 Okay, so welcome everyone for our weekly seminar series, jointly organized by the Department of Anthropology and Sociology at SAAS and the Center for Migration and Diaspora Studies. I am a professor at the anthropology department and I'm also the chair of the center so I'm hosting the seminars in this capacity. I am extremely happy to host this talk tonight by Dr Miriam Urach, who is a reader at the University of Westminster. Her PhD, which was obtained at the University of Amsterdam, contributed to an understanding of the significance of techno-social evolutions by analyzing how a new technology coincided with the outbreak of a mass uprising in Palestine. That was during the second Intifada between 2000 and 2005. She then focused on the political role of new internet developments, such as blogging and social networking for grassroots activism in Lebanon and Palestine when she held a postdoctoral position at the Oxford Internet Institute until 2011. She then went on to earn a lever whom early career grant, where Miriam set up a critical research project in which she related theory with online analysis through a focus on the complex relationships and dynamics across the Arab world. In this light, Miriam continued by researching and writing extensively about the paradoxical context of online revolution and cyber imperialism across a variety of contexts in the Middle East, including Palestine, Jordan, Lebanon and Morocco. Miriam theorizes how the contradictions of capitalism shaped the modes and meanings of resistance in the era of revolution and digital transformations. Her work is published in several books and peer-reviewed journals. Her publications include her own monograph titled Palestine Online, which was published in 2011. And we are very much looking forward to see her new publications, which include a book on cyber imperialism to be out in 2021 and a monograph about the revolutionary dynamics of protest in Morocco. I'm particularly happy to host Miriam because we have a long history, not only we were born on the same day, but Miriam is a Moroccan Dutch anthropologist who, as I just mentioned, studied Palestine during her PhD times and continued to focus on Palestine in her recent research. And we swapped because I am a Palestinian Italian and for my PhD I worked in Morocco, so for a long time we were just laughing about this swapping of insider roles within and across our communities. Miriam, we're very happy to host your talk, which draws from a very recent article you published on race and class where you analyze the concept of, or critically engage with the concept of white privilege, as you define it as a concept that takes, or has become a shortcut in the analysis and mobilization of anti-racist movements. And you do so by critically engaging with the legacy of radical black thinkers and activists from Dubois to Sivanandan to Shakur and Angela Davis, and you very interestingly take us on an analysis or an engagement with the concept of radical kinship as an alternative concept to recenter internationalism as a way to recreate a dynamic that is anti-racist, anti-capitalist and intersectional. So we are very happy to, and very much looking forward to your talk tonight, which draws upon this very important set of debates and ideas. And then, as Kim said, we will be opening the conversation to the floor, but without further ado, Miriam, the floor is yours. Thank you very much. Thank you so much, Ruba, and thank you for reminding me of our opposite trajectories. You researching Moroccans, me researching Palestinians, it's such a nice coincidence. You're inviting me. I think this is an important topic, and it's ongoing, especially as we've seen the debates also emerging to much higher levels since the summer, since the fantastic emergence of protest movements around black lives matter. You've invited me, particularly also with regards to the publication in recent class. So what I will do is shed some light on the background and you can hear the ambulance and the police are already coming for me. So I will first try to position the debates with regards to the article I raised in class, and then obviously throughout this will touch on general discussions and debates around racism and anti-racism. So in essence, the article I wrote sort of stands on two schisms. So I kind of want to reflect on two schisms that I observed that were emerging, particularly in social movements and activist milieus that I am partly also involved with. So it's more public intellectual engagement than it is scholarly academic engagement, but obviously the discussion about race and racism is also very much part of an academic discourse and debate. So there will be overlapping concerns and debates. So firstly, what are these two schisms? So on the one hand, I identified that I saw and observed and read that class-based analysis were sometimes spit against race-based analysis. And in that schism, I found that internationalism and anti-imperialism and capital in general was receding towards the background more and more in analysis and discussions about racism. Or functions more as a kind of entourage, a kind of sort of general labels and terminology, but not part of the methodologies of how to resist. There were sometimes even debates that suggested a division of labor between white activists involving themselves with anti-capitalism and black or people of color activists with anti-racism as if these two were not related. So that was one schism. The other, the second one that I found really important to think about was the questioning of solidarity politics. And this was joined sometimes with a shift towards new political articulations that represented a subjective or skin-colored based positions of people. And I found it really intriguing how the term NBPUC or non-black people of color were emerging and how sometimes also terms like people of color or political blackness were being mocked in the process or even denied as being still relevant terminologies. I also felt that this was related to kind of newer, not new, but at least in the recent years relatively new for the movement, selective usage and reading of what is called afro-pessimism. So this selective or new reading of afro-pessimism was in a way related to the emergence of debates that were questioning solidarity politics and that were creating this divide between people of color. So I locate also the epistemological mediation of white privilege and whiteness in this particular article as part of this process. And I found it very fascinating to see how the logic of white privilege was being transported to a new sort of division between people of color. Here you have the kind of whites versus black. What we saw emerging was brown versus black throughout using the same references as were applied to white privilege. Although white privilege has, of course, other influences in our anti-racist analysis and activist dynamics. We will go into this a bit deeper in the more problematic treatment, why it's actually not that useful. That's what the article's title also was suggesting that white privilege in a way was also providing a shortcut analysis for a much more complicated and complex discussion and understanding of racism. Moreover, the overarching objective of my article and consequent debates that emerged before and after the article is actually to think together about how to recover a more sort of radical universalist principle based anti-racism. And I felt that thinking about how to recover a radical universalist principle of anti-racism was actually also providing the solutions to overcome these various schemes that I identified. Finally, building on an understanding of radical kinship, I also wanted to propose potential solutions in how we engage with each other as activists. It's a way to engage meaningfully with the different dispositions and predispositions we all carry and have and bring with us in the movement. I know that this is very important also because I have personally experienced what it means to be disagreed with and that that sometimes can be very discouraging and personalized. I have also been tried to be open. I try to also make it part of our discussion to share the upset and black backlash that it can produce when you engage in disagreements. And I felt it was very much like what Sarah Ahmed called that the one who raises the problem becomes the problem itself. And this is I think also important to bring into the debate and not shy away from that. But first and foremost in the article I started and I wanted to locate some of the developments I've been raising regarding the changing formations and modalities of anti-racism in a general shift to the right. And of course also as we've seen in recent years very much with Sonaro, Trump and all our specific experiences in Europe and Brexit that these shifts are also part of a shift to the right and the emergence of fascism across the globe. And in Europe this is itself part of a broader history of the legitimation of racism. So denial of racism has led to also frustrations about how to do anti-racism. And I think this is partly to do with the fact that there is a tendency to project racism as a problem that occurs in other countries. I mean I'm speaking very much from my experience in the Netherlands. But also I think partly in Belgium that there is this idea that racism belongs to the past and that it is located in the particular colonial history which is no longer relevant for present progressive or liberal culture. As I said I am talking from experience partly with my own participation in anti-racist politics in the Netherlands, but also I am located in the UK and what I thought was interesting is to see some of the tendencies that were emerging, you can say in continental Europe like France, Scandinavian countries, Belgium, the Netherlands, that they were also slowly emerging in Britain, Britain which was sort of seen as kind of the ideal, the much better example of how anti-racism is done. So we see their connections emerging across countries where they were actually also not expected. But I wanted to say something about Dutch society which I think is going to be also informative for also the emergence regarding racism and anti-racism in countries that have thought themselves to be superior or better such as in Britain compared to sort of the backward engagement with anti-racism in the Netherlands because I think somehow the Netherlands do provide us with potential insight into how things can go wrong elsewhere too. So Dutch society as a whole for those who know a bit about Dutch society, this is not a surprise, but Dutch society as a whole congratulates itself for its although very artificial but idea of tolerance, the country of tolerance. And this is what some have called a typical white innocence and this is very important in the work of Gloria Wecker who has recently published a book called White Innocence, where this kind of Dutch tolerance and innocence is predicated on a very deep and silent past about its own brutal colonialism and the role of slavery. This is recently changing, there's more debates about colonial history and slavery in the Dutch context, but for a very, very long time this has been erased and banned to the past. So add to this a supposed liberal free-spirited culture, particularly located post Second World War, that is manufactured through the idea of particular freedom, a particular liberal progressive freedom that the Dutch claim. And that includes the claim to the right to say anything or insult anyone. So this is a very particular experience in the Dutch context that provides a hint to how racism is manifested. And as David Goldberg shows a key device for sustaining this national self image of tolerant and free while still performing racism in quite explicit way is the notion that anti-Semitism is the principle profile of racism. That's the only legitimate principle form of racism that the Dutch, or you can I guess insert now also UK considering the recent experiences with anti-Semitism debates. So the only legitimate definition of racism is located in Second World War and has to do with the horrible treatment and complicity of the extermination of the Jews in our countries. So the result of this is that it has helped produce a negative conceptualization of Muslims in two ways. In particular, of course, if anti-Semitism is the only legitimate definition of racism then Muslims are, whether it is through their indigenous or through their pro-Palestinian and anti-Zionist positions, they become the central accusation accused for that anti-Semitism. So there's a double denial there. On the one hand, the only legitimate form of anti racism is anti-Semitism, but actually through Muslims it also allows to cleanse off Dutch complicity in anti-Semitism and transform, project this type of racism on Muslim migrants. The same thing happens with a very staunch and very violent rejection of accepting that there is a particular anti-Black tradition of racism in the Netherlands. I think also very similar patterns we see in Belgium and you see this, for instance, expressed through a very harsh rejection of critique that certain traditions and expressions that are strongly anti-Black have anything to do with racism. The Netherlands is particularly projected on people protesting the figure of Black Peets during the animals in the class celebrations, which is a kind of black-faced figure that has been defended as not being related to any form of racism. So these two, I think, particular experiences with, on the one hand, the denial of racism by projecting it on, by allowing only one form of anti- racism, meaning anti-Semitism to be acknowledged and then transporting that also to Muslims as being the perpetrators and on the other hand, the denial and the refusal to engage with critics of anti-Black traditions. So this is aggravated by the fact that racism is actually not a major social issue for the mainstream left. So imagine that all that I've said so far is what it is, bad enough, but what happens when this is also in the context where you have a mainstream left and even radical politics that actually does not acknowledge racism or anti-racism as a core pillar of its struggle for justice. This is partly also, of course, produced by the fact that in general, in the whole, you could say, global north, or at least in Europe, that the fact that global south intellectuals have actually very little standing in the left canon. So if you look at the references in a lot of the writings and textual traditions of the left, the left canon, intellectuals of color are either ignored or creatively paraphrased as is called. So this is a very important background. We cannot ignore this step into a more critical approach to how racism is manifested today and how we resist it. Now, before going into the content and context, I want to say also a few things about, as I mentioned, how we debate and engage and why that has become an important concern for me as well. I think we should start with acknowledging that there is never one standard approach or one singular agreement to how we do things. My piece in the race and class journal was very clearly concerned with a left-wing variant of anti-racist politics and a variant of anti-racist analysis that is rooted in progressive values that believes in the universal equality for all working class whether black or racialized. And this is very different from other traditions, I guess that I have a more liberal leaning of anti-racism or a far more theoretical or academic interpretation of anti-racism. The right approach is very clearly positioned in a left-wing and partly Marxist analysis of anti-racism. And this includes also a belief and a reliance in fact on the possibility of transformational change. And my standpoint rejects essentialist predictions based on what we are or what we are condemned to be through our past experiences, general descriptions of privilege or limitations that are caused and linked through our subjective positionalities. So I think that by not believing that or by adhering to a sort of fixed understanding of what we can and who we are, I do not see a point for me to engage in politics or in change, right? If we are doomed or predetermined by who we are, what is the point to include radical politics in our lives that actually believes in transformative change? So what I'm doing with regards to race and racialization is not about some kind of leisure, just for the sake of it. It is not about virtue signaling or even about academic theoretical quantification just for the sake of academic theoretical quantification. The whole point is that I believe that we can transgress and transform. And that is why I sort of critique the idea of a white privilege epistemology that concerns our sort of identity, that concerns our understanding of who we are in a very fixed definition. And although I am very pessimistic in what these alternative new classless and subjective denominations can do, I don't believe in them and I want to reject them and that's why I intervene. I actually remain optimistic in the possibility to overcome this. And I believe that we can create this change. Again, if not, I would not intervene or write these articles. So I believe that my approach is much more widely shared in the movements as well. We already see a lot of change since even this article has come out because the world has changed. People have seen and been confronted also with the challenges of capitalism and austerity and particularly in the recent pandemic, people have come to understand so much clearer that race and class are intertwined. So I think that there are certain trends and changes and challenges, but that the strength of activist movements is in community organizing and collective labor. And that the organized left has must manifest itself in what ideas and suggestions come to the service from these collective endeavors and communities. And that we also therefore must be very vigilant that those alternative views and analysis that come out from the collective activists movements and communities are not going to be forgotten and erased. And if I say this, I say this, because I have seen in the study and in my engagement with alternative readings and radical intellectual traditions that I find very inspiring and that I've included in my own article that these also have been erased in the that a lot of ideas that have come out for instance from radical movements in the 60s and 70s, and how discussions about identity politics or privilege etc that have already been challenged in very inspiring radical ways have actually been forgotten. And so I suggested in my article that what we need to do is recover those historical legacies of radical thought. In the spirit of further disclaimers, I have to of course say in a seminar that is part of a university that expects some kind of scholarly engagement that has some kind of grounding in objective or pragmatic positioning of the scholar that I'm clearly not neutral here. I really don't want to be neutral either on this topic. So this talk is based very explicitly on the premise that we actually must recreate a very selective dynamic radical anti racist legacy that starts and end with the revolutionary kinships and fraternity, not so much from a moralist motive, but it's good and better to be nice to each other, but also from a very instinctive understanding that separate organizing and activist in fighting the through that we will never win anyway, because we are all separately too small both numerical, as well as our access to power. So that's a very strong premise and I think that this is why I also opted for an outlet such as racing class. It's a very important scholarly journal but it's a journal also that does not shy away from taking these very non neutral position. So let me return to the schisms I mentioned at the beginning. Just now that I think, especially since the summer and global spread of protest, the first schism that I identified in my article. Now the one that sees race pitted against clear class, I think is changing. And I think for the better. I think the financial crisis and the ramification in particular of coven 19 together with the fascinating popularity among activist circles of what is turned racial capitalism as a concept in the history of literature has allowed a way to converse about race and class in very organic ways that are that were not the case a few years ago. So I think sometimes we also need to take stock of what we say and write in our publications and return to them and say it's still the case. I'm very happy to say for myself at least I think that there is a very positive shift in that that schism is no longer as absolute and as strong as it was before. And also we see this, this shift to a much more radical and useful interpretation in activist circles through the emergence of what is called Marxist intersectionality, but also in theories that we have come to see growing called a social reproduction So this kind of progressive, or what me and my group of friends that are preparing an article called insurgent intersectionality actually shows that there is more interest and openness in censoring class relations and capital accumulations in our analysis so that's a really interesting shift. My adherence to such a material view materialist view as I also explained in the article is not at all a matter of my preference it's not about me personally preferring to have a materialist materialist view. Rather I see it as a necessity that is enforced on me and aspect capitalism. It does not grant us the choice to actually selectively pick and choose whether we're going to engage with class or capital, etc. It may sound strenuous but we just cannot not think about taking into account class and capital in our strategies and in our tactics. At times the power of language and discourse sometimes shows itself also in how we decode and encode. I think there is. It's a fact that when a lot of people here class. They interpreted, not in its radical potential, meaning as in undoing capital, but very much as as I said in the beginning as something that is inhibited in a white left approach to struggle. I think that we need to also grasp these contradictions that at the no one hand there are material realities that we cannot avoid that we have to include in their strategies and tactics and on the other hand there are certain terms that have either lost or changed its potential meaning to be encoded in radical ways. So if class is not understood in what its radical purpose is so the undoing of capital, then maybe a more analytically useful modality that we could engage with would be for instance exploitation or inequality. I was very much inspired by a talk that Paul Giro gave the other day where he centered the idea of inequality as a kind of common linguistic tool to allow us to do with anti racism and racialization in a more sort of radical progressive way. And this is where I also recognize very much the problem with white privilege as a term. There are more than any other terms that allows us to selectively pick and choose to focus on certain dynamics and modalities that create these white privilege that have to do with skin color, and far more than for instance, class and other power relations. So I really agree with Gilroy here where he says that it is actually testimony also of our inability to find the language of humanity that is adequate to the task that is meant to perform, that there is a poverty of imagination that is compounded also by anxiety and depression of the left at the moment, and that we should try to find a way to avoid it. So I really agree with Paul Giro here that there is a time to rethink the kind of uniformly approach to the oppressed black peoples victimized by the uniform power of whiteness. We have to do a bit more thinking about what's actually going on here. So how do we then navigate this very contradictory terrain. How do we formulate productive alternatives without alienating those we disagree with. How do we also navigate these contradictions without ignoring and erasing internal contradictions and oppressions that are also prevalent in our communities. That's a very important question because what I felt was that when you enter these debates, you quickly actually become part of a dichotomy you either agree with the fact that there is for instance, racism that crosses all ethnic lines, or you disagree when you want to problematize that kind of thinking by linking it for instance to state power and capital. So this has to do with the problem of engaging with terms and language and text. So, when we refer to whiteness or white privilege or anti blackness or any other terms that are used. So do we refer to it as sort of contemporary pre Christy prescribing contribution, or is it a historical descriptive. Sometimes those differences are not expressed clearly and then we risk reifying certain expectations of what people do or intend to do. So when we talk for instance about anti blackness and Islam. Do we mean a historical reading of Islamic law or communities, or do we mean how Muslim migrants today in Amsterdam Brussels or London, engage with other people of color. Is this reproducing knowledge about radical change for the Academy, or is it producing knowledge for radical change in activist movements. That is another very important question. What I see is that a lot of discussions in the academic milieu actually flow over into the activist milios. This has partly to do with the fact that activism, whether it's anti racism or any other type of activism. In the last 20 years have located itself more and more on in campus politics so it has become part of student politics and therefore the proximity between production of knowledge about racism or radical change from the Academy is very tightly connected to how activists interpret it. So, I think it is very unfortunate when we see the definition of certain terms then change in the meantime, while the world is not changing or changing for the worse. So I think it's very unfortunate that in a time of extra violent imperialism, the anti imperialist internationalist base of anti racism was actually dissipating. I'm referring here to my own moment of sort of radical activist transformation, namely the period of 911, where we have seen actually a raging imperial carnage, namely the war on terror. This has unleashed further modalities of racism. And it's very interesting to see that has that that has emerged and happened at a time where racism and the definitions of racism and anti racism were actually more and more being divorced from its radical historical legacy that always included anti imperialism and internationalism. So we see new forms and modalities of racism emerging. Sometimes Islamophobia merges and morphs into anti black racism. Sometimes we see new forms of racism, actually unseen also before, and very contradictory with our ideas of white privilege if we think for instance of what Brexit has done with the racialization of Eastern Europeans that are not physically recognized as belonging to examples of communities that are also racialized. Every time I also think we need to think about how, for instance, the voter traditions and trends in the last few years have also shown a shift whereby voting for racist parties and racist candidates is not anymore the site of white people in Brexit. It's quite painful to see that quite a number of Asian and black communities have also voted for Brexit and the last voter breakout of Trump have also seen a shift, albeit small, but still interesting and important for us to pause why increasing number of, for instance, black and Latino voters have moved to Trump. So, again, when I say this, I think one of the most important questions is how we can discuss all of this without losing sight of the power of the state and capital. We need to not flatten our critiques and new interpretations and problematization of dynamics of racism with, for instance, the white supremacist state. We need to always understand that there's a hierarchy and that we cannot explain away white supremacy that is centered by the state with people of color voting for, for instance, right wing parties. I suggest also in the article that we need to have a cross generational approach in our engagement with anti racism. I am saying this because it's also, I think, a little bit sad when we realize that enormous production of knowledge and experience of people from previous generations in previous experiences of resistance. And social movements are actually completely absent in our current learning and rediscovering and sometimes even inventing the wheel in the movement. So what I'm suggesting through several examples in the articles that people can read and loads of references to, to other articles about these, this, this black radical left based anti racism that is not part of the curriculum in contemporary studies, but that have actually already encountered and provided very important answers for the same questions I'm asking today. So I am worried that there is a kind of naval gazing that has emerged in the movements regarding anti racism, that there was an eclipses, another horizon that was already in the making, albeit very short lived in the 60s and 70s, that actually that erasure or that absence for closers for closers, our prospect of unity and solidarity so basically we need to reconnect with these radical past and see what these other generations before us have already tried to do by in terms of overcoming these schisms and also in terms of building coalition politics that is not a risking erasure of internal oppressions. I think I want to use the last few minutes to say a bit about this intergenerational participation and cross install the framing that I find very, yeah, unfortunately, unfortunately absent in our contemporary production of knowledge or even consumption of knowledge. I think that what I found really interesting by going through some of the writings of activists and radicals from the past that there was also very much an emphasis on how we do politics with each other and the examples I've discussed in my article is the writings or the memoirs of Asata Shakur, where she actually for different reasons also because it's her experience also depicts the contradictions within movements regarding gender and class as well, right, we don't have ideal movements where none of these discussions were had, but what I really found very interesting in her contributions that again are very absent in our contemporary libraries is how we deal with each other is sometimes as important with what we are dealing with. Like Angela Davis, Asata Shakur was actually focusing on the point that our politics is much more about freedom than it is about, for instance, blackness or our identity. And I thought it was really important to go back to these sort of basic concepts, they sound basic but they're not basic of freedom and equality so I suggested in the articles, a different alternative I kind of give a prism in the article through which to look at these contemporary debates through a different light. And I think the examples I gave of unity and cross racial collaborations all shared one thing, had one thing in common I mean I gave examples. I don't have time to go into this but I gave examples for instance of third world alliances, pan-Africanism but also for instance the rainbow coalition that was initiated by Fred Hampton of the Black Panther Party and obviously the shift and change in the politics of people like Malcolm X and Martin Luther King, what they all have in common, sadly, is the fact that they were actually considered to be the most dangerous and and risk fall for the state and they were all basically killed one after the other, from Ben Barka killed through the collaboration of the French and Moroccan intelligence, he was a leading figure in the pan-African movement to indeed Fred Hampton and I wanted to close with an example of this sort of proposition I make about going towards radical kinships by mentioning a film that I think a lot of people have watched now, at least if you have BBC, what I found very interesting in the film mangrove by Steve McQueen that is now part of a set of five films I think that Steve McQueen has come out has is bringing out. A lot of people have discussed mangrove on social media. One of the people in the film is a black woman, a black leader of the black British Black Panther Party, and there is a fantastic scene where she actually goes to Asian workers to convince them to join the union and to convince them to join the Black Panther Party in Britain. And what I thought was so beautiful about this scene, not only because it says a lot about gender politics and she has come to play a very important role in the black feminist movement in Britain. But also that the black political power in Britain has provided us with an example, an experience that we actually rarely refer to in Europe. The experiences from the United States that we refer to and rely much of our inspiration from. And what I thought was so beautiful in how Steve McQueen set up this scene was the kind of self evidence of it of this young black woman going to talk with this I don't know Pakistani Indian workers to convince them to join the struggle. And I think it's really important to think about this. What it means that for instance, conceptions of political blackness that are now being mocked and and critique have actually come to black radicals themselves and their understanding of the importance of uniting black Caribbean workers and Asian workers in the UK. So I wanted to close with this example and invite everybody, either to watch the film or to go back to that scene to understand that some of the terminologies we are critiquing today as being flattening or dismissive of the particular experiences for instance of black people had actually been the motivated by or invented by black radicals themselves. So I wanted to leave it at this and there are some suggestions I have also for thinking more closely about what it means to be in engaged with the debate and topic that is so clearly in close proximity between academia and activism so that's one point of discussion that I wanted to us and invite you to ask me questions or to give me suggestions. What does it mean that actually much of what we are discussing about is produced in the academy rather than in the movements and in in the communities. And the other thing that I wanted to also invite you to talk about is to think about how do we do coalition politics and radical transformations without losing sight of our internal hierarchies as well and I'm saying this also as someone who has done research in Morocco and seeing a very new kind of political engagement among activists around anti racism is a very new experience it was never really strongly part of leftist politics in Morocco but this has come out in recent years because of the whole migration policies and people from Africa collecting in the northern coastal parts of the continent so I think we should talk about more productive ways of doing anti racism within our respective communities, which is not of only about non black people of color doing anti racism against black people, but also for instance, how do black communities do this kind of reparative activism, understanding that there is a very strong also susceptibility to Islamophobia on the black community so these are sort of more. Yeah, practical questions that I think we should deal with as a collective in the discussion rather than me prescribing these solutions. Miriam, I cannot thank you enough for this really inspiring talk very thought provoking it is exactly what we needed at this point of this series where we hosted a series of scholars and scholars activists, which have illustrated and discussed aspects, different aspects of the anti racist struggle and from Kehinde, Andrews to. I'm Andy, which was actually here a couple of weeks to three weeks ago, precisely bringing to the forum, the legacy of the internationalism that characterized the British anti racist movements in the 60s and 70s. So it is not only really so provoking and inspiring and insightful but also very much in in dialogue with what we have heard in in past seminars, so I want to thank you you really thank you very much for this. I have of course lots of questions and Miriam has asked herself the questions also at the end of her talk, but I will now open it up to the to the audience to who so anyone who wants to raise a question or ask a question can either post it in the chat, or even better raise their hand and we, you know, unmute themselves. I think we have one question right at the bottom of the chat if you scroll to the bottom, and there's a question in there for you. Yeah, so yeah I can see that there is a question so while everyone else is warming up. And Iris boss is asking that was brilliant. What are your thoughts on the new Dutch political party striving to be anti capitalist. Sorry, the Dutch political party BJ one striving to be anti capitalist anti imperialist anti racist and anti patriarchy. So there are more questions maybe we can collect a few, while people are also thinking about, you know, there is a lot to digest and to think about I, I would like Miriam to ask you something about your, your sort of engagement with Paul Gilroy's work, which I saw was really, of course very important. There are a lot of similarities in your approach to his approach. He came I mean he's arguing as you mentioned the dissatisfaction with the lack of imagination and the lack of another language that can take us away from skin base kind of political activism, which reinforces what you call in your article, sort of in Olympics of oppression, or takes us away from the inter intersectional kind of dimensions of oppressions that we, we share. I was just wondering if you can maybe comment on what you think about his notion of strategic universalism or plan planetary humanism which I thought were interesting. When I was teaching this his material and these notions. I was, I was met with quite a lot of resistance from a variety of students who couldn't identify with with the possibility of shying away from blackness, so to speak. So I wanted to kind of engage you with with this, while we wait for others to come up with their own questions so if you want to start answering these two. Okay, thank you so much and thank you for your wrap up and I think you have a fantastic seminar series of joined some of your meetings and some really inspiring and some less inspiring contributions to the debate about race and racism. I was actually, I think your question about strategic universalism, of course, vis a vis strategic essentialism. It reminds me of one of your earlier meetings that you also had I think we came to Andrews about the logic of political blackness, because I think this is an example of that right tension between being strategic in how we organize and being still true to a certain similarity. And I think that the misunderstanding or the, the, maybe unnecessary confusion comes from the fact that sometimes they both have completely different goals. So, at the beginning of my talk, I said it's very important to understand, are we talking about something descriptive, or is it something analytical. Are we talking about something that is in the past, and that we are engaging with in our writings and as a reference to the past, or is it engaging with terms in order to claim it for the presence and I think there's kind of confusion about how these conversations are going that leads to unnecessary tension so for instance, the idea of a strategic universalism very much relates to methodology. How do you resist. How do we actually combat state power, and the way it racializes people's and creates a kind of myth about for instance in Paul Giro's work very much clear in his, a no black in the Union Jack and his black Atlantic type of work. It was about how you fight back. It never claims to be about how you describe the community or who you are and I think there's a strange recurring confusion in what confusion in what these two variations mean. So, for instance, a strategic or a necessary necessary essentialism is perfectly fine if we are trying to understand which intersections in terms of Islamophobia play a particular role that is part and parcel of how Islamophobia succeeds. That is a kind of specificity that is required. If it is about representation of particular histories of black communities, then you need a certain specific analogy, and you shouldn't just ignore that there are specific experiences and histories. But the history of, as I said, that scene in the film of McQueen in mangrove, it shows you very clearly. It is really about this very pragmatic understanding and realization. We are actually too small, all of us in our separate entities who are never going to be able to counter state power or fight back. We need to find a strategic way that brings us together. For them, at that time, for instance, the term blackness was very useful, not because it was sugarcoating all the differences between groups or anti-blackness among Asian communities, but far more specific. And this is why I think it's so important to recover and repatriate in a way these older legacies that are now sort of forgotten. For instance, the work of the woman I mentioned, Althea Jones, and Darkus Howie, in setting up the black British Panther Party, they come themselves, they came from Trinidad. They come from a tradition in the West Indies that was trying to organize what they called former intendured groups and former slave groups. They came from Asian and Black Trinidadians into labor forces and union resistance. It's something, ironically, that was important, imported from the West Indies into Britain with these new migrants among whom also were students and intellectuals and tried to be manifested on the ground in a new context. It was a methodology, a strategy to fight back, and maybe we have to find a way to navigate these multiple interpretations much more clearly to say, some terminologies actually have nothing to do with identity, with culture. They have only to do with how we organize and fight. But I want to add to that, that there's something more, there's something in addition about the strategic universalism, when it comes to a method of fighting back, that actually provides the solutions also to prevent or to limit internal differences and existing xenophobia. My argument is that it is precisely in the site of struggle in us coming together in our differences that we actually create these human relations that become loyalties or kinships that allows them to bring a new, a better, a more progressive understanding of the other into our own communities. And I'm not just saying this thinking and dreaming out loud. I'm saying this because our histories, our radical histories have proven that that's how it works. When you see, for instance, in a small window at least of what we had in the Netherlands, that is completely invisible now in the 60s and 70s when we had Moroccans and Turks and Moroccans and Indonesians and and Serenamese and Antelians coming together and working together, it was the birth of actually connections between these communities. And you see it now again, a new generation of activists that are exposed through discussions about for instance the anti-blackness of Black Pete, of that very racist figure. It is because these Palestinian, Moroccan, Somalian, I mean, there's a new generation also from the 90s, Somali, other refugee communities that are now second generation. They come together in these movements, for instance, against the war in Iraq or against suppression of Palestinians, they meet, they strike alliances and they learn all these new things and bring them with them in their communities. So resistance is not just something it's nice, but in it is also the solution to undo these internal differences. I can't hear you. I was just thanking you for a very important answer. I think you raised a really important point about differentiating between the language of the struggle and the identifications that can be multifarious and more complex, but it cannot be really encompassed in a word or in a language. I wanted also to bring the questions to you, other questions that have been appearing on the chat from Scarlett Harris, who says thanks for a brilliant talk. And do you think that the trends you talk about are linked to the commodification of anti racism. I'm thinking about the incredible proliferation and interest in books about anti racism, most often focusing on the individual in the wake of Black Lives Matter. I'll read out the other two so you can maybe engage with all three questions together. Thank you for your work. The same scene from Mangrove follows the woman from the Black Panthers party going to use the bathroom after speaking with the Punjabi man in the living room. And she goes into the kitchen where there are about six Asian women with each other. Could you comment also on gender and migration and the complex contradictory ways. It articulates in these traditional methodology. The third question is from William Frey. Thank you for your talk in the United States. There has been quick co-optation and institutionalization of terminology like anti racism by companies and universities. With this widespread co-optation and institutionalization, how does this complicate the arguments you're making around reviving radical theorizing and conceptualizing. As a PhD student myself, the role of people who find themselves within these institutions. There is another fourth question but I'm happy to stop here and give you the floor again later. There is already enough, I guess for you to engage with. Yes. And do stop me if I go on too long in answering the questions because I don't know how many. Exactly. I'm going to raise my hand. That scene in the film, I thought that was brilliant, but I think, I don't know, I'm not a film critic. I'm not cultural studies person. But I think Steve McQueen was trying to tell us something by following her meeting with the man through a scene where she goes through the kitchen to the bathroom. I think he was hinting at these are actually all unfinished projects. You start with something and you want to bring something together but that's of course not the end. There are all these different layers of radical politics that include different modalities of identities and I think it's not a surprise. In a way that of the Jones became a very prominent figure in actually the black feminist movement. I think I felt like that scene was in a way honoring her like it was kind of she saw what was happening. She is smiled at them she goes into the bathroom comes out and I think the film is also trying to tell us. She already knew then that what she was trying to do with this very sort of general level of the workers bringing them together that that was very hard one at the beginning that it's completely open to more layers of radical connections and that's why she was so important because she had so much critique also. I really invite people to read her work she has she was very principled in her critique also the black radical movement in its in its gender politics. And I think that for us it's also a lesson for today, where we also need to acknowledge that we think we have maybe all the answers because we are so far ahead of what happened in the 60s or 70s but we also have a lot of issues that we still have to deal with and you personally I think know from conversations we've had. I think for instance that it is one thing to employ and to write intersectionality behind everything, but I for instance see very little intersectionality when it comes to acknowledging and taking serious disability in the activist movements. So I think there will be a time in 10 or 20 years, when we are watching people are watching films made about the radical movements of our era, where, where we look back and say wow that is quite an ablest representation of what radical is doing, et cetera, et cetera. So I think it's a, it's a beautiful scene that is trying to sort of hint us at the unfinished business of radical politics. And this is in part related to the question about modification. Cooperation does different things obviously it does co-optation, it does, it depoliticizes. And what one of the outcomes of that is that it actually provides us with a kind of liminal understanding of politics that is very boundary driven. Only this case or this cause that we're going to be fighting for and that's it sort of closes off the possibility of a radical imagination that transforms and that transgresses or let me say in the words of other critics, where for instance identity politics becomes incorporated while actually for radical politics, identity is only the starting point. It's a good way to start your politics, but it's a terrible way to end it also there. The whole point is to transform and transgress into other forms of struggle. That is what co-modification also does not allow you to do, whether it's because of the aesthetics of it and how it's sort of confining it into particular themes or whether it's the the depoliticization of the terminology. I am very flabbergasted, you could say, in how quick the state and capital have understood in these recent years that there is a growing angry undercurrent among the comments among the people that the anger and the level of struggle sometimes it bleeps up and then it recedes it's not a permanent level of struggle unfortunately, but when it comes up, it's very angry. And I think the ruling class or the states they understand they need to really co-opt part of that otherwise it's going to blow up in their faces and I think and as I said I'm very flabbergasted to see how smoothly and easy black lives matter has been incorporated in some of these sort of corporate and state. I mean it's almost laughable to hear politicians who are at the forefront of racist politics and racist discourse, all one after the other come out with statements in support of black lives matter. And I think that contradiction has never been this ridiculous almost and I think that has been a very interesting example of how one way to de-radicalize a certain type of anti-racism is to incorporate and co-opt it. Just corporations and the state I really think there is a specific angle in how the academy and race also intersects in this. And one of that, one of the expressions thereof I think is those books that's one of the people asked in the chat. And I forgot the name of the person who asked but I think the production of these handbooks of guides, sort of hand guides, how to be a good anti-racist that are very much invested in this liberal understanding that is already co-opted of anti-racism through privilege theory. So hand guides and books that tell you how to acknowledge how to be aware, etc, etc, that are then sold massively. I think that's a really good example of how these co-optation work and mind you, most of them are white authors. I don't want to stop you because we would want to listen for you to this reflection for longer really interesting points that you've raised but there are so many questions in the chat and very long ones. So I want everyone to have an opportunity to ask you and receive an answer. So we have Victoria, who's a PhD student working on the colonizing who asks, it would be interesting if you could try and trace where and why of this backlash against political blackness and what sparked it. She has, I hope I pronounce it rightly, who was says, hi that was a very brilliant lecture, I'm trying to find where I read it. What do you think of the idea that discourse on anti-racism is creating a gap between those in power to create a change and those seeking the change. There are a lot of dichotomies and tensions in the form of painting the two sides as opposing fractions, which in turn progresses marginalization and recycles the same systematic racism in itself. So basically the question is about I'm trying to show cut it a little bit. This course as argued by Escobar has just managed to repage ideals and systematic distribution of power in the context of the 21st century. This is an essay more than a question but very interesting one thank you very much. We have another question by Tina, Tina Wallace, who says, great analysis and so encouraging. We are talking about ignoring of your UK history of racism colonialism and anti racism and anti imperialism. There is a reliance on USA literature currently in the UK, and there is so much learning and experience we are losing by ignoring this history. Alexandra, who says thank you for the great presentation Miriam the centrality of the concept of white privilege in analyzing or in analysis of anti racism can also end up by re centering whiteness and the experiences of white people. So my question would be about the politics of knowledge production in movements. Is this due to epistemic difference and applying standpoint epistemology as a way of deference to others, which are essentialized. All of color activists deferred to essentialized others. It might insulate them, also from criticism, but also from connection across difference. I'm thinking with a recent wonderful essay by all of them type code on elite capture and epistemic difference. There are many more so I'll maybe I'll leave you with with these three for now and I think we will probably have time for another three after your response, which will be so we already have another three lined up. If you could maybe answer this long and complex questions. Keeping keeping in mind that there are others that would be really great. Thank you Miriam. Always like this we should always calculate that in the beginning it seems like there's not many questions and we elaborate in our answers and then we get stuck in the end. But we have to invite you another three times. Yes, no problem here by. Yeah, thank you. I mean, of course apologies in advance I won't be able to answer all these questions. But I will try to bring some together. I realize also I forgot the question about by aim by one of your earlier questions I think that's really interesting also to see changes in the political domains around sort of parliamentary politics I mean it's, you know the break, breaking away from mainstream leftist or reformist parties precisely from a need to organize people of color that comes from also a need to center anti racism without excluding anti capitalism and state policies is exemplified by the emergence of this new political party in the Netherlands by aim that was led by that is led by a black woman and that has managed to include and recruit really interesting amalgam of politicians and peoples from the LGBT community from the immigrant community and also very clear sort of anti racist and anti capitalist formation so I think it's a very encouraging development I would say, which still very much in the beginning but I think it's very encouraging because not only purely from the idea of in the parliamentary field. I think it's very hard to do that with a small new party, but what he did do is actually on the level of imagination break away from the idea that we are doomed with the type of parties or the conservative and reformist on the one hand or that we are doomed to only rely on the existing political recipes on offer it kind of opens up the possibility to organize and to do different things so I think historically I would say that's already an amazing contribution from these new political parties and I think it's not just in Holland. It's in different countries where we see this kind of breaking away from the kind of old mainstream reformist type of doing politics and providing new alternative that is in essence and by default already diverse I wish we had that also in the UK because I think that you know Jeremy Corbyn should have just broken away from the Labour Party and reformed in a new composition because there's so much need and hunger and possibility to do that. So I think that what it also is showing by aim is that the ideas and discussions in theory that sort of are this backlash against political blackness in reality, we see a different dynamic we see in reality actually people coming together across different ethnic groups and political causes they come actually together in new formations that are maybe not termed political blackness but they are very clearly examples of coalition politics so I think it's really interesting also in relation to the question someone else asked about the difference between scholarship around white privilege and you know I don't know that person counterposed the scholarship against whiteness and activism around whiteness but I think what it also shows is that there's a quite a discrepancy between what is happening in the theoretical bubbles in our debates and analysis even the essays written by for instance big names like Wilderson or others and what is happening on the ground and in the neighbourhood in reality I think that that discrepancy needs to be closed and it shows in any case a different reality but it's not guaranteed that the reality being less fragmented or the reality is being less cynical that they are also going to be those realities that are remembered that was my whole point about the fact that in these radical legacies, there is a very interesting selective mechanism going on in what is being salvaged and what is being reproduced and remembered and therefore my question, my answer to the question of the ignoring of the history of anti-racism in the UK and the enlarging or inflating of the history and guidelines from the US is really interesting because I think even the legacies and the knowledge produced from the US is selective. You see what I mean? It's actually not a representative set of ideas and propositions that we are getting from the US either. The US also has a very different radical legacy that is not at all part of the comprehensive almost ready-made package of ideas we think is coming from the US and I think that's really important and there's a very interesting discussion I think by Robin Kelly and Fred Moten about also these different histories of the emergence of black studies and ethnic studies in the US showing that there is actually a history behind that that was very much about the need bringing together of indigenous politics, immigrant politics and black African-American politics that is actually forgotten. So, not only do we preference certain western knowledge productions that are in one place and not in the other, also that which we preference is itself a biased representation. I think that's very important but I do agree that sometimes you have a choice as activists in Europe, you have so many choices, your own history that is already erased in wherever country you are that is full of rebellious and transgressive examples but also your international inspiration you can choose why would you preference a US focus that is more inclined now to be connected to Afro-pessimism rather than a UK focus that is far more embedded in these unities because these people as I said from the West Indies also brought with them these unified processes who told you that you only have that one option, we have these choices and the problem is that we need to be more open about our motive, why we preference certain ideologies and certain theories. My very simple answer is I will prefer what is the most radical, I will prefer and center that which is the most useful radical and progressive and if that fits with an idea of unity and race and class that is for instance embedded within the history of the Birmingham school in the UK, Stuart Hall, Paul Gehrer or Sifan Ondan in his race and class project and that is the one that I would like to build upon more than I would want to build upon for instance ideas around social death that have to do with a very American experience of marginalization and racialization so we have the choice. Miriam, thank you so much. So we have a question that brings back the issue of political blackness which was raised also by one of the other attendees so maybe you can engage with that and the question is around by Hasna, Ankal, thanks for the interesting talk, I can't find the option, sorry about that, that's not part of the question. Resisting the term political blackness is understandable today but now there seems to be a trend to go against the term people of color as well so I see a good opportunity to show easily how this is part of a conscious attempt to make collaborations difficult and what do you think so maybe you can answer this and maybe engage with the question because the notion of political blackness is also criticized for being sort of a national as a game for a more progressive globalized transnational approach but the national was actually very international to start with as suggested and we heard in previous talks here so this is interesting too. We also have a question by Liam, Srivastava, would agree there is a complete lack of knowledge of UK anti-racist struggle and theory, sorry this is actually not a question but sharing resources I really like how in our seminars the chat has become an opportunity to sort of share knowledges and sort of an online archive of materials and I really think this is great. And also the fact that there are lots of people who have given presentations themselves who come back to listen to others we've managed to at least create a sort of an online community of scholars here. Yeah, I guess, and Corny, another PhD student in the department would like to ask you something about again bringing you back to the Dutch situation and his question is around its what are the peer debates which has sparked a long overdue reckoning with racism in the Netherlands but also a lot of backlash and where do you see the Dutch discourse on race color blindness and tolerance going, especially with regard to Islamophobia. I think these are, I would say, our last questions and if, as we know we were going to close today a bit earlier. I really like you to address the question of political blackness because and the question around people of color and the dominant nations and the idea that this is also something that somehow compounds our intersectional approach. So I think it's something that a lot of us are grappling with and really value your opinion, as well as the last question. I'll do my best. I do think you. It's true. I think you should aggregate your chats and turn them into an okay because I think over the weeks that there have been amazing suggestions that I partly also help to solve the missing link I'm talking about in what is being reproduced and remembered and what is not and it's very hard to find through the maze of, you know, publications and what have you so I think that's really great. I think it's interesting also for me, if I may make a meta observation. So how often the question of political blackness comes back there's certainly a concern or a discomfort about political blackness either as a term or as. A discomfort to reject it from this from the from the side of not wanting to reject coalition politics. And on the one hand, a discomfort to promote it from a fear to not be seen as someone who does flattening of anti racism and racial communities and ignores the internal differences. And I think on the one hand, we need to answer that by saying, look, it's about a method. It's not about the representational political identification. It's not about see if an undone set it back in the 70s and 80s. It was never about skin color. It was about political color. And that's why it was called blackness. So in honor of that tradition of whether it's how we or see if an undone where it was so clearly about a method for struggle and for resistance and not an academic exercise in this code analysis and how it represents communities or doesn't in that I think it's important to not mock the way people use political blackness. I mean, I have been mocked. Even though I don't use it because my critique of the kind of liberal or, or yeah, not that internationalist form of anti racism is automatically decoded as political blackness, even though I never use that term in my own writing and you in my article actually don't use it. But it has been mockingly referred to as, you know, team political blackness. So I think just for the sake of of honoring the legacy of people who have against all odds, try to organize against state violence against internal racism and xenophobia in our communities. It's not easy. A lot of Asian people in the UK were for instance not that happy with being called black. You know what I mean like it was also very much a transgressive experience on the one hand, we have that legacy that has to do with a method of resistance that we need to acknowledge and honor. On the other hand, we need to be open for change terms change all the time. The reference change all the time. And in all honesty, I don't think political blackness is at all a dominant term within the movement. It's very much an academic debate. It's very much a debate between certain scholars who are also looking for a particular niche with which they can create strawments to provide an alternative reading. I personally hardly see it and read it in the movement so the good news is it's not even that big of an issue in in reality. But I have to say, there is another reason why there is a kind of para paralysis around political blackness and it's very much to do with what we discussed before about the type of anti racism that is being commodified. There is a certain type of racism and racialization that is commodified that is far more lenient to specific subjective identities and and fragmenting these groups, according to specificities and not a kind of racism and anti racism that we see being commodified that has to do with solidarity and united forces. And I think that's why there is a quite, I think, intriguing white enabling of the critiquing of political blackness because actually in the dynamic on the ground what you see is I'm actually struck also by the confidence of a lot of white academics and activists in emerging themselves in the debate and for instance critiquing what they see as people of color and defense of black people and mocking in that process political blackness. I find that quite intriguing how how this kind of white enabling is also part of the critique of political blackness. So it is part of an incremental change of the way certain terminologies refer to certain types of anti racist politics and I think it's one of the core reasons why I critiqued white privilege is precisely because I saw this incremental progressive reactionary change from black to brown to whites and reverse from white to brown to black. Not only is it a dead end because when we're done with critiquing political blackness which actually is not a real thing. We are going to political, sorry people of color like Hasna just mentioned Hasna just mentioned something important for me it highlights, there's a new stage now, people of color. Next, after we've done with critiquing and erasing people of color, we will go to something else that is less specific into more and more specific denominations I think it's a dead end it's not going to help us in the method of how we do resistance and I think I hope that Hasna's piece on Hasna wrote a brilliant piece about the term afro afro is one of those terms that have come into the movement that is also quite fascinatingly being adopted by certain people of color, precisely because it offers them an entry point into a type of black politics that they would otherwise not have had and so she has no rights about how the term afro has now also be appropriated by certain Moroccans which is hilarious, knowing what the etymology of afro means and how it is a reference to a kind of objective African that comes from the reality of African Americans in the in the US. And so she writes about why would I be an afro Moroccan as a black Moroccan, I am already African what is this objective about and that objective for me is also about trying to enter a certain type of doing politics that is more welcoming to the kind of as I said, anti political blackness and more sort of essentialist type of doing anti racism. So I think it's a dead end and that's why I think it's important for us to talk back and to speak back and to bring back these critiques that we are now discussing so that we can maybe pose and hold this incremental challenge and take out the valuable critique. Indeed, there is valuable critique, but not to throw away the baby with the bathwater and that's I think part of what we're sitting and doing here as well. I'm sorry I didn't really get into the, the other questions but it's just maybe a sign that we need to organize more of this and return to some of the questions. I'm sorry, I'm thank you so much for not only the talk itself but the Q&A you inspired us even more with the very important reflections and points to take home and think about. Obviously, together with you, we will invite Hashna to hear more about her work. It's really important to also detect and represent and bring into the conversations experiences of race dynamics or racializations that happen beyond the Anglo American context, like the one you just mentioned so I think this is really great and important if you can define this. Thank you to everyone who joined us. I really think this was one of the most passionate and really taking us to the core of some of the issues that are really preoccupying us every day as we mobilize not only as we study but as we mobilize as activists or public intellectuals as you said, so you offered us really, really important food for thought. And we want to thank you very much for this. We hope to see you in the next talks as a guest and we would like to just keep you for another minute to announce the next seminar next week which will be our speaker will be Professor Sandro Mezzadra from the University of Bologna who will talk about the criminalization of humanitarian rescue at sea. He's a professor of political theory and critical border studies, but also one of the founder of Mediterranean. The rescuing humanitarian boat that rescues asylum seekers trying to cross the Mediterranean sea. So this promise is to be another really important interesting talk. I want also to take this opportunity to announce that the last talk that if for those of you who have seen the poster that was circulating early on in the term. We had envisaged Professor Hassan Hajj give a talk on the 18th of December but this talk has been postponed so it will happen at the beginning of the new year. So the final seminar will happen with on the ninth with the talk of Sandro Mezzadra. Thank you very much and thanks Kim who might want to add a couple of words for to share some of the technical and event right logistical information that are always appearing in our email so if there is any new information that you want to share. So I put into the chat the event right link for the next event. We already have quite a few registrations so some of you may have already registered for that session already we've had it open for about a week now but there's still plenty of spaces on that so do feel free to go to that link that's in the chat. But I'll also be sending it round via email to you all with the recording from this session as well. And thank you very much Miriam for a great talk and also for commenting on and I think also Ruby you touched on it on all of the different ways in which everybody attending is adding into the chat and adding into the discussion. And maybe what we will do at the end of the seminar series is revisit all of the recordings because we have not only the recordings of the video and the audio but we also have the recordings of all the chats. So what we can do is is possibly look over all of them and where we see that people have put in various different resources. We can put it onto the Facebook page for our Center for Migration and diaspora and possibly just link through to which different talks people had various different resources for. So I'm sure that we will find actually across a number of them that they they appear multiple times. But I think that's really helpful and I think that's a really interesting thing and I would definitely again ask if you all want to do that in the following sessions that we run both in the remainder of this seminar series but also in the others because I think you know having those resources there's lots of books that we use quite often and that might end up being you know our you know our go to. But I think it is part and parcel of looking forward and seeing what new resources are coming up, what's being kind of mentioned now and what kind of resources we can look at so definitely keep those coming and we'll look at ways in which we can incorporate that into both a review of this seminar series that we've done and also move forward to the next seminar series that we run as well. Again, I think it's worked better this time so thank you all for those of you who've attended our sessions before. And we do realize there's been a few different issues in terms of logging in I think today's login process worked a bit better where I just send you out a clearer email than maybe the event right so I will do that again. Follow for the following sessions as well. I will try and get the recordings out as quickly as possible, and you'll get a double recording this week if you also signed up to last week because I have just got that recording straight. Bye one, get home too. Thank you both and thank you also for doing this in the time of online teaching and digital communication that is making us even more exhausted, and sometimes just a little bit crazy so I think this is really wonderful. Thank you. Thank you again. Thank you very much. Thank you everyone and have a good evening. Bye. Thank you.