>> this event was part of the 2011 los angeles times festival of books. for more information visit events "l.a. times.com." >> we asked what are you reading this summer? here's what you have to say.

>> next on booktv, jorge castaneda, former mexican foreign minister, talks about the challenges facing that country. >> thank you. may be jorge is a guy who doesn't need a formal introduction. everybody knows him and his long distinguished career but i did want to say a few words. i also want to welcome the folks who have joined us on the internet and on wilson forum tv, and web c-span booktv he here with us today as well. so we are glad that there as an expanded audience out there that will be enjoying it and benefiting from this presentation. you probably have seen jorge's bio. i won't go into detail about that, but i think the things that are most important is that

he is well regarded, renowned scholar, thinker, writer about mexico, policy issues. as andrew said, this is not necessarily a policy book, but a book into the mexican so, maybe if you will. i was thinking this morning that we in the united states have had others come and put the mirror up to us and show us what americans and american democracy is all about. jorge has done a great job over the last several books trying to explain a little bit to an american audience and to mexico, kind of the uniqueness, and in this case some of the paradoxes of the mexican so, the mexican spirit, and helps us as outsiders, as foreigners

understand a place that often is confusing, but beloved to so many of us. so we are privileged and honored to have you with us. what we will do is ask jorge to come, make some remarks, initial remarks, then he will join us again at the chair. will have a little bit of time for questions and dialogue with him, so i hope this is a good opportunity. thanks. >> thank you, eric. thank you, andrew, for having me back. it's always an honor and a lot of fun, so thank you, and thank you for joining us this morning. very briefly on the logistics of the book. i wrote this book originally in english for all sorts of reasons but the really important reason is that it's a lot cheaper to

translate from english to spanish than the other way around. and my american publishing house didn't want to pay for the translation, whereas the mexican one day. so that's the real reason. i can make up all sorts of other reasons, but they wouldn't be true. the second point is that as eric said, this book comes out simultaneously this week in the united states in english, that's this one. in mexico, in spanish, that's this one. and in the united states spanish, that's this one. the point of this is that on the book that is on such a sensitive issue, both for mexicans and mexico for mexicans in the united states, and for americans in mexico, and for americans in the the united states, and that's a whole lot of people all put together, i wanted to be actually sure that there's no slightest suspicion of having

any kind of double discourse of saying one thing in mexico and something else in the united states, and the best way to make sure that's the case is to have the book published the same time, same book, same time, different places. the book is organized in a series of double chapters. on and on and even, odd and even and then a final what each one of these two chapters is for groups of two chapters, is made up of one, a so-called national character trait of the mexican people, as argument as the term may be, and as upset as the anthropologist can get at me for using these sorts of terms, and then the second part, the second chapter in that subgroup is a description of a reality of current mexico, which conflicts or contradicts violently the

character traits that we have before. so there is several of these individualism and mexican middle-class society, full-fledged democracy, and complete mexican of version four conflict and competition. and open economy, one of the most open in the world, in a country which is scared to death of the past and the foreign. country that needs more than anything else to complete its full consummation to democratic rule to establish the rule of law, and a church retreat which is perhaps the most deeply rooted of all. that is, a total reluctance or rejection of the very notion of the rule of law. and so basically what i say in these eight chapters is that something has to give. and i'll just choose one, couple

of chapters to perhaps try and explain what i mean. in the third chapter, i go deeply into this notion of conflict aversion. why mexicans, why we don't like confrontation. we don't like verbal confrontation. we don't like physical confrontation. we don't like conceptual confrontation. we don't like competition. we just don't like that sort of stuff. and this makes it very difficult to coexist with a democracy where the whole point of that is that you have conflicting ideas, conflicting parties, conflicting schools of thought, mouth would have said, 100 schools of thought. in mexico they blew but they don't intend. we have a lot of flowers but with very few schools of

thought. and this makes it all very difficult for that democracy to work. examples, i start -- i don't start but i include one of them which is the most peculiar features of current they mexico. we are as "the new york times" put it a couple of years ago the only country in the world that is really obsessed with the guinness book of world records. [laughter] but i mean, really upset. not just fooling around. really upset. and we are the only country that spends significant amounts of money, of public money, on financing the largest. [speaking in spanish] in the world. but also the highest artificial christmas tree and the world's largest ice skating rink. now you know, mexico city is not the first place that would come

to mind to have a big ice skating right. among other reasons, because it nothing ever freezes there. but this is what we did last year, and we made it into the guinness book of world records. so you ask yourself, ask this question a couple of years ago, why in the world do we do this? and he came up with a sort of intelligent answer. because this is the kind of competition we like. we are the only ones competing. [laughter] you can't lose if you're in the competition for the world's biggest because nobody else is doing it. nobody else is crazy enough to do this stuff, just in time or money on a. not going to happen. and so, we love that kind of competition. the problem of course is that that version to competition extends antitrust policy, what extent of the type of monopolies we have, would've extended the type of concentration of power we have. then it gets complicated. then things don't work anymore.

and so i going to the same story about slim which i think is most respectful but also somewhat critical, not of his personality or persona, but the situation. which also has to do with another trait that i described, individualism. has not often been said that not only does slim concentrate in net worth around 7% of mexican gdp, which would be roughly three times what john d. rockefeller concentrated in 1911 on the eve of the breakup of standard oil, in other words, three times more. but more interestingly, slim has, slim's net worth is greater than the net worth of the following 20 mexican magnates. it's as if, let's say, gates had more money than buffett and the

balkans and the next 15 altogether. which is obviously not the case. the concentration is such that it's almost unfathomable which is why we always say, and rightly so, mexican business committee is made out of two parts. slim and the rest. and also id into the issue in this chapter about the tremendous reluctance for conflict, to any kind of ideological or personal confrontation. recall an anecdote in 1989 when they were trying to build his party after the 88 electoral defeat and fraud, and many of us were helping him trying to at least oversee the polls in local elections, and i tell the story of common friend of ours, we

went to polling and election held just outside of mexico city, and we were there sort of watching to see that he didn't steal too many votes. some yes, but not too many. and so we were there, et cetera, et cetera. at the end of the day we start counting. and the local folks, when we show them how many votes he was getting, and going overboard, we told them look, we have proof here that they are cheating. we can make a big fuss and we can overturn this. and they said -- [speaking in spanish] [laughter] >> and we said, well, that's the point. that's what we're here for. that's what we came here for. [speaking in spanish] [laughter] >> so obviously we let it at that. then i reflected upon this

later, later, 20 years later or whatever. actually they were right and we were wrong. why? because the next day charlie and i would go back to mexico city while they would now be able to go and take care. he had bigger fresh to fry. and they would have to go on living with the pretax right there. they are not nice people. you all know them. and they would have to go on living with them. to existing within. we would go away. and so with this notion in mexico that you don't want to confront, don't want to pick a fight, because you can't walk away from a fight. once you walk into a fight you have to stick with it all the way. and so, better not to have it than have it and then have to back off from it. so i go through these different

traits, and the reality of the country i described, how the country has become what i consider to be a full-fledged majority middle-class society with extraordinary and impressive achievements on all counts over the last 15 years. on issues as different as housing, health, cell phones, plasma tvs, access to credit, vacations, private education, private health insurance, the works. this is now a full-fledged majority middle-class society. barely, 55, 56, 57%, not more. it's been a bit stagnant the last couple of years, although in housing a continues and continues and continues. i go into the impressive status of the open economy in mexico. how open it is, with the contradictions, with for example, this absurd notion that we have whereby since the

1930s, it's a constitution, and reinforce in the 1930s. we have what are called foreigners cannot own land on beachfront. cannot on beachfront land. and they can't own land on the border. on the border i can see the logic of it. beaches, unless you think that somebody is going to swim up and invade you, that's a lot of swimmers, our submarines or god knows what. because the other guys don't mean to on beachfront. these guys that come up in submarines and land on the beaches, they don't seem to need to on beachfront properties to dump their merchandise from colombia and drive it on up to the united states. but we continue to forbid, not allow for foreigners to own beachfront property since the 1930s. that's on the one hand.

we are saying before. fantastic in mexico at inventing stupid laws and an ingenious ways to get around stupid laws. this is a stupid law for a country that wants to attract tourism, that wants american retirees to retire in mexico, that wants them to buy houses, buy homes in mexico, but doesn't want them to own them. now, the problem with people, americans and canadians over 65 who have access to a mortgage, would like to make sure that they can inherit their homes to their children, buy them, sell them, whatever they want, as they like to own their homes. most people do. buy a home, you want it to be yours. you can do that in mexico but we want them there anyway. so we invented since the 1950s whereby you get around the law, you can, in fact, more or less own your home, but you can't get a mortgage on it. but you can't really inherit it.

but you can't really use it as a deposit on something else. so we have this absurd situation whereby on the one hand we have laws that are not applicable, and in ingenious ways to get around to because reality demands that we get around them. and all this does is feed total disrespect for the rule of law. i finished the book with i think an optimistic perhaps somewhat naïve view, but optimistic nonetheless. which is basically states that i think this can change and will change. i think that it will change essentially through influence from abroad. what does are broadening? it means the united states, but who in the united states? welcome mexicans in the united states. which mexicans in the united states? mainly mexican women in the united states.

basically what i say is that the social, cultural, mental transformation of mexican migrant women in the united states can be the single most important lever of transformation of mexican culture, of mentality, everything. why? because mexican women who come to the united states, illegally of course, that's not the issue, as i said i'm not interested in that pic i just as mexican as everybody else is, right? mexican women who come here tend more and more tend to come alone. they are not coming -- they are not being brought to the u.s. either companero. and even if they are, ones that are here, based say goodbye to their companero and that is it. mexican women come here. they don't have to. they make their money and decide what to do with their money. they sent some home. maybe they don't. maybe they have kids. maybe they don't. they hook up with one guy, they

leave that guy. they hook up with somebody else. they hook up with nobody. they work where they want. this is an extraordinarily transformational process for women who are always much less subordinate and much less dominated in mexico in way that we can do thing. i have much more sympathy for others -- [speaking in spanish] i think. [laughter] but in any case whatever the point of departure is, the social transformation, the cultural mental transformation of mexican women in the united states, given the freedom, even for example, of intra- domestic violence, because they have something here that they don't have in mexico. we have a lot of polling data that showed this. mexican women in the united states actually trust the police, which is one of the most

i mexican attitude you can have. you can go up and out all of mexico and you will not find a single mexican who trusts the police, the mexican police. not one, there's no such animal. mexicans in the u.s. trust the police and mexican women trust the police and mexican women will use the threat of calling the police to get the bully off their back, or whatever, and they will do so. just try this one more time, and i'm calling ice and you'll be thrown out of here. and they do it and the guy backs off. they can't do that in mexico. there's nobody to go. who are you going to call? at least they are proper people and sharing deal with them. you can't call the police. you can't call the army. there's nobody to go. it's an incredible legitimate

threat. and this eliminates almost an enormous amount of intra- domestic violence against women, mexican women in the united states. i think it's a little bit may be pushing it but i think there's something really. because you see these women and you see what happens when they return to mexico. you see other children grow up. is your relationship they have with men. and i think there is hope there for changing the fundamental character traits i described, which, and i want to be clear on this enclosing. which were extraordinarily productive, necessary and helpful to mexico over the past 500 years. it's thanks to this way of being that we became a nation. it's thanks to this that somewhere in the '30s, thanks to the president, that we became a nation.

there was no mexican nation before then or the '20s. a bunch of people living in the territory. that's about it. we became a nation in that era, and this is an enormous achievement were other places have not achieved and these character traits were fundamental of helping us achieve this. they have now become counterproductive. they have now become totally contradictory, totally at odds with the needs of a modern, open economy, representative democracy, middle-class society, the need for the role of all, for full-fledged democratic debate and confrontation, for competition. those traits which served us so well in the past don't serve us anymore. so that's what the book is about. i hope you do enjoy it in any one of its many versions, and i hope it helps us understand how this place works. thanks a lot. [applause]

>> bear with us for a minute. andrew will have the first word. >> we will turn to the audience in a minute to start a dialogue. we want to ask a couple questions appear on stage. not only are you one of mexico's -- [inaudible] you were involved in campaigns, democracy. you have a long history of being an actor. i wonder now they sit back and think of some of these larger cultural traits, some the things that are a heritage of the

history of the country, how would that change anything that you were involved in in the past? if you had written this book 20 years ago, or 30 years ago, would it have changed anything that you did as foreign minister? we didn't change anything you did as a political activist working for mexico's democratization process? wouldn't have changed anything you did as you running for president a few years ago? >> it's hard to say really, andrew. what i learned during those years in those fields, that i did not then and i know now, and that would have been useful for me to have known then, and i think the main thing is just what you learn in government. you can't learn this from outside, which is how difficult it is to change the place. and how used to running into all of these obstacles, as if they are character traits. you can call them something else

if you want. it doesn't make any difference. once you're there and you're sitting there and you have to deal with this stuff, you realize that it's so much more difficult, so much more time-consuming, so much more slow than one would ever i think would have imagined. for people who began their career in government right out of school and worked up to the finance ministry, the foreign ministry, central bank, any of our bureaucracies, perhaps that vision is, there is no surprise because it's a gradual and incremental process. so they don't really notice the contrast between being outside and sort of looking in and saying why don't you do this and why don't you do that? what they really should do this and what they really should do is that, blah blah blog. the guy since i don't do that because they are inside and they are doing. but if you been outside for a long time and saying why did you

do this, why don't you do that, all he has to do is this come august do is that. then all of a sudden because it's never that separate, that graphic but all of a sudden you are inside and why don't you do this, because i can't. it doesn't work because i can't move this thing. it doesn't move. i remember it's one of the anecdotes in the book about something we were talking about a breakfast. we have a long list in mexico, a long list, i put it in the book, of the jobs, posts that naturalized mexicans cannot hold, which is a very long list. it's just about every government job in the country. naturalized mexicans are not allowed to any of the -- >> politically appointed. >> politically appointed. but it's not just senior. local councilman, municipal --

[speaking in spanish] >> aldermen and councilmembers. >> naturalized mexicans, not foreigners. someone and so forth. as i was saying, this is a crazy idea for any country, but it's especially crazy for country that has one of every nine of its citizens living abroad. and is fighting for rights for them. denying naturalized mexicans, but that's a different sort of that notion, but when you look at this, so when i got into office, my father had had the same problem 20 years before. there were several people he wanted to appoint as ambassadors or counselors who were naturalized mexicans. and we couldn't because the law doesn't allow a. so when i was able to reform the foreign service law, commission headed by man well and people

like that, and we got everything through the congress except one thing. the one thing, under no conditions,. [speaking in spanish] what was that? about naturalized mexicans to be appointed ambassadors or consular generals. why? what's the problem? i mean, you know, i can see the disadvantages of having someone like schwarzenegger be governor of california, yes. i understand. [laughter] and obviously no naturalized mexicans would ever do anything like that, ever. [laughter] no mexican would ever do anything like that. god forbid. but i mean, why obsession? why can't you have a naturalized mexican, someone who chose to become mexican represent the country in phoenix? i mean, it's not exactly capital of the world. what's the big deal? spirit and a naturalized u.s.

citizen from mexico could be governor of arizona, not perhaps tomorrow but could happen, under u.s. law. >> absolutely. wasn't he born in mexico? >> born in u.s. but yet a number of people born in mexico. >> needless to say, not only mexicans but secretaries of state, et cetera, et cetera, et cetera. spent we want to give everybody an opportunity to dialogue with jorge as well. if you wouldn't mind raising her hand and introducing herself. i will start with a cosponsor of this event and then come back to ginny. >> thank you. i'm the director of the fellows program in america, and we've had a great collaboration with her time with jorge and i also had the privilege of editing him from time to time in various newspapers, and it's always been an intellectual privilege to

work with you. and i really congratulate you on this book which is fantastic. i had the opportunity to finish it yesterday on the train. i wanted to ask you come with most riveting passages was your description about the lack of social cohesion and civic engagement in mexico. .. >> what are some of the ways in which people's engagement in society that you're seeing today give you a sense of optimism about that trend being reversed. or have we not seen that change

started to kick in yet? >> well, let me add, there's something that i think for many of us sounds counterintuitive here. most of us think mexico's strong collective culture, u.s. very individualistic. and you're actually saying the opposite in many ways. and not only that, as i said, mexico versus latin america is also individualistic. >> well, that's what i say, but i think more importantly than saying it, i try to provide an enormous amount of statistics whether it's polling data, even he individual crossty -- religiousty where mexican religiousness is increasingly -- perhaps always was -- a highly individualistic act. mexicans do not go to mass. they will go to -- [speaking spanish] and that's about it. mass which is a collective, by

definition, collective act, they don't. mexican religiousty is seen as an individual act by mexicans. these are numbers. you can disagree with the numbers, and that's a discussion that can be had, but the numbers are there. i think, andres, the issue is perhaps that because of the new technologies and social networks, this may be beginning to change. although it's hard to say how -- i'm not sure i would want to emphasize the collective nature of the social networks because they also tend to be highly individualistic. in other words, yes, you work collectively, but each person tweeting on their blackberry or their iphone, and this is something which is not necessarily that collective, but it is more engaging. there have been a couple of examples last couple of years of people getting together mainly

tweeters, to a lesser extent facebook, to stop legislation or to push for legislation to start bombarding congressmen with demands that they vote for something or vote against something. a little bit of that is happening, but certainly not as much as i would like. just a point about the naturalized mexicans, want to always acknowledge the presence of -- [inaudible] but same story. no naturalized mexicans. not the president, okay? you could understand the president, no. why in the world can't the -- [speaking spanish] be a naturalized mexican who arrived in the country as a child and grew up there, studied there, married there, voted there? he can vote, but he can't count the votes. >> uh-huh, yeah. >> that's a strange one. >> okay. the federal electoral institute, for those who are -- could you

just tack into the mic -- >> sorry. i'm ginny bouvier. i was particularly fascinated by your conclusion, the transformation of mexican society is going to come through these women who have lived in mexico and returned back home. and i wanted you to elaborate a little bit more on that. are these women returning to mexico? is there a place for them in politics? do you see them transforming society from within families? and are there policy prescriptions that you might have that night -- might facilitate this transfer? either these women or other women back in mexico. >> well, i certainly don't see it as a political process. it's not that they will return home and run for office. that's -- whether it happens or not happens i don't think is terribly important and probably won't happen. i think it's more in terms of the message they send either by

returning home on occasion, by having their children -- [inaudible] by influencing the men they live with in the united states who then go home. it's that general sort of more cultural, more social type of transformation than a political one. obviously, the more circularity we have, we had or have, the more this would happen. and i think one of the stupidest things that u.s. governments have done since the clinton administration is to have -- frank, we've talked, i learned this from him largely -- we have severed circularity which means that we have stopped the movement of the most important cultural influences that could come to mexico to transform mexico in a way that is obviously to the united states' advantage because there is nothing more important, i believe, for the united states than a modern, prosperous,

democratic -- [inaudible] and the united states has, i think unwillingly but doesn't matter, for the last 18 years, since 1994, done everything to stop that circularity. and consequently what you're mentioning is happening less than what could happen. because people, you know, you have to pay $7,000, the last quote i saw 531 guys standing at a trailer truck yesterday, a couple of days ago, it was $7,000 a pop. by the way, it's good business. 500 of these in one truck and charge each one $7,000. that's good money, and, you know, it's just driving them across the border. unless you get caught, of course. [laughter] then it becomes a big deal. you lose the truck, the money, you lose everything. but otherwise it's good business. but it really is ridiculous to stop this. but this is what the united states is doing. >> a question from jose there back in the back coroner. >> good morning. thank you, jorge. i want to take advantage of you

being here for you to talk about mexico's political outlook. how do you see politics in mexico moving from here to election day next year? >> well -- >> you've been pushing for political formats and most important reform in mexico. why do you think this is, and do you think this is coming in the coming months? >> that was jose diaz. >> well, to bring it back i do go into the book for changing mexico's political institutions and while we made all the big mistakes, some of us more or less consciously, in believing we could use the same institutions from the old authoritarian regime and have them function in a new democratic context. that was a big mistake. i think there's three people largely responsible for this. the main one, of course, is president fox. the next one was myself because

i wasn't able to convince him of this. i failed miserably. and the third one was my very good friend, today and then but better today, santiago, who won that battle, and i lost it. and i think that is one of the reasons why we're in the mess we're in. today there's a chance for at least partial political institutional reform, re-election of congressmen, independent candidates, a series of other measures which are really fundamental and which are -- it's mind boggling that we're still arguing about this in mexico in 2011. but right now it's probably going to happen. there's something that has not been picked up on. [speaking spanish] [speaking spanish]

[speaking spanish] [speaking spanish] >> briefly, in english because we have a lot of people online. how -- [laughter] the rules are

such that -- >> for practical purposes, and if we don't carry out election reform in including the re-election of congressmen now before the first real elected mexican senator will be reelected in 2024. [speaking spanish] [laughter] >> do you want to, luis carlos who's here with nad but former head of the federal electoral institute, we'll let you -- >> yes, thank you. well, what jorge just said is very important because if this is not going to happen which is not going to happen -- >> not going to happen. >> -- then in the best of cases, the best of scenarios we'll begin feeling the impact of election until 2024. because it is impossible, or it

is not good that a member of congress can -- [inaudible] therefore, it would be until 2024 in the best of cases. so we've been awaiting this legislation for decades, and i think it is the worst institution in be mexican politics because it is really this main source of a lack of a person's ability, and i was expecting something to happen, but it will not happen. and, therefore, the political system will continue to work on other rules, and that's a shame. >> talk a little bit, jorge, about the mexican congress in light of what you say about conflict avoidance. because if there's one place where there is rampant conflict and probably cripples its

ability to move, it's probably the american congress. so it's a little bit counterintuitive. how come that doesn't play out there, and they all get along, and they all make policy? >> the main point is if you listen to them and to the people, you get this notion very clearly when by some chance, by some miracle there's a majority vote, you know, 270-230, up with group of congress -- one group of congress minnesota, lower house members wins and the other group loses. the losers inevitably say -- [speaking spanish] wait a second. isn't that what it's supposed to be about? it means they impose their majority on us. they use their majority to ram it down -- well, that's the way it works. [laughter] no, no. they don't think so.

they think that what the people are supposed to do in congress is -- [audio difficulty] [speaking spanish] that's what the congressmen say. and then you ask the mexican people, what would you like the congress -- [speaking spanish] this is what we need. we need people to agree on something. you explain to them, you try to explain to them, look, that's not what this democratic stuff is about. it's not about people agreeing. it's about people settling their disagreements, their inevitable and often desirable disagreements in a pacific, democratic, respectful way. it's not about agreeing. it's about disagreeing a different way. impossible to convince anybody in mexico of that. impossible. >> [inaudible] >> sorry to just jump in, but that would seem to be an exception to this rule, right? >> up to a point, yes. he is a very atypical phenomenon. he goes for broke. but, but what -- i give the

example of -- [inaudible] in '88 and 2006. and i say by different roads they ended up in the same place. while one is from what at that time i would speak closely to him, i still consider him a very dear friend, but at the time we spoke a lot, my sense is in '88 and '89 he understand that if he went for broke, if he really tried to bring down the government, his followers would not follow him. that he understood in the his very intuitive and very mexican way that the people would not follow him in such a confrontation. so i'm not saying he backed off, but he was prudent, he was responsible, and he quote-unquote came back to fight another day. lopez did try to go for it and tried to bring down the government. and his people did to him what -- [inaudible] thought his people would do to him. they didn't follow him. when he did his --

[speaking spanish] so he is atypical, but his followers are not atypical. >> we have a couple questions up here in the front. we'll start here with this. >> yolanda sanchez, international trade and communications group. you say that mexicans like to compete for world records. it seems that the pattern is followed by carlos -- [inaudible] how do you see the acceptance of mexicans of this fact from the point of view of their character? is there a situation in the which they want to change this? because this is a monopoly of power, right? so how do they accept this when there is so much poverty in mexico? >> well, i think that, certainly, yolanda, there is an aversion to competition as we were saying before. and i think that one of the

reasons we have not really set up antitrust institutions with teeth, real teeth, lasting teeth is because we don't like this idea of imposing competition in the electoral arena, in the union arena, in telecommunications, in oil, in anything. we don't like this idea. there are and there's a tremendous aversion to it. the fact that carlos is very wealthy is part of the problem, but it's perhaps not the central problem. he would be just as wealthy probably if he was forced to divest himself either of -- [inaudible] at this stage -- [speaking spanish] so if he were forced to divest himself, let's say, he would not be significantly poorer. that would not change. and the mexican people would not be significantly wealthier.

what would change is that you would introduce such a greater amount of competition into telecommunications that prices would come down, the economy would become more competitive, consumers would be able to use cell phones more frequently for other things, for example, for banking. we have -- there's much more cellular banking in america than in mexico. and mexico's a terribly underbanked country. we're one of the most underbanked countries in latin america. but we're not moving anywhere on cell phoning. why? among other reasons, because it's too expensive. but we don't like this. where is the imposition of competition anywhere? anywhere in mexico? >> let's go. we have questions from antonia, norm. >> jorge, i just want to ask you, it just seems to be there's

a contradiction between what you said that there is a, there's an aversion to conflict and that in general when mexico they don't want to confront or pick a fight with what felipe calderon did -- [inaudible] picked a big fight with carlos pascual, open and loud. so how do you explain that? and this is, obviously, not the only fight they have picked up in the last, you know, four years with the united states. is there an exception about this view that you have of aversion to competition or fight when it comes to the united states? >> not really because perhaps what's as interesting as the fact that calderon was able to apply so much pressure on secretary clinton and on president obama to have them

withdraw carlos pascual that he was forced to -- [inaudible] because of the way that pressure was then transmitted by secretary clinton to him. they will all deny this, but i'm absolutely convinced that this is what happened. this is the first u.s. ambassadors even including pointset in 1823 who's ever been dng'd as we called them because this is what it was in mexico. the first one in a very conflictive history of american ambassadors. pointset, henry lane wilson, john gavin, what have you. you know, we've had a lot of them, and we have always imagined to, every mexican president has had trouble with u.s. ambassadors. it's not the first time. but at the end of the day

avoiding confrontation with americans although the confrontation aversion is more among mexicans has happened, obviously, i have said so before and i continue to say so, i think it was a serious mistake on calderon's part essentially for petty, personal reasons. i do not believe that it was a policy situation. for petty personal relations to have thrown pascual out, i think it was a mistake. i think carlos pass call was probably the most sophisticated ambassador the united states has had in mexico in many, many, many, years. i also think he was the one who became most deeply attached to mexicoment and -- mexico. and i think he was the one with the best channels of communication in washington in a very long time. because even my good friend tony gars saw, you can only call the president so many times. this notion that the ambassador's a very good friend of president bush and so he can -- he can call him once every two, three, four, five months.

can't call him every day. every time you have a problem, can't call the president. doesn't work that way. [laughter] so i think it was a big mistake. and i think the more traditional way of doing things has been to avoid going beyond a limit in confrontation with the united states. and in that sense it's been wise. i don't think, though, that what i refer to in the book is really confrontation with third parties though i get brought into the confrontation with the united states in other forms. >> norm, and then we had a question right here. >> thank thank you. norman bailey. and thank you, jorge, i look forward with the greatest pleasure to reading the book. i'm going to disagree with something you said in response to a question, and then i'm going to ask a question. um, you said that if truck carrying the illegal immigrants is intercepted, they lose the truck, the immigrants and the money. they don't lose the money, the money's already been paid, and it's in mexico, okay?

[laughter] and they don't give a damn about losing the truck and the people. that's totally immaterial. >> but then we agree it's good business. >> yes. [laughter] better business than you said. even if this truck is intercepted, it doesn't matter. still good business. >> i agree. point well taken. >> what i want to ask you about, i understand completely what you say about the mexican aversion to confrontation, and i've experienced it myself. um, i think, however, most people -- even people who know a lot about mexican history -- would say how can he say something like that? during the 19th century, god knows how many -- [speaking spanish] one of the bloodiest revolutions in the history of the world in the 20th century. what's going on right now with the so-called drug war in northern mexico, how can you say the mexicans are aversion to confrontation? they've been shooting each other up for decades, centuries. >> well, norm, i go into this,

particularly the episode of the revolution, at some length on the number question. because, you know, we always talk about -- [speaking spanish] everybody, every mexican child and every american student has always heard about the million people who died during the revolution. well, first of all, didn't have a million people who died. didn't happen. we had something maybe three or four hundred thousand people died at most. but with one small, minor matter. of that amount roughly 80% died or 90% died in 1918 from spanish influenza which had absolutely nothing to do with the revolution. the revolution itself, the more distinguished historians, mexican, american, french, whatever say people who were actually killed, boom, boom, boom, in the ten years or eight years of revolution probably not more than 30,000.

which, i mean, is not bad. still, it's nowhere near that famous million. people like womack, people like john cotesworth, all of these people have always questioned the million muertos. but it's become part of mexican folklore. i give another example, less serious but more enigmatic -- spanish somebody it's -- [speaking spanish] it's been a given for 45 years now almost that more than 600 students were massacred by the army at the square of the three cultures on october 2nd, 1968. we are now 43 years away. we have had umpteenth truth commissions, blah, blah, blah. at of today -- as of today 68 names have been found. 6-8. not one more. you can say, well, the families are scared.

scared of what? 45 years later? we've had two governments or some would say three who want to find more because they want to blame -- [inaudible] [speaking spanish] for more deaths. they would be able to confirm -- i'm writing here from the stones of the aztecs run bloody -- running with blood, and i see 600 students around me all dead. well, we're still looking for those 600 student thes. didn't happen. the white guards provoked a cross-shooting where around 60 people died of which maybe 40, 45 were students. this is not to in the any way not condemn this, not to forgive it, not to forget it, not to condone it. but that's what happened. >> is there a sense, jorge, in mexico that when the mediations break down, all hell breaks loose? i mean, in the way the revolution is interpretationed and -- interpreted and if you

look at the parts of mexico that are in deep conflict, the sense of mediation is that when compromise breaks down, the result is all hell breaks loose. i mean, the country falls apart. and that is the flipside of this. l i couldn't help remembering the same people that were afraid at that moment did actually depose the land, they took the mayor -- it wasn't violent, it was actually peaceful, but they did have to protect the town with guns. there was no actual killing, but this was a, you know, we've reached our outer limit here. is there a point at which the fear is when in the historical learning maybe partially from the revolution and the liberal conservative civil war and elsewhere is things really fall apart if we don't compromise. >> i think that's one -- and i point this out, that's one of the main reasons for this conflict aversion. if it goes too far, you can't walk back. and not only can't you walk back, but you inevitably get

thrown into a much more violent or direct confrontation which it is were the to avoid -- better to avoid. it's partly true, that's what mexicans think. it's not necessarily what happens which is the point about the million dead in the revolution or the point of other examples we could also give. i mean, and another element of measuring this is in relation to other countries. until calderon began with this nonsense, mexico had lower homicide per 100,000 death rates than most countries in latin america. we were down to about 8 per 100,000 still in 2007, 2006. and eight is a national average. if you break it down by regions and you removed -- [speaking spanish] think what what, those three states, those three or four states in the 2007, remove them

which represent a very small part of the country, are the average for the rest of the country was in the four, five, six willful homicides per 100,000 inhabitants which is not at all a violent country. it's much less violent than practically any of the bigger countries in latin america, much less violent than central america, much less -- levels around those of places like chile, places like uruguay, united states is around five. so even that, of course, you start shooting at these guys, well, they shoot back. what did you expect? they're just going to sit there? [speaking spanish] you've got to be nuts to start something like that. now we're in this mess. >> right. >> the good part is that you we are, president calderon had this marvelous analogy that he drew the other day which really, i mean, i think it really helps explain to the mexican people

what's going on. he compared himself to winston churchill, and he tried to explain to the mexican people how he was also going to stick it out and not be an appeaser. he got the thing a little bit wrong. if i remember correctly it was chamberlain the appeaser who went to munich? >> right, right, right. >> chamberlain, no? and churchill was against appeasement. but he wasn't prime minister. he became prime minister later. other than that minor detail, the comparison is perfectly valid and perfectly relevant, and all of the mexican people understood it perfectly. [laughter] >> i'm sure -- >> well, of course. >> i'm sure they felt much better after that. >> no, no, they were fine. at the end, the british beat the nazis, and we'll beat these guys too, and it'll only take so many thousands -- >> i know there's a lady here, but juarez does not seem to be a reaction to anything the president did.

i mean, this is zetas against gulf cartel, juarez cartel against -- [inaudible] these are decisions made by drug traffickers against each other in which civilians are being caught up, and in the which the complicity of a great number of authorities is also an enormous factor. but do you think it's a direct result, actually, of a decision to go after them? >> in the next issue of nexus that comes out in, what, ten days or so, a long article by a guy who correlates the numbers of deaths, kidnappings, etc. with the -- >> the joint police military operations. >> and there's a perfect correlation. town by town, state by state. you have an -- [speaking spanish] violence goes up. >> is violence going up before they arrive though? >> well, the counterfactual

causality. apparently, he says that you had stable levels, but for -- but slightly rising, perhaps. you send in the operate, and it just -- operation, and it just skyrockets. i've seen parts of the piece, it comes out in a couple of weeks. my impression without having any numbers is that is true. in other words, the violence has been provoked by the war, the war was not provoked by the violence. but that's a merit of opinion -- matter of opinion, obviously. >> you have been enormously patient, and i apologize. >> thank you. luis -- board of the u.s./mexico foundation. thank you. jorge, you mentioned the role that returning mexican women can play as change agents in mexico. what do you see as a possible role for mexican-american leaders in the united states as possible change agents in mexico? >> with -- well, they could be in a sense pushing for, we were talking about, perhaps, over

breakfast of a more enlightened policy on the part of the united states towards mexico. where, you know, i'm just so terribly disappointed that we have now had for two years and, hopefully, for another six years the possibility of dealing with an american president who for the first time, quite honestly, that i can remember has the sophistication, the intelligence, the vision to understand these challenges. and that we in mexico cannot come up with anything more intelligent to say than why don't you stop arms exports to mexico. blah, blah black. this ridiculous nonsense. i'm so disappointed in that because there could be a much more enlightened u.s. policy towards mexico and which is basically what carlos pascual when he arrived in mexico wanted to do. which is what is the number one item on the united states' agenda with mexico? to do everything it can to

transform mexico into a modern, democratic, prosperous, more equal country as soon as possible. that's what u.s. policy should be centered on. not on exporting drugs or arms or god knows what. this is not happening. the main reason it's not happening is because we mexicans are not pushing obama in that direction. because at the end of the day, i mean, it's much more important for us than it is for him. for the united states. we should be the ones who should be driving the agenda in that direction. we're not doing it. i think, you know, the mexican-american community could also push in that direction instead of just jumping on a bandwagon which it really doesn't understand which has to do with the questions of violence and everything else in mexico which, if you're there and you go into this, you can figure out some of what's going on. but if you're removed which is not natural, it's hard to understand. i am terribly, also, disappointed that we don't have a stronger lobby in the u.s. in

favor of a more enlightened policy towards mexico. but enlightened meaning this: what can the united states do to turn, to transform mexico into a modern, prosperous, democratic more equal middle class society sooner than later? that's what i think u.s. policy should be, and that's where mexican-americans should push. but not just mexican-americans, of course. >> what can the u.s. do? >> it can do everything from including policy to transferring resources for infrastructure to transferring resources for education to an immigration agreement that we've talked about for so long with frank to, on so many other issues, on working with mexico on multilateral issues. there's an infinite number of things that can be done if you have the focus. in other words, if there's a clear vision of what the policy should be, and then from that main focus you derive everything else. we're spending so much time on such silly things. i mean, it's remarkable.

just make this point. i may be wrong on this, and some people here may know more about this than i do. the last i heard at the last high-level meeting they had here, what was it, three weeks ago, do main point of discussion was to finally get the numbers straight. and they were negotiating the numbers. and one of the numbers they mainly want to negotiate is what is the total value of the drug trade in mexico. how much money does this entail for mexico? the americans have been playing with a range of 19-39 billion dollars per year for a couple of years. that's what they say. it's a pretty wide range. you know, if you're a businessman and you own a business and someone, well, we're going to be making somewhere between 19,000 and 39,000 dollars next year, you're probably going to fire the guy who says something like that. but, okay. the mexicans, the man who's in charge of this, from what i hear

have come up with their numbers which is what they're pushing for which is roughly $9 billion. now, i have no way of knowing if they're right or if they're wrong. but i asked myself the following question, let's just say that for once they're right, that it's $9 billion. so this whole fuss, the 40,000 dead, the 60 billion dollars, the massive human rights violations over .7% of gdp? because that's what $9 billion is. .7%. not 7%, not 70%, .7% of mexican gdp. this whole fuss is over that? >> or is the fuss over the impunity and the collapse of the justice system? >> it's, hey -- >> keeps citizens safe. >> well, they're much less safe today than they've ever been before. ask any mexican. if they feel safer today.

you won't find one. the same guy that you maybe can find who trusts the police, he's the guy who -- the only guy who will also say i feel safer today. that's one guy. same guy. [laughter] [inaudible conversations] >> okay. we have time for two more questions. we have one here and -- >> yes. miriam from catholic university. i wanted to go back to the question of the justice system in mexico and why is there no trust? and what, if anything, can be done both by mexican-americans and people in mexico, the united states government to actually improve the situation? because this must be a longstanding problem. >> do you want to do both of them? >> was there another question? yeah. why don't we get one more, and

then we'll call it -- >> yeah, i'm larry from the smithsonian anthropology department. if i remember correctly in 1990, 991 the elements of a u.s. government program to mexico were in place. there was a large sort of health family planning activity. democracy began to flourish in terms of programs including with the elections process, and there was an interesting economic program. of course, it was driven by raft that. but really what you described as transformational did begin to exist and grow in the beginning of the '90s. perhaps i'm incorrect. >> well, i don't have that recollection in terms of that happening. in fact, my recollection, i think, was more that president salinas and bush and then clinton as of '93 concentrated all their efforts on nafta.

and tried to attribute to nafta's passage many of the things that you have mentioned, but sort of as automatic by-products, as priorities or as planned outcomes that they would like to achieve. and, of course, they turned out to be totally wrong as far as the associated by-products are concerned. we can argue the pros and cons of nafta as it was approved and whether it delivers the goods -- delivered the goods or didn't deliver the goods. but the ore parts department happen and were not included for reasons having to do precisely with narrowing the agenda as much as possible. some of us here and even sydney, we talked a lot about this then, thought that it would have been a much better deal for both countries if things that were excluded had been included even if that would have held up the process of ratification.

on the question of a justice system, and i give a bunch of numbers there, numbers that you can see in the film which is a marvelous movie which are every day in the mexican press about how few people go to the justice system to denounce crimes, how few people are ever sentenced, how few people are ever really tried, how mexicans totally have absolutely no trust whatsoever in the justice system. what i try to do here is go a little deeper and to try and understand why. and i don't come up with any, you know, extraordinarily intelligent or insightful explanations, but there are some cultural and historical traits which are important. i particularly go back to the deal that the viceroys of new

>> incredible disrespect for the law ever since in mexico. and we've come pounded that with what i said before, withinventing stupid laws. and since people are not stupid, if you try and impose stupid laws on them, they will find intelligent ways to get around stupid laws. they will not abide by obviously stupid laws. if to that you add this very mexican notion that i will only respect laws that are just -- [speaking spanish] which is the most unrule of law attitude you can imagine, well, in mexico in every poll we have you have half or more of the people saying -- [speaking spanish] so you add all -- you put all of this together, you have an unmanageable justice system which is what the movie shows. and the movie is really extraordinary.

in its impact in mexico. but it also shows you the magnitude of the challenge. i've been a longtime sporter of the entire process of oral trials in mexico, doing away with the old written system. we're moving toward but very slowly. a lot of people are getting cold feet about it. it's more expensive, it's more complicated, it's more transparent, though, it's more be expedited. so you have to, you know, it's a very tough process to go through. eventually, if we push forward on it, we could get there. but, you know, a very complicated process which also, why would anybody to to the police or to the justice system? you have to be crazy to do that, and most mexicans are not crazy. so they're right. only people like me are, of course they're not right in going to the justice system. what for? >> right. okay. well, you've been enormously generous with your time. jorge has agreed to sign some books out in the foyer, and i'm

sure other people will have other questions, but let's give jorge a round of applause. pleasure. [applause] >> thank you all very much. [inaudible conversations] >> doctor you're watching booktv -- you're watching booktv on c-span2, 48 hour of nonfiction authors and books every weekend. >> in the shadow of du bois, afro-modern political thought in america is the name of the book published by the university of harvard press. the author is university of chicago professor robert gooding-williams. professor gooding-williams, why "in the shadow of but du bois"? >> because he's been so influential on african-american thought and on, more generally speaking, discourse about public

policy, about black identity related to a contemporary racial politics. >> what was the importance of du bois? turn of the century, correct? >> well, so what the book focuses on is what is perhaps du bois' best known book and no doubt his most influential book. but in many ways not well understood book. so part of the goal of the book is on one hand to reconstruct du bois' political thought. du bois has been treated well by historians. you mentioned david, lewis biographers, but not so well by political noter ises. so -- philosophers. so my idea was to treat him as a political philosopher bearing in mind that you quickly see du bois is the preeminent 20th

century contributor to african-american political thought. again, i come back to the influence idea, the idea that more than any other of 20th century african-american thinkers, du bois' thought has -- you asked about the shadow motif -- has cast a shad toe over -- shadow over the thinking of other african-american theorists. but more generally beyond just the world of african-american political thought, just a shadow over thinking about everyone and anyone whose thought about african-american identity, black identity, public policy relating to the ghetto porn and so on. we arrive at a clear understanding of some of the assumptions in forming our own thinking about many of these issues. >> in the last 110 years or so,

what practical effect has du bois had? who would you -- where's his lineage? >> well, of course, i mean, du bois is one of the great inspirations of the civil rights movement. and i think this is well known, du bois is deaf -- [inaudible] i use that roger wilkens' i think announcement of du bois' death as an end graph to the book -- end graph to the book. and he says, you know, if there's one thinker, right, whose thought overshadow both, the movement and what's happening here today, it's du bois, and du bois just died. so there's a real connection between not only what's going on at the level of contemporary writers, theorists thinking about the issues, issues again

having to deal with identity, ghetto and poverty in the aftermath of jim you and the aftermath of segregation, the aftermath of obama. but also du bois has had an enormous impact on activists that deal with these issues. >> what was his relationship, professor, with booker t. washington? >> well, that, of course, is an important theme of the book and something that, you know, has been talked about at great length in the literature, and also an important motif when one thinks about the history of both, again, activism and african-american political thought. du bois devotes an entire chapter to washington. washington, of course, was the most prom knelt, the most influential african-american political force at the time. but -- and which is why du bois felt he needed to take washington on and summit washington's thought -- subject washington's thought to critique. so, i mean, to summarize,

washington thought that african-american social thought progress really required that african-americans develop the virtues appropriate to succeed in a capitalist marketplace and that they could put aside the struggle for civil and political rights. du bois responds by saying, well, no, you can't put aside the struggle for political right. and in essence, du bois argues against washington that there will be no success in the capitalist marketplace if african-americans don't win their civil and political rights. so you can't separate these two agendas. but there's a deeperrish sue that -- issue, i think, that's often ignored, and that's the struggle over leadership. who, you you know, what elite or group of elites is going to emerge as the leaders of the struggle for african-american equality? and the way, one of the interesting thing about the way in which du bois frames that

third chapter is that he positions both himself and douglas with reference to -- excuse me excuse me, both himself and washington reasons to frederick douglass. du bois is pitching the contest between him and washington with respect to -- [inaudible] narrative. and in effect what he's say anything this chapter is, well, look, the moses of the african-american struggle, frederick douglass, has passed away, right? and the question is, who's going to be the new leader? washington has emerged as a new leader. du bois say he's emerged as the new joshua. but as it turns out washington isn't the militant leader that joshua was, militant leader that the new joshua should be. and du bois is presenting himself as the more appropriate

successor to douglass, the more appropriate joshua than he sees, than he sees in washington. >> well that said, professor, what was w.e.b. du bois' relationship with the larger white community around him? >> well, of course, du bois was very much involved, one of the founding numbers of the naacp. one can talk about the larger white community in a number of different ways. one can talk about few boys, again, with respect to the,naac, with respect to african-american activism. the point that i try to stress is what du bois was about intellectually. and i try the open up a kind of space for thinking not only about du bois' engagements with an appropriations of contemporary american thinkers, but to think, too, about, for

example, his time in germany. so, for example, du bois is not only interested because he was a student of just -- [inaudible] at harvard, an american thinker, but he's also interesting because he was the student of gustav in germany about the rich between the human scientists and the natural scientists and whether we should think about race in the perspective of the natural science. for example, du bois involves an important and interesting, complicated illusion to what i think probably one of his favorite poems, william words worth's intimation tones. we're talking about not only du bois in relationship to white activists who were involved with du bois in founding the naacp, we're also talking about the

intellectual horizon not only, again, on american intellectual horizons like royce, we're also talking about du bois' wide range of reading. and really, really important, i think profoundly engagement, his engage with this 19th century german debate. >> would he be surprised that in 2008 a black president was elected to the u.s.? >> that's interesting. probably as much as anyone, yeah. i think, i think. i was surprised, i think lots of people were surprised when obama was elected. i think that part of the reason that du bois left the united states for ghana was his pessimism about race relations in the united states. so given that pessimism, i think if you, that if you'd asked du bois, you know, in the first

caid of our century -- decade of our century would we have an african-american president, i mean -- remember, du bois dies even before 1964, before the fair housing act of '68. he hadn't seen any of that. he hadn't seen the end of jim crow. so for him even to imagine the possibility of -- for him to imagine the possibility of an african-american president, i think, is almost unimaginable. >> robert gooding-william, what do you teach here? >> political theory in the political science department. a variety of courses. some having to do, as you might guess, with african-american political thought. course on du bois, on martin delainey. i also teach for systematic courses, critical race theory. i'm teaching -- >> in each shi's critique of

modernity. i just finished team teaching with a colleague on african-american/jewish political thought. next year i'm teaching at course of the influence on art. so a whole range of courses, most having to do with either history political thought, is theth century german political thought, or having to do, again, with critical race theory. >> you're also the author of "look a negro." >> yes, that's right. >> what is that? >> that's a collection of essays relating to representations of race in film. and a few other caigal essay -- occasional essays as well. so, for example, i have an essay there on representation of the -- you know that movie, the lion king? i have an essay on media representations of race during the rodney king uprising, a

piece that was originally publish inside a book i edited called requested reading rodney king." al stanley covel around his reading of a fred astaire movie. so unlike the du bois book, it's less an engagement with an attempt to reconstruct the thought of a particular thinker, it's, again, more -- it has more to do with race and contemporary cultural representations of race. >> who in your view, if anyone, is similar to du bois today? >> you know, i think that there probably is no one who is really similar to du bois today. i think that, i think -- what i would cay, i guess what i would want to say about that is even asking the question that way kind of suggests that we're looking for one person who might represent the current tendency

of african-american political thought. but i don't think that there is one person. i'm not even sure there was just one person when du bois was writing. as you pointed out earlier, du bois was engaged with booker t. washington and a number of ores. i think today you find, and it's interesting, you find a great deal of diversity of opinion among african-american individuals about everything that's going on. not least of all how we should feel about the obama presidency. so i think what we've got is i think it's kind of a mistake to think either historically or currently of african-american political thought as homogeneous. i'm very sympathetic to those who have recently argued the importance of heteroyes nayty which is good for african-american political life. >> professor, what's your next book?

>> you know, i'm not completely sure. i'm beginning to do some work on a martin delainey who is often thought of as the father of black nationalism. and so i've begun doing some research on delainey, taught a seminar on te lainny, written a short paymenter that may evolve into a monograph. >> well, robert gooding-williams current book, "in the shadow of du bois," published by the university of harvard. professor gooding-williams teaches at the university of chicago. >> what are you reading this summer? booktv wallets to know. wants to know. >> well, i just finished reading "decision points" by president bush, and it was really good. i enjoyed the conversational tone that he took in describing his presidency and the events, the big events like 9/11 and some of the other events that

were a part of his eight-year presidency. i'm in the process of getting to karl rove's new book as well as hank paulson's book. i don't know that anything has had more of lasting impact on what we're talking about today than what happened a couple of years ago with regard to the economic meltdown. and i think reading secretary paulson's new autobiography will be enlightening. i had gotten pretty frustrated by the end of his time as secretary, but i wanted to give him the benefit of the doubt and see his side of the story since he was there in front and center in all of the discussions. i'm also reading a new book that andy andrews who's a local alabama