has been try to realize that. And that's why you have this attack now, even in some ways on the, the declaration as a creed saying, as a sort of creed, creed for America and saying, no, America is not just a country about a creed. It's a country about, you know, a race. It's about a religion. It's about something that doesn't have that inclusive encompassing thing. So the declaration in the 14th amendment talking about equality has been a target for people who want a different vision of what the country is about, a white nation. Mint Mobile. I don't know what you want. I don't know what you want out of a phone company. What I want out of a phone company is deliver me a good product for less. And don't bother me. Don't bother me with the like, Oh, have you heard about our new program? You can upgrade to it. It'll just cost you a lot more. And then they're like, call you a bunch on their own phone. Think about that. Think about the diabolical mind games that phone companies are playing by like locking you into an expensive phone program. And then they're and then using the very item item that they sold you to contact you about paying more for some ridiculous upgrade that's not even really an upgrade. Oh, they're Diapolitan, but not Mint Mobile. Mint Mobile plan, 15 bucks a month, 15 bucks a month. What is it? 1992? 15 bucks a month. High-speed data, unlimited talk and text delivered on the nation's largest 5G network. To get your new wireless plan for just 15 bucks a month, go to mintmobile.com slash TWS. That's mintmobile.com slash TWS. Got your wireless bill to 15 bucks a month at mintmobile.com slash TWS. That's it. There's no catch. Upfront payments of $45 for three months, $90 for six months, or $180 for 12 months, plan required. $15 per month equivalent. Taxes and fees extra. Initial plan term only. Greater than 50 gigabytes. May slow when network is busy. Includes up to $10,000. 20 gigabyte hotspot. Capable device required. Availability, speed, and coverage varies. See mintmobile.com. I really hope they speed that up. Man, the kids really love that playhouse, huh? It's not just a child's playhouse. It's a rental property. Kids, off Gary's roof. He's got a movie to stream in there. Wait, someone actually lives in there. Lives, works, and thrives. That playhouse is basically a smart home now. Your Wi-Fi reaches the playhouse. That's amazing. Of course. We're Gagillionaires. It reaches everywhere. Can I check it out? I'd love to get in there. Sorry. Booked solid. Gary's got it locked down for another six months. What about the treehouse? That's Marie's. Who's Marie? Our neighbor who's renting the treehouse. She's up there streaming her British baking show. All right. Um, what about the shed? Have your people call my people, okay? You have people? It's just me. Live without limits. Get home internet from AT&T and cover your home. Full house. Even your playhouse-turned-rental property. AT&T extended Wi-Fi coverage service required. Limited availability. Visit att.com forward slash internet to learn more. I'm fascinated by the idea that by telling the stories of diverse populations, why do you think they view that as degrading to our national history and not something that is a reality? Is more remarkable about our national history in terms of where we've come? I mean, you've studied Douglas, maybe the best scholar on Douglas. You know, reanimate him for a moment. Would he be astonished by the progress made or disappointed that we're still litigating the very same structural issues that he litigated? Both. No, he would, both. Damn you and your nuance. Oh, I know. These historians, these historians are, they're always saying on the one hand, on the other hand, but, but truly, Douglas would be astonished at some of this progress, but he'd be disgusted. He'd be, oh Lord, he'd be disgusted at this attempt to erase all of that progress that has been made. A best way to understand that is Douglas gave a very important speech in 1869, right at the point of the passage of the 15th Amendment, the Voting Rights Amendment. He called it the, Composite Nation. It's one of the most beautiful expressions you would ever read. And note the date again, this is 1869. It reads like a multiculturalism manifesto, you know, from a school system in the, in the 1990s. Woke. Yeah, no, yeah. Douglas was woke. I think most people would agree. Douglas was woke. The dude, the dude was into pluralism. And the speech expresses this beautiful, you know, crazy quilt of America. And in the middle of it, he stops, he takes up the great present issue of that moment, and he makes the case for Chinese immigration. Chinese immigration was becoming a huge issue, especially from the West. And there's Douglas saying, get ready, America, they're coming. And they got a 3,000-year-old civilization with stuff we never thought about before. Yes, they have alien language. Yes, they have alien religion. But man, these are amazing people. Get ready for them. And anyway, so. But even that, though, think, think about that, though, that moment in history, 1869, Douglas says that. And what are the two things that occur almost right after that? Right. There is the birthright citizenship case about a Chinese immigrant. Exactly. But then the second thing is, the South reinstates. Takes back the country. Takes back, right, reanimates the very thing that created the progress that Douglas is talking about. It's the single most hopeful moment. It's the single most hopeful moment of Douglas's life. Yes. And he never, John, he never gave that speech that I could find after about 1871. It was falling apart. Right. Yeah. I was doing research for a book and found my great-great-grandfather's name on a voter list in Texas in 1867. Oh, goodness. And it was amazing. And then I thought, then I got sad because I realized what's going to happen. In a couple of years, Texas is going to, I mean, all this stuff is going to be rolled back and he's going to be put back into a state of near, not chattel, but near chattel, almost as bad as slavery. I mean, that time period stripped of rights and so forth. And is the idea that the right would like that moment erased from the record or de-emphasized? What is the purpose of it? And Annette, you face this, I mean, again, when we talk about Douglas with David Blight, but also Sally Hemings and Jefferson with Annette Gordon-Reed. I mean, your scholarship on that. Unparalleled. So is that an analogous historical figure in terms of, do they want that relationship erased? Well, you know, when I was working on this subject, it occurred to me that I think a lot of it, when I listened to people, it has to do with this question of a white nation. If somehow a person who is a symbol of the country had seven children with a woman who is not purely white, then what does that say? about the country as a white nation? I mean, an actual literal founding father here of not just white people, but of people who were black and who has descendants who still identify themselves as black. So a lot of it is just, it's a vision of themselves and the vision of what they want the present to be, to sort of situate the past to sort of put us on the path to getting to a place that is comfortable to us. And that is one where whites are in ascendancy and people of color are, you know, are lower down or people who are discriminated against. I want to ask you about the process of that because, you know, David, you brought this up earlier, that idea of woke and diversity being a buzzword about this has, we have to take woke out. You know, I think Trump did the executive order restoring truth and sanity to American history. And it was all about removing any idea of woke. The idea being that the left, or the elites are so focused on issues of race or gender or those kinds of things. But those, the people that were under those discriminatory discrimination policies, they didn't create those distinctions. They had to live under them. The idea of obsession with race or gender doesn't come from those who suffered under it. It was the ruling class that defined those groups. Well, that's true. No question. And black folk didn't write the pro-slavery laws. No. Black folk didn't write. Or define themselves as something different. They weren't part of the self-definition of being chattel by any means, of course. Now, whether the right wants total erasure, there are many different parts of the right, as you well know, John. And some of them would say, oh, they just want to talk about emphasis. You know, they don't want to lose Jefferson in the story of Sally Hemings. Annette could tell us hours on that. They don't want to lose Abraham Lincoln in the stories of the complexities of how emancipation actually happened. They don't want to lose George Washington in the story of how the American Revolution was won and how bloody it was and how difficult and contingent it was and how they almost didn't win and so on and so on and so on. There are parts of the right who really are white nationalists. And I've learned this, I guess I'd say the hard way. I recently challenged Kevin Roberts, the president. Kevin Roberts, president of the Heritage Foundation. Yeah, yeah. I challenged him to have a debate and we ended up doing an hour and 10 minute podcast. Really? Oh, yeah. Yeah. And look, we set two rules. We were going to be civil. And sorry, we really tried. We did all right on that one, mostly. And we were going to stay in our lane. Because Kevin is a historian. His PhD in history from UT Austin and his dissertation was on slavery in Louisiana. And it's not bad, 25 years ago. And he's also one of the architects of the new right, which is that Project 2025. Absolutely. And what they want in the future and has been on record as saying he wants the future to be Trumpism. Absolutely. And some of these executive orders come right out of Project 2025, verbatim language. They were written over at Heritage Foundation, many of them. But Kevin and I stayed in our lane as historians. We tried to be civil. And by and large, it didn't work. really well we did remain civil i was his host i couldn't do you know well i've been in that position i bet you have yeah you've interviewed a few people it works out better than other times but okay you've interviewed a few people you'd like to kick that i'm sure yeah probably correct is that safe to say what was what did you think do you think he's being disingenuous then what was his especially if he's written uh you know uh a dissertation on slavery in louisiana i mean surely he understands the complexity of it is he now being disingenuous for a purely political project sometimes he is i'm totally convinced of that he he can read off uh you know 12 uh talking points uh for the trump white house in two minutes he's very good at that but often the disingenuity if that's the right word comes when they start cherry picking uh when they start saying well there was this one exhibit at the african-american history museum that said this that they should not have said or there's that art museum over there that suggested that sculpture has something to do with scientific racism which sometimes it does but they will pick out a single cherry-picked example somewhere and you see the whole damn institution has gone to hell with a bunch of liberals and radicals they confuse anecdote with data absolutely annette in your experience because the sally hemmings thing was a very different uh situation in that there was a real denial of the reality of it their their their position there wasn't cherry-picking emphasis it was no that's not true yeah none of those folks descended from uh jefferson and hemmings it's just not you're lying well yeah i mean it was denial for the reason that i was suggesting before that right there was an image of jefferson as almost the personification of america in some ways that's not a crazy thing that's that's one of the reasons he's an interesting figure for me because you can write about so much in american history uh through his life about slavery race politics foreign policy all of those things and so he was a hero to people in a particular way and they had sort of a personal identification with him um and they didn't want to leave that behind but i do want to say something about the the museum one of the interesting points that's happened here is that during the president's first term i believe it was in the first term he visited the museum and he was very complimentary of it yeah i mean he thought it you know it was a it was an uplifting story and then it changed after i don't know what was the heritage foundation or the new the new um uh the new product well the project that they put in place had to sort of alter the way they thought about these kinds of things and all of a sudden it becomes this cherry picking that you're talking about and you're talking about what could be more inspirational than that museum it's just odd to think that people didn't see that as a story of the bad and the good talking about it's sort of a progressive understanding of things are getting better and better as you go up the the floors and so it's exactly something that was made to in lots of ways to honor america not to be critical of it oh yeah not at all is the reason it was the hottest ticket in washington right absolutely because people do really want to know my experience is people really want to know the truth and can handle it and that was right at the beginning of his first term i think that was like february 17 or something but they hadn't really been fighting the culture wars to win yet i mean to really win now they are but why do they think why would you think that a more nuanced version of the history of this country is something to win or that that's part of a culture war is the idea that if we acknowledge the complexity of it we owe a debt to those who suffered is it is it about if if you do acknowledge that there was explicit racist or exclusionary policy that built so much of the equity of this country if you acknowledge that are you then saying and now there is a debt to that acknowledge that there was explicit racist or exclusionary policy that built so much of the equity of this country if you acknowledge that are you then saying and now there is a debt to that and now there is a debt to that and now there is a debt to that Absolutely. The thing is to say that black people, it's usually black and white. It's much more complicated now in lots of ways with other minority groups. The idea is nothing happened to you. The disparities that we see in health care and education and wealth, all of those things, it's because you have not pulled yourself up by your bootstraps. Nothing has happened to you. And if you tell a story, if you tell young people, wait a minute, you know, when Annette Gordon was a little girl at six, when she went to the doctor, she had to go to a separate waiting room that was much smaller and didn't have, you know, the accoutrements of the other side of the white one, or if you had to sit in the balcony. If you talked about all those things and that they happened to, you know, people, millions of people over the years, then you do owe them a debt. You do feel sympathy for them. Mm-hmm. And the lack of this notion that you shouldn't have empathy for people or sympathy for people is a big part of their thinking because they really don't like the idea of social programs, of any kind of responsibility that people have to try to alleviate those circumstances. So it's a way of saying, you know, we don't have any responsibility. The society has no responsibility for the legal impediments that were put upon people for many, many decades. So it's a way of saying, you know, we don't have any responsibility for the legal impediments that were put upon people for many, many decades. Sorry. Booked solid. That's Marie's. Who's Marie? All right. You have people? It's just me. Live without limits. Get home internet from AT&T and cover your whole house. Extended Wi-Fi coverage service required. At Harmony Bank, we believe that better happens together. We're a locally owned bank built on relationships and personally committed to your success. Our community bankers are ready to make quick decisions. No big bank bureaucracy, just a custom approach to help you thrive. From business loans to mortgages and everyday banking needs, Harmony Bank provides a secure, modern experience. With a touch of tech, you can make a difference. With a touch of Texas hospitality, we're Harmony Bank, where better happens together. What's so interesting about that to me is, so I think about it, and maybe this is far afield, but I think about globalization. And what it has done to the sort of the center of the country and the manufacturing base. And working-class whites, I would say, are the primary victims of that kind of job loss, right? It's very common in this country to say the policies that were instituted destroyed the economic prospects for those folks in that part of the country. It led them to deaths of despair. It brought out a lot of different vices and those kinds of things. And we're going to take policy measures. To repair that damage, we're going to levy tariffs. We're going to do various things to try and alleviate the suffering that occurred from the policies that were put in place. Isn't that the exact story of racially exclusionary policies? Why is that in any way a controversial issue? Well, okay. Good question. I mean, I grew up. I'm taking this class. All right, man. Well, you get an A already. All right. Done. But, you know, I grew up in an auto town, Flint, Michigan. I grew up in an automaker family. That white working-class Midwest, that's where I'm from. So there's no question. Democrats lost that white working-class, and Republicans gained major portions of it because of globalization, because of loss of jobs. Because of sending jobs abroad and on and on and on. No question. But what's also happened in that process is they have taught that white working-class and a whole lot of other people to distrust institutions like universities, distrust institutions like great museums, distrust this whole apparatus that Annette and I are just two small parts of, the practice of history, the practice of academic, the creation of academic knowledge. Right. And we got surprised by that. And this is where the left has to take at least a look in the mirror and realize that for years we were being distrusted and didn't really even know it. And we forgot that only about 47% of Americans ever even go to college, any kind of college. And the slight majority of this country never sets foot on a college campus, even for a football game, because they can't afford it. So, you know, we lost touch in some ways. We made our creation of knowledge obscure in many ways, although many of us for years and years, and Annette, you know, was the spearhead of this because of the Sally Hemings case. And that took time to convince Monticello and the country of its truth. Right. But there's a resentment there because of its truth. Well, that's true, too. There's a resentment towards Annette or towards you for even bringing up that truth. Telling us the painful stories. That's right. Don't tell us those painful stories. Make us feel good again. And it makes me feel like it's a battle. Okay. Over who the real victims are. And now the white working class is saying, no, no, no, no, no. It's not the woke that are the victim. It's us. Yeah. We're actually the victim. Yeah. Yeah. Well, there's the racial story that's involved in this as well. I mean, the white working class, you know, beloved of news organizations, so forth, the diner stories and so forth. Sure. They represent, they're seen as representing real Americans in some ways. And this is sort of a way of saying that black people are kind of, you know, they're not not real Americans. Explicitly so. Even the heritage Americans. Yeah. Yeah, exactly. And the truth is most African-American people are descended from people who came here in the 1700s, in the early 1700s. You know, so we would certainly be people who have a history here for very, very, you know, for centuries. And yet we're not real Americans. So when you think about when people are told that the government, and that's the other thing that they, if not only mistrusting universities. The government is the problem. So we're an industrialized country that doesn't have a social welfare system anywhere like that approaches anyplace else in Europe and are sort of people who have comparable types of societies. And that, as social scientists suggest, is because of the racial question here, is that people don't want those people, those people's children or those people to have, you know, to be helped in any way. And so it's very much a sort of a heritage Christian nationalist kind of understanding of who belongs in this country. But at the core of it, is it resource guarding? Because I think you see in some – I mean, I'd say that only because I have dogs. I was going to say because you – Because you have a dog. I have a dog. So I'm always thinking cognitively like, oh, they resource guard. And in some ways, is that the resentment of – you know, you hear that a lot. If we weren't spending money on these immigrants and the health care, my life wouldn't be hard. But we're certainly not the only country with a complicated history. Oh, not at all. Oh, God, no. Not at all. Talk to the Russians and the Germans. Right. Yeah. Well, but, you know, we do have something. We do have something a little peculiar on them, and that is, you know, talk to common Russians about progress. They might ask you what the hell that is, you know. Talk to whatever generation of Germans about progress. But Americans have this – I don't know if it's DNA in the water, in the air, wherever it all comes from. There's this – it's an American mythology. It's deep in American mythology. Or exceptionalism. Yeah. This place has to be about progress. And these messy, complicated, conflicted, difficult histories are disrupting that progress, are showing us that, oh, my God. Well, look, our job has been for years. And we – and actually, we're paying the price for some of our victories. I mean, I think so. And I wonder if Annette doesn't – You're talking about victory, progress in terms of civil rights and those kinds of things. It's breeding. It's resentment in other groups. But even writing the new histories. I mean, both of us here came of age with the transformations of the subject of American history. Race was the big subject for both of us, but many others. You know, the rewriting of American – the history of American foreign policy, the rewriting of the American West because of the explosion of scholarship on Native American history. And sometimes, you know, maybe we did go overboard. Maybe we did stop studying the present. When you say overboard, do you mean in terms of painting it as a story of pure negative impulse or colonizer versus victim in that way or – Well, to some extent that. And if I hear one more student in a seminar use the term settler colonialism for just everything they want, I will stop them because there are other ways into American history. Right. But I think it's – More than just, you know, shame or whatever. No, it's not. I'm talking about just the explosion of the new histories. I mean, there's so many new histories. We are so pluralistic. Annette, do you see that as well? Do you see a kind of excess in the scholarship? Because it feels like it's never excess if it's just – if people are just exploring those histories as long as there are other options to be studied. You know, if a college only – If a college only offered you a narrow slice of very specific colonialist victim histories. But it sounds like we're expanding the palette. Yeah, I would, you know, I would, you know, depart from David a little bit on this because I think it's basically comes down to the sort of cherry picking that we're talking about before. That people come and they look – go to a university and they find some class that they think is crazy and say this is what people are being taught. Right. Judged by its title usually. Yeah, by title. And people would say you can't take Shakespeare. I mean, there are no classics. And, you know, I went to Dartmouth and you could – and people would make these complaints about, you know, what's not there on the curriculum. But all the traditional things were there. It's just that they weren't focusing in on that. That's right. So I think it's more people being upset because they don't want other people – they don't want those kinds of things available at all even though what they want is still there. That's the point. That's the point. They don't want it available at all. It's a food court. And just because you've introduced Panda Express and empanadas doesn't mean you can't still go to McDonald's. Exactly. It's all still there. But it's the expansion of it is frightening. Yes. I mean, when people come to something that you – Yes. You're not used to this. You're used to the very things that you always went to and now you have all these alternatives. And, you know, it's Starbucks. You know, I want my coffee, but I'm resentful that other people are getting the no-whip frappuccino, whatever. But you can have those things if you want them. You can tell it's around lunchtime for all of us. Right, right. We're a little hungry. And all the analogies now are going to be – All the food. Food-related. But it's all taken as an attack. What are the ways – you know, so let's think about, you know, there are countries obviously with even more complicated – South Africa is a great example. And now there's this real renown. Renaissance and nostalgia for apartheid South Africa, Rhodesia and those kinds of areas. You see it on social media and all these other things. Why is there a nostalgia for that? And did South Africa's Truth and Reconciliation Commissions help bridge a gap to ease that? What's going on in these other complicated histories? Well, there have been many, many different attempts at truth and reconciliation. Truth Commission. Truth and reconciliation. In fact, we did a conference comparing all those at Yale some years ago. There are many different efforts, and they're very difficult to do. And they're all rooted in their own cultures and their own histories. But thank God that the world has at least attempted to do this in many different – from India to Germany to South America, South Africa, you name it. Nostalgia for past, it's a human urge. You know, nostalgia for the British Empire when, you know – Yeah. Yeah. Yeah. For some. Not just Brits. There are Americans who are Anglophiles and may yearn for, I don't know, some time in the history of the British Empire. They better not look at some of those wars the British fought in Africa or India. Sure. That's going to get ugly. Or amongst themselves. I think sometimes there's this feeling that if it was just homogenous, there wouldn't be issues. Yeah. But human beings will always find a way to divide ourselves. Oh, yeah. Yeah. And if you just – you can go back to, well, if it was just this anglicized version of Christian nationalism and you're like, right, but whose version of it? And suddenly you're back in the Protestant-Catholic wars. You're back into the Hundred Years' Wars. You know, you're back into a whole other era of violence and division just based on different characteristics. Sure. I once – I was teaching in Germany 30-some years ago and I showed Ken Burns' film series on the Civil War, all dubbed into German, by the way. It was weird. But anyway, a German student came up to me and said, why is it you Americans think that anything that happened to you was the greatest, the biggest, the bloodiest? And he said, have Americans ever heard of the Thirty Years' War? And I said, no, probably not. You know, I'm sorry. Right, but they probably haven't. It's a big country. You know, we don't do comparison that often, or we should do more. But, you know, the burden is still on us. It's still on us historians to make what we do clear, to translate what we do. And I think, well, you've got two historians here who have been attempting to do this for years and years and years, to reach out to real people who read books, you know, the public, to write in ways that are not only accessible, but good narrative, based on deep research, but good narrative. And historians lost touch with some of that over the years, the revolution in social history, the revolution in this kind of method, that kind of theory. But there's a real movement now. I think it's an interesting, in fact, this conference I'm running here right now is all about this, to take history to the public. Take good history to the public, whether it's in museum exhibitions, in our books, in lectures, tell the big complicated stories. To help you thrive, from business loans to mortgages and everyday banking needs, Harmony Bank provides a secure, modern experience with a touch of Texas hospitality. We're Harmony Bank, where better happens together. You know, Juneteenth is coming, June 19th, and people may not know, but you played a crucial role in, I'm embarrassed to even say, when I was younger going to school, I had no idea what was going on. I had no idea what was going on. I had no idea of that, the significance of that date. You know, we are taught the Emancipation Proclamation, and that's kind of the end of it. There was an Emancipation Proclamation, and after that, we were good. And then there was a little kerfuffle in maybe the 60s. Somebody here wrote a book on that. That's what I'm saying. So, you know, Annette, that's coming up. Is that, what was your process like in bringing that story more to the public forefront? And getting the acknowledgment of it from a government that's resistant to that kind of acknowledgment? Well, it was a pandemic book. Oh, that's the idea. If you don't leave the house. All right. You get a lot of writing done. Fair enough. I was there in Manhattan and only going out to Central Park for breaks and so forth. But, you know, I thought that I could tell the story of Texas and this day through my family story. So. And that's, I think that is David's point about making things accessible. People like stories about other people, you know. Right. And that was the hook to try to do it. I hadn't thought that the government, I hadn't thought that there would be a national holiday. There was another woman who's responsible, Opal Lee, who's more responsible for all of that. But the timing was good. And, you know, I worked on it and got it out. And it was, it was. It was a way to try to get people to think about not just the Emancipation Proclamation, but also to think about how African-Americans in Texas and other places in some ways liberated themselves by leaving the plantations and were responsible for, in some ways, for their own, for their own freedom. I thought it would be, this was sort of a celebration of human rights that people in the country could just say, this is just a milestone. It's not the end of everything. It didn't end slavery. It didn't end the whole. The thing of the slavery ends with the fight. Right. But it was some, it's a marker for people to latch on to. Can I, can I ask what the response is? Because I'm curious sometimes. The standard historian framing, and you brought up Ken Burns, is you're studying this other period and you're looking for all the source material and you're sorting out who might have been lionizing themselves, self-aggrandizement, who is, how are they manipulating the details of the events versus. What is your story about, through the lens of your family in Texas, where it's a much more personal story and I would imagine harder to refute through the lens of intentional attacks? Yeah. Well, I think it's difficult because I don't write about myself. It's much easier to write about other people and other people's families because, you know, it's just, you're too much into it. But by the same token, these are my impressions. Of my past. And so people can't, and this is what I think, people can't come and say, that's not how you felt. You know, watching Billy Jack, that's not how you, that's not how you felt when you saw those movies and, you know. By the way, one of my favorites, I think that informs, that you know a lot about people, which side of the town they were empathizing in Billy Jack. If you know people that watch Billy Jack and they, and you know which side they're empathizing on, that tells you a lot about where their politics are. Oh. Those movies, I've been trying to explain it to my kids. They were the best. In my town, my little East Texas, you know, very, very conservative town, all of these people were just whipping in, you know, in favor of Billy Jack and his compatriots. And I'm thinking, wait a minute, are you the same folks? Do you understand? Do you understand what this is about? I'm coming at this very differently. I was a high school teacher when Billy Jack came out. Billy Jack. Man, that was hot. I don't know how many times I saw that with students, yeah. But you tell those kinds. You tell those kinds of stories and people relate to them and you give them history and then it becomes a part of the whole thing taken together. You hope that they learn something. It's a different way of doing it, but. I want to ask you what's somewhat confusing about, for me, about this 250th celebration is one of the things that, you know, we were always taught about was this idea of American exceptionalism. And that American exceptionalism was about the creed. It really was about the difference. It was about the declaration of independence and all men are created equal and that is what separated. And to go back to blood and soil feels like an admission of defeat. It feels like we're then saying, actually, we're not exceptional. We're not a shining city on a hill. We're just like every other nationalist movement in the history of the world. So why? Wouldn't the right embrace what truly is exceptional about the country, this creed so difficult to achieve, but certainly worth the pursuit? Annette, what do you think of that? Well, a lot goes along with that. If you believe in the creed, you believe. I mean, and there have always been a segment of Americans when, you know, those words were written and when Jefferson said them and we could we don't have time to go into him on all of this. But there are always people who disagree. They disputed that notion and the Civil War in the South explicitly rejected it. And, you know, the cornerstone speech, we don't believe those things. Jefferson was wrong, essentially, what they say. So we've always had that some percentage of people. Tell me what the cornerstone speech is, because I'm not familiar with the cornerstone speech. Alexander, the vice president of the Confederacy, wrote a speech basically saying that the cornerstone of this new Southern society they were making was the idea that the African race was not created equal to white race. And he calls out Jefferson and says, basically, they were wrong. They believed, you know, essentially necessary evil, but they believed that slavery was the wrong thing. And we don't believe that. We believe that that is the natural state of African-Americans. Right. To be in slavery. And yet somehow, somehow in the early 1900s, it became about states' rights, as they might understand. Oh, yeah. Well, because at some point when racism becomes, they understand it's a dirty word in some way, you have to say, no, it's not. And they know they were wrong. Right. When people know they're wrong, they come up with some kind of explanation for what it is they're doing. And it is the tariff. You know, you kill 600,000 people about the tariff. Right. It's like, no, I don't think so. So the notion changes. Especially when the cornerstone speech exists, when it's on record. Yeah. On record. And it was just the beginning. I mean, every secession resolution told the world of the states that seceded. Exactly what it was. Told the world they were seceding to protect a racial system, a labor system. And by the way, that was a slave labor system. But, John, back to your creed question. I think it's crucial here. It's absolutely crucial. The creeds were dangerous. The creeds are dangerous. That Declaration of Independence, those four first principles, life, liberty, pursuit of happiness, and the doctrine of consent, and the right of revolution, they're dangerous. And nobody appropriates. And nobody appropriated them quite as vigorously, forcefully, hopefully, as did black Americans, eventually. And the whole abolition movement. Annette and I were just doing a teacher institute together in Philadelphia about the Constitution. And she heard me on this. But if a person goes and just reads the Declaration today, which we'll be hearing endlessly in the next week or two, stop and look. Jefferson spent more words. And so did the whole community. And the whole committee that wrote it, defending the right of revolution than they did of the other natural rights. rights almost as though life and liberty and consent were givens but that right of revolution you're going to overthrow a monarch you're going to overthrow a government they spent 22 lines of the declaration justifying that as a human right those are dangerous creeds but you're right we all own the creeds and why doesn't the right want to embrace the creeds a little more well they do to their own purposes but those creeds were dangerous too uh depends on who gets to use them they've seen how people have used them as you were saying here the the first people who file petitions freedom suits all of those things are african-american people who said wait a minute we've created this country and that is that is an exceptional thing i mean to go from a monarchy to a republic right in this modern world that's a big deal and it damn near didn't work you know it almost didn't come and it was contingent at every stage exactly it's contingent at every stage and so when you see the people who have used this black people have used it women used it in seneca falls 1848 gay people have used it labor movement labor movement used it said the right to strike all those things come out of this notion of the creed and so if you don't like those things if you don't want to see a racial hierarchy leveled if you don't want equal rights for women if you don't want labor unions to be able to collectively bargain if you don't want immigrants i mean the creed was used to teach people who came to the country these are the things these are the american founding documents and if you believe these things and you support this you are an american if you don't like those those people those ideas then you're going to be going to be against it the creed as david said is very very dangerous because of who in history shows who has used those things and so i think it's a very dangerous thing and so i think it's a very dangerous thing and so i think it's a very to make a different place for themselves is it the success then of the creed that and the people that have used that as a fulcrum to to elevate themselves to their natural unalienable rights is the success of that what animates the backlash always you know we talk about um kind of the idea of well let's look at germany so germany tries to reckon with its past and they create laws that you can't deny the holocaust and all these other things and you know people view it as this is a successful way of facing up to a difficult past but nothing has animated in germany right now more than the far right yeah i was just in berlin a week two weeks ago john i'd give a lecture at the american academy and i spent some time in central berlin when do you guys have office hours all i'm hearing about it it's june man i'm down here doing a speech i'm over here signing a book come on yeah well it's june man when do they come in for the office all right i'll accept it june is every academic's favorite month in fact i've always wondered why if god had all that power why didn't he create two junes i want two junes anyway but germany has in in central berlin and three at least great museums and of course the huge holocaust memorial has faced its past took time has faced its past nationally uh more than any other country and they had the most difficult past to face but that's because the world made them do it yeah the world was looking in on the cold war made them do it etc etc etc no one came from outside to force americans to face their past we have to do it we have to do it through our politics we have to do it through history which and which makes it a political fight as well as a scholarly fight and a history fight and a teaching fight and well and what we're in now is a whole new level of that i mean but there's there's never been an executive branch presidency take on the entire practice of history museums to universities etc like what has happened certainly not in this country i mean it's been done and and not in this oh yeah it's been done enough it's been done in other autocracies yeah that's right and and that's exactly what's been done in the past year and we are we are catching up we are trying to figure out with our own resources how to fight back and we are fighting back are you heartened in any way annette are you heartened in any way by sort of the small acts of defiance of that or well any act of defiance is heartening to see people doing things to stand up against it because as we've been saying i mean american people most american people don't want a whitewashed history and there are people who are standing up to say you know local school boards against book banning and so forth it's pulling people out who don't normally participate in these kinds of things and that's what it's going to take it's going to have to take people saying we don't want to live in hungary hungary didn't want to live in hungary right um and you know after a while uh and this is our great thing was you were able to think and to say what you you know say what say what you think about things i've sat on many you know uh advisory committees and so forth recently in meetings at museums and places and people are scared to say stuff or wondering about can we say this oh yeah and frightened to put their funding at risk i mean there's there's a it's a funding issue as well yeah i'm never you never in all years have have you know i heard people act like that is you used to when we grew up oh there's self-censoring going on everywhere everywhere it's like it's censoring from the top in places like the national park service where i'm located right now and and other federal agencies but but here's one good sign and i think annette knows about this on september 26 john there's going to be a day or a weekend uh and there's a whole coalition of organizations the major history associations the association of local history all kinds of historical associations that are going to be there and they're going to be there and they're going to museums and so on have come together and a lot of them are at this little conference i'm hosting it's going to be a day they're calling we want more history we want more history and it's going to be a challenge it's not the snappiest title no it's not i wasn't i wasn't on the committee that created it we want more history i would take the word want out of it americans always want want want want you know but but it's going to be a day when every little every small museum every historical society is going to be changed and it's going to be a day where we're going to be challenged all right what are you going to do today to fight back against this attempt to control how we get to know our history i think in the law i mean there's a lot of damage being done and i am not terribly hopeful about this but it's very hard to take over a country's history teaching of it writing of it representing it uh when it's been pretty free for a long time uh they're not going to win this one in the long run they're going to do a lot of damage along the way right but i don't think they win this in the long run and it's a political question the question is what do citizens do absolutely i mean historians we can do things but as we do things as historians as citizens but other people this is about voting it's about who's in power and the american people have to get to take control of that well it's so interesting you bring that up in that because it is when you look at the battle plan to take control of that there's the historical aspect but there really is almost more importantly the voting aspect and when you see them rip out the pillars of the voting rights act or to suggest and i'm really not sure how this is that it's okay to gerrymander for ideological and partisan gain but not and if those are synonymous with race too bad and if and if districts that are you know majority minority lose their ability not to have minority representation but to have their voice matter yeah yeah yeah within their cohort that's the interesting thing that they're not just attacking this in in one area there are tentacles oh yeah this is a full force widespread well-coordinated does roberts admit to that david you know when you were having your debate with him i'm curious how he would frame the difference between creed and blood and soil as a historian or does he does he brush over it because the project it takes you know precedence over everything no no he he he wants to speak about creeds he is a christian nationalist he's a catholic christian nationalist and those labels matter to him he used to run a small private catholic school etc etc etc how does he square that with the american creed good question i tried to get him to respond about separation of church and state and he changed the subject so you know that's that's what they do but you see the far right wants the creeds and they tend to talk about them by talking about how much we the left liberals scholars have soiled those creeds have misused those creeds have twisted those creeds have have have called the abuses of those creeds a shame on the country on and on and on they go on the attack immediately rather than to step back and calmly say you know we're all part of those creeds All of us. And if we didn't have that separation of church and state, we may have blown apart by now. Right. And we may again. They're very selective. And is there any acknowledgement that any project of this kind of exceptionalism is going to, if it wasn't a battle, it wouldn't be so exceptional? Exactly. If the attempt to create what's happening wasn't hard, well, everyone would do it. Look at every major religion in the world that founds itself on creeds. It ends up fighting. Right. It ends up having schism after schism, breakups, Protestant reformations, and on and on and on. It's the same if a creedal nation has set itself up to violate the creeds because, you know, we don't obey all the Ten Commandments either. But you have to have the aspiration. Yes. Oh, yeah. Yeah, yeah, yeah. And that's America as an aspirational country. Right. Without that, we're nowhere. Yes. I mean, how can African-American people, how can any group of people who have been discriminated against in this country that has the history that we have without thinking about the notion of aspirations? And even, you know, not even people who have been oppressed necessarily. You have to aspire to something. Exceptionalism is problematic. I have no question about that. But the idea that you don't see what an enormously important project it was for the founding. Of a country based on Republican, Democratic Republicanism versus a monarchy. Right. And to include words that people have used over the years to make a place for themselves in it. That is, it's an exceptional thing. And it's something you should be proud of. And we should be trumpeting. Don't you think, Annette, this is one of the reasons some, I hate to racialize anything, but sometimes people, white people, are surprised when they encounter black patriotism. When they encounter, you know, black folks wanting to take back the flag. Take back the declaration. Oh, absolutely. You know, because they say, well, wait a minute, why would you do that? Because it belongs to us. We've been here forever, right? Yeah, right, right. And I mean, in some periods of times, it was frowned upon for African-Americans to celebrate the 4th of July. Yeah. And from whites, because they thought that this was, it was provocative. You're claiming these rights of themselves. Well, Douglass himself made that famous speech about, you know, what is the 4th of July? Rhetorical. Rhetorical masterpiece. Right. That speech. Oh, boy. But it really is, you know, it reminds us that aspiration is the fuel of progress. It's the catalyst that drives it forward. And it's always been present. And the thing that I think, and maybe this is a nice place to kind of wrap it through, is what happens to a country when it begins to take its exceptionalism as birthright and not as a project worthy of constant iteration? And edit and aspiration. Decadence. Yes. Degeneracy. Yes. And, you know, maybe they would become a Roman empire that may begin to collapse with gladiators. I mean, I'm just saying, you know. Well, that would never happen here, sir. The idea that on the lawn of the people's house, half-naked men would grapple seems absurd. No, you know, you know, John, I'm sure you know this, but in all those centers out there, that are studying democracy, there are all kinds of these, and they do indexes. The United States is now in that middle zone of democracies that are falling back into autocracy by any measure. Yeah. Any measure. Softly and otherwise. Yeah. No, you're absolutely right. And it's happened so quickly in a very surprising rapidity. Well, it's happened over a long period, but it's hitting us quickly. There's no question. Yeah, definitely. One of the great bulwarks against that slide. Is the work of fabulous historians. And I thank you both just for the incredible work you both do. And the fact that you help build that wall that is protective against those kinds of things. David Blight Sterling, professor of history at Yale University. Annette Gordon-Reed, the Karl Loeb University professor at Harvard University. Guys, thank you so much for joining us today. Really appreciate it. Thank you, John. Thank you for having us. That was great. Thanks. Thank you. Thank you. Thank you. Thank you. Thank you. Thank you. Thank you. Thank you. Thank you. None None of it. I don't know. I don't know what the hell happened where suddenly I was like, oh, knowledge. I think that's fair. I feel like college is kind of wasted on young people who don't have the same impression of like, oh, my God, I get to just learn from these people. That's insane. It is interesting that the view on the right is that, you know, these colleges are indoctrination centers of this left wing, you know, bias and all that. But my experience with college students, because I have two of them, is that overwhelmingly the ethos at college is not indoctrination. But how am I going to get a job? Yeah. How am I going to meet a partner? How am I going to get drunk? Like, overwhelmingly, college is not these hotbeds of indoctrination. Yeah. It's almost like they're being disingenuous when they say that. Well, Jillian, I didn't want to say it in that way. They're like, look at these college students with all their ideology. I'm like, I would. I would love for you to turn that mirror on yourself, bro. Turn it on yourself, bro. Because really, they're just looking to score some gummies. It's not that hard. It's not that serious. And they're all like everywhere you look. And I'm like, I've met some of these STEM students. Dude, they wouldn't. They're literally just like, I can't believe they gave me 20 pages of problems. What the fuck is happening to my life? Yeah, they're just like cold brew all night in the library trying to make it through. Wait a minute. I just noticed. Brittany. Yes. You're rocking the Stevie Nicks. What? What happened there? Taylor Swift went to the thing and they all designed their own shirts and they've exploded. Exploded. Everywhere. Nicks puns. It's all Nicks puns. It's so fun. I saw that New York Philharmonic has a shirt out that's Philharmonic. Really? Yeah. That's funny. I imagine Nick at Night should be jumping on this. That's a good one. Nickelodeon. Oh, my God. They got to rebrand that for next year. Nicks at Night. Let's go. Just to be clear, I did not make this myself like she did. Now, are they already selling those? Absolutely. Yes. Like multiple places are just. Yeah. Yeah. I did overnight this, but. Why is it that I can never catch that lightning in a bottle? You know, she's effortless. Taylor Swift is effortless. She just thinks, oh, you know what? I'll have a fun little thing with my friends. Heim. And we'll put some shirts on. And the next thing you know. It's probably a multimillion dollar business. And I'm still literally in the living room with my wife going, I'm telling you the crumple. If you make a dog bed for dogs, you throw it down. It changes the topography every time. We call it the crumple. Sharks. I'm offering you 10%. It's going to happen. Who wants to get on the floor with me and make some money? It's effortless for her. It's crazy. It's ridiculous. It is effortless. It is. It is. Did you guys watch the? How did you experience the festivities of the New York Knickerbockers? I just watched at home and then actually like. Did the streets explode outside your apartment? Yes. So that's what I did. I like when I was getting a little optimistic near the end. So I actually put I put my TV on mute and I opened up the windows so I could just hear the reaction. You felt that. That's what I wanted to do is feel the city. Yeah. And then after after it ended, I went out on the street and I took my dog on a walk and we got to see everybody celebrating and stuff. It was great. That's so awesome. How did your dog handle it? I was going to say I was like, that sounds like a great story, except he's like, we're walking towards the loud noises. I don't I don't know why Roman candles. My favorite. Yeah. Brittany, did you did you pop outside as well? I stayed awake this time. Nice. And we did. I ran outside when there was like five minutes left. There's like a pizza place near me that had like screen set up and it was wild. But the best part was. Oh. The TV was on delay. So we kept just refreshing our phone to see. And so we saw that they had won and we were like, they won. And then it was awesome. And then like fireworks. It was so cool. Just a wonderful night. Yeah. You know, Smigel was the one who I was saying, you know, where are you going to watch? You're thinking about maybe Madison Square Garden or something like that in the house. He goes, I got to tell you, I want to feel the city. And it sounded so like. And I was like, yes, feel the city. That's what we want. And so that's, that's what we did. We went down. You were in the streets. Well, they showed you on the broadcast. Yeah, that wasn't cool. That was, yeah, that was bad. I was like, stand out there. I just looked up and it was like, oh, I don't know. You were the Spider-Man meme. Right, right. I don't know what's happening right now. Hey, feel the city would be a good t-shirt, John. Feel the city. I like that. Yeah. Get on it. You know what else? What if the feel the city shirt doubled as a crumple and you can make it and you throw it on the floor. Brittany, what do the people want to know this week? All right. First up, John, after 250 years, is it fitting or disturbing that Trump is president? Oh, God, it's fitting or wait, what? Fitting? It's not fitting. This is it's Trump as president is not befitting of a country. We just talked about this grand experiment of exceptionalism, of a creed that people must strive morally and aspirationally to get to. And now we're just a subsidiary of Trump Enterprises. It's he can't be the guy at the 250. It's such the wrong. You know what it reminds me of? We're like a long running show, like a Broadway show. Yeah, we're like it's 250 years of cats. But now instead of like the the big stars that were there now, it's just like from somewhere. House. That's what that's where we're at. We're at the replacement level reality TV star taking over a hallowed institution. And the audience is on their phones. And the audience is on their phones going like, I remember when I saw this with Matthew Broderick, it was great. It was great. And now this guy doesn't even know how to say ticket sales down the toilet. Yeah, no, done. Okay, next. Next. John. Yeah. Are you going to replace the next picture above your door with a picture of the 26 team? I would, you know what, I, I would love a companion. Yeah, to that space looking at it now. Yeah, I love that picture so much. Because that is, that's, it's when I fell in love with that team. You know, Willis Reed and the magical coming out after, you know, hurting his leg and hitting two quick jumps. jumpers you know to lead uh you know the knicks to to big i mean he went out of the game after that but he sort of inspired the team and bradley and debusher were just these unbelievable they were the great like corner you know bradley from the corner just popping them and uh walt frazier was a magician and uh dickie barnett and just those were the teams that i fell in love with and then they ended up adding earl the pearl and winning again in in 73 but that team just represents like i just loved the city so much and i love that and that team just felt so representative because it wasn't also like back then it was wilt chamberlain and like you know the celtics dynasties and all that shit and uh my first ever game at the garden was a double overtime playoff game nick celtics my brother and i went so cool yeah yeah and and nicks were getting the doors blown off funny it's a very similar kind of game they're getting the doors blown off in the first half and then frazier just came alive and they tied the game went into overtime double overtime these were the jojo white celtics dave cowens and all those guys and uh havelcheck i think who wasn't playing but yeah just it just the best and and in the heart of the city you know just it's just such a special there's none of the like metal metal lands bullshit there's none of the like where oh they're the new york knicks but they play in a swamp somewhere near exit 16w like it was in the city you could take the subway there you could walk outside and feel this it's that thing smigel was saying felt the city whenever you went to the garden you felt the city just fantastic were you courtside for that game as well oh yeah no they put me right i was i was right next to the stars of the day yeah i'm not even sure that i mean i think i might have gotten altitude sickness at that game like the rafters are real like rafters are real baby see up there yeah yeah but but they are as they say about the rafters they are real and they are spectacular yes all right we got to get you a picture to go up there yeah yeah what else we got a final question in the trilogy of taco bell questions oh god the people want to know they really do chipotle or taco bell oh please how is this even a question chipotle chipotle hey well you want me to just scoop it out of a bucket for you hey hey come on in here what do you want a bucket of chicken or you want a bucket of beef or maybe i could give you a bucket of black bean mush that we decided to add whatever fucking ridiculous ghost pepper spice they put in there like brutal it's brutal yeah i don't i don't like to eat out of buckets i like to see some work i like some origami i want to see i want to know that a craftsman that an artist now to be fair they probably do use buckets i just don't see that part the real mistake of chipotle is putting the buckets you see it you're walking right down the street with them you're like you want out of this bucket or you want out of this let me get my ice cream scoop and you're watching them also do the like portion training yeah where they're like give me the half scoop and the thing let me get him the thing of rice and then like you know there's there's a lot of manipulation that goes on i like to i don't want to see the work i want to see once uh the piece of paper becomes a swan that's all i want i want to see the swan i don't want to see the folding i definitely don't want to see the folding yeah fantastic how they get in touch with this britney uh twitter we are weekly show pod instagram threads tiktok blue sky we are weekly show podcast and you can like subscribe and comment on our youtube channel the weekly show with john stewart boom do it thanks again as always producer britney mimatovic producer jillian spear video editor and engineer rob vittola has work cut out for him today audio editor and engineer nicole boys had her work cut out for today and our executive producers chris mcshane and katie gray thanks so much and we'll see you next week the weekly show with john stewart is a comedy central podcast is produced by paramount audio and busboy productions paramount podcasts