Return to Transcripts main page
Amanpour
Interview with Irish Times Columnist Fintan O'Toole; Interview with LatinoUSA on NPR Anchor and Futuro Media Founder Maria Hinojosa; Interview with "Slave Play" Playwright and "Slave Play. Not a Movie. A Play" Director Jeremy O. Harris; Interview with LULAC CEO Juan Proano. Aired 1-2p ET
Aired September 11, 2024 - 13:00 ET
THIS IS A RUSH TRANSCRIPT. THIS COPY MAY NOT BE IN ITS FINAL FORM AND MAY BE UPDATED.
[13:00:00]
CHRISTIANE AMANPOUR, CNN CHIEF INTERNATIONAL ANCHOR: Hello, everyone, and welcome to "Amanpour." Here's what's coming up.
(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)
KAMALA HARRIS, U.S. VICE PRESIDENT AND U.S. PRESIDENTIAL DEMOCRATIC CANDIDATE: World leaders are laughing at Donald Trump.
(END VIDEO CLIP)
AMANPOUR: Kamala Harris makes her case. We get global reaction to the high stakes debate as the clock ticks down to election day.
Then --
(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)
UNIDENTIFIED MALE: I wanted to invite us to truly imagine all of the ways slavery still lives with us.
(END VIDEO CLIP)
AMANPOUR: "Slave Play." Jeremy O. Harris joins me on his provocative Broadway hit taking London by storm.
Plus --
(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)
JUAN PROANO, CEO, LULAC: We could no longer sit in the sideline because it really is an attack on the Latino community.
(END VIDEO CLIP)
AMANPOUR: -- an unprecedented endorsement. Juan Proano tells Michel Martin why the largest Latino civil rights organization is throwing its weight
behind the vice president.
Welcome to the program, everyone. I'm Christiane Amanpour in London.
President Joe Biden was in Downtown New York today, marking the 9/11 anniversary alongside the next president of the United States. As both
Kamala Harris and Donald Trump were there too.
Just hours earlier, both of them had been sparring on stage in Philadelphia. The first and potentially the only debate. The former
president says he's not sure he wants to do a second one. The vice president, by almost all accounts, managing to make a case for herself and
dominating the entire encounter.
(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)
DONALD TRUMP, FORMER U.S. PRESIDENT AND REPUBLICAN PRESIDENTIAL CANDIDATE: Remember this, she is Biden. You know, she's trying to get away from Biden.
I don't know the gentleman, she says. She is Biden. The worst inflation we've ever had a horrible economy because inflation has made it so bad that
you can't get away with that.
DAVID MUIR, ABC NEWS MODERATOR: Thank you. Your time is up.
KAMALA HARRIS, U.S. VICE PRESIDENT AND U.S. PRESIDENTIAL DEMOCRATIC CANDIDATE: I want to respond to that though. I want to just respond.
LINSEY DAVIS, ABC NEWS MODERATOR: Briefly.
HARRIS: Clearly, I am not Joe Biden and I am certainly not Donald Trump. And what I do offer is a new generation of leadership for our country. One
who believes in what is possible, one who brings a sense of optimism about what we can do instead of always disparaging the American people.
(END VIDEO CLIP)
AMANPOUR: Now, while Harris appeared to get out all her talking points, Trump stayed very much on his message, taking debate on crowd sizes,
spouting falsehoods about late term abortions, and even suggesting bizarre and debunked lies about immigrants eating people's pets.
So, let's dig into what happened, what it means, and what comes next. Fintan O'Toole is a columnist for the Irish Times and joins me from Dublin.
And from New York, Maria Hinojosa, a Pulitzer Prize winning journalist and founder of Futuro Media. Welcome both of you to the program.
So, let's just start by saying, to the world and to the United States, it was really Kamala Harris who had to make herself known, who had to, you
know, show who she was. Because by and large, everybody in the U.S. and around the world knows who Donald Trump is, right? So, I want to ask about
the world first, Fintan. Do you think that is what happened? Do you think Harris was able to show off who she is?
FINTAN O'TOOLE, IRISH TIMES COLUMNIST: I think she was able to show off who she is. I'm not sure she was able to show off what she thinks. So, just
at a personal level, did she look like someone who would be credible to the rest of the world as a potential occupant of the Oval Office? Yes, she did.
She was authoritative. She was confident. She completely refused to be bullied by Trump. At times she was quite eloquent. So, at that sort of
simple personal level, yes, she pulled it off.
It has to be said though, that, you know, if you're looking from the outside in, you know, no discussion of climate change until literally the
very last segment of the debate that were given one minute each to talk about, the most important issue facing the world, no discussion really
about America's place in the world. So, we had a kind of back and forward, rather useless kind of scrapping about Afghanistan and who was more
responsible for the humiliating circumstances of America's withdrawal.
[13:05:00]
But no reflection of any kind on what Afghanistan might tell us about, you know, American military might in the 21st century. And you could go on
really through -- of course, Gaza. I mean, really very desultory debate around that with Trump just saying she hates Israel and Kamala Harris
getting a fairly kind of bland outline of a familiar policy. So, we didn't get a lot of substance in terms of what this means for the world.
AMANPOUR: Maria, do you see it as well, perhaps not in terms of what it means for the world, but also what it means for the United States? Because,
again, up until now, Kamala Harris has been questioned about, you know -- or questions surround her about what she stands for, what she would do.
And, you know, even just before this debate, two New York Times columnists basically thought Trump would eke it out in November. What do you think is
the takeaway for American voters after the debate?
MARIA HINOJOSA, ANCHOR, LATINOUSA ON NPR AND FOUNDER, FUTURO MEDIA: I mean, Kamala Harris is in a difficult situation because, you know, she is a
black woman, she is an Asian woman, she's a woman. And so -- and you know this, Christiane, we can't lose it in the middle of a debate and say you're
crazy and you're lying, which I think she probably wanted to say. But she has to keep that under control to present herself as presidential.
You know, having just been in South Florida talking with Latino and Latina voters who are consuming mis and disinformation that's coming at them
pretty quickly through YouTube and other social media and many of them saying that they like what they hear from Donald Trump. And so, watching
Donald Trump at the beginning, just kind of in the barrage, just coming, you know, really bullying and coming after her, one of my colleagues said,
I'm Venezuelan. I know what a strong man looks like. And that's exactly what Donald Trump is giving.
So. I -- it's hard for me to say that she absolutely won the debate hands down because how do you effectively debate with someone -- and I'm going to
say this, and I know that people are going to be a little shocked, but Donald Trump is a pathological liar. He lies. Every other sentence is a
lie. And so, when you're in a debate like that, you really can't win.
What she did do is she did not engage, which is pretty heroic, because I know that I was engaging just from my little perch. I was taking notes and
engaging. So, in that sense, she did hold it together and, in that sense, did look pretty presidential.
AMANPOUR: So, I want to also follow up and it's an issue that I can ask both of you fairly because it's an issue that is both a matter for the U.S.
and actually for Ireland and the rest of the world. So, women were front and center. That as, an issue, was, you know, really something very
important. The idea that women in America have now been denied their rights over their own bodies, their own free will, because of Donald Trump's
appointments to the Supreme Court was certainly on display.
Donald Trump himself, you know -- you know how they go, the right in the United States have a very, very extreme version of abortion, you know,
their criticism. I'm going to play what Donald Trump said about it.
(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)
TRUMP: But her vice presidential pick says abortion in the ninth month is absolutely fine. He also says execution after birth, it's execution, no
longer abortion because the baby is born, is OK. And that's not OK with me.
DAVIS: There is no state in this country where it is legal to kill a baby after it's born.
(END VIDEO CLIP)
AMANPOUR: So, that was the moderator, one of the moderators who was fact checking in real-time. But I actually want to ask you, Fintan, first. When
you hear a former president of the United States saying things like that, which are extreme, and I could see Maria shaking her head in horror, and
you in your country have had a major debate for years and decades. You had a referendum. It's a Catholic country. What do you think when you hear the
former president? What do women think around the world?
O'TOOLE: You know, coming from where I come from, as you say, I always thought that even though the overturning of Roe versus Wade was absolutely
appalling for American women it would also, in the end, be a huge disadvantage for the Republicans and for Trump. Because getting rid of Roe
versus Wade turns the issue around from being against abortion to what are you in favor of then, you know. What do you actually think should happen to
women who are in crisis pregnancies?
And I thought that this was an issue on which Trump ought to have been better prepared for a start. You would have thought that he would have had
something intelligent to say about it. He was completely all over the place. He was unable really to give any clear answers to whether or not he
would sign a nationwide abortion ban.
[13:10:00]
And then, as we just saw, he resorted to the talking points of the most extreme fundamentalist anti-abortion people, right? Which is this claim --
which is, of course, as Maria was saying, a lie, he lies, and it was -- but I think for most women watching it, it was a lie too far, right? And I
think Harris did very well by picking up on that, you know, and she said, this is an insult to women.
You know, picking up on the fact that what he was basically saying was, women want to murder their babies, right?
AMANPOUR: Right.
O'TOOLE: And leaving aside the ethics of this or the truth of it, just politically, it seemed to me to be extraordinarily stupid. If you really
want to motivate women to turn out and vote and to protect themselves and their daughters and their mothers, I thought Trump was giving enormous
ammunition to the Democrats.
AMANPOUR: And so, Maria, I'm going to play some of what the vice president responded, and then we'll quickly chat about it afterwards.
(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)
HARRIS: If Donald Trump were to be re-elected, he will sign a national abortion ban. Understand in his Project 2025, there would be a national
abortion -- a monitor that would be monitoring your pregnancies, your miscarriages. I think the American people believe that certain freedoms, in
particular the freedom to make decisions about one's own body, should not be made by the government.
(END VIDEO CLIP)
AMANPOUR: So, Maria, do you think that, as Fintan said, and as you've been covering, and we've all been covering, there is a big backlash around the
country, in both parties, frankly, amongst people, to the restrictions by removing Roe versus Wade? What do you think -- well, do you think that she
convinced, you know -- or that he did himself more damage with women?
HINOJOSA: Look, I think that Donald Trump looks kind of actually flip floppy on the issue of abortion and being out on the streets and talking
with voters and very extreme anti-abortion voters, they actually don't like the fact that he's like, well, I'm for IVF. I'm against IVF. You know, I'm
OK with exceptions. The people who I speak to -- who I spoke to when I was doing this reporting were like, no exceptions. And woman goes to prison if
she attempts to have an abortion.
What's important to realize, Christiane, and you know this because you've covered it, is that the majority -- I can't say the majority 100 percent,
because I don't have the data, but many, many women who are having abortions -- and I had two of them, OK. And I'm OK saying that because I
have two adult children. I've been married for 34 years. I'm OK. But many of the women who are having abortions already have children.
Many of -- when I was in New Mexico witnessing and reporting on this, who is the first person we saw coming into the abortion clinic in Albuquerque
to get an abortion was a teenage Latina girl accompanied by her parents.
So, this notion, these lies that women are just like, oh, my God, it's eight months in, I think I'm just going to terminate, that is not how women
think. The question is whether or not white women will choose to side with reproductive rights and our choices for our bodies or will they choose to
side with fear, immigrants are taking over, the country is going under, and everything is about fear? And that we don't know. That's what we're going
to have to see.
It could be that because Donald Trump is so extreme that maybe there's some loosening and white women will end up voting for Kamala.
AMANPOUR: And, Fintan, what do you think -- what have you been seeing in the international press, in Ireland or elsewhere, about the reaction and
about the general concerned, because everybody around the world, frankly, is watching and wondering who's going to win this election and everybody
has a view about who it should or shouldn't be? Well, what do you see as the reaction after the debate?
O'TOOLE: So, I think we all know that this is on a knife edge, and Maria has been doing the work on the grounds and that's kind of, you know, of
course, borne out by polling. So, we know, in a way that the debate ought to have been aimed really at quite a small number of people, right, which
is the shrinking number of people in the United States who are not, you know, partisan enough to know exactly how they're going to vote anyway.
And I think from that point of view, I would imagine what people are outside America are looking for is to say, what's likely to be the
consequences here?s
[13:15:00]
I think on the one side, I think Harris was a pretty reassuring presence. You know, she really did look like someone who is capable of being
president. And this was not taken for granted. You know, she was in the shadow of Biden for the last three and a half years, she'd been written off
as a political force. So, she needed to reestablish herself. I think she did that. So, there might be a certain comfort in that. But I think the
balancing thing is that there's even more concern about what a Trump presidency might be like.
Let's face it. I mean, Trump was much worse. He -- you know, last night than he's been in previous debates. He was much worse cognitively. He was
much crazier. He was much more extreme. His lying was kind of even more outlandish. And the age issue, you know, which, after all, you know, did
for a Biden's presidency, it has come back into play.
I mean, Trump just looked old. He looked like someone who was incapable of thinking on his feet. He couldn't respond or react in any kind of coherence
way to what Harris was doing. He allowed himself very easily to be goaded. And so, even leaving aside all the sorts of substantive policy issues, the
idea of Trump in the White House, I think, becomes even more horrifying if people were worried about what a Biden presidency might look like at his
age as an octogenarian, I think that worry with Trump was significantly increased last night.
AMANPOUR: That's interesting. And as you know, Maria, and maybe you read it also, Fintan, there've been some articles recently written before the
debate about so-called sanewashing, how the press has, you know, failed to accurately document what you've just been talking about. And I thought that
was a really interesting article and I'm not sure that we'll be able to continue after the debate.
But, Maria, again, about the world. President Trump was asked pretty much a yes or no question about Ukraine, for instance, the single biggest issue
for the North Atlantic Alliance with this war in Europe, and he was unable to say yes or no as to who he wanted to win, Ukraine or Putin. And this was
Harris' response.
(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)
HARRIS: Understand why the European allies and our NATO allies are so thankful that you are no longer president, and that we understand the
importance of the greatest military alliance the world has ever known, which is NATO, and what we have done to preserve the ability of Zelenskyy
and the Ukrainians to fight for their independence. Otherwise, Putin would be sitting in Kyiv with his eyes on the rest of Europe, starting with
Poland.
And why don't you tell the 800,000 Polish Americans right here in Pennsylvania how quickly you would give up for the sake of favor and what
you think is a friendship with what is known to be a dictator who would eat you for lunch.
(END VIDEO CLIP)
AMANPOUR: Gosh. I mean, that was pretty much a dagger. But, Maria, I wonder how that went down for the American people, because there is a
majority of the Americans who believe in NATO, not just individuals, but also both sides of Congress, and who believe in America being in NATO and
believe in that whole, you know, transatlantic alliance.
How do you think that particular foreign policy issue would play, whether it's in Pennsylvania or any other swing state or amongst undecideds?
HINOJOSA: The thing, Christiane, is that right now on the ground here in the U.S. with young voters, particularly young voters who are not white,
the issue that they are talking about is not Ukraine. The issue that is -- that they're obsessed about, and I would say rightly so, is what's
happening in Gaza.
So, that I would say, I would have liked for the debate to have spent a little bit more time on international issues, on the question of Gaza. And
I just have to say that in that moment when Kamala looks at Donald Trump and says this, right, when she looked at him and said it to his face, you
are considered a disgrace. On the international scale, this is where people are just like, well, this is going to be the president? This is going to be
our president again when it's not just Ukraine, now, it's Gaza?
But sadly, she was not able to seal the deal on the question of her position on Gaza. And I think that this is one of the main points for
international foreign policy that will -- you know, I mean, I hate to say it, but it could make or break her election. And so, that's where I would
be focusing the attention now.
AMANPOUR: That is really interesting. We'll wait to see if, in fact, in the remaining days before the election, that that becomes more in focus.
But I want to ask you both and certainly you, Maria, because immigration is a huge, some say number one issue, the economy and immigration in the
United States.
[13:20:00]
And you tweeted -- you posted today about the September 11th anniversary, calling it a sobering moment. And the fact is that dozens of undocumented
immigrants who worked at the World Trade Center, you know, died on 9/11. They were killed. And Donald Trump calls for mass deportation of what
amounts to be more than 11 million undocumented Americans.
Was anything said last night, Maria, that shows any kind of actual attempt to deal properly and maturely with this immigration issue?
HINOJOSA: No. And actually, I like the fact that you used the word properly and maturely, because here's the data. Here is what we know. Here
are the facts that Donald Trump will dispute, as we saw him last night, saying, well, I don't believe the FBI data. And it's just like, OK. But
what we do know is that violent crime has plummeted in the United States over the last 30 years by about 50 percent. And we also know, according to
the Congressional Budget Office, that the U.S. economy has grown steadily over the past 20 years.
So, what was strange, Christiane, was to hear a legitimate question being asked about January 6th, right? What I call the beginning of the perpetual
state of attempted coup d'etat in the United States, which I believe we are still living in until Donald Trump accepts the results, assuming he loses
in the election.
And at that moment, you know, we needed to see how he was going to respond, and instead, he said, you know what, January 6th, what's happening at the
border? And he was like, what are you talking about? There has not been a violent crime by immigrants. And, Christiane, yes, you and I were both
working at CNN 24 years ago -- 23 years ago here in New York City. And I reported on undocumented immigrants giving their lives.
But the truth is, is that the American economy, over the past 23 years, with undocumented immigrants has grown and crime has decreased. Those are
the facts. How do you engage with someone who is unprepared, unable, and unwilling to accept facts and instead promotes lies?
AMANPOUR: And I want to end on this very issue with Fintan, because across Europe right now, whether it's here in the U.K., whether it's in Germany,
which has just suspended its Schengen you know, freedoms of movement over the issue of immigration, this is a major deal that most politicians deal
with by really sort of going to the right and giving a lot of attention to the fear, the loathing, you know, all of that. How is that going to play
out in Europe, Fintan?
O'TOOLE: I think you're absolutely right. It's a key question. You know, the experience has been -- I mean, even if you leave aside, again, the
ethics of it, the experience has been that trying to tack to the right, you know, to see off the far-right by addressing their concerns, so-called, is
a total political failure, you know.
So, what happens when center right and even center left parties move there is they just legitimize and normalize xenophobic rhetoric that the kind of
lying that Maria has been talking about, these tropes that Trump is using, of course, are saturating European politics, identifying migrants with
criminality. You know, the -- I mean, let's -- you have a former and potentially future president of the United States using Nazi rhetoric about
the poisoning of our blood. I mean, this is directly taken from Hitler. And this is feeding into the groundwater, of course, of European politics as
well.
AMANPOUR: All right.
O'TOOLE: I think the lesson is that if you look -- if Trump loses, it will be critical, I think, in saying that kind of politics is a dead end.
AMANPOUR: Really fascinating. So, many actual issues raised at that debate. Fintan O'Toole and Maria Hinojosa, thank you so much for joining
us.
Next to a Broadway event, now taking London by storm, Jeremy O. Harris' "Slave Play" has shocked, challenged, and delighted theatergoers since it
was first staged in 2017. And from a college drama production, it has become a phenomenon, going from off Broadway to Broadway, gathering 12 Tony
nominations, and recently, the subject of an HBO documentary. Here's a clip.
(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)
UNIDENTIFIED MALE: What do you think this documentary is about?
UNIDENTIFIED MALE: "Slave Play."
UNIDENTIFIED FEMALE: "Slave Play."
UNIDENTIFIED MALE: "Slave Play."
UNIDENTIFIED FEMALE: "Slave Play" was recently nominated for a record breaking 12 Tony Awards.
UNIDENTIFIED MALE: I'm making this thing that's in part about slave play, but also in whole about me.
[13:25:00]
UNIDENTIFIED FEMALE: Over the next few hours, things are going to be hard.
UNIDENTIFIED MALE: I'm an actor, OK?
UNIDENTIFIED MALE: I'm not white.
UNIDENTIFIED MALE: I wanted to invite us to truly imagine all of the ways slavery still lives with us.
UNIDENTIFIED FEMALE: Phillip.
UNIDENTIFIED FEMALE: Like a doll?
UNIDENTIFIED MALE: Yes, like a doll.
(END VIDEO CLIP)
AMANPOUR: The play itself follows three interracial couples as they go through unusual sex therapy and it explores the intricacy of racism,
sexuality, colorism, and much more through a fiercely satirical lens. You might also recognize Harris as an actor from his hit Netflix series "Emily
in Paris."
Jeremy O. Harris, welcome here to our set in London. Good to see you.
JEREMY O. HARRIS, PLAYWRIGHT, "SLAVE PLAY" AND DIRECTOR, "SLAVE PLAY. NOT A MOVIE. A PLAY": It's so lovely to see you.
AMANPOUR: Good to see you.
J. HARRIS: As always.
AMANPOUR: And I saw the play, obviously, and I have to say that had I not kind of read the -- you know, read the program and everything, I might not
have known what was going on for the first bit. I might have thought it was real. I might have not realized that it was satirical.
J. HARRIS: That was the goal.
AMANPOUR: That was the goal?
J. HARRIS: Yes.
AMANPOUR: Because it was really shocking.
J. HARRIS: Oh, God. I hope not too shocking.
AMANPOUR: It was pretty shocking.
J. HARRIS: I mean, I think, for me, it felt less shocking because, I mean, we -- as I was talking to someone on the way here, like, we saw the country
I come from, right, last night on the debate. It's like, it's a ridiculous place.
AMANPOUR: Did you watch it?
J. HARRIS: I did. I watched it.
AMANPOUR: You got up?
J. HARRIS: I stayed up until 2:00 a.m. and watched it until 5:00 or something.
AMANPOUR: Yes, yes.
J. HARRIS: And it was insane because, you know, you have a man talking about, like, you know, illegal transgender aliens, like, you know, coming -
- being forced to transition in jails. And we also -- and we have someone else having to take that seriously on the other side. And so, I feel like
nothing ridiculous that I could put on that stage could match the ridiculousness of what I see in my life, the things that shock me in my
day-to-day life in America.
AMANPOUR: So, when you first wrote it, it was a little bit different times, obviously, in terms of, I guess, who was in power. But first I want
to ask you also about the title, because that also is a lot of dubla entendre. So, what is slave play?
J. HARRIS: Slave play was, for me, a way of provocation in and of itself. It was like putting a -- like -- you know, like in the '90 when albums
would have like the parental advisory on it? I wanted to give people an advisory of what play they were stepping into, because I felt like so often
everything about slavery, racism, colonialism had so much -- had to be so proper and worthy that like you couldn't engage with the actual horrors and
in shock of it all. And also -- or you had to apologize for what it was going to be about the entire time in order to entice people there.
So, I was like, no, this isn't worthy. This isn't apologetic. It is what it is. It's slave play. And either you want to see that or you don't. And then
to have people have to reckon with the multitudes of what slave play could be. It could be a play about slaves. It could be about the kink where
someone's wearing a gift mask the entire time. It could be a lot about different things was what made the title seem like the perfect one.
AMANPOUR: There were -- there are three couples in it. First -- let me just first ask you, because, you know, probably American audiences are much
more aware of the history, and maybe react in a certain way. Did you notice a difference between the American audiences and the London audiences?
J. HARRIS: You know what's funny is that I think that I was told that I would, that there would be this wildly different thing, but I mean, a
wildly different response. And yet, you know, the play is about British people as well, one of the lead characters is British from the get-go. And
this is a history that, I think, you know, a lot of Brits like to feel separate from, but like, you know, I've been to Liverpool. I've been to
Manchester. I know that like a large part of this country's wealth and it's like sort of dominance came from its relationship to slave trade, even if
they don't talk about it as often, right?
So, I think that like people being able to have a safe place, which the theater is, to like, sort of interact with these ideas has made them have a
very similar response to the American audiences, which is to laugh, to cringe, to cry, to like scream out, to like be disgusted, to say they hate
the play in the same way that Americans said they hated the play, say they love the play in similar ways the way that Americans said they loved it.
And that's been really cool, to see that this play that could be like considered a very like American work has this echo and translation across
the pond.
AMANPOUR: So, I want to ask you, you know, let's just take a couple, just so that we understand, you know, what they're up to. So, let's take Jim and
Keneisha. And as you said, in this case, one of them is British. The protagonists, Keneisha and Jim are portrayed by Olivia Washington,
American, and Kit Harrington, a well-known British actor. Jim is white and Keneisha is black. Talk about that relationship and what was playing out
there. Because it was, I think, the most dramatic one.
J. HARRIS: Well, I mean, they're the leads, you know, they're the center of the story.
AMANPOUR: Yes, yes.
J. HARRIS: And, you know, I think the thing that I was really curious about in them is like, what happens when a partner, a black partner, asks
to be heard? And what they want to say to you, the words they want you to use, the words they're using make you feel bad.
[13:30:00]
Like, you know, like in it and itself, like make you feel disgusting, like you have to see this thing that you don't want to see about your dynamic or
yourself. And what happens if someone says, no, I'm not going to hear it. I'm not going to see it. That, for me, felt like a metaphor for what so
many women, so many queer people, so many people of color say when they talk to someone who is a part of the majority class, right, whether that's
straight, whether that's male, whether that's white, you know.
Like -- and having -- and being in an intimate partnership with someone, in so many ways, demands that we just take time to listen to things even when
they hurt, even when they are disgusting, messy, cruel. And I think that a relationship became the best metaphor to have that conversation.
AMANPOUR: But I was also struck by the fact that Jim, in this case, was being very kind of worthy. He was trying to say, no, I don't see any color
difference. No, we're all the same. As you say, she wasn't being heard. But that, I think, puts us all on the spot, those of us who -- well, people who
tried to, you know, respect who they're with by saying, no, no, no, we're all the same, we're all the same. But that's not what they want to hear.
J. HARRIS: Yes. I mean --
AMANPOUR: All the time.
J. HARRIS: It's not what you want to hear all the time. It's also not --
AMANPOUR: Or you.
J. HARRIS: It's also just not a fact of the world we live in. You know what I mean? I think that when Keneisha meets the world, her partner might
not see her as X, Y, or Z, but like the world does, and she has to live with that weight and that complication and then meet a partner often who
doesn't have to carry that weight or that -- those things.
And so, when her body is reacting in different ways, her -- when she's dealing with a sort of post-traumatic stress of being in a post-colonial
world, she has to have a partner who truly understands what weight he holds in his history in the same way she has a weight in her history that she has
to hold.
AMANPOUR: OK. And finally -- well, not finally, but I want to ask you about ticket prices, you know, well known stars, and audiences You know,
there's been a lot of written certainly -- recently, not just here but on Broadway, about the preponderance now of theaters to have well-known,
sometimes movie stars, right, which command a lot of money at the box office and a lot of people can't afford it.
Well, how do you answer that and what do you do in your theater to make some more, you know, accessibility for people who can't afford?
J. HARRIS: I mean, I think that one of the things I feel so grateful for is that the entirety of my career, I've been blessed to have partners and
producers who really understand the world I came from, because I didn't come -- I wasn't able to see a play on Broadway until I was in grad school
at Yale at 27, you know.
AMANPOUR: Because you couldn't afford it?
J. HARRIS: I could literally not afford it. I'm from a town called Martinsville, Virginia. If you Google it, you will see how depressing it
is. But I did not have those funds and I wanted to make sure that the love of the theater I was able to garner through, you know, just doing it was
able to be translated and given to a whole new generation of people who maybe couldn't afford it like me.
And so, since then, we've had to have -- we've had radical invitations to everyone that we've wanted to come see the play by doing wild ticket
schemes, like in -- the one we're doing here where every Wednesday at -- I forget what time it is, you can go online and do a pay what you can and get
a ticket for a pound if you need to. And they're not tickets that are in the nosebleeds, they're tickets right in the middle, like three seconds
away from Jon Snow himself, you know.
That, for me, has always been a cornerstone of my process to the chagrin of many investors around the West End and Broadway who want to make sure that
people will still pay $300 for their shows, $400 for their shows. In my mind, I think that like, I would rather see a play run for a long time in a
lot of different cities, in a lot of different countries for an average ticket price of $50 to $75 than have one play run for six months at like a
$400 ticket price. Because, for me, that is unsustainable to create a new generation of theater goers.
AMANPOUR: OK. Talking about this then, the -- just very quickly in our last 30 seconds, there's a huge slew of Broadway plays coming on which are
mostly revival --
J. HARRIS: Yes.
AMANPOUR: -- of very well-known plays with very well-known actors. You know, yours is obviously all original. What do you think about it?
J. HARRIS: I think that a lot of -- I mean, again, we're in a complicated situation financially on Broadway and people are trying to keep the lights
on. And famous actors keep the lights on and famous actors want to do all the plays that they couldn't do in undergrad or grad school or an acting
class. You know, like, if you always wanted to play, you know, Masha and three sisters, you best believe you're going to demand that when a famous
director comes to tell you they want to take you to Broadway because you've become famous, you're going to play Masha, you know?
AMANPOUR: All right. Jeremy O. Harris, thank you so much.
J. HARRIS: Thank you.
AMANPOUR: "Slave Play." Now, the HBO documentary film, "Slave Play. Not a Movie. A Play," is available now to stream on Max.
[13:35:00]
Returning to our top story, now the country's most prominent Latino civil rights organization has made an unprecedented move, choosing to endorse the
Harris Waltz ticket for the White House. Their first official endorsement in nearly 100 years, from mass deportations to misinformation and bigotry,
immigration is at the heart of this election, and the League of United Latin American Citizens warns against a second Trump term.
Now, Juan Peranio is the head of that organization, and he's joining Michel Martin to explain what motivated this decision.
(BEGIN VIDEOTAPE)
MICHEL MARTIN, CONTRIBUTOR: Juan Proano, thank you so much for speaking with us.
JUAN PROANO, CEO, LULAC: Of course. Thank you for having me.
MARTIN: So, for people who aren't familiar with LULAC, as briefly as you can, would you just tell us the story of the organization? How did it
become one of these preeminent civil rights organizations?
PROANO: So, LULAC was actually founded in 1929 in Corpus Christi, Texas, and it is the country's oldest and largest Latino civil rights
organization. It really came out of, you know, the promotion of advocacy for Latino interests. You know, there was a lot of racism and
disenfranchisement happening in the south and in the southwest. And so, a corollary really to the NAACP for Latinos.
Black is the only membership, Latino membership organization in the country. We have over 535 councils. We have over 260,000 members in 33
states. And, you know, 207 cities.
MARTIN: It's my understanding that LULAC has never endorsed in a presidential campaign before, and that you've organized a PAC, there's
LULAC Adelante PAC, which does have the opportunity to participate politically. Why was this the moment that when the organization felt that
this is a step you had to take?
PROANO: Yes. I mean, LULAC has always been a nonpartisan or bipartisan organization. You know, we represent Latinos of all stripes and political
backgrounds, and we certainly have a lot of Republican members as well, including in our leadership ranks. We've had several LULAC national
presidents that are Republicans too.
But, you know, this election was really different. You know, we wanted to create a vehicle in which we can continue to empower the Latino community.
You know, typically, we're doing that from a civil rights perspective where we're filing lawsuits. But in most cases, it can take years and years to
get any sort of outcome from filing lawsuits. And so, starting a PAC was a natural progression for this organization.
And in regards to the endorsement, you know, it was something that our members were asking for. And as we watched the Republican National
Convention on that Tuesday, when they passed out mass deportation signs, it really was an indicator for us that it was time for LULAC to step up. We
could no longer sit on the sideline. Because it really is an attack on the Latino community.
MARTIN: I mean, it's not a secret that, you know, Former President Donald Trump, from his earliest moments as a national candidate, homed in on
immigration as an issue for him. So, I was just curious what is it about this campaign that made it a priority now when it wasn't a priority in
2016?
PROANO: You know, look, we stood by and we heard the rhetoric, if you will, around immigrants around Latinos, and it was disgusting, even in
2016. But, you know, really, what we've been looking at is, you know, a one dot O version of Donald Trump 2016, a two dot O version of Donald Trump,
which essentially started an insurrection in Washington, D.C. And this is a three dot O version.
If we're going to believe that, you know, when he says we're going to cut taxes, we should also believe him when he says that he's going to deport up
to $15 million immigrants. I take him at his word. But, you know, when we look at it, you're talking about Latino immigrants that may have been here
10, 20, 30 years, who may have married U.S. citizens, who have children who are U.S. citizens. How are you going to go about doing that, right? It
would really tear this country apart and certainly, would have a devastating impact on the Latino community as a whole.
MARTIN: One of the interesting things that has happened is that your groups kind of move into this -- the political space in this way has arisen
in a moment when we are seeing, at least according to the polls, more Latinos attracted to Donald Trump, not in huge numbers, but there's a
definite shift, there's certainly a definite focus on the Latino vote. Why do you think that is?
PROANO: Well, you know, Latinos are social conservatives by nature. You know, certainly in the household that I brought up, we were fiscal
conservatives, you know, when it came to issues of reproductive rights as well. And so, you know, that's, by nature, if you will, a big part of being
Latino.
What we're seeing today, those are actually -- there's a very significant, you know, chasm that's being created between older Latinos and younger
Latinos. What I would point out in regards to your comment about more Latinos supporting Donald Trump is more Hispanic males, not necessarily
Latinas, for example, right? And so, really what you're hearing is a big part of the narrative around that, but it actually really does skew towards
one segment of the Latino community.
[13:40:00]
MARTIN: Let me just give you my data that I'm operating from. This is from the Pew Research Center. Latino voters now make up nearly 14 percent of the
electorate. In the 2020 election, 38 percent of Latino voters backed Donald Trump compared to 28 percent in 2016. That's a real difference. So, what
happened there in your view?
PROANO: It is. You know, there are certain things, obviously, that really do attract some voters and certainly some Latinos to Donald Trump, and a
lot of it really was policy oriented. You know, we're not monolithic from the context of from a policy perspective. There are some Latinos that, you
know, want closed borders, right?
You know, we are a huge tent. Latinos really come from different backgrounds, races, ethnicities, and we cut across socioeconomic strata, at
the end of the day, but he obviously did a very good job of appealing to a certain segment of the group.
But what I would also say is that Republicans have been investing in the Latino community for years, for years, and that's something that the
Democratic Party has actually not done. So, we've seen organization like LIBRE, for example, of Koch Brothers that have invested tens of millions,
hundreds of millions of dollars, literally over a decade at this point. And the Democrats have not done the same.
MARTIN: And what does that look like? When you say investing, what are we talking about here?
PROANO: You know, different education programs, for example, out in their community, you know, different type of advocacy campaigns that they've
effectively run on a regional basis, on a national basis as well. You know, politics is obviously, at the end of day, very local and you do have to
invest at a local level, but I believe that a lot of folks really try and treat Latinos as general market consumers. Effectively that we act and
respond like everyone else, when in some cases, really, there is a lot more fine tuning to the messaging that these campaigns and candidates have to be
able to deliver in order to be effective.
MARTIN: Even having said that, you're saying that despite this massive what you're calling investment in, I guess what it would be voter outreach
and, you know, high contact kind of messaging, I would say the most kind of prominent Latino public officials are still Democrats, even if the
Democratic Party on the whole has not invested in the way that you've described that the Republicans have. Why do you think that is? How did that
happen?
PROANO: Well, because there's a lot being done to disenfranchise Latino voters, from voter suppression, voter intimidation, gerrymandering in
certain states, certain parts of the country where there should be more Latino representation and there isn't.
And so, you end up kind of sort of shifting it to more Democratic strongholds, for example, like in South Texas and Harris County, for
example, or a bear county, for example, where we do have really strong Latino representation as well.
MARTIN: What difference, do you think, that this endorsement will make? What will it mean for your organization and what do you think it'll mean
for the democratic ticket?
PROANO: Well, there's no question that the endorsement rung wide. I mean, everyone really knows about the endorsement. It went international. The
campaign certainly took note of the influence and reach of LULAC as an organization. And our hope is that, you know, it will send a clear message
to Latinos that are basically on the edge, that haven't necessarily made a decision that the candidate that really has their best interest in mind is
Kamala Harris as opposed to Donald Trump who wants to deport 15 million Latinos.
MARTIN: Let me just wheel around to one other issue. Recently, the Texas attorney general, Ken Paxton's, office raided the homes of several Latino
voting activists, including members of LULAC, part of his investigation into alleged election fraud and vote harvesting during the 2022 elections.
I was interested in how LULAC became aware of these raids and, you know, what went through your mind when you heard about them?
PROANO: Well, we've been tracking it for some time. And so, we had seen that the attorney general had actually sued the Annunciation House, which
provides -- it's a nonprofit organization that provides respite services for immigrants. He also sued the Archdiocese of Rio Grande Valley, Sister
Norma Pimentel, which does absolutely incredible work in that area.
And so, our expectation is that they were going to sue LUCAL next as a 501(c)(3) and as a 501(c)(4). So, we were certainly surprised when they
started to go after Latino activists, Latino leaders, even some candidates that were actually running for public office. It took us a couple of days
to actually find out about it because, in most cases, they had actually taken their phones and computers. They literally were told not to tell
anyone about it. And so, it took about 48 hours for us to actually hear back from our members and back from the community.
MARTIN: Well, what are you going to do about this? I mean, I understand that you filed a civil rights complaint with the federal Department of
Justice. What does that mean? What does that entail and what happens next?
[13:45:00]
PROANO: Well, we actually did meet with the DOJ last week, as a matter of fact. They were very responsive to the request. We sent in a letter to the
assistant attorney general, Kristen Clarke, who's in charge of the civil rights office.
And so, I do believe that they took the inquiry seriously. They had folks both from the criminal division and also from the voting rights division as
well present. We laid out the case in what we believe is going on with our voter intimidation and voter suppression. Obviously, you know, we probably
won't be notified if they actually do have an open investigation. And just given where we are in the election year, now less than 60 days, I don't
even know if they're going to comment publicly.
But we will continue to advocate. We have partnered with leading civil rights organizations, African American civil rights organizations. And so,
for us, it's a community response. This just does not impact Latinos, and it's not specific to Texas, it impacts the African American community in
Georgia and Virginia and other states alike.
MARTIN: So, we reached out to Attorney General Paxton's office for comment about the lawsuit. But there's a -- we haven't heard back yet. But there
was a press release launching the investigation, and I'll just read a quote from it. It says, in 2022, the Election Integrity Unit received a referral
from the 81st Judicial District Attorney Audrey Louis regarding allegations of election fraud and vote harvesting that occurred during the 2022
elections. The subsequent two-year investigation provided sufficient evidence to obtain the search warrants in furtherance of the ongoing
investigation.
I mean, how do you respond to that? I mean, I think their argument is that they have evidence that these activities occurred. What do you say to that?
PROANO: I don't believe that they have evidence, you know. I think from what we understand is that they have a phone conversation, but they don't
really have any material data that they can actually show that there is actually voter fraud or voter harvesting happening.
As a matter of fact, they really undercut their own argument when they announced that they were purging 1.1 million voters from their voter rolls
and specifically stated that only 6,500 of those people that were purged from the voter roll were non-citizens. 1,900 with load history. And so, it
doesn't necessarily even account for naturalized citizens.
So, you're talking about half of a percent and one-one thousandth of a percent of those 1.1 million people that may have been not citizens, for
example.
MARTIN: So, why do you think they did it?
PROANO: Well, you know, they want to show that they're going to be tough when it comes to election integrity. They do want to intimidate the Latino
community from coming out to vote, but I believe that they're actually setting the foundation for making the case of contesting the 2024 election.
Before they had to contest it post-election, and now, they're basically trying to lay the groundwork where they can contest it in 2024 in November.
MARTIN: What other steps do you think LULAC will take kind of going forward? This is a very unusual election year. I mean, at least as far as
the top of the ticket is concerned. What are you and your members going to do in this time frame?
PROANO: Well, our membership has gone through kind of sort of like this range of feelings, right, from shock to anger, some fear and now
resolution. You know, they are more resolved to actually be more engaged to get out there and do the voter registration to do our Geo TV campaign and
to make sure that LULAC members certainly are going to vote and the Latino community is going to vote.
LULAC is really interesting. So, we have 265,000 members at this point. 79 percent of them are registered to vote. 72 percent of them voted in 2020
and 66 percent of them voted in 2022. So, what we do know is if they're LULAC members, they're politically engaged, they're registered vote and
they do vote in elections.
And so, we're going to do our best to make sure that they're informed and that they have all the information that they need to make the best decision
for them on a personal level and also for the community as well.
MARTIN: But you've also pointed out that the Latino community, writ large, is not monolithic. And I think I heard you say that there are probably some
people who do believe in mass deportation. I mean, there is some history for that. There was a mass deportation of Mexican Americans during the
Eisenhower administration, right?
PROANO: That's correct. That's right.
MARTIN: I mean, I think maybe some people may be shocked to hear this, but it is a fact that historically, when a prior mass deportation did take
place, there were people in the Mexican American community that did support it. Given that this difference of opinion has existed before, given that we
do see a noticeable percentage of Latinos moving toward the Republican Party, what makes you think that that difference of opinion is going to be
resolved by November?
[13:50:00]
PROANO: Well, you know, we've now had over 40 years of this conversation going back around comprehensive immigration reform. LULAC certainly is for
common sense immigration reform, but we have to be able to separate out the issues of immigration at the border and the influx of immigrants that are
coming in, but also the issues on the interior.
You know, again, I talk about those Latinos that have been here for years, right, decades in some cases, and what they're looking for is a pathway to
citizenship, for example, they want to be able to have temporary protective status so they would actually be able to work legally in this country. It's
not an easy problem to solve, but we did see bipartisan legislation enacted. It was passed in Congress. It was thwarted by Donald Trump.
And so, you know, we feel like that potentially could get passed. We certainly support it. Kamala Harris has supported it. She actually said
that she would actually sign that bill if it comes to her desk, if she should be elected president. So, we do at least feel like there is some
pathway to move forward.
MARTIN: You know, you've been a part of the organization for a long time and you joined it at a time when it was avowedly bipartisan -- you know,
nonpartisan. This is new for the organization. I'm just wondering, how is this for you? If you don't mind my asking. It seems a little uncomfortable.
PROANO: It is. It -- you know. Sometimes it feels like I'm walking on landmines, for example. I mean, you know, there's a lot to factor in when
you talk about the Latino community. Latino identity, for example, is really one of those big issues. You know, there's no question that LULAC
has its roots primarily in Mexican American culture in the Chicano movement.
I'm Peruvian. I am Colombian by descent. But the organization is changing. And so, I'm looking to see what LULAC will look like as we move closer to
our 100th year, but I'm also looking at what it's going to look like for the next 100 years. And there's no question, right, that, you know, Latino
community is getting younger and younger and younger in the United States.
LULAC's own membership is also beginning to skew younger. And so, I believe that we are now at kind of this precipice where, you know, it will change.
It will look different, but still honoring the history and the incredible legacy that the organization has. And certainly, obviously, you know,
supporting our Mexican American community, but also Peruvians, Colombians, Venezolanos, all Latinos. And that's really what we stand for, is all
Latinos.
MARTIN: Juan Proano, thank you so much for speaking with us.
PROANO: Thank you, Michel. Thank you so much. It's a pleasure.
(END VIDEOTAPE)
AMANPOUR: In New York, people are marking 23 years since the 9/11 attacks, as we mentioned earlier. Nearly 3,000 people were killed that day, and the
global war on terror that followed also reshaped the world, and it especially reshaped Afghanistan.
Saad Moussaini was one of its hopeful new business leaders, the founder of MOBY Group, which, in the aftermath of 9/11, pioneered a new media
landscape for that country with women on TV and music on the radio. When he joined me here in the studio, I asked him for his reflections.
(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)
AMANPOUR: We're speaking, you know, 23 years after 9/11, which completely changed the face of Afghanistan, obviously. In your book. you say, two
years after I closed my commodities business for good and reluctantly moved back to Australia, I watched the Twin Towers fall on CNN. Practically
overnight, Afghanistan went from being a forgotten place to the center of the universe.
23 years later, how good was it for Afghanistan to go to the center of the universe? How has it helped?
SAAD MOUSSAINI, AUTHOR, "RADIO FREE AFGHANISTAN: Well, it helped change the millions of Afghans resigning in Afghanistan.
AMANPOUR: So many have fled, hundreds of thousands since '21.
MOUSSAINI: Yes, I know. Yes.
AMANPOUR: You know, most of your on-air personnel fled.
MOUSSAINI: Yes. But 40 million people remain.
AMANPOUR: Yes.
MOUSSAINI: The cities have been rebuilt. So, Afghanistan did -- and Afghans did benefit from this sort of billions, maybe trillion dollars in
aid and assistance that went into the country. Not all of it into Afghanistan.
It was transformational in many ways. And Afghanistan today is a forgotten place, sadly. But you forget Afghanistan at your own peril. That's my
thinking So, I think it's very important whether its refugees or counterterrorism or drugs to not disengage with the country and its people.
AMANPOUR: So, when you came back after 9/11, what were your feelings? What were your thoughts about what was possible knowing the nature of that
country, knowing that it was deeply divided, that it was split, that there is a massive conservative rural traditional population, maybe Kabul was
modern relatively, but not much of the rest of the country?
MOUSSAINI: I think we were fairly persistent and probably too optimistic. So, we established all these businesses hoping for the best. I mean, there
was a certain naivete on our part to assume that we would be able to contribute to this change we were all looking forward to. In some ways it
has happened and the country is a transformed country. It just needs that opportunity, needs more time.
(END VIDEO CLIP)
[13:55:00]
AMANPOUR: Saad Moussaini has written a memoir called "Radio Free Afghanistan." And our full interview will air later this week.
And finally, a great escape on a small scale. This runaway penguin from a Japanese zoo has been found after escaping two weeks ago. Pen-chan had
never been in the open ocean before, but did manage to survive that whole time on her own. Her keeper is calling her return a miracle, after finding
her some 30 miles away.
That's it for now. Thank you for watching. Goodbye from London.
(COMMERCIAL BREAK)
[14:00:00]
END
