SPEAKER_02 0:12

You're listening to the Philanthropisms Podcast with Roger Davis. And this week, in the first episode of the New Year, we have an interview, and it's an exciting one. It's with Edgar Villanwaiver. Now, Edgar, many of you might know, is a well-known figure. He's the author of Decolonising Wealth, which is a book that originally came out in 2018, and a new second edition, an updated and extended second edition, came out last year. So it was great to have a chance to get Edgar on the podcast. He's somebody I've wanted to talk to for a long while. For those of you who don't know him, Edgar, as well as being the author of Decolonising Wealth, is also the principal of the Decolonising Wealth project, a project that kind of tries to take forward some of the ideas in the book, and also of liberated capital, which sort of focuses more on the investment side of things. And Edgar and I sat down at the end of November, which is when this was recorded, for a great conversation where we talked about lots of things in the book and beyond. So we talked about why it is that, you know, in his view and the view of many people who've read the book, philanthropy needs decolonizing. We went on to talk about what it actually means to apply a racial lens to philanthropy and to grant making kind of in practice. We talked about whether, in trying to convince people of the need to decolonize philanthropy, it's more effective to make a sort of moral or ethical case, or whether it's better to make a practical one that it's simply a way of uh kind of future proofing or improving the quality of grant making. We talked about uh something that Edgar talks about a lot in the book, which is his idea that money can be medicine, something that's kind of informed by his um indigenous background, uh, and what that means. Um and we also talked about some of the other forms of medicine that he discusses in the new version of the book, including storytelling uh and the impact that his own willingness to kind of talk about his experiences has had on giving others the confidence to come forward within the world of philanthropy and more broadly to kind of talk about their experiences, particularly people from uh historically marginalized communities. Um we also talked about participatory grant making and what he thought of that trend and whether that was one of the answers potentially to some of uh the problems he identifies uh in decolonizing wealth. We talked about uh whether foundations need to think beyond grant making when it comes to decolonization and addressing kind of racial injustice and think about using the full range of their resources and what that might mean, for instance, in terms of how they invest their endowments. We talked about um how one can go about getting people within the world of philanthropy and I guess more broadly to accept the critique that there are structural inequalities um that leads to people from minority communities suffering injustice without simply feeling defensive or feeling as though that is a kind of um you know attack on them personally and it resulting in how that can be counterproductive. Um we talked about the rise of social movements and certainly how many of those are led by kind of previously marginalized communities and what that meant in terms of the overall ambition to kind of decolonize philanthropy. Uh and then we we talked really interestingly, something I'd wanted to ask Edgar about the the tension sometimes between kind of taking a pragmatic approach within philanthropy that accepts existing systems and structures as they are and tries to work with them or within them, or the kind of more idealistic point of view that that kind of challenges those very systems and structures and and necessitates kind of standing outside. Uh, and Edgar talked interestingly about how, again, his kind of indigenous background had informed his approach there. So without further ado, let's get into the conversation. I hope you enjoy it. I certainly found it really enjoyable and interesting. Uh and I will be back at the end just for a little bit of admin and housekeeping. Okay, great. So I'm here with Edgar Villanueva. Hi, Edgar.

SPEAKER_01 4:38

Hi.

SPEAKER_02 4:38

Well, great to have you on the podcast. And for anyone listening who doesn't already know, um, Edgar is the author of a great book called Decolonising Wealth, which uh has a second edition out uh at the moment, which we're going to talk about, uh, and also the principle of the decolonizing wealth project and liberated capital, which again hopefully we'll get to talk about. Um, so I guess the the best starting point for the conversation really might be just um to ask you, you know, what's the the book Decolonizing Wealth about? What was it that kind of drove you to write it in the first place? And what can people expect maybe that's new or different in the second edition?

SPEAKER_00 5:13

Sure. So I think of the book Decolonizing Wealth as a provocative analysis of the dysfunctional colonial dynamics that are at play. Um, originally in in my work in Philanthropy and Finance is where I really focus on in the book, but these dynamics of colonization are at play across many sectors and um are operational in our everyday lives. And so ultimately, what I do in the book is talk about what's broken and what hurts as a result of hundreds of years of colonization, um, particularly in the United States, um, and how money and wealth is directly attributed and connected to that. The acts of colonization were absolutely um about hoarding wealth and um hoarding power and control. And then I offer in the second part of the book a pathway to heal from that, which really is rooted in indigenous wisdom and practice around restorative justice, and thinking about how we can use money um as medicine or as something that can be um used toward repairing what is broken. And so I wrote this book because I am indigenous um and I've been working in the philanthropic sector uh in the space of wealth, money, and power um for um for nearly two decades. And um, I know that we are very well-meaning um in the sector of philanthropy and we have good intentions for the most part, but there's so many systemic kind of um barriers that are that are present that really hinder us from doing the right thing by community. And a lot of it is deeply connected to these colonial dynamics and sort of attitudes that we have um around wealth and money. And I wanted to liberate myself and liberate um this sector to release those resources and to really center healing in the way that we deploy resources so that we can all um kind of thrive in our cultures and move forward and really lean in and live into those values of diversity, equity, belonging, and inclusion. And in the second edition of the book, I wrote um the first one in 2018, the second one came out um earlier this year. Um I felt like so much had happened since 2018, although it was only three years ago, it feels like a lifetime ago, considering the global pandemic we've experienced, considering what has happened in terms of the movement for racial justice and the uprisings we've had around the world, we're at a very different place now. I think we've all been changed. And so the need for healing is at an all-time high. And I think the opportunity for folks to really um lean into what I'm putting forth is just really um, there's just a great opportunity for that now. And I also wanted to share how folks outside of philanthropy are um putting this framework of healing and truth and reconciliation into practice and give real world examples of foundations, philanthropies, and corporations that are actually doing this work.

SPEAKER_02 8:14

Absolutely. And and do you think, I mean, over the that gap between the first edition of the book and the and the new second edition, I mean, have you seen things that you think are kind of encouraging in terms of individual organizations, philanthropic institutions or companies, as you say, taking action that you think goes in the right direction? Or even just sort of in the broader narrative, do you think people have kind of woken up to the need to engage with the fact that a lot of the systems and structures that we have in philanthropy have this sort of problematic um background to them?

SPEAKER_00 8:47

Absolutely. I feel like so much has changed in the last three years that gives me hope and inspires me. One, I will say that the conversation has absolutely shifted. Um I think this is a result of social work um social movement um and what's been happening in the world. And I absolutely um think because of our work at Decolonizing Wealth Project and bringing a language and a framework around some of these issues to the sector has really helped. We are now openly discussing, you know, white supremacy and talking about power in a way that we did not um, even you know, three to five years ago, it would not have been a topic of conversation at a philanthropy conference. And so, you know, words matter. And I know we have to get beyond the rhetoric and get to action, but the fact that we are so openly kind of having conversations about history, race, power, uh, redistribution is really, really um, you know, important, I think to um, you know, uh to see the change that we that we want to see. We have to shift the narrative. So that's one thing that really inspires me. I've also seen, you know, philanthropies, including, you know, foundations, but also individual donors, really take hold of a framework around truth and reconciliation and reparations in a way that um really, really um has inspired me. I think that there are some things in the first edition of the book that I call for or ask folks to imagine. And honestly, I I never thought in my lifetime that anybody would do those things. I just wanted to push our imagination. And what has happened since the book came out is that folks have actually done some of those things. They've made it really um, you know, uh possible. And they're it's just really proven that if we want to do this and we have um, you know, the conviction around um the the history that we're we all have, you know, um sort of uh acquired as a result of being born into these systems of oppression. If we really want to do it, we can do it. And the pandemic and what's happened in 2020 around the murder of George Floyd and the racial justice uprisings have really just accelerated that um even further. Absolutely agreed.

SPEAKER_02 10:59

It certainly seems seems like that from over here. I wondered as well, really like your your opinion on something that I've sort of seen in terms of the way people talk about that. This seems like a shift to me is away from the idea that racial justice is just a cause that an organization might choose to focus on or that a foundation might have as one of its operating areas alongside many other causes, to the idea that it's such a sort of big cross-cutting issue that you can't really think about it in those terms. And actually it's it's a lens that you have to view all of your activities through in the same way as I think people would argue you might have to think about the climate crisis like that as well. Do you do you see the funders and philanthropists and nonprofits sort of shifting to that mindset and thinking this isn't just a cause we could choose to focus on or not focus on? It's something we need to think about in terms of all of our operations and investments and everything we do.

SPEAKER_00 11:48

I do. You know, I I I don't want to be naive and you know, I know that everyone is not here for this party, and there are probably plenty of folks in our sector. Um, and actually, I know there are some folks in our sector who are ready to move on to the next issue of the day and have said, you know, okay, um, we gave at one time significant contribution to this cause. Now we need to move on. Uh philanthropy, if we look at our history as a sector, we have a very short attention span and we typically, you know, want to move on to the next hot topic. Um, I hope that it's not the case when it comes to issues of race. And I'm I'm inspired to um by what what we talked about earlier to believe that that is not the case, at least for a lot of us, but it will require that we continue to advocate and to call it out and to name it and to hold this sector accountable because if we don't, it's very easy for us to relapse into um a race neutral point of view or position. Um, you know, I think that um what many of us have known is that, you know, race neutral strategies are not as impactful. We have to bring that lens of race uh to anything that we're doing around grant making. Um we've we've known that and we've seen that happen in some ways. Um, I do see it happening more um now over the past three years. Um, and I just hope that it it stays, but uh we can't rest and sit back and say that we've accomplished that um just yet because you know I I definitely feel a sentiment. Um, I've even seen things in writing and um, you know, that um, you know, philanthropy has kind of done its part. We're giving ourselves a big pat on the back for supporting the movement for black lives, for moving money to Native communities. Now folks can kind of, you know, dust their hands off and move forward to the to the next issue. And you know, right now climate does seem like that big next issue. And to think about that issue without the lens of uh, you know, race is really um problematic. And so I hope that folks understand that if you care about climate or whatever issue you care about, if you bring that lens of racial equity to um solving that problem, you're going to be much more effective with your resources.

SPEAKER_02 14:05

And and thinking about what it kind of means then in practice for an organization that is applying you know a racial lens to all of the various activities that it has. I mean, you mentioned earlier the idea of organizations um engaging in kind of some payments of reparations. And that seems to me sort of you know absolutely admirable that kind of at one end of a spectrum. But sort of further back along that, I mean, is it about you know who it is that's actually making the decisions in in those funding organizations? Is it about who's leading the organizations they're giving to, what they're investing in? Kind of where where do you see the the key starting points for for kind of getting on the right road?

SPEAKER_00 14:42

Yeah, I think those things absolutely matter and are probably um an easy place to start. Oh, I shouldn't say easy, but um the low-hanging fruit, as some might say, is to look at diversity around the trustees, around the staffing, who actually makes decisions about resources. You know, I it it it almost feels silly that we're still having this conversation in philanthropy. We're so behind the times when it comes to thinking about parity, um, you know, um, in terms of representation. Um, but we are we're still grossly um, you know, um underrepresented um in terms of people of color in leadership positions in the sector. I know in the United States, which is pretty much reflective of other countries and the the way the demographics look, um, you know, 92% of foundation CEOs are white, 89% of boards. And this is because when we look at history and we see who actually has wealth for the most part, who's been able to start foundations, um, by far it's been those um folks who identify as white because of systemic racism and history that has allowed for um the accumulation of resources in that community. And so therefore, the trustees of these foundations often are white. And there's a direct correlation between who sits in those seats and makes those decisions, those decisions and where money goes. I'm very interested in diversity. I think it really, really matters. For me, I'm more interested, probably um at the moment at least, for um at looking at who's getting money. And for so long, we we've known the stats that uh, you know, less than 10% of grant dollars are going to communities of color, to organizations led by people from those communities explicitly for racial equity. And that's data in the US. Um, and uh, you know, to me, that is a grave injustice that less than 1% of grant dollars go to Indigenous communities. Globally, less than 2% of giving actually gets to local, locally led um organizations. And so I think where the money is going is really the North Star because in philanthropy, we can fund research, we can have conversations about diversity, we can even like mix it up and hire diverse staffs. That doesn't mean uh at the end of the day, that where money is going and who has control and power over that money is actually changing drastically. So that is ultimately what we have to come back to is to continue to look at our data and say, well, are we being inclusive in supporting Black, Indigenous people of color-led organizations that are serving those communities and have accountability with those communities? Um, because that's that's where um you know things really, really matter. As a person of color who has come into philanthropy and has been here for 20 years, um I haven't um had the liberty to fund Indigenous communities in the organizations that I was working. I had to make the case and really fight for that in a lot of um a lot of times. And just because I happened to work there and the foundation got an A plus on their diversity hire, it did not mean that I had control over resources to fund communities. I was forced to assimilate to continue to fund the status quo for the most part in those organizations earlier in my career.

SPEAKER_02 17:58

Yeah, and that would still, you know, be a huge problem. Is there a step beyond that as well, where it's you know, you're not just about getting the the relevant sort of diversity within the the funders themselves and ensuring that they have the freedom to give to a much more diverse range of um of kind of communities and organizations that are from previously marginalized communities, but actually shifting the decision making so that it it is in the hands of those organizations themselves. I'm just kind of interested in how you tie the work that you've done around decolonization into some of the conversations that are going on around things like participatory methods and participatory grant making. Do you see that as one avenue that upholds potential here?

SPEAKER_00 18:39

I do. I think that it's a step in the right direction. You know, it's you know, participatory grant making for me is, you know, there there is a nuance in that as well, because we just in in this sector, anything can become performative if we're not conscious. And so there's a lot of participatory grant making that's happening now that to me feels performative because at the end of the day, um, you may bring in folks from communities to make some decisions, but who ultimately is signing those checks and and saying yes or no? It goes back to a board of directors who does not come from those communities. So it's a step in the right direction. It's it's well intended. I think uh to go the step a step further, where I'm really interested in seeing more progress is um actually redistribution. So not even participatory, but actually redistributing wealth, handing wealth back to communities and letting communities without us calling the shots, without us signing the checks, without us having to be the last um voice of approval, make those decisions in a very self-determined way. I know uh, you know, um for for many years, there's been organizations that have that have existed and many more now exist that are BIPOC-led intermediaries and organizations like ours, like our fund, uh Liberated Capital, that can deploy capital in communities that has deep trust in communities. 100% of our resources go to Black and Indigenous-led organizations. And um, you know, we are completely um led by um and uh, you know, people of color every year. And there are many organizations like us now in this sector. There's a very robust ecosystem that has that trust, that accountability, that um appetite to do that extra hard work to get money to groups who may not meet the threshold for large foundations, um, yet we lack the capital. And so, what would it look like for foundations to actually take off chunks of their endowment and just hand the money over to organizations that are um that have been, you know, grown out of the community versus bringing folks into the ivory tower and saying, okay, you're welcome and invited to sit at this table to tell us your opinion. And then we still decide. Um, there's a big difference in that versus handing over those resources to organizations so that we can actually make funding decisions um in a way that we that is right by our community without having to report back or do so under what I call the white gaze, right? Kind of peering at you.

SPEAKER_02 21:14

So yeah, it's really interesting. I want to ask you um about the sort of use of in of the whole kind of asset-based and and foundation investments um in a bit more detail in a moment. But it it when you were talking there, it made me think of something else that I wanted to ask you, which is tied to a point you make in the book about saying, you know, when you're talking about the need to decolonize and to sort of meaningfully shift power, that that is kind of unavoidably uncomfortable. And this particular point you make was saying, you know, when you're accustomed to privilege, equality feels like oppression. For from the point of view of, say, sort of white people working in the philanthropy space who kind of have read your book and they're like, Yeah, no, I agree with that. I absolutely think this is the right thing. Is there still a challenge in the when push comes to shove, if they are the one that is having to kind of give away power or to feel as though, you know. The act of decolonization or kind of equalization comes at a cost to them. They become quite defensive. And is that something you have to navigate around? Or do white people just need to get over themselves and kind of accept that that that is how this you know this process needs to work?

SPEAKER_00 22:15

You know, I think um both. Yeah. Yeah. Both and, you know, it's it's um, you know, it there are a lot of folks who uh say yes and and endorse everything that we're talking about. And you know, we have a lot of progressive funders who are funding really fantastic work. And I don't want to take away from that, um, you know, there are many foundations who are not funding progressive work, but even the most radical progressive funders that support some of them support our work, you know, they're they're funding all the right stuff and are are really doing philanthropy in a way that is um about as good as it can get, you know, in terms of being equitable. Even in those cases, I think giving up that power and control and being the last voice or the person that signed the check is a really hard thing to do. There's just something that I think uh some folks have caught up in this idea of this is still my family's money, this is still my money, um, or there's some legacy component tied up to that. And, you know, I had this conversation earlier with a foundation where we're we're right at this point where the the family, very progressive organization, there's but the family is still holding on and will not completely let go when there's a part of the board that's saying we should just like hand these resources completely let's spend down and just hand them over. And so, you know, having funds and or wealth in perpetuity, you know, is like one type of legacy, but you can also have a different kind of legacy that's not connected to or tied to spending down. So that is where I think when we get into the deep end of the of the pool, so to speak, around this work, it is about ownership. We say equity all the time as this buzzword in philanthropy, but the word equity literally means ownership, right? It's like, and so if you are still the owner of the resources, you know, how much how equitable are you being? You might be funding great work, progressive work, work that has a racial equity lens, but you cannot claim the badge of being truly equitable if you are still fully in control and you still own the resources. The only way to achieve equity is to actually give up those resources, redistribute them to other folks. Um, and that is that is where um there is a uh tension or a lack of willingness because we we're so grateful for these philanthropists who are funding progressive work and we cheer them on and we pat them on the back. And um, I'm thankful for them, they're supporting my work. But at the end of the day, they're still sitting on top of millions and millions and millions of dollars. And I still have to pander to them. I still have to smooze with them and check in with them because I depend on them to finance my work. And so that's where I, the future philanthropist for me, I want to see that change. I I imagine the day as an Indigenous-led fund over here that I am um endowed by funding that has um come from these institutions or from these individuals to fully endow this foundation so that I am not um reliant on the generosity um and and their goodwill. And do you think it's really interesting?

SPEAKER_02 25:28

So do you think part of the problem there is that I mean there's an ownership mindset, which is like it's just, you know, you want to have the retain ownership and control over them. But I often wonder whether there's something lacking at the moment in the the way in which we explain what success looks like in philanthropy, and and that goes for the donors and the philanthropists, but also for the people kind of working in the foundations and distributing the money and making the grants. Because if the stories we tell about how you are good as a grant maker all rely on the idea that you come up with the ideas and it's kind of your genius that leads to to the outcomes rather than the people that you give the money to, there's you can't get away from that sense of sort of you know the savior mindset or the funder ego. So, do you think there's kind of a way in which we need to find a better way of saying what success looks like in philanthropy that's just totally different?

SPEAKER_00 26:16

Yeah, absolutely. Yeah, this has been um a topic that has uh I've been very curious about my entire career. And sometimes I just kind of have to laugh at it because I've worked at various philanthropic institutions that feel the need to take total credit for a win, right? And as if we're the only funder um of an organization. And I I don't know where that night naivety comes into place with foundations. And you know, occasionally I have a funder who sort of has that position with us as an organization, like they they want us to really carve out exactly what their dollar did and the impact. And you know, I'm like, I have dozens and dozens and dozens of investors every year. Like I can't possibly, if you want me to make it up so you feel better about yourself, but it's it's really just ridiculous. Um, and I don't, you know, the foundations feel the need to take sole credit. And um, you know, I I sort of whenever there's a big win in communities, say maybe we won a piece of like legislation or like whatever has happened, I kind of sit back and begin to see on social media and the statements that come out and all the foundations that sort of begin to take credit for that and like you know, have to claim and acknowledge that they were a part of that, you know, and I get it at some you know we all want to be a part of something that's winning and successful. But yeah, I think that um I do think that at least in the US context, there there has been a shift where we are moving away from sort of foundations creating their theory of change um inside in, you know, an institutional that's disconnected from the world and kind of forcing that on communities. Um, I I feel like that is becoming less and less the case, um, at least here, the conversation that that that's really considered bad practice. And more folks are kind of looking to community to inform and uh and to inform their grant making strategies. Um, what we still are seeing a lack of though is unrestricted funding. And um, you know, we've known for decades that unrestricted funding to nonprofits is the best type of funding, right? Like it's what everyone wants, it's it's the most liberated kind of funding. Um, but there's been a decline in unrestricted funding, which really boggles my mind. Because you know, I I've worked as a program officer and I don't want to be taking the time to police an organization and to say, well, what what happened with this dollar and that, you know, it really felt like I was uh, you know, making stuff up when I had to manage uh in that way, um, manage a grant in that way. It it's it's so um disingenuous to expect like I'm gonna give an organization like this amount of money and this very particular kind of thing is gonna happen with that money, unless you're buying someone a building, maybe, or you know, that type of thing. Otherwise, all of the money is going into uh, you know, the operations. And it's just, you know, it has to change that type of mindset. We have to trust. Um, but all of these behaviors go back to these colonial dynamics that I that I mentioned at the the start of the chat, um, where we we have the need to control it, to dominate, to be in charge. And those are the types of oppressive internalized behaviors as funders that we have to be set free from. And it feels so good to be on the other side of that and to not have that in my spirit, um, you know, as a grantmaker and also as an organization that is doing that work and um refuses to be in that type of relationship with the funder.

SPEAKER_02 29:51

Yeah, absolutely. I and I hear this, you know, uh quite a bit at the moment in terms of the debate, where the debate's got to on something like impact measurement or just kind of measurement in general, where you know, it seemed like for the last 15, 20 years the dominant idea was, well, you've got to you know you've got to measure impact and you've got to do it more and more and be more rigorous. And then there seems to have been a bit of a pushback on that, again, on the basis that it just gives more power to the donor or to the funder to kind of shape what that measurement is, and then everything tends towards the the things that the donor has decided are measurable and therefore valuable. And and I think in that pushback, I guess what I'd be really interested in your thoughts, kind of because there's a version of that pushback which is well, we should just stop measuring altogether and you should just give the money on a trust basis to you know to the organizations and communities and let them do what they want with it. But it is there some sort of middle ground where we need to hang on to the basic idea that kind of measuring enough to know that what you're doing is actually having an impact in the world or doing some good is important, but you need to find ways of doing it that don't just impose your worldview or your kind of power dynamic on the people that you're giving the money to.

SPEAKER_00 30:57

Yeah, you know, I think that it's really important to know if you're being effective, right? So I am not a part of the camp that's like throw out all measurement and evaluation, you know. I just think that evaluation in this sector has been weaponized in a lot of ways, right? It's been it has been used as um a tool to not fund certain groups or to sort of uh create this forced assimilation on on nonprofits to do what we think is best. Um, but it doesn't mean, you know, I I think that most nonprofits, effective nonprofits, you know, we we want to know if our work is making a difference and we are measuring things and tracking things. And so a better approach is for a funder to say, Yeah, ask the question, how do you know if you're being successful? And and even, you know, I don't even like to use the terms of my work evaluation because I think it's been so the word has been like uh abusive in some ways for groups. So I just simply ask folks, how do you know that you're being successful? And um, what are you measuring or counting or whatever that could uh that you can share with me, right? And so I think creating evaluation or or measurement protocols that are not useful to organizations is is just really dangerous. I I think if there um there are things that we want to measure or evaluate that are for the good of the movement and there are things that organizations want to measure, then you know there's there's there's not so much harm in that. So it's really in the the approach. And one one um a body of work that I've been getting deeper into, there's a fabulous researcher named Abigail Eckelk, who's at the Seattle Indian Health Board at the Urban Indigenous Health Institute. I may have gotten that those words mixed up a little bit, but she wrote a fabulous article on decolonizing data and um which which I just want to get in front of every single um donor. I think you should have her on your podcast, actually. Um, she she shares how measuring things is actually very indigenous. We've always measured stuff, we we count things, count and uh, you know, it's it's how we have um you know planned, you know, for for farming and taking care of our communities and projecting the the next you know cycle of harvest. You can tell I don't work in farming, so there's probably better ways to describe this. I'm saying this from as I look out my window in New York City, but you know, it really inspired me to understand that there there are ways from community that we actually do measure things and that we are wanting to know if we're successful. And so it's just about tapping into that indigenous organic um truth for for what works and is effective for partners and community versus some type of top-down force theory of change that was created based solely off of um, you know, a textbook or folks inside a conference room who came up with those ideas.

SPEAKER_02 33:53

Yeah, and this sounds fascinating. And it's certainly I've I've heard other people talking about, you know, the the need to accept different forms of knowledge on an equal par because, you know, when they're even if you acknowledge uh or allow that there are other forms of knowledge, if there's a sort of hierarchy where it's kind of your version of it, the sort of formalized one that's written on you know big, heavy paper forms is clearly uh kind of has more status than than indigenous knowledge or the knowledge of community on the ground, you're still not doing the right thing. You kind of have to work out ways of putting them on a par with each other. And no, it sounds fascinating. Um I just I wanted to to uh just circle back to to what we mentioned in passing before. You kind of were talking about uh foundations using their their assets as well when it comes to to thinking about decolonizing. And this sort of brought me to, you know, one of the things I think is really fascinating about your book and your work is it's I think it's very easy when when you kind of get into some of these critiques to fall into thinking, oh, you know, money is a bit icky and horrible, isn't it? And you know, it's just sort of better not to be involved. But actually, you kind of embrace the idea that, you know, money doesn't have to be like that. And actually, as you say, money is is medicine, and you kind of need to recognize the positive power of it. Maybe you could just say a bit about kind of what you mean by that idea that money is medicine and some of the ways in which you think it can have that that positive impact.

SPEAKER_00 35:06

Sure. You know, I after working in philanthropy for some time, I got a bit frustrated um with the lack of progress and had just several, you know, personal situations where I felt like I was trying to do the right thing by community and it was just really challenging. And I share some of those anecdotes um in my book. And I had left philanthropy for or considered leaving philanthropy for a moment and was talking to an elder in my community and just really sharing with her my frustration, and said, you know, maybe philanthropy is not the place for me where maybe it's not the place where I can have uh, you know, make a difference in the world. Working with money is a bit icky, and maybe there's just too much trauma attached to money that to be in this space is gonna going to always make me feel uh a certain kind of way. And it was in that conversation where the elder really helped me to understand that uh money was actually my medicine, um, or you know, the medicine that had chosen me was money. And in the indigenous tradition, when we think of medicine, you know, we are referring to anything that is sort of sacred, that makes you feel whole, that is like your superpower, something that you're kind of called to do, um, or that we something that restores balance in your life. And when she told me that the medicine that had chosen me was money, it really sent me on a tailspin because I never even thought I would put those two words together in a sentence because money has this like connotation of being like dirty or whatever, right? And then medicine being this very sacred thing. But what I came to learn after holding that for some time is that you know, it really isn't about money. Money is this thing that we made up as human beings, right? That it's a it's a proxy. Um, it represents energy. Um, and it's it's really something that we use to measure value or to facilitate exchange. And it's not about the money itself, you know, in fact, money is kind of like just data and computers, right? Kind of harmless, or or it's like nickel or zinc or cotton or whatever they make money out of these days. Um, it's really about us as people and how we have used money and allowed, you know, the love of money, the greed to consume us to a point where we esteem um and value wealth and money over people and over the planet. And so I think that it's not about the money, it's really about us. And if we could do the work to shift um our priorities to center people in the planet, then we can the flow of resources would would um you know look very different. And so the premise of my work in general is that, you know, we have used money in the hoarding of resources to harm um and to create additional trauma in communities, but we can actually use the money, those resources to help repair if we use money as medicine and we deploy money to where the hurt is the worst, and we know that the hurt is the worst in communities of color.

SPEAKER_02 38:04

Yeah, absolutely. And I noticed in the in the second edition of the book, and I think this is a bit where you've kind of expanded on some of this idea, you talk about you know other forms of of medicine as well. And one of those that really struck me is you talk about the importance of story as as medicine. And obviously, kind of the book itself and all your work around it, there's quite a heavy element of you sort of telling your own story about why you came to write it in your own experiences. Have you found that that and the work you've done kind of going out and speaking to people subsequently has helped other people from marginalized communities who might work within the sort of philanthropy world to have the courage to speak out more than they might otherwise do? And if you, you know, what what have you heard from people about that?

SPEAKER_00 38:45

It's been so um surprising, um, so um exhilarating, heartwarming. Um, I think it's one of the things that has really um been the most astonishing when I wrote the book in 2018 and I went on what was to be like a five city tour in the fall of 2018 that ended up being a never-ending tour. You know, I I can I have all of these amazing images in my mind. I I wish if I knew what I knew now that I would have like had a documentary crew with me to capture the moments. And it wasn't about me and it wasn't about the book, but I can recall, you know, several times a week I was in in different locations and doing talks around the book. And um, at times there were hundreds of people in line to speak to me and you know, to sign their book. I mean, like hundreds of people, um, people in tears, people grabbing me and hugging me, people wanting to take a photo with me. It was the most bizarre thing, you know. I'm like, I just I just heard a book and philanthropy, you know, like people do this all the time. But what I heard over and over again is that there were so many people who deeply, deeply felt their um story in my story, or saw their story in my story and felt so deeply connected to my experience. And I had given words and light to an experience that um many people were having and were afraid or nervous or you know, um just didn't know uh how to how to even begin to address it or to speak up. And so that's one thing I know for sure is that this book has empowered an army of people who have been working inside of this industry and wanting to see change and have felt kind of hopeless at times. And it, you know, uh the power of the story for me is like understanding that me, just a just a regular guy, can put share my story, which is not too different from so many folks, right? But because I was willing to kind of step out and and take that risk to share it, um, it's so deeply um connected to folks who are now a part of this this movement for change. And I get emails every single week from people who are just letting me know and updating me and sharing how the book has impacted them and how they feel empowered to speak up and to advocate for um for change because it's not just them alone in their institution now, they're connected to a broader movement or folks who are really pushing for these changes. And so it's been um really, really amazing to see the response um from folks who, you know, and which really led me to this power of story and story is medicine, because yes, money is medicine and philanthropy, it's definitely sort of the tangible thing that we could point to. But also I'm mesmerized by the power of storytelling to shift hearts and minds. And by simply sharing my story as one person who works in this industry, um, you know, billions of new dollars have gone toward the work of racial justice, and many, many foundations and donors have, you know, shifted their practice to be more equitable. And so it's it's really um breathtaking for me to think about sort of what one story has has done um and in the sector.

SPEAKER_02 42:01

Yeah, I'd I know it's hugely encouraging. And I an example of uh that phenomenon, I think, often where you know you can have you can write thousands of dry reports and policy documents about something, but actually just one compelling story that pulls it together and gives it makes it tangible for people often has a much bigger impact. So, you know, it's great to hear that that's had that that kind of effect on on others as well. Um I'm aware I'm in danger of taking up far too much of your time, I guess. I just there was one other thing I really wanted to ask you because I sort of find it really interesting about your book and your work. It it feels like your book particularly sort of sits within a wider kind of wave of, or is often cited as sitting within a kind of wider wave of critique of philanthropy um over the last few years. I mean, books by people like Ann Girardaradas and Rob Reesch and others. Um but I think what what seems to make yours different is uh is there's a kind of pragmatism at the heart of it. Because you know, you say in the book that you're minded to to sort of work, you know, work with existing structures to try and as far as possible improve them rather than just burning everything to the ground, which is what some other people argue. And I find this fascinating because I sort of, you know, on different issues, obviously find myself in a similar position of kind of working within philanthropy and trying to engage with all of the criticism, but rather than just giving up on the whole enterprise, trying to think where it can be improved. I'm just really interested kind of what it is that drives you to take that approach. And also, you know, do you ever find that resolve to be pragmatic tested? And do you ever sort of find yourself thinking, oh god, maybe we should just burn it all to the ground?

SPEAKER_00 43:33

Yeah, you know, I it's it's really when when when my book came out um around the same time as Anand and uh Rob's book, um yeah, it was an interesting time. I was the only one uh, you know, out of the three who actually worked inside the sector. You know, I was currently working at a foundation. So I think my point of view being an insider really um carried a lot of weight uh for folks because it really is easy to be on the Outside and to point fingers and not understand the nuance. I also have a deep appreciation for the sector. I can hold the contradiction that there are a lot of problems, right? And like philanthropy as it is currently structured should not exist, probably. And uh at the same time, it's also true that uh philanthropic resources have been critical, critical, critical to many advancements, including support and funding for social movements and for the civil rights movement. And so um being a person who has personally benefited from philanthropic giving, um, from folks who took care of my family and nonprofits who uh supported us through the years, I I just um have not been able to throw the baby out with the bathwater, as they say. And so, you know, I I also uh, you know, I kind of hold both ideas. I do think that we need to have a different system in place, a new economic system. And, you know, while I sort of um look love to entertain the ideas of burning it down, I also feel like that's a point of view that that comes from privilege in some ways, right? Like I I worked inside this system and um I have sort of lacked an imagination of where the middle ground might be if we burn it down. And so my approach, just sort of uh maybe in terms of my own risk tolerance, I'm not sure, has been just much more incremental. And I think that there are a lot of things we could change right now to make the sector more effective and more equitable, and uh while we're working towards uh that vision of a whole new system. So that's been my approach. I think that um both ideas and approaches are necessary. I think we need folks on the inside of the systems, um, and inside of institutions or inside of the belly of the beast, so to speak, who understand the nuance of how those systems are working, how they came to be, and can disrupt and make changes from the inside, while it's also equally important that we have those visionary folks who are who are on the outside and apply applying those external pressures. I think working in sync, we're gonna going to get the world to a much better place. But I do think that my approach has been maybe much more effective in some ways because it is really also steeped in indigenous wisdom and worldview around um all my relations. And uh, you know, that point of view of not demonizing folks, but saying, like, this is the facts and this is the truth of what has happened and what needs to change. But I'm inviting you to come be in a circle with me to um understand how it's broken, how you're broken, how I'm broken, and what we need to do to collectively heal is been uh super effective because ultimately I'm trying to organize folks who have lots of money, lots of power, lots of privilege who are not going to entertain um a different type of conversation. So, you know, I'm really leaning on my indigenous uh values and sort of ancestry and um way of being to navigate those conversations. But trust me, there are many times where on the inside um I'm screaming and wanting to like burn everything down. It's not every day that I feel super indigenous about it.

SPEAKER_02 47:08

No, I I guess as as long as that you can keep that on the right side of being a sort of positive creative tension, it's okay. But it's yeah, and it's really interesting to hear that you know that that idea that actually it kind of leans on your your indigenous experience as well. I hadn't really thought about it in those terms, so it's really fascinating. Anyway, it just remains to say thanks ever so much for coming on the podcast, Echo. It's been an absolute pleasure getting a chance to talk to you. Um, I'll put links in the show notes to some of the things we talked about. Um you've obviously got loads of stuff on, but you know, before I let you go, is there anything that you kind of want to flag up that you've got coming up soon that that people can check out?

SPEAKER_00 47:39

Sure, absolutely. You can uh go to our website, decolonizingwealth.com. We invite folks to get the second edition. Um, we also have a journal called Money is Medicine that is um selling off the shelves right now, which for folks who really want to dig in and do some personal study or group study around the concepts in the book.

SPEAKER_02 47:57

Great. Well, yeah, I'll put links of all those in the show notes. But yeah, just say thanks ever so much. And you know, hopefully we'll get the chance to meet in person at some point in the not too distant future.

SPEAKER_00 48:06

Absolutely. Thanks for having me on.

SPEAKER_02 48:16

Okay, great. Well, my thanks again to Edgar for coming on the podcast. It was great to have a chance to talk to him. I hope you enjoyed the conversation. I certainly did. Um, I'll put links in the show notes to where you can find more about the things Edgar's talking about and some other things that I may have said or written that might be relevant. If you are want to find other episodes of the podcast, check out the website at www.philanthropisms.com where you can also find information on how you can get in touch with me via email. If you've got thoughts on people I could talk to in the future or topics that we could cover through one of our deep dives. Um, if you want more stuff in general on uh philanthropy, uh follow me on Twitter at Rodri underscore h underscore Davis or at philiteracy, um, which is where I do more of the stuff on the kind of history of philanthropy. Other than that, just like, subscribe, tell all your friends about it. Please do share with anybody you think might be interested, and I'll see you next time.

SPEAKER_01 49:08

Bye.