Nov 25 2024 56 mins
Phil is a man driven by vision, compelled to fulfill God’s calling on his life. His passion is not only to see individuals come to know and grow in a relationship with Jesus, but to see social transformation that includes addressing systems and structures that affect the everyday lives of people, especially those typically pushed to the margins because of oppression, injustices, and inequities grounded in race, gender, sexuality, ability, age, and any part of their being that does not fit the dominant group membership.
As an All-American high school basketball player, Phil attended North Carolina A&T University to play basketball and study architectural engineering. Upon his call to ministry years later, he went on to receive his Bachelors in Theological Studies, with an emphasis in Christian Ministries from The King’s University. While working as a full-time lead pastor of Own Your Faith Ministries (Santa Clarita, CA), Phil completed a Master of Arts in Theology degree from Fuller Theological Seminary, studying Christian Ethics. As a current PhD candidate in Christian Ethics, with a minor in Theology and Culture, his research involves race theory, theology, ethics, culture, and the theology and ethics of Martin Luther King, Jr.
He is founder of the non-profit organization Racial Solidarity Project based in Los Angeles, CA. His passion for dialogue, resistance, and solutions to the problem of systemic racism was fostered by his family and personal life experiences as well as his educational journey. Phil was recently named a Pannell Center for Black Church Studies Fellow at Fuller Theological Seminary. As a fellow his research on Black Church theology, liturgy, and ethics further undergirds his own ethics of justice, healing racial trauma, and racial solidarity. He has taught undergraduate classes on biblical ethics toward racial solidarity. His fields of interest include Christian ethics, Black Church studies, race theory, pneumatology, theology of justice and theology of play and sport.
When he isn’t pastoring, studying, or writing, Phil enjoys running, bowling, basketball, and just watching his favorite television shows. As an all-around creative, he is an author, a teacher, pastor, filmmaker (see his documentary Open Wounds), but first a poet. His diverse experiences and interests have gifted him with the ability to relate to and inspire just about anyone he meets.
He is the author of two books, Open Wounds: A Story of Racial Tragedy, Trauma, and Redemption (Fortress Press, 2021) and The Prophetic Lens: The Camera and Black Moral Agency From MLK to Darnella Frazier (Fortress Press, 2022).
Speaker 1 (00:13):
Welcome to the Arise podcast, conversations on faith, race, justice, gender, and the church. And tune in and listen to this conversation today. Dr. Phil Allen, Jr and myself are going to have a conversation today. And if you go to his website, phil allen jr.com, you can see that his quote is Justice Matters, my neighbors Matter, creation matters, faith Matters. And really in this conversation, I want you to pay attention to those points that he makes in this quote from his website and how that filters through in the research he does in the point of view he's bringing to the table for this conversation on what are we doing? And I think a lot of people are like, are we still talking about the Yes, we're still talking about it. Yes. It's still relevant and we're talking about it because from understanding creates pathways towards action, towards organizing, towards being together with one another in community so that we can support justice, so that we can support our neighbors so that we have faith in creator. And so I want to encourage you to listen through that lens. Go find his website, phil allen jr.com. Look up this amazing man, this professor, he's got a podcast, he's got books, poetry speaking, a documentary. Don't hesitate to reach out, but as you listen, focusing on justice Neighbor and creation and Faith.
(01:48):
Yeah. What has it been like for you since the election? Or what's that been like
Speaker 2 (01:57):
Since the election? The first couple of days were, I was a bit numb. I was very disappointed in 2016. I wasn't surprised. I had this feeling that he was going to win, even though people thought Hillary would win. I just didn't have the confidence in those battleground swing state. I thought he represented something that a lot of people in this country are drawn to. And this year I really felt like she was going to win. Vice President Harris was going to win because of the coalition, because of the momentum. People can critique and criticize her campaign, but there's nothing orthodox about starting a hundred days before. And I think what they did was calculated. I won't say perfect, but it was good. It was a solid campaign given what she had to work with. And I really thought she would win. And I was just extremely disappointed. It was like this heaviness over me, but then after day two, things started to feel a little bit lighter. I just put things in perspective. I wasn't going to sulk and sit in some sadness because this man won. I think I was more disappointed in the people like what is our standard, particularly Christians, conservative Christians, what is the standard now? How low is the bar?
(04:04):
And honestly, I don't know if there's anyone else on the planet, any other demographic that could have done that with 34 felonies saying the things that he says about people of color, about women, about veterans. I mean, he just literally does not care. There's no man or woman of color. There's no woman, there's no one else that could do that. And people would ignore everything, do theological gymnastics and to justify everything and still vote for 'em. No one else could pull it off. And I think for me, it just solidified the type of country we live in. So I'm good now, as good as I can be. I can't change it, so I'm not going to sulk and be sad. I'm going to continue to do the work that God has called me to do and continue to chat, put a video out. I think you may have seen it on social media just to put my thoughts out there, put words to my feelings and just move forward. Yep.
Speaker 1 (05:24):
When you think about, is it okay if I ask you a couple of questions?
Speaker 3 (05:28):
Yeah.
Speaker 1 (05:29):
When you think about your research and completing your PhD and the theory and work and the evidence and structures you uncovered in that research, then how does that continue to frame your outlook for where we are today? It
Speaker 2 (05:52):
Couldn't, this election was interesting. This election confirmed for me, my research,
Speaker 1 (05:59):
Yes.
Speaker 2 (06:02):
I'll give you one part of it. In my research I talk about the plantation complex and it's made up of three major categories and there are subcategories under each one, organizing properties, modes of power, and operating practices. Three major categories Under organizing properties, there are four properties I list. I'm not saying it's an exhaustive list. Someone else might come in and want to tweak it and change it. That's fine. What I came up with is for vision covenant, spatial arrangement and epistemology, and specifically theological scientific epistemology, specifically white racial covenant. For those two, those are the specific terms I use. And to me, vice President Harris asked a question, this is about what kind of country do we want? That's a statement about what kind of vision do you have? Would you like to see this country embody? So vision is always there. We're always talking about, we're always casting vision when we tell stories, when we talk about how we want the, whether it's the education system, immigration, whatever. We're casting a vision, but what do we want to see? And then that ends up driving so much of what we
Speaker 3 (07:45):
Do.
Speaker 2 (07:48):
We have the vision now of this is what America wants.
Speaker 1 (07:52):
Yes,
Speaker 2 (07:54):
They want this man with all, he's not just a flawed human being, in my opinion. He's a vile human being. She also is not a perfect candidate. She's a decent woman. She's a decent person. Two vastly different visions for this country. Then you talk about spatial arrangement. Electoral college is about spatial arrangement. You have your blue states, your red states, but everything comes down to five or six. Sometimes one state decides the election, and it all depends on who's living in that state, how are the districts redrawn. All types of stuff can play out. But to me, I saw that going on and then I saw white racial covenant play out. You look at who voted for who, percentage wise, and I kept seeing this allegiance, this covenant with Donald Trump, and there had to have been independents and even some Democrats that voted for him to have voted at such a high clip when his base is only 37%, 40% at most, and a Republican party is half. And he gets, I don't know. I just started to see those things play out. And from my dissertation, just those four categories, the stuff that we don't even pay attention to, they shape society, vision, spatial arrangement, covenant whose allegiance, who has your allegiance, because that drives decision making that drives what you value. It influences what you value. And epistemology, theological, scientific epistemology, he's the chosen one.
(10:03):
God chose him for such a time as the, I keep hearing this language. So they're using theological language to justify everything about this man. So yeah.
Speaker 1 (10:18):
Yeah.
Speaker 2 (10:19):
It's hard for me not to see through that lens. Now that I spent six years researching it, it's hard for me not to see through those lenses the lens of power, how power is operating, what type of power is operating and the practices and all that stuff.
Speaker 1 (10:38):
There's so much you said that I know we could jump into. Particularly when you talk about the white racial covenant. I was struck at, there's intersection between our research areas, and I was thinking about in grad school before I even got into my post-grad research, I wrote about three things for the Latinx Latino community that kind of inform the way white supremacy has infiltrated our lives. One is silence, one is compliance, and then lastly is erasure. And as we saw the swing, and they've talked ad nauseum about Latinos when we are a minimal part of the electoral vote, but they've talked ad nauseum about the movement specifically of men. But when you think of the demand to be silent over centuries, the demand to comply, and then the sense that maybe I can erase myself and what can I trade in for the good graces to get into the good graces of white racial identity and vote against my own best interests, vote against protecting my community, vote against even maybe even protecting my grandma or my kid that's on daca, et cetera. What was the cost? And as you were explaining that, I was seeing it through that lens that you were describing.
Speaker 2 (12:17):
Yep, yep. What's interesting is one of the practices, I talk about tokenization on the plantation or some would say tokenism, and there's always white racial covenant is not just among white people.
(12:42):
It's anyone from any group, including my community. Those who want, they want to be in closer proximity to whiteness. They want to be accepted into the white way of being. And when I say whiteness, you understand what I'm saying? I'm not just talking about white persons or white ethnicity. We're talking about a way of being in the world, a lens through which you see the world and move in that. And you can be a person of color and totally embrace whiteness, internalize that it only takes a few to then that's an effort to legitimize it, to legitimize. See, look at those. Look at that black guy or that Latino seed. They get it, and it further legitimizes that worldview.
Speaker 1 (13:38):
Yeah. I know for me, I felt so deeply, I don't think disappointment is the right word, but maybe I felt betrayed, but also I felt deeply, I just felt the weight of what centuries have done. And then I think it was like a Sunday afternoon where he's in Madison Square Garden using the most vile of comments, the most vile of comments to degrade our race, our ethnicity, where we come from, and then to turn around and garner a vote. I mean, it fits into your theory.
Speaker 2 (14:26):
So think about what he said when he first ran in 2016. I can stand on Fifth Avenue in the middle of Fifth Avenue and shoot someone and I won't lose any votes. Now, fast forward to 2024 in Madison Square Garden, the lineup, the things he said, he didn't condemn anything. He invites white supremacists into his home for dinner. He welcomes them. He literally does not care because he understands the allegiance, not just from his base, but even those adjacent to his base. And that's why I keep saying, how low is this bar that you can have those people? Because everyone thought, oh, this is it. That just killed it for 'em. It did not matter. No, it did not matter. Some of it is, I think based on race, and some of it is based on gender. Some of it's a combination of both. And that's why I said in my video, she didn't stand a chance anytime people kept saying, we need to hear more and I need to get to know her more. Well, what are you watching?
Speaker 3 (15:47):
What
Speaker 2 (15:47):
Else do you need to know? She's told her whole story over and over again. She's literally laid out bullet point, what she wants to do. What else is there half the people who say that don't even understand these concepts anyway?
Speaker 3 (16:04):
Yeah,
Speaker 2 (16:05):
They don't understand it. They're not understand this stuff.
Speaker 1 (16:11):
I guess what you say, really, it triggered something in my mind and see what you do with it. He stood in Madison Square Garden, and I actually wonder now, looking at it with the lens of a tiny bit of space that maybe if even that was riveting for people, even some of the adjacent people of color that voted for him, because it's riveting that someone could have that much power and get away with it and move in the world without consequence. And I think a lot of people are looking for that sort of autonomy or freedom to move or it's appealing. The power of it is appealing in a way that I didn't think about it before you said it, and I don't know that that's it, but I get curious about it because it definitely didn't take any votes away.
Speaker 2 (17:09):
And I'm glad you used the word curious because we're just theorizing right now, sharing opinions how we feel. And so I'm curious as well about a lot of these things. I'm just at a loss for words. I don't even know how to wrap my mind around that. I do think is an appeal though. I do think there is in my dissertation that the type of power that I talk about is autocratic ideological power where the ideology, it's not a person, the autonomous sovereign power. And I borrowed from Fuko, so I'm using a little bit of fuko, Michelle Fuko, and he uses the term sovereign power like king, a dictator, Vladimir Putin type of person. And I'm saying, don't have a king. And it's not one person with that type of autonomy, but there's an ideology that has that type of autonomy and we can add appeal, and it's the ideology of white supremacy. And it's almost like, well, he should be able to get away with that subconsciously. Not saying that people are saying that consciously, but it's almost like it's normalized like he should because had she said any of those things, oh, she shouldn't say those things. How dare she?
(18:44):
Or if Obama, when Obama said they clinging to their guns and their religion, they wanted to crucify. He shouldn't say those things. How dare he? But Trump can say, grab him by the lose no votes,
Speaker 1 (19:04):
Right?
Speaker 2 (19:06):
I don't like some of the things that he says. I wish he would tone down some of the things that he says, but so there's an autonomy. So where is it? Is it in him or is it in the ideology that he embodies? And it's appealing because so many people can share in that on different levels. So the idea is that if you go back to the plantation, every white person had some level of power over a black body and immunity, unless they got in trouble with a slave owner for killing or damaging
Speaker 1 (19:45):
Property.
Speaker 2 (19:47):
But every person on every level shared to varying degrees in this autocracy of ideology, autocracy of white supremacy, same thing is happening today. So he can say it, the comedian can say it, congressmen and women can say it, Marjorie till green can say whatever she wants. Gates can say, I mean, these people can say whatever they want, especially if they're in closer proximity to him because he is the ultimate right now, the ultimate embodiment of the superiority of whiteness. And so there is this subconscious, I think, appeal to that. How we are drawn to the bad guy in the film. We're drawn to the villain in the wrestling match. We just kind of drawn to them a bit. There's an appeal to that type of power and to get away with it. So I like that word appeal to it,
Speaker 1 (21:04):
Man. I mean, I started getting really scared as you were talking because this power and this appeal and the way you're describing it, well, how did you say it? The ideology or is, what did you call it? Autonomous power
Speaker 2 (21:27):
Autocratic. Ideological power.
Speaker 1 (21:29):
Autocratic. Ideological power isn't just one person. It's embodied in this feeling. And that I think fits with the way I'm thinking. I got scared as you were talking because it's been hyper-focused on immigration and on a certain group of people so you can gain proximity to power. And I kind of wonder how is that going to play out? How will people play that out in their imaginations or in their communities is like what gets them closer to that power? Especially if, I mean, we could debate on tariffs and all that stuff, but no one I'm hearing from is telling me that tariffs are going to bring down the cost of goods. I've heard that nowhere. So then what are you going to do if you feel more hopeless and you're part of that working, let's say white or white adjacent class, where will you focus your energy? What can you control? So I think as you were talking, I started getting scared. I was like, this is a dangerous thing.
Speaker 2 (22:34):
So here's what I've told someone. Sadly, the only person who could have beaten Trump in 2020 was Joe Biden, a white man. A white woman wouldn't have been able to do it. Black woman, black man, Latino, Asian. It took a white man because people still needs to be, they needed to vote against him. They needed to see themselves. That's the majority of the country. They need to see themselves. Biden wasn't the best candidate by far. No, but he was the only one who could beat
Speaker 1 (23:16):
Trump.
Speaker 2 (23:17):
Now, he wasn't going to win this election, even though Trump has shown signs over the last year or so of aging, doesn't matter. He's loud and boisterous. So he gets a little bit of a pass. But guess what? If that hopelessness sets in the left, the Democrats are going to have to present another white man. You're not going to beat the part. You're not going to win the next election with someone other than a white man to beat this. He is the embodiment. He is the golden calf. You need at least a beige calf. You're not going to win the next election with with someone that looks like me or you, or its going to be, that's the sad part. So with that hopelessness, if they feel that and they feel like, okay, it is been the last four years has not been what he's promised, you're going to have to present them with an alternative that's still adjacent, at least in aesthetics, optics. And then you might, after that, if everything is going well, now someone can come off of that. This is the unfortunate reality. Biden is the only one that was going to be able to beat him in 2020, and I think it's going to take the same thing in 2020. It's definitely going to take a man because he's got the movement, the masculine movement. He's brought that up to serve. It's going to take a man to do it. Unfortunately, a woman may not be able to push back against that, but I think it's going to have to take a white man.
Speaker 1 (25:08):
Yeah, I think you're right. I don't think another female can win against him. There's no way
Speaker 2 (25:15):
He embodies the ideology of white in his posture, his tone, his rhetoric, his height, everything about him embodies, if you look at the history in this country of whiteness is the physical manifestation of it. And I'm not the only one that has said that.
Speaker 1 (25:37):
No,
Speaker 2 (25:39):
He is not just a physical manifestation. He is, at least in this era, he is the manifestation of it. He is the embodiment of it, attitude and everything.
Speaker 1 (25:59):
Yeah, I guess you just find me silent because I believe you. It's true. There's no doubt in my mind. And it's also stunning that this is where we're at, that people, again, I mean to fall back on what you've researched, people chose the plantation owner,
Speaker 2 (26:31):
And many people who do don't see themselves in the position of the enslaved,
Speaker 1 (26:39):
No,
Speaker 2 (26:39):
They see themselves as benefiting from or having favor from the plantation owner. They're either the overseer or the driver, or they're one of the family members or guests on the plantation. But no one's going to willingly choose a system that they don't benefit from. So they believe they will benefit from this, or they're willing to accept some treatment for the promise of prosperity. That's the other issue that we have. People see this. They see the world through an economic lens only. For me, I got to look at the world through a moral lens, an ethical lens. That's how I'm trained, but that's just how I've always been. Because if I look at it through an economic lens, I'll put up with anything, as long as you can put money in my pocket, you can call me the N word. If that's my, you can probably call me the N word. As long as you put money in my pocket, I'll tolerate it. And that's unfortunately how people see, again, when people talk about the economy, how many people understand economics,
Speaker 1 (27:53):
Honestly, what
Speaker 2 (27:54):
Percentage they do understand how much it's costing me to pay these groceries. What they don't understand is the why underneath all that, because I think they did one thing they could have done better. The Democrats is explain to people corporate greed. The cost of living is always going up. It may drop a little bit, but it's always doing this.
Speaker 1 (28:29):
But Phil, I would argue back with you that I don't think these people wanted to understand.
Speaker 2 (28:35):
You don't have to argue. I agree. I
Speaker 1 (28:38):
Talked to some folks and I was like, dude, tariffs, your avocado's going to be $12. They mostly come from Mexico. How are you going to afford an avocado? And it's like, it didn't
Speaker 2 (28:52):
Matter. The golden calf.
Speaker 1 (28:57):
The golden calf, Elliot comes back. I mean, I want to work to make these people, in a sense, ignorant. I want to work to think of it like that, not because it benefits me, but maybe it does. To think that some people didn't vote with the ideas that we're talking about in mine, but they absolutely did.
Speaker 2 (29:23):
And I think you're dead on. It's a willingness or unwillingness to want to know. I'm just simply saying that many don't. You may see people interviewed on television or surveys, or even when you talk to people, I'm just simply saying they don't really understand. I got three degrees. I still need to read up and study and understand economics. That's not my field, right? So I'm still learning the nuances and complexities of that, but I'm a researcher by nature. Now most people aren't. So I'm just simply saying that they just don't know. They think they know, but they really don't. But a more accurate description of that is what you just said. Most people are unwilling to know. Because here's the thing, if you learn the truth about something or the facts about something, now you're forced to have to make a decision you might not want to make.
Speaker 1 (30:28):
Exactly. That's exactly right. Yep.
Speaker 2 (30:35):
It's like wanting to ban books and erase history and rewrite history. Because if you really did, to this day, whether I'm teaching or having conversations, I share basic stuff, stuff about history. And there's so many people that I never knew that, and I knew this stuff when I was a kid. I never knew that. What are we learning? Is everything stem.
Speaker 1 (31:11):
When Trump referenced the operation under Eisenhower Wetback, operation Wetback, I knew about that. I had researched it after high school in college, and I knew at that point, part of the success of that project was that they were able to deport citizens and stem the tide of, they didn't want them having more kids or reproducing, so they got rid of entire families. That was very intentional. That's purposeful. And so when they talk about deporting criminals, well, there just aren't that many criminals to deport. But for the Latino to understand that they would have to give up the idea that they could become adjacent to that power structure and benefit.
Speaker 2 (32:12):
Absolutely.
Speaker 1 (32:14):
You
Speaker 2 (32:14):
Have to give up something.
Speaker 1 (32:15):
You have to give up something. And so they traded in their grandma, literally, that's what's going to happen.
Speaker 2 (32:27):
And so now there's a connection between the golden calf and fear. So not only is he the idol, but he has the rhetoric to tap the fear, the anxiety. And when you've been in majority for a few hundred years now, the idea of no longer being the majority in the country scares a lot of people. It doesn't scare people of color. We don't really think about it because we've always been the minority. And I don't think one group is going to be the majority, maybe the Latino community because of immigration one day, maybe, probably not in my lifetime, but most of us are used to being in the minority that scares the dominant group, the white group. I've had conversations within the church years ago where this anxiety, not just with Latinos, but Muslims,
Speaker 1 (33:41):
Yep, Muslims
Speaker 2 (33:42):
As well. This fear that they're having so many more babies than we are, and how they try to pull people of color who are Americans into this by saying they're trying to have more babies than Americans. So now they want us to also have this fear of the other. So you got the idol who has the rhetoric to tap into the sentiments,
Speaker 1 (34:13):
Right? Yeah. Sorry, keep going. No,
Speaker 2 (34:15):
Go on. Go, go.
Speaker 1 (34:17):
Well, I mean, it just brings up the whole idea of when he said, the migrants are taking the black jobs. I was like, what jobs are these? And the intent is only to divide us.
Speaker 2 (34:31):
Yes. So I've had conversations with some African-Americans who I know are not, I know these people. These are just random people. They're not as in tune with politics. They're just kind of speaking the taglines that they heard. And I said, what jobs are they taking? And they can't answer that. But it's the same thing that happened 400 years ago almost. When they created the very terms white and black. There was this revolt among poor whites and poor and enslaved black people, particularly in Virginia. And I'm thinking of Bacon's Rebellion and how do you defeat that coalition? You divide them, you find a way to divide them. How's that? They came up with the term 1670s. They came up with the term white and black, and they had a range, I think it was somewhat white, almost white. White, somewhat black, almost black, black. But they had the termed white and black. And if you were of European descent, you could now be considered a white person. And with that came privileges, or as WEB, the voice would say the wages of whiteness, the
Speaker 1 (35:55):
Wages
Speaker 2 (35:55):
Of you could own property. And if you own a certain amount of property, you could vote. You could be a citizen. You had freedom of mobility. If you were black, you were meant to be enslaved in perpetuity. So now the poor whites, even though they did not benefit from slavery,
Speaker 3 (36:20):
Because
Speaker 2 (36:22):
The free enslaved Africans took the opportunities from poor whites who were able to work the land and earn some type of money, but now you've got free labor. So slavery actually hurt them. And the hierarchy, it hurt them. Wealthy white folks did not look well upon for white people. But why were they so had such allegiance? Because they had this identity, this membership into whiteness. And at least they weren't on the bottom.
Speaker 1 (37:04):
At least they weren't on the bottom. That's right.
Speaker 2 (37:07):
And so the same tactic is happening here is find a way to divide black and brown, divide black and Palestinian divide, because you knew black women were going to vote 90 plus percent. I thought black men would be 80 plus percent. Turns out they were 78, 70 9%. I thought black men would've been a little bit higher than that, but you knew black folks were going to vote in mass. But you find a way to divide and separate others from that coalition.
Speaker 1 (37:53):
Yeah. Well, here we are, Phil. What gives you, and I know we could talk about this for a long time. What are you operating on right now? I know you said you're not going to wallow in the sadness at the very beginning, but what is your organizing moment? What is your faith compelling you to do in this moment? How do you see the coming year?
Speaker 2 (38:19):
I am doubling down on my voice being more direct, being more the truth teller. I never want to lose truth with grace. I don't want to become the thing I disdain, but it is through my writing that I'm now doubling down and able to publish and put out what I believe is truth. It's factually based evidence-based. Some may call controversial, some may not. I don't know. But that's where I put my energy because I have more energy now to do that since I graduated, so I can invest more time, whether it's working on my next book, project op-Eds articles in the next year. So that's what I'm hoping to write. I'm hoping to take a lot of what I learned in the last six years and put it out there for the world. So it is just motivating me even more, whether it's poetry, academic stuff, teaching, and I've already been doing some of that. I just have the energy now to engage more.
Speaker 1 (39:54):
And sadly, you have more material to work with.
Speaker 2 (39:57):
Yeah, yeah, that's
Speaker 1 (39:59):
True. It's happening in real time. Yeah,
Speaker 2 (40:03):
Real time.
Speaker 1 (40:05):
Well, how can folks get ahold of you if they want to invite you to be part of their group or to come speak or
Speaker 2 (40:12):
Easiest would be phil allen jr.com. And they can go to, and you can email me through there, social media on Instagram, Phil Allen Jr. PhD, Facebook at Phil Allen Jr. Not the author page, the personal page. I'm still trying to delete the author page, but for whatever reason, Facebook makes it very difficult to delete your own page.
Speaker 1 (40:42):
They do,
Speaker 2 (40:44):
But Phil Allen Jr. My personal page is on Facebook. Those are only two social media platforms I have other than threads. Phil Allen, Jr. PhD on Instagram and Threads, Phil Allen Jr. On Facebook, Phil Allen jr.com, and those are the ways to reach me.
Speaker 1 (41:04):
How can folks get ahold of the writing you've already done in your research and read more about what we've been talking about? How can they get ahold of what you've already done?
Speaker 2 (41:15):
So my first two books, open Wounds and the Prophetic Lens, you can get 'em on Amazon, would love it if you could purchase a copy and after you've read, even if you read some of it and you felt led to leave a review, that helps. I'm currently revising my dissertation so that it's more accessible, so I'm changing, you get it, the academic language, that's not my true voice. So I'm trying to revise that so I can speak and sound more like me, which is more of a poetic voice. So I want to write in that sweet spot where it's still respected and used in academic spaces, but it's more accessible to people beyond academia who are interested in the subject matter. So that hopefully, I've been shopping it to publishers and I'm still shopping. So hopefully, if not next fall, hopefully by early 2026, that book can be published.
Speaker 3 (42:21):
Okay.
Speaker 2 (42:24):
The dissertation, you can go to ProQuest and you can type in my name Phil Allen Jr. You can type in the plantation complex.
Speaker 3 (42:35):
Okay.
Speaker 2 (42:36):
No, not the Plantation Complex America. The Plantation
Speaker 1 (42:41):
America, the Plantation.
Speaker 2 (42:43):
That's the title. And it's on proquest.com. That's where dissertations are published. So right now, it may cost something to read it, to get ahold of it, but you can look for it there until we revise and rewrite and publish the book.
Speaker 1 (43:01):
I'm really looking forward to, I haven't read your dissertation, but I want to, and I'm really looking forward to reading that book that's coming out.
Speaker 2 (43:09):
Thank you. Yes. And my YouTube channel, I don't really talk much. You can just type in my name, Phil Allen, Jr. There's quite a few spoken word videos, some old sermons I on there as well.
Speaker 1 (43:25):
Okay. Thank you, Phil.
Speaker 2 (43:29):
Lemme stop. Thank you.
Speaker 1 (43:32):
Thank you for joining us today, and I'm just honored to be in conversation with folks that are on this journey. We are not alone. If you need other kinds of resources, please don't hesitate to look up in our notes, some of the resources we listed in previous episodes, and also take good care of your bodies.
Well, first I guess I would have to believe that there was or is an actual political dialogue taking place that I could potentially be a part of. And honestly, I'm not sure that I believe that.