Michel, why are you hiding stuff from us? The show is just as important to us as it is to you. Thanks for sharing these segments.

The diversity coach segment was helpful; thanks for asking my question about compliments. However, I fail to see how a money advice segment lends itself well to a call-in format. Are you going to accept calls during the live show?

I really found the Cherokee segment fascinating since it involved so much more than race. Further, this was a story that evaded my radar screen. The issue concerning descendants of freed slaves owned by Cherokee Indians is very textured. I would've loved to find out why so many descendants of these freed slaves wanted to identify themselves with the group of their ancestors' owners. Was the desire to assimilate into greater society the motivation? Is this also why other freed slaved adopted their slave owner's surnames? Did Africans need Western or -- in the case of the Cherokee -- Indian surnames and families to feel like they fit in?

The third segment about slights was also thought provoking. How many things do we insult each other about? Race, religion, sexual orientation, loyalty to sports teams, the schools we attend, etc.

Sent by Steve Petersen | 6:09 PM ET | 03-12-2007

Good stuff, Michel. Are you feeling that the voice and spirit isn't captured in these segments because they're shorter? You might want to try hitting the member stations with longer stuff that is one-on-one with someone. That way you get an interesting topic and get a feel for what makes you an interesting interviewer, but more importantly lets them get a feel of you as someone their listeners want to spend time with. And that, by the way, is all you. What makes Charlie Rose is Charlie Rose. Same with Terry Gross. Your show will be unique because of the sensibility you bring to your work - topic choices and your approach to interviewing. All of which you can tell you've already developed. Just keep doing what you're doing.

You shouldn't feel you have to hit 'em all out of the park. I've read short pieces by Hemingway (mostly journalism) and sometimes you get the feeling of "Where's the Hemingway there?" Where's the big man who revolutionized American letters in the 20th century? Reminds me of that Martin Luther King quote about the arc of moral justice being long, but bending toward justice. You may not feel like each little piece fully captures the voice and spirit you're looking for, but the arc is long and it bends towards really interesting radio. Again, just keep doing what you're doing.

A technical issue. I don't know if it's because your first diversity coach used a cell instead of a land line, but it sounded a little sub-aquatic, like she was under water or something. Pretty murky.

Sent by Stanley | 7:26 PM ET | 03-12-2007

I've been listening to the podcasts for a
few weeks, and the Barber Shop segments
grabbed me. I thought the viewpoint was
fresh and insightful. More, I felt like
I was part of the discussion.
thank you

Sent by thomas savarino | 8:16 PM ET | 03-12-2007

The first section was fine, in my humble opinion. The financial section seemed to run a bit long to me, and went all over the map. I'd like to hear that more focused ??? the guest was very good, though, and the whole focus on middle-class spending is a good idea.

My immediate reaction is one of the guests in the second section were a poor choice - the woman speaking on behalf of the Cherokee nation came across as ignorant and a bit dense, and though Michel did do a good job at trying to get answers, the whole section didn't work for me since I was unable to follow the reasoning behind the Cherokee Nation story - is their a financial benefit to belonging? What are the benefits of holding citizen in the Cherokee nation? I'm completely unfamiliar with it, and I'd like to understand what it really means. Perhaps defining the story a bit more might help, especially on topics that some people might be unfamiliar with. I will say that your hands-down best guest was the Freedman, which only made the Cherokee nation representative sound even more boorish.

The third section, though, was quite interesting, although it might have been interesting to have a guest that uses the "n" word for artistic purposes to balance the discussion a bit more. It was all very intellectual with little passion in the speakers, although they certainly had opinions on it. The conversation was also very "delicate" in tone, and it might be nice to have someone who was willing to go out on the limb. Might even have been interesting to ask "what the word means to them" or even what the history is, since I've never really heard it explained since it's such a taboo topic.

All in all, a pretty promising series ??? I'd say more background on several of the topics might be helpful, though.

Sent by W. Jackson | 9:21 PM ET | 03-12-2007

I listened to the debate between the 2 women about Cherokee citizenship. It was a great topic and very interesting. Some advice for the moderator: 1)give some more background in the beginning, such as definitions of the terms that will be used , 2) for a number of minutes, you didn't seem to understand the "Cherokee" woman's point - that it was about blood. Your questions to her about "singling" out one racial group were missing the point. This was frustrating from the listener's point of view because it was clear you weren't getting it and your questions weren't making sense to her. Later it came around.

Sent by E. H | 6:12 AM ET | 03-13-2007

I liked hearing all three of these pilots. If we've heard all of the previous podcasts (maybe we haven't??), why shouldn't we shouldn't we hear this?

Now, as for each show: I didn't like the "Cherokee Nation Ousts Blacks". While it was an interesting issue, I didn't really like the tone of the guests (very argumentative). I believe the real solution, while shockingly un-PC, is to remove the entire reservation concept and force the natives to assimilate into American culture. No separate constituion, no supreme court, no more problem.

While I thought the entire concept of the Diversity and Money Coach portions would be preachy and insulting, I actually liked this episode. My family has just finally gotten our finances under control and did a lot of what the Money Coach suggested (although we didn't need a coach to tell us to do it...).

I think there was one big point missing from "The Fight Against Racial Slurs". In the United States, we have the First Amendment right to say what we think. That should include using any offensive word we want. This also actually is part of the bigger "hate crime" and "hate speech" issue. If I murder somebody, why should it matter why I did it? Why should I get more time in jail if I was a homophobe who killed a gay man as opposed to killing someone in a robbery? We are heading towards a "1984" society when the government tells us what to think.

That doesn't mean that I personally use that word, or the B-word for that matter. But it's my choice to censor myself. It shouldn't be the government's role to do that for me.

Also, the author of "Nigger" (I forget his name) talked about the possiblity of being unable to read books in school if words are banned. This is already the case. Huck Finn is one of the most banned books in the United States because of the "N-word". (Banned books may be a topic for another show? :))

Finally, when someone says the "F-word" or "F-bomb", I don't usually think of the word "fag". But maybe that's just me.

Sent by Scott K | 9:28 AM ET | 03-13-2007

Michel I have to give round one to you. The first segment (diversity and money) were just ok. They are the typical fare already offered by NPR. I thought the life coach was boring and the money coach just gave information that is already being beaten into the American psyche. It wasn't the "breath of fresh air" I've come to expect from your postings.

But rounds 2 and 3 go to Marie! I loved the Cherokee nation segment. I had never heard the issues discussed and it was very thought-provoking. It was a welcome discussion on race and identity that so many of us are struggling with now. I have to agree with a previous poster though: the half Cherokee-half white member did seem a little ignorant and unable to express herself. However, I think that may speak to the validity of the race issue.

The final segment was also very interesting. Again, another relevant topic. And although this has been discussed on many shows and written about extensively, this was a fresh perspective. I enjoyed it very much.

Michel and Marie keep the good stuff coming! I can't wait until you guys have full length shows. I think you are doing an excellent job. Thanks for keep us so involved in the process. I think it will definitely give you a leg up. Thanks!

Sent by Tameika Jackson | 10:31 AM ET | 03-13-2007

I think we will all benefit from becoming a little more durable and resistant to perceived slights.

Once a person has exposed their susceptibility to something, small-minded people will use it again and again to get a reaction. Better not to have a reaction.

It seems that these attacks manage to get under the skin because of doubts concerning self-worth. Why not counter that by being a person of deeds... quietly and out of the spotlight, build your own self worth, to eliminate the doubt and therefore eliminate the touchiness. The rude words and displays of incivility will just roll off your back because you're bigger than that.

Sent by Robert | 10:51 AM ET | 03-13-2007

I really enjoyed the segment on the Cherokee. The issue is so unique, the disassociation discussed hints at future financial prospects. The isolation that the Tribe will create by excluding Freedmen members is something seen by blacks all over the world. Ethnic groups have their bases in geography, but nations have theirs based on loyalty, commitment, trust and pride. Many Indian nations have a long history of acceptance that is objective and this action does not support this behavior. Hopefully wiser ideals will prevail.
Glad your producer is willing to share your youthful beginngs.Age is inevitable but growth is optional

Sent by Riley | 4:32 PM ET | 03-13-2007

A friend of mine encouraged me to write this down and your show seemed like a good place. Nigger, Nigga and Nicka. Here's what I think:
Nigger!-Used by white people over 50 and members of the KKK.
Nigga-Used mostly by young men (all races but mostly Black) as a term of endearment a casual slang.
Nicka-Used by older black men who are being funny and by younger black women when we are smiling and acting like we're mad at black men but really we're not.

I do think the sting is taken out for the younger generation. I don't think the word is going away. I also am careful not to say it in the presence of a black person over a certain age.
Thank you, Tatiana, St. Paul, MN

Sent by Tatiana Leone | 2:16 PM ET | 03-14-2007

I'm glad something fresh is coming on the air! I must admit I haven't been satisfied since Tavis left the air. I enjoyed the dichotomy of his show---serious social issues/entertaining feel good segments.

I have listened to all of the Pilot Shows and found the Cherokee Nation topic the most interesting. Probably because it's something that flew under my radar. While I agree one of your guest needed a little coaching--I feel that your commentary between the two women was a bit long. It seemed like you would repeat their comments and then pose a question at the end of that. Perhaps not interjecting after every comment and allowing them to dialogue more with one another would have been helpful.

The same goes for the intro into the Racial Slurs show--it was a little long. I enjoyed the comments of the "people on the street" and agree with an earlier writer that integrating "real life" examples would have made it more interesting. While "experts" are necessary,at times they can be boring and a little distant.

Overall good job! I would suggest continuing to work on that SPARK!

Sent by Shanna | 4:34 PM ET | 03-14-2007

As a person of Cherokee descent from folks who refused to sign the Roll, I found your segment very interesting. I wonder would the participant who called herself 1/2 Cherokee consider me less Cherokee than herself although my blood would say otherwise? I believe that someone who lives among the nation, follows it's laws and works for it's benefit are Cherokee.

Sent by Kimberly | 9:57 PM ET | 03-14-2007

The segments you have shared on this site are some of the most interesting radio I have listened to -- and I listen to a lot of NPR and love it. I have never heard issues of race, diversity, and life addressed with such consistent honesty and openness. I commend Michel's ability to keep her cool and hold her own simultaneously while discussing some very difficult topics and at times with some heated guests! I can't wait for the show to begin.

Sent by Elisa | 11:51 AM ET | 03-15-2007

1) I was put off by the Diversity Coach. She didn't answer the first question posed (why is calling someone articulate offensive), and I don't think she got enough information to give advice on the second question, about the two Spanish speakers in your office. At the very least, she should have asked whether or not the person who wanted to speak Spanish had a good command of English.

2) The Cherokee segment would have been more interesting if we'd been able to get some context on two issues: what does citizenship in an American Indian nation mean, and how faithfully do Indian nations adhere to their treaties with the US?

3) I didn't particularly care for the segment on slurs. It felt as if Michelle wanted the activitist to admit that fighting slurs was a waste of time, and also that discussions of racial slurs were a) mapped onto nigger, and thus, American blackness and b) ignored slurs about whether or not people speak English 'properly' e.g. Rosie O'Donnell mocking the Chinese.

Sent by Adrienne | 5:06 PM ET | 03-15-2007

I've listened since the first podcasts and I was disappointed at first by the limited perspectives offered, but I've come to value the little jewel like episodes especially the news from the continent. My only fear is that it will disappear before it hits the airways..it is a pilot afterall...or it won't be podcasted anymore (my only way of hearing it here in the UK). I love how short they are, how personal, and topics that are not necessarily mainstream.

Sent by Daphne Cunningham | 1:35 PM ET | 03-16-2007

I kept waiting for someone to bring this up during the Cherokee nation segment, but no one did. With all that talk about only being Cherokee if you have a drop of Cherokee blood, what about Cherokee parents who adopt a child? Is that child not part of the Cherokee Nation?

Sent by ileen | 1:10 PM ET | 03-19-2007

I think that the title of segment "Cherokee Nation Ousts Blacks" was a little misleading as they disenrolled people that were descendents of Freedmen. Many people have come up to me and thought that it was by race. There are still many people who are Black and members of the Cherokee Nation, because they are descended from Cherokee people on the Dawes Roll. I disagree with the Freedmen being disenrolled, but your title makes it seem worse than what actually took place.

Also, what is with the flute music at the end? You really blew an opportunity to inject some great music that would tie into the program instead of being a stereotypical piece of neutral audio. Why not play a track from the Cherokee rapper Litefoot or perhaps a short stomp dance or you could have had some really fun and played Jimi Hendrix (who was of Cherokee and Black heritage, but not an enrolled member). If the flute player you played was not even Cherokee then you need to ask if you would you have played a Yoruba song after doing a piece on the Dinka?

Sent by Eric Martin | 12:17 PM ET | 03-26-2007