rodham clinton to be a cultural ambassador. you just started that. with the job going to be? >> guest: it entails me going and speaking to select groups of young people and emphasizing the value of education and giving them an insight into what like america is all about. ..insight into what life in america is all about. >> have you done any chance you? >> i have done a trip to brazil. it went very well. i had a great time. i had great interactions with the people that i met with. >> thank you for interacting with the c-span aud >> thank you very much for the introduction, thank you to regulator books. it's a pleasure to be here in north carolina. um, foreign policy and focus is

on the web at fpif.org, and i do a regular column there every week, so i encourage you to go there and check out the work we do. tonight i thought, you know, i'll be talking about my book, "crusade: 2.0," which is about islamphobia, published by city lights great press, and instead of reading from the book, i thought i would just do a presentation for you in four parts. and the four parts are going to be a visit, a poem, an e-mail and then, finally, a political ad. but let's start with the visit. a couple weeks ago i went up to new york city, and i visited park 51 which is an interesting islamic cultural center, and there i saw the different programs that they have available. they teach arabic, they teach

calligraphy, they have a course on a brazilian martial art. it was a fascinating -- occurs to me you might not know what i'm talking about. because you might not recognize park 551, the actual name, because you might be more familiar with the name that was used in the media to describe park 51 which is, of course, the ground zero mosque. and it was two years ago that this islamic cultural center -- not a mosque and not really located at ground zero, but steph several blocks away -- became the focus of a great controversy. i don't know if you remember that two years ago. but there were huge protests in new york city and counterprotests. and perhaps you remember some of the signs that appeared on the streets of new york, protesters

against this ground zero mosque. some of the signs said stop islam, islam kills, the meek shallinherit islam and islam is a lie. when i visited park 51, the official name, of course, there were no protests, there were no protesters outside, no ugly signs. it was just a place where different people from different faiths and different traditions came together to study, to meet each other. so where did all the protests go? well, one of the reasons i think that the protests disappeared in front of park 51 was a photography exhibit that opened up park 51, finally, in september of last year. and what was that photography exhibit? was it something about blood

thirsty islam, or was it about the terrible crimes that islam has perpetuated, or was it about islam taking over the world? the photography exhibit that open od up at park -- opened up at park 51 was an exhibit by a jewish photographer taking photographs of all the children of new york who come from different countries. i think protests disappeared in front of park 51 because the protesters realized that their picture of the quote-unquote ground zero mosque was so different from the reality, the really the organizers were -- the reality the organizers were talking about all the time, an islamic cultural center that would have photography exhibits by jewish photographers about children from all around the world. the protests have disappeared from in front of park 51, and the islamophobes have gone on to

other targets. but the messages in many ways remain the same. different target, same messages. the message that islam is inherently violent, that islam and muslims are treacherous and that islam is trying to take over the world. these are the kind of three major stereotypes about islam. and the message has not only stayed the same over the last couple of years, i would say into what i argue in my book, "crusade: 2.0," is that these messages have remained pretty consistent for over a thousand years. and that brings us to part two which ises the poem. which is the poem. city lights, of course, is famous for its poetry. alan ginsburg, lawrence -- i felt it was important to incorporate a poem into tonight's presentation x. the

poem is an 'em pick poem that takes place in the mountains of spain over a thousand years ago. and it memorializes a great epic battle between the forces of christianity and the forces of islam. the battle took place in 778, and it involved charlemagne and the forces of islam, the moor bish armies and charlemagne's nephew, roland. the poem, of course, is "the song of roland," the great medieval french poem that memorializes what happened to roland and the army of charlemagne. because on that fateful night in 778 as 20,000 frankish troops of charlemagne's army were coming back from spain after battling the forces of islam, as they were going through the mountains, they were attacked from behind by the moorish army,

and they were slaughtered, all 20,000 of them, including roland, the great nephew of charlemagne. and it is an epic battle, and it has inspired many people over the years, and it is a core text in western civilization classes, and it is wrong. [laughter] because, in fact, in 778 it wasn't the moorish armies that attacked charlemagne and roland from behind. it wasn't, it wasn't muslims at all. it was christians. it was christian basques from the city of pamploma, and they were furious at charlemagne's armies because they had promised they would not loot the city of pamploma if basques opened up

the gates and invited them in. and the franks came into the city of pamploma, and they looted it. the basques were angry. so they came after charlemagne's army, and in 778 in the mountains of spain, they did defeat those 20,000 franks. so what happened? i mean, what happened between 778 when the battle took place and the mid 11th century when the song of roland was commit today paper? -- committed to paper? what peculiar game of telephone took place in which the people on one end said basques, basques, basques, and somehow on the other end of the telephone it came out muslim? why did this take place and how did this take place? well, there are three major

reasons. one is it was necessary to simplify the tale. because in the eighth century the battles taking place between charlemagne, the holy roman empire and the moorish armies in spain were extremely complicated. and, in fact, charlemagne was aligned with several moorish armies against other moorish armies and, n., at the time charlemagne had a pretty good relationship with baghdad. but that's a complex story. and it was necessary to simplify it. kind of like kony 2012. necessary to simplify a complicated story into something that coulding -- number two, it was important to make it into an epic. it's not epic if it's christian

christian-on-christian violence. not epic. epic is a world historical struggle between christianity and islam. and finally, there was an anxiety, i would say, an anxiety in the christian european world at the time, an anxiety that the very qualities that were being imputed to these muslims who attacked charlemagne -- didn't attack charlemagne, but the moorish army -- that they were violent and treacherous and always wanted to take over the world. this anxiety among christian europeans was, in fact, a feeling that maybe despite all the teachings of peace and love and the new testament and jesus' message that maybe, in fact, it

was christians at some level who embodied these traits that were projected upon the world of islam. remember, 1150 of so when song of roland is committed to paper after several centuries of an oral tradition, it's the lead up to what will become the first crusade. 1095, pope urban gives his famous speech calling on christian.com to rise up, take back jerusalem. 1098, first crusaders go to the holy land. 1099, they take jerusalem. this was not a peaceful process be. in 1099 when the crusaders take jerusalem, the chroniclers of the time talked about 40,000 killed, the blood rising high in

the streets of jerusalem. and it wasn't just christians that were being killed by the -- i'm sorry, it wasn't just muslims who were being killed by the christian crusaders. there was also a stamm jewish population -- substantial jewish population in jerusalem at the time that had, in fact, aligned itself with the muslims who were in control of the city, a jewish population that was not happy about the approach of the crusaders, a jewish population that said if we gather in the synagogue, the crusaders at least will not attack us, for they will not attack a holy place. and yet the crusaders burned the synagogue to the ground. with all the jews inside it. and this was not the first time that the crusaders were aligned with antisemitism. in fact, as the crusade made its

way, the first crusading army made its way through europe to the holy land, crusaders were going through germany, and many of them asked themselves why are we going so far away to fight a people we know so little about? when there are jews here in germany, and we know that jews are the enemy of christians. and so that was the first position rom, crusaders attacking jewish populations and taking money that then paid for the crusade. so this violence, the violence that took place on the crusades, i think, promoted or produced a certain anxiety among christians at the time about their own conduct. i think there was a feeling, also, of treachery. what did charlemagne do for the

basques of pamploma? well, he did not honor his word that he would not sack the city. there were other examples during the crusades of treachery. famous one, of course, which was in the movie "kingdom of heaven," if you've seen the movie. not once, but twice he attacked muslim pilgrims on the hajj and then, of course, this act of treachery produced yet another crusade. or even not just treachery toward, again, the basques or muslims, but in the fourth crusade the crusaders attacked a catholic city in crow croatia. so i think there was some anxiety about how christian

crusaders felt about their conduct and whether it was above reproach. and then, finally, global conquest, the third kind of stereotype about islam, that they're inherently violent, inherently treacherous and, third, that they are bent to take over the world. well, of course, at the time rome too and catholicism was interested in taking over the world, spreading christianity as widely as possible. and the first kind of missionaries emerged during the crusade period. in an effort to spread christianity as widely as possible. so it is often said that this epic battle that is memorialized in the song of roland, this epic battle is a battle between barbarism and civillation. and in some sense that is true, but it was europeans who were the barbarians and islam which

was the world of civilization. because at that point in the eighth century and even later in the 11th century, the world of islam was by virtually any standard several centuries ahead of the world of christianity. if you look at literature, science, medicine, philosophy, mathematics. if -- and many crusaders discovered this when they went to the holy land -- if you looked at the very structure of the cities in the islamic world there were banks, a banking system, there was a sewage system, remarkable to a christian going there for the first time. and when they actually settled in the holy land and set up settler states and intermarried, some of the crusaders took on some of the civilizing aspects

of the world of islam. for instance, they took a bath every so often. [laughter] this was a great improvement for the world of christianity at the time. but this, of course, is not the story that europeans and americans tell ourselves about this great struggle of the middle ages. we don't tell ourselves that we were the barbarians, and we were fighting the civilized world. we tell a very different story. a story, in some sense, that we are still telling today. and that brings me to part three. the e-mail. so recently, a couple years ago, i received an e-mail, and it was one of those chain e-mails you get all the time. you don't know where exactly it comes from, but it tells you to forward it to as many people as possible, and at the top of this

e-mail it said, please, forward it as widely as possible because we want it to go to 400 million people. i thought, this is an ambitious e-mail. so i read further. the e-mail purported to be an article from a spanish newspaper by a spanish journalist, and as i read on i thought, gosh, it's been a while since i've been to spain, but i can't imagine a spanish newspaper printed this. this is quite a remarkable piece of journalism. let me read you one section from this e-mail which i got, by the way, several times. we killed six million jews and replaced them with 20 million muslims who brought us stupidity and ignorance, religious extremism and lack of tolerance. crime and poverty due to an

unwillingness to work and support their families with pride. there have more, some of it even uglier than what i've read to you. i tracked down the original. wasn't published in a spanish newspaper at all. it was published on a spanish web site by someone who might or might not have been a journalist, but i doubt it. and the original actually didn't look all that much like what was sent around. in fact, that little section i read to you, all it really talked about was religious extremism. someone else had added everything else, kind of like that telephone that transformed the basques into muslims in the song of roland. that's, of course, our modern day telephone, the internet. but the bottom line even in this original that was published on the internet was that

anti-semitism is wrong and finally europeans have figured this out. but islamophobia's okay because muslims deserve it. now, there was, of course, no irony in this e-mail. any recognition that these very phrases used to describe muslims today very close to the phrases used in the 1930s to describe jews in the germany. but nevertheless. the sentimentses in this e-mail, both the original that was published on the spanish internet and then this kind of much uglier version that was distributed quite widely and published on a variety of american web sites expresses

sentiments that were widespread in europe at the time and are widespread today. this, i would say, sentiments before 9/11 is largely expressed as racism, racism towards foreign workers, towards or foreigners who had come from different parts of the world to europe especially in the '60s and early '70s when there was a labor shortage. racism which you probably have heard about because of the rise of the pen in france, the rise of neo-nazis in britain, the republican party in germany. but after 9/11 this racist sentiment largely changed into a kind of religion sentiments, the anti-islamic. it was the same people for the most part, algerians from north africa, turks would come to

germany, indonesians who would come to the netherlands. but now it had a very religious cast to it. secondly, it was no longer on the fringes. the pen, of course, it got a certain percentage of the vote. so did the neo-nazis. but after 9/11 this goes mainstream. a famous italian journalist did many courageous reportings from around the world, and in 2002 she publishes a book called "the rage and the pride." and "the rage and the pride" has passages in it that are very similar to this e-mail, passages about muslims launching a reverse crusade against europe. they come with troops and cannons or with children and boats. her book is a bestseller in italy, in france, throughout

europe. in 2002, 2003. it doesn't go away. you might have heard of german social democrat who publishes a book a couple years ago saying that germany is at risk of being annihilated as a country because of muslims who are now living in the country. bestseller in germany. and it's not just these books. the sentiment starts to leak into the speeches of major party leaders. sarkozy in france, angela merkel. and it becomes, in some sense, bipartisan. if you look at what happened in france over the head scarf issue where you have members of both major parties who are supporting ban on head scarves when, in fact, there's so few people in

france, so few women are even wearing the head scarves that are being banned. and, of course, it's not just words, it's not just books, it's also actions. for we have the alaskas of anders breivik -- actions of anders breivik in norway who killed 77 people, and he doesn't go after muslims though, of course, he is talking all the time about how muslims are taking over his country and how upset he is about that. he goes after the people he perceives as letting in the muslims into norway. he goes after the social democrats. he goes after the architects of multiculturalism because it is multiculturallists, he says -- and he is echoed by a number of other politicians throughout europe -- it is

multiculturallists who are actually eroding european identity, christian identity and, more specifically, norwegian christian identity. which brings us to part four, the political ad. and the united states. so as i said at the beginning, 2010 was the summer of hate, two years ago. and you probably remember terry jones who promised to burn a copy of the quran. you might remember the beginning of an anti-sharia movement that pushes to pass legislation at a state level to ban sharia law, islamic law. it starts in oklahoma where there's this huge muslim population. no, there's knotts a huge miss -- there's not a huge muslim population in oklahoma. it's ridiculous, and the whole

movement is ridiculous since there have been no cases of sharia law actually being cited with one exception in new jersey which was then overturned. and, of course, you remember that summer as well as two years before all of the rumors that obama, our president, is muslim. one-third of all republicans believed this according to polling at the time. one-quarter of the entire electorate believes this. and, of course, the ground zero mosque. the ground zero mosque becomes a political litmus test to determine how politicians stand on this key issue. mayor bloomberg, for it. newt gingrich, he's against it. but it even is a political litmus test out in iowa, in iowa. in 2010 in the race for a seat

in congress held by bruce braley, a democrat, he's leading his opponent until this political ad appears. for centuries muslims built mosques where they won military victories. now they want to build a mosque at ground zero where islamic terrorists killed 3,000 americans. it's like the japanese building at pearl harbor. the muslim cleric building the mosque beliefs americans -- believes america was partly responsible for 9/11 and is raising millions overseas from secret donors. but incredibly, bruce braley supports building a mosque at ground zero. tell braley what you think. when this political ad appeared, braley's margin nearly

disappeared. and when the election took place, he just barely won, just barely hung on. this ad is important for two reasons. one, its content. two, who designed this ad. now, leave who designed it as the punchline. but first, the content. the content's important, is important because in many ways it's the same message that we've been hearing since the song of roland. muslims are inherently violent, are treacherous and want to take over the world. let's just go back through the key assertions of this ad. number one, muslims built mosques where they had military victories. well, in some cases, that's true. in other cases mosques were built where people wanted to have mosques built. because they had a muslim

community. but that's not the point here. the point is that there's an implication that islam is inherently violent whereas the other religion, other religion, the old testament, what does it say in the old testament? well, let me quote one section. ya way commands saul to kill all of the amalachites including the women and children. and when saul doesn't do that, when he spares some of the livestock and the amall kite king, yeah way says, saul, i told you, all of the amalachites. you disappointed me, saul. so saul had to kill the livestock and the king as well. this isn't just one example in the old testament. of course, jews built synagogues, places where they

had military victories. but do we call judaism the religion of the sword? do we say it's inherently military in nature? churches, are churches always built in places where there's nice streams, great weather? no. churches, too, are off built in places where there are military victories. one could say, as jon stewart said, every church in this country, the united states, is built at a ground zero. and that ground zero was, of course, a victory over native americans. number two, assertion. the equation of they, muslims, and islamic terrorists, they want to build a mosque where the terrorists killed 3,000 americans. islam and the al-qaeda

terrorists are the same. which is a strange assertion given the fact that virtually every muslim organization in this country condemned the attacks of 9/11, virtually every muslim, majority muslim country condemned the 9/11 attacks including iran. third assertion, that the organizer of the mosque believes that america was partly responsible for 9/11. i think maybe they made a strange mistake here, and they mistook imam ralph for jerry falwell. because if you remember what jerry falwell said immediately after 9/11, he blamed, he said america is partly responsible for 9/11. of course, he said more specifically paganists, abortionists, feminists and gays

and lesbians are responsible for 9/11 because god is not happy with america because of the social victories of these groups. and so this is chickens coming home to roost. this is jerry falwell, not imam ralph. actually, imam ralph -- interestingly enough -- in his last book turns out to be quite a conservative fellow. not religiously, politically. if you read his book, he has all sorts of nice things to say about justice scalia, for instance, and the bush administration. in fact, of course, ralph was an emissary for the bush administration overseas in the muslim world. then you can understand why because he's actually quite a conservative figure. and secret funding? one of the major funders of ralph, imam ralph was a saudi prince who was a major stockholder, shareholder in fox news.

so interestingly enough, what was, in fact, a rather conservative, politically conservative venture -- the park 51 -- a place for people just to come together, something that was supported by everybody in new york, be by the mayor, even by conservatives on fox news was turned around because of the efforts of just a small number of people. >> did this iowa democrat come out and say i support the

building of this mosque at ground zero? of course not. what bruce braley actually said when he was ambushed by someone with a mic on capitol hill, he said, i think new yorkers should make up their minds themselves. was this major vote of support? no. so, again, as with the song of roland, we have this transformation of a -- what one person said into something quite different. and the punchline, of course, is who designed this ad. the ad was designed by the same person who did the willie horton ad which deep sixed the dukakis campaign. his a name is larry mccarthy,

and who just hired him to do his ad campaign? can you guess? [laughter] it's like getting a lifeline. [laughter] mitt romney. he just hired andrew mccarthy. with which brings -- which brings us to our coda, what might we expect in 2012? we have an election coming up. we saw a surge, an upsurge in islamophobia in the leadup to the midterm elections when the ground zero mosque, so to speak, became a political litmus test. are we going to see something similar this year? well, we have some statements. newt gingrich said barack obama

is pro-islamic. rick santorum said the president believes in a phony theology. and mitt romney, among other republican candidates, has said obama is weak, weak on iran, basically appeasing the muslim world. in other words, i always say in 2008 and 2010 the discord especially on the internet was that obama is muslim. in this time around, i think what the republican party is doing is they're taking a conspiracy and turning it into a policy approach. in other words, they're saying we don't really know whether obama is muslim or not. if he says he's christian, as

rick santorum said recently, if he says he's christian, i guess i have to believe him. in other words, he is pro-islamic. he is allowing iran to develop a nuclear weapon. he's allowing jihad forces to rise up in the areas liberated during the arab spring. i mean, this may sound a little strange because, of course, anybody who knows the polling that has gone on in the islamic world knows that, actually, ever since obama became president -- with one exception -- u.s. favorability ratings have gone down in the islamic world. the one exception, of course, is when obama gave his speech in egypt, in cairo, and it was great expectation that there would be a change in u.s. policy

towards the islamic world. if you are muslim and you open up a paper, what do you see? you remember obama's speech, and he got lots of cheers, and people were enthusiastic, and you heard people in the audience going yes, yes, yes. but if you open up the newspaper, what do you see? you see that we have expanded -- we, the united states -- have expanded our drone war this pakistan, we surged in afghanistan. the casualties are predominantly muslim. of course, the most recent killing of civilians, mostly women and children, in afghanistan, the burning of the quran by the u.s. army even though it was inadvertent, the urinating on corporations of

tal -- on corpses of taliban by u.s. soldiers. the visual of the abu ghraib torture is still very strong in people's minds, but they have fresh be images that prove to them in some sense that the obama administration is no different than the bush administration where -- just one example, provided funding for the new york city police department in corporation with the cia to do human mapping. in other words, to conduct surveillance and plant people in muslim communities, at schools to gather information.

so i started by talking about the song of roland and about how in some ways we projected our anxieties about our own feelings about our own behavior upon the muslim world. and i would say that we are still, in some sense, anxious about that. i think we are anxious about the fact that even though we say we are for peace, we keep going to war. i think we are anxious about the fact that we say they, the muslims, are treacherous. but if you look at who we supported over the last few years, we supported saddam hussein in the war against iran. we supported jihadist mujahideen against the sow -- sow vet union. -- soviet union. in other words, i think there's a certain anxiety about our own

kind of loyalties over time. and then do we want to take over the world? well, i think there's a certain anxiety about us having an empire of military bases. hundreds of military bases, and it's not just military, of course, a strong group within the u.s. military that has a very evangelical outlook, officers' christian fellowship. so i think it's the same kind of anxiety. now, finally i would say in my book, "crusade 2.0," i give three very concrete recommendations about how we can end this second crusade that has developed over the last decade or so, a second crusade that is largely a function of perception, how we perceive the

world of islam, how the world of islam perceives the west. i'll just give one of those in the interest of time, one of those recommendations. and that is we can ultimately change our behavior -- we, being the united states and our nato allies -- we can change our behavior by ending the wars that we conduct in predominantly muslim countries. i think that would go a long way to narrowing the gap between the language as expressed by president obama in cairo about restarting different relationship with the islamic world and our actual conduct in the islamic world. i think it's important to bring those two closer together. i think this, of the three recommendations i make, is the most important be way to end crusade 2.0 and, finally, to assure -- insure that no

crusades will follow. so we have a little bit of time, i think, for a couple of questions, and i will entertain any that you might have. >> my name's julie -- [inaudible] i'm wondering what you think of the new york police department's surveillance of muslim students? they're in new jersey, but even if they're in new york? >> yeah, well, you know, it's, i think it's duke that puts out studies on, several studies have come out over the last few years on the role of muslim community in policing, and the conclusions are clear that instead of looking at the muslim community in the united states as a community that is somehow

suspect that is, in fact, the muslim community that had been the most supportive community in terms of identifying extremism in the united states. now, sometimes that puts folks in the muslim community in a difficult bind because, um, there's a form of self-censorship that takes place often in muslim communities where you feel like you can't criticize u.s. foreign policy, or else you'll be identified somehow as an extremist. so i think that's number one. there's a tendency, unfortunately, still among law enforcement officials to see muslims as the problem, as a group to be profiled instead of, really, the allies here. um, i would also say that we have seen the kinds of trainings that have taken place by law

enforcement officials at the state level but also fbi training that have used very questionable material, materials that are not all that different from the song of roland. i mean, updated, of course, but embody those same stereotypes. muslims are inherently violent, islam is a religion of the sword, they are treacherous and not to be trusted. i'm not talking here, again, of al-qaeda or the taliban. the assumption is that all muslims are inherently violent and inherently untrus worthy. untrustworthy. now, it got so bad that finally the justice department said, okay, we're going to have to review all these materials because it's kind of an embarrassment. so i think that slowly as information comes out about these programs, the new york police department program is not

the only one, but also the trainings that take place so that law enforcement has this kind of world view, as more information comes out, i think gradually we're starting to see a reality principle applied to how law enforcement works with the muslim community here. and something i didn't mention, of course, is that there's a very big difference between islamophobia here in the united states and in europe. in part because the muslim communities are very different, of course, there are different histories, but -- and one very important distinction is socioeconomic. muslim communities here in the united states are one of the wealthier community bees, you know, ethnoreligious communities in the united states with, you know, a standard of living or ening capacity roughly comparable to jewish americans. it's very different in europe where, um, unfortunately -- again, because of basically a

colonial relationship between european countries and former colonies -- muslim communities form in some sense lower, an under class, if you will. and a lot of the language that's used in europe to describe muslim communities is very similar to the way americans described african-americans in this country and continue to describe latinos at least in a mainstream sense. so, so it's interesting for me that it's still the case that law enforcement in some sense sees muslim community here as an under class. i mean, much of the language used to describe it is of an under class. so it's, hopefully, something that will change more dramatically. i think after this election we'll see an unfortunate, probably, spike in islam

ophobia. but i'm hope anything the next four years after the election we'll see transformation of law enforcement along those lines. yes. >> i have a question. >> please do. [laughter] >> you mentioned the main bone of contention, you said you had three recommendations, you were only going to deal with one, which you considered the main bone of contention with the muslim world is the issue of military occupation. in that where would you place, okay, assume that's one of them. where would you place the issue? because what i see more than military occupation that seems to be the concern of most of the

muslim world, where do you place the issue of the palestinians? >> yeah. well, actually, i did include that not when i was talking, but in my book i do include that under the issue of occupation. i say it's incumbent upon not only the united states, of course, to reconsider its occupation policies, but israel, too, has to reconsider its occupation policies. >> so you sort of pull that in? >> i fold that in in part because in many ways israel identifies itself as not a middle eastern power, but as a european power. um, and often folks in the region see israel not as a middle eastern power, but in some ways a similar settler state as what took place during the crusades. in other words, an enclave controlled by a group of folks who came from another place.

again, that's perception of israel. but i think, you know, both the united states and israel can, in fact, transform their relationship with the region. but in order to do that, they have to, they have to stop occupation policies. and israel in particular has to reconsider its garrison mentality. and there is, i think, a good deal of support inside israel for that. not, unfortunately, with the current israeli government of benjamin netanyahu, but i think in general you can find strong support for a two-state solution, for much greater engagement with palestinian communities both in the west wang and gaza -- west bank and gaza, and also support for a region-wide solution because, of course, palestinians are not just in those two areas, but are scattered throughout. so, i mean, in strange ways, you know, if you look back at the

12th century and the relationship between the settler states and can the surrounding islamic world, there are some very interesting parallels to the current relationship between israel and can surrounding states as well as arab citizens and palestinians in the occupied territories. well, i would like to thank you very much for coming and, again, crusade 2.0 is available here at this wonderful bookstore. the regulator in durham. as well as bookstores throughout the cub. country. and put out by city lights press, fabulous publisher, and i would welcome an opportunity to sign copies of your book, multiple copies if you're interested, um, after we're done here. so thank you again for coming out tonight. [applause]

>> you're watching booktv on c-span2, 48 hours of nonfiction authors and books every weekend. >> um, you -- this book is about women, but you also talk to men. >> uh-huh. >> let's talk about what the men are saying, let's focus in on the men because we talk so much about the women -- >> right. >> but the men are who we love, we stand by, we are with as well. >> right, right, right. >> talk the me about the ones who are standing up with their women and accepting this change be it because of job situations with them or this is what they chose when they walked in the door, and talk to me about those who were intimidated or turned off by it. >> right, right, right. okay. well, all those men are in the book. go back to these michigan husbands for a second who are so supportive of their wives.

most of them had dads who were breadwinners, who worked overtime, who were gone all the time. and these men, and we know this is true of men, they want more time with their children. they're more domestically competent than we give them credit for. so these guys were very intent upon spending more time with their children than their dads had been able to spend with them. you know, love my dad, he was a great guy, but he wasn't around, and i want to be around. so this situation for them enabled them to spend more time with their children, and they were very happy about that. so i think that's one of the really positive be outcomes for men in this situation and one of the reasons that these guys were very supportive, um, and perceived the benefits of not being yoked to being a provider. now, we also know that the recession really sort of illuminated the checks in the -- the changes in the economy because three-quarters of the people who lost jobs in the

recession were men. and a lot of these were factory jobs and construction jobs some of which will come back, some of which will not come back. so a lot of guys are laid off. one of the things i think we don't give women enough credit for is a lot of women kept households afloat during the recession. you know, wives and girlfriends. and this was not true, say, during the depression when women were pretty much not supposed to be in the work force and i think one of the things that kept our recession from being a depression was the fact that we did have earning and working women who could keep the houses afloat because they were nurses, they were teachers, they had jobs, or they were willing to take lower-paying jobs so they were able to keep households afloat. we know that when men lose their jobs, they become more likely to leave a marriage. men in general are reluctant to leave marriages. they will hang in there longer than women will. but studies show that when they lose a job, when they can't be the provider, sometimes the

psychological and emotional impact of that is so great that they leave the marriage. and so, obviously, it can be enormously hard on men when they lose their jobs and that identity as a provider is taken away from them. but studies have also shown during this recession that men were appreciative and grateful of wives and girlfriends who were keeping their households afloat. a sociologist interviewed some of these guys, and they said, you know, i'm really lucky to have her, and i got up early and made her coffee because she was the one who was going off to work. and i think that does suggest that there's been a mindset. you know, during the depression when women kept households afloat, maybe they were taking in boarders or whatever, they were stigmatized. husbands felt delaware -- devastated, but women were regarded as having taken a job

from a man. but i think there is more gratitude and more appreciation and more acceptance by men who have lost their jobs in the recession of what their wives or girlfriends are bringing to keep the household afloat. even though it is, it is hard enough on them that it does make them more likely to leave a marriage than they ultimately would be. >> you touched on an important topic. some men, they felt that the traditional role when they lost a job, it really affected them. they were not in that traditional role. and in reading the book, i saw things about retaliation. um, and some women have experienced that. >> right. >> talking with friends, i hear that quite a bit. >> yeah. >> and i know a lot of men who have lost their jobs, their wives are taking over the home financially and otherwise because they just can't find themselves. talk to me about the retaliatory measures. >> right. that's what i said, for example, this young woman in texas whose husband started telling her she was unattractive.

>> and they won't do house work either. they won't do anything. >> right. and i think, also, i interviewed one woman who really had sort of employed her boyfriend because he was well educated but not that successful professionally. and she had employed him, and that was ultimately, i think, problematic for them. it's not always problematic because there are wives who employ their husbands, and it's fine be. she was running, well, she had been doing a sort of guardianship business, and he was helping her, but she was feeling that she was retaliating and not helping around the home. so she started the spa, and she was working really, really hard to make the spa work. and one night she, she stayed out really late, she was having a spa party for, like, a wedding, and there were more people than she'd expected, she stayed up all night, she came home in the wee hours of the morning, and he was mad at her.

and even though she was the breadwinner, and she said, you know, poor thing, what have i done to make you so angry? and he really wouldn't tell her. but, obviously, the fact that she was -- i think it was the fact that she was gone. he said, well, you didn't call? she said, well, i was so tired, i climbed up in the manicure chair and went to sleep at 5:00 in the morning. so there was retaliation going on. actually, he took her car out, and he wrecked her car. and i have to say there was more than one incident of wrecked vehicles, you know, almost like retaliation against the personal property of the woman was something that i was told -- >> you'll have to spend that money that you're making to fix something -- >> yeah. i'm going to take your vehicle, but i'm not going to take care of it. and, i mean, again, you get back to the independence effect. the women i talked to in those retaliatory situations got out of them and realized that they were, ultimately, better off out of them. i mean, this -- i would argue that if a guy's going to react

this way, he's not necessarily somebody you want to be partnered with for your life, i mean, even under the best of circumstances. as one woman put it, it was so much easier to dump him because i didn't depend on him financially. so i guess i still get back to the idea that, you know, let us not assume all marriages were happy when women were economically independent. this just creates in some couples a new source of tension. >> you can watch this and other programs online at booktv.org. >> writing is a transactional process. writing assumes reading. it goes back to that question about, you know, a tree falling in the forest if there's no one there to hear it. you know, if you've written a really wonderful novel, then one of the parts of the processes that you want readers to be enlarged in and enriched by it. and you have to pull on everything at your disposal to do that. >> author and pulitzer prize-winning columnist anna