that there is a rich history of protests, other forms of non-violent protests all across the country. >> for more information on booktv's recent visit to wichita kansas and the many other cities visited by our local content videos, go to c-span.org/local content. >> georgetown university repressor charles kupchan says we are moving into an age where no region will dominate the way the american and british have in the past. he spoke of the carnegie consul in new york city. this is just under one hour. >> thank you very much jo ann. it's a pleasure to be back at the carnegie council. it's nice to be back in new york. i guess we are both gluttons for punishment in the sense that i keep coming back here and you

keep asking me to come back so i guess it is a good team. if you step back from the headlines of the newspaper of the last few years, and say what is the undercurrent? what is the flow of events of the last few years, i think you would come to the conclusion that in our part of the world, and by that i mean the west, north america, europe, and let's put japan in there although not geographically part of the west but geopolitically part of the west, world war ii, that this zone has been going through iraq patch. our economies have close. we are facing debt crises and we are not sure how to get out of them. perhaps most worrying, our political system has gummed up,

and they don't seem as free footed as they were during the balance of the 20th century. if you pan out to other parts of the world, what we call the developing world, in some ways you would see the opposite. they are enjoying unprecedented rates of economic growth. they have a new wind in their sails in a political sense. they are fast attending the pecking order and as we saw just a few days ago at the fourth brick summit, they are beginning to organize themselves, russia india, china and south africa. they don't know exactly what they want in terms of world order but they know what they don't want and that is a world in which they continue to feel as if they are operating in the shadow of western power. and i don't think that you would

be wrong if you saw this, a west that is having a tough time merging powers does seem to have wind in their sails if you concluded that something fundamental is going on here because i think something fundamental is going on. what we are witnessing is one of those moments in history, one of those rare moments in history in which the globe center of gravity is starting to move. the last time that happened was about 300 years ago. let's pick 1800. a nice round date to demarcate the time in which the west pulled ahead of the rest. we went back to 1600 or 1700 took a snapshot of the distribution of power in the world we would say that it is broadly diffused. the holy romans in the west next door to the ottomans, next door to the chang, and the shogunate.

each of those different imperial zones had a different view about how to order itself, how to do with politics and how to deal with commerce and power was broadly diffused across those zones. but if then we took a snapshot in 1800 we would have noticed something very interesting had happened and that is that one some in the west, in the north and the west end had pulled ahead of the rest. northern europe, northwestern europe over the course of the 1700's and then further over the course of the 1800's, started to dominate the globe. the pendulum swung from asia and the mesopotamia valley north and west to europe and that spread across the atlantic to north america. and for the last 200 years, that

zone, north america and in partnership with western europe, has been at the front of history. it has enjoyed ideological dominance, material dominance and it was able to send out its tentacles to most of the world by the end of the 19th century. 90% of the world was either a european colony or a former european colony. so there really was a period in which one relatively small zone of the world was able to extend its dominance and its ideological privacy to other parts of the world. what i would like to argue with that long run, that 200-year period of western hegemony is starting to and. it's not over yet. the west still represents 50% of lowball gdp. it used to be 75% so it has come down several notches but it will continue to come down. and what i would like to argue tonight and what i argue in the

book is that this moment that we are entering, this new swing of the pendulum, is going to lead to a world where no one will be dominant. it won't be a new american century. it won't be a chinese century. it won't be in asian century. it will be no one's world. this will be unique and historically unprecedented that in the following sense. we have had moments in history in the past in which power is broadly imbued across different zones. i mentioned one early -- earlier, the 1700's but it didn't matter that each of those imperial zones had its own approach to order because they warrant interdicting with each other. they were largely self-contained and -- compartmentalize of the fact that they chang and the moguls and the romans had different views about religion,

but higher gain about markets didn't really matter because they live their own lives. we don't live in a world in which different zones of power live their own lives. we live in a world in which beijing decides matters for brussels and what washington decides matters for brazilians. in other words to use a technical term, we are all pushed together now. and that means that we are going to be moving into a world in which it is globalized and interdependent but without a political center for gravity, without an anchor. that is because globalization and westernization coincide and that is because the west made globalization happened. but i think the challenge for those of us that incorporated about and practice world politics is how to manage the world in a globalized, interdependent, smallish together but no longer anchored

by the west. that is the core of the argument, the core question that i would like to discuss with you tonight, and i'm going to put some flesh on the bones in the following away. first i'm going to set us -- spend five or 10 minutes talking about how the west contain the west and i want to run through that historical exercise, because they think the question before us is twofold. one is, is power shifting from the west to the rising rest and i think the answer to that is undeniably yes. i don't think that many people argue with that and i will share a few numbers with you in a minute, just to make that case. where i think the real intellectual work needs to be done is on the question of ideology, because i think most people in the united states,

europeans probably share this view, is that even though the west may lose its imperial primacy, the order that we built, the institutions that we have put in place, will long outlast our material dominance and that is because the western version of modernity is not the western version of modernity. it's a universal approach and therefore as china rises, as brazil rises and as indonesia rises, they are going to start looking more and more like us, and they will therefore take their place in the order that we have built, even though we are no longer as dominant in a material sense as we used to be. to understand that issue, is that right? are they going to slip into that birth that we assign them in the first question is to ask, who are we and how did we become a send our emergent powers

following that same task of modernity meaning when they modernize, when they have a major share of the global gdp, they are going to slip into the order that it is today. i don't think that is going to happen and i want to share with you why i don't think that is going to happen and then offer some thoughts about what to do about it. how do we manage a world in which emerging powers are going to bring to the table their own views about how to organize political, social and conversion a life. my story starts in the early part of the modern era, what you might call this late middle ages, the early modern period but essentially europe around 13, 14, 1500 because that is the time of which the stirrings of europe's rise were visible. i want to make the argument in many respects, europe was able to pull ahead of the rest of the world because it was weak,

because it was fragmented and europe's strength was in many respects political weakness. what do i mean by that? by the time you get to about 12 or 1300 b.c. the traditional institutions of material power in europe fighting each other. the church, the monarchy and the nobility. the popes were fighting with the emperors. the emperors with the nobility and what that meant is that there started to be political space in europe for some new actors, and that new actor was the nation's bourgeoisie, the nation's middle class that moved out from the feudal territories, moved out from fiefdom and begin to build small towns, principally in germany and the netherlands, in england and began to sell things and build things and over time, i 14 or

1500 he began to see the world's first bourgeoisie. scientists of sorts, lawyers of sorts, bankers of swords. europe was the only place in the world that began to develop instruments of debt and contracts so you need a professional class. and what you began to see is that this professional class started to ally with itself and that gave him new power. some of you may know the group that was called the homes he added people. one of the most important commercial leagues in modern history but what was that lee? it was a leak of different commercial cities from belgium, the netherlands, pooling over into germany and poland and it is linked together. lodz lessees had emerged in different parts of europe that allow them to push back against the nobility and the monarchy of

the church. i would argue that it was this emergence of bourgeoisie, the vanguard of change, the middle class that was really at the heart, the engine of europe's rise. that rise really went through two phases. one, the reformation in which it was the commercial class that really greeted enthusiastic leave the message of luther and swindle he and others, john calvin, who are preaching an alternative to catholicism and if we drew a map of europe behind us here, we could see that the commercial parts of europe generally, the agrarian parts of europe state catholic, and that there was a clear correlation between commercialism and entrepreneurship and a desire to break out of the traditional goal. and i think the second turn after the church was to some

extent pushed out of power of the catholic church was the bargain that monarchs struck with the middle class to pay for the wars of the reformation and what was that bargain? that bargain was, if you want our money, for a new bureaucracy, foreign army, you need to give us voice. and that bush was eke out that voice and that was the beginning of constitutional monarchy. the glorious revolution in england and that basic organ, money from the bourgeoises, power of the monarch set the stage for the west pulling ahead religiously pluralism, up for some rather than absolute rule and that then set the stage for the industrial industrial revolution, which enables europe to pull ahead very quickly of the rest and to penetrate the rest with its battleships, with

its telegraph, with its submarine cables, with its quinine which allowed europeans to penetrate which were deeply into the interior than ever before because they no longer got malaria when they colonized. and that i think is the story, the rise of the over class and the ability of the story of how we became weak, the west. middle-class society, enjoying political liberties and enjoying a standard of living much better than the rest of the world. that is obviously a quick and dirty version of the rise of the west. i would be happy to discuss some of the details with you in the q&a but now let me switch to where we are today. that was two or 300 years ago. when i think about where we are today, its first of all a world

in which power is beginning to move. as i said, the west still represents 50% of noble gdp, but that is not going to last very long. i 2025, the world bank predicts that we will be in a three currency world. the dollar will no longer the dominant. it will be roughly a third of the global reserve, their euro one third and the chinese yin. by 2032, the main developing countries of today are expected to equal and gdp two days g7 advanced industrialized countries. and what i think is in some ways the most impressed piece of data in this respect, today in 2012, actually 2010, the tables had already turned a bit. four of the past five economies in the world are still western. there is only one developing

country that makes the cut and that is china. in 40 years come of the top five up the only one western country will make the cut and that is the united states. the rest of those countries in the top.com at the top by picking order, will all become what is today the developing world. so to, the international of the euro, a world in which today's developing countries it people today's developed countries and not much more than 10 years. a world in which china is expected to surpass the united states as the world's leading economy in 20207 and then pull rapidly ahead. by 2050 it will be double the size of the united states in terms of gdp. this is a world that is dramatically changing, and that is why i would argue as i said at the outset, that this is the beginning of a new global turn

in which the pendulum is swinging, in which the material hegemony enjoyed by the west is going to gradually slip away. and i would add, and i think it's probably going to slip away more quickly than we think, and that is because we live in a world in which digital type allergy has sped up history, in which global gdp, productivity is moving much more quickly than it did there was a major global turn. so let me now switched to this other issue and that is what does all this mean for how the world works? what are the implications of a world in which the developing country has the dominant share of gdp and the dominant share of global product? as i said i think of core question is, are the countries as they modernize going to follow our path and therefore

slip into our harbor or are they going to follow their own path and arrive at their own version of domestic and international order, meaning we are going to have to sit down at the table and negotiate with them about how did govern that world. let me share with you we why i think it's the latter and why i think what we will see in the 21st century emerges is a world of multiple modernity's, not a world in which developing countries converge toward the western way. let's start in east asia. what are some of the key differences between chinese models of development and the west? for starters is middle-class, at least for now, is not the vanguard of lytic will change, and that is because in the state, unlike the european state, is smart enough to open its doors to the middle-class. in the middle class in europe emerged, the monarch and the pope got together to hold it

back, to beat it down, to clamp down on it and that is why they ended up overturning those institutions. the chinese state is smarter state beginning in 1979 with deng xiaoping and a decision to let businessmen join the communist party has essentially been co-opting the middle-class ever since the chinese began to privatize the economy about 30 or 40 years ago. and what that means is that you now have a big middle class in china, but it's not a middle-class that are doing the same thing that our middle class is doing. it is the middle-class that is essentially a defender of the status status quo and an investor in state capitalism. in that respect, yes, china is becoming a middle-class society but no, it's middle-class is not having the same political impact that the middle-class of europe

and the middle-class middle class of the united states does. now it may be that sometime down the road, when china continues to modernize and continues developing continues to urbanizing might get a middle-class sizable enough to push for democracy. i actually think it will probably happen, but when is that going to happen? a long time from now. how long does it take these transitions to work themselves out? britain became a constitutional constitutional -- and when did it become a democracy? 1884. germany became a constitutional monarchy in the mid-1800's after the napoleonic wars. became a liberal democracy after world war ii. in other words, these things take time. and so the operative question in my mind is, is china going to be a liberal democracy by the time it becomes a world power, and the answer is no.

it will be a world power long before it is a legal democracy. and i would also point out that in the world that we live in today, we no longer need change and andr printer shipped to come from below as we did during the rise of the west, because we live in a cold blast worlds in which huge amounts of capital and services and goods go to the global economy on a daily basis and that has been where state capitalism has its advantages. would have its advantages? mainly keeping the hands on the door. i don't think it's accidental that china and other countries that have control over their currencies in over and over their capital accounts and overstayed on businesses have actually written out the global financial crisis better than countries that are more open and more free. and that confounds what we believe. we were originally told that

globalization will advance the countries that are most liberalized and the most free. i don't think that is actually proven to be the case. russia, saudi arabia, united arab emirates, there are lots of other state capitalist economies out there. i also think that they have enormous staying power. do i think that putin is about to fall to the protests in the streets suggested at the end of what russia calls sovereign democracy? don't bet on it. how big is russia's middle-class? i don't know, maybe 25%. how many that middle-class is really in the middle-class? less than 10%. most of that middle-class -- most of them get their paychecks from the state. they have no interest whatsoever in overturning putin's rule because putin is the sugar daddy.

again, might russia be a democracy sometime in the 21st century? yeah. when? it's going to take a long time and i would make the same kind of argument in countries like saudi arabia, and the uae where you have very strong tribal structures and you have the money to disperse to the middle-class that makes them investors in the status quo, not a vanguard the vanguard of political change. let me quickly panned to the middle east. you may be thinking well, this guy kupchan doesn't know is talking about because the middle east is finally coming america's way. the arab uprising, the arab spring by the reconfirmation that the western version of how to organize society is winning out. we were told islam and democracy are incompatible. not so fast. well, i think there is truth to that argument, and that one

cannot only be uplifted by what has happened in the middle east over the last couple of years, there is no doubt that a call for dignity, call for accountability, at call for people to be respected is part of what is toppled regimes across the nation but i also think that the nature of modernity that we are going to see emerge as the arab spring unfolds and the nature of modernity that we have crafted in the west are going to be very different in a political respect, and that is when we modernize, we effectively pushed the church out of politics. we became the west in some respects post-reformation. in the middle east i think we are going to see the opposite. the more participatory politics spreads in the region, the more islam is going to come back into the political life. and that is because there has never been a division between

the state in the muslim world. there's never been even a vocabulary vocabulary and in air epic that connotes the sacred and the secular. there was never a split between the pope and emperor because the caliph was both. the secular and religious leader merge into one. islam is a religion of faith and law. christianity is a religion of faith only, and it was only when the pope and emperor reunited with each each other in alliance that their religious authorities had secular power. that is not chew in the muslim world. and so what i think we have seen in the arab spring, and what we have seen in every country in that part of the world is that the lyrical islam is the winner. in iran, iraq, lebanon,

palestinian authority, tunisia, egypt, every country where you have some kind of participatory election, it is the islamist that it generally one. i'm not saying there's anything wrong with that. all i am saying is it's different and if we believe that what we are witnessing in the middle east is the emergence of a region that is going to sort of track the western modern development, think we need to think again. and i would point to turkey as a is a prime example of a country that is getting more modern, more industrialized. its middle class is growing by the day, and its long run of secular politics has come to an end. that is i think it kind a kind of clear data.that is modernization moves to the middle east, what we are going to get is a different kind of modernity than the brand of modernity that emerged in the western world.

finally, let me take a quick look elsewhere, india and brazil because india and brazil are liberal democracies. they appear to be emerging as countries that may to some extent be closer to us geopolitically then to emerging powers that are not liberal democracies. but i think your too, it would need safe for us to assume that when we wake up in 2025 or 2030, that we can count on the brazil and the india's of the world to side with us and to dock their boats in our harbor rather than to hedge their bets and to play with us sometimes and to play with emerging powers other times. and i think the fact that number one, india is emerging as a developed state, not as

middle-class societies but is societies in which the vast majority of their populations are rural and urban poor, means we are seeing a populism. that is a different kind of politics, and that means that they are more skittish about open markets than most western countries and it also makes them more uneasy to throw their lot in geopolitically with us and that is why i think if you look it indian born policy or brazilian born policy, you will not see a picture that suggests that their commitment to democracy means that they are aligning geopolitically with the west. brazil and india, both with the united states and the u.n. security council, less than 25% of the time. brazil took the lead in recognizing the palestinians. again, breaking with the united states. india right now is in the midst

of dispatching a trade mission to iran at the very moment that is strangling iraq's economy and probably the number one foreign-policy goal of the united states. so i think these are signs that andrea and brazil and other rising democracies are going to chart their own courses. are going to find their own paths. they are not going to fall into the roles that we have assigned them as westerners. ..

>> the global turn that is taking place has two sides. they have landed their sales in that we have a tough time. and that relationship is structural. miami in our declined of economic performance and polarization is a

fundamental byproduct as jobs shift from here to there. we lost half of the manufacturing jobs. our middle-class sees income -- income declined. you the united states is the most unequal country. japan and europe is in the same boat. it cannot be accidental they all experiences aimed phenomenon at the same time. from the developing world our guys in ohio and michigan are good widget builders but they could not

build widgets as cheaply. the production line therefore we go through a structural economic shift. a moment in how to be competitive in the 21st century. we see this socio-economic foundation change that is so out of step. but to say to government my child will have a lower standard of living. united states and japan and makes them harder to respond.

why? because by what the fed does we don't have as much control. so the first challenge for americans is how to be competitive with the games that others are playing we need to be smarter and shrewder to realize business as as usual will not do. education, training, is impossible to compete if china builds high-speed rail and infrastructure falls apart.

in the strategic economic planning that is what the of their guys are doing. unless we get in the game they will clean our clock. we can be competitive. it is a resilient country. but we've made the right politics but the west will be able to manage this transition finally with that version that we have so successfully crafted but the

key rule of thumb to go into the global turn mr. respect alternative versions. we should stand firm against regimes for those that fixed -- exploit people with those that are not liberal democracies those that improve the lives and in a world that power moves as fast as it is we have no choice to be more tolerant and excepted of countries that do not want to look like us better prepared to work and govern.

legitimacy and sovereignty and responsibility the key is not too soon emerging powers will walk through the door to take exceeded our table but to recognize that they will want to change their world for its own socio-economic conditions. that does not diminish who we are or our ability to stay who we are but that will not be a tall feet but the west needs to do for the rest of the world what it did for itself which is except different people have

different approaches how to run their lives. the second thing we did was allow power to move out to the middle-class and working-class. but to recognize pluralism could do for the world to recognize the power around the world to shape it and not resist a. to pretend this is the happening or that this in the end there ready wants to look like us. if we assume that we will get along.

i think we could have a fighting chance. they killed. [applause] >> seeing issue so clearly i want to remind everybody we only have one speaker. please stay on point* thank you for a wonderful talk. what about the new institutions you envision as embracing the alternate maternity of the western world over the next decade i

think our existing institutions have to become more diverse because they do reflect a world after world war ii that means a larger security council the g8 is now the g20. that is happening. but the necessary move that

makes the institutions more unreal the. one that broadens the circle and brings more voices to the table but at the same time fashion and more ad hoc and regional groupings to do the hard work of government. if i have to take a guess they will be institutions were the union did south america, africa and union,

to have responsibility for governments that building on and 42nd street we will see more devolution and organization we will not be the provider of last resort. europe has come melting down. normally the united states would rush in four big bags of gold. we are moving into a world where the possibility that will default.

especially in a regional capacity. day you expect the bricks to continue in a matter of existing trends? there is no need for russia to diversify or china or military power or brazil? >> could data that i have about who is the top four of the pecking order they are all obsolete. but i do think they are the

best guess and i think it is striking how quickly those predictions are revised tied it is catching up much more quickly i don't think we will see a straight line development medvedev talk about doing so but at has not happened. with the new putin presidency i am not so sure. to these different approaches to manage that

could be out there to contend with each other especially after the financial crisis whose path will be followed right now the answer to the question it is up for grabs. especially if we do not get our act together and cannot find a system that produces good policies. to look at competent government's if it is illegitimate or a moral. it is important for the united states to get its

move joe back to provide a model so they can function effectively. if people look at the united states and we can serve as a model for the 21st century talk about part of the security council and production and widgets from the united states bird but isn't there the third element of rebalancing which is global rebalancing dozen

that present a very difficult problem with the western europe of japan? >> excellent question. the and balances of consumption and investment are fuelled by globalization because we're able to get away living beyond our means because we live in a world where there is a flow of capital. the other countries by it which allows that. to find and germany they don't have enough domestic demand but we sell goods

abroad. one issue to be addressed is with the powers to come together how to get a global rebalance saying it is in the interest of the chinese government to increase the value of the ruffian because that increases the value of the purchasing power in this very hard to overcome the interest and little by little you will see the chinese move of the currency

we need to leave hard on the issue. >> you argued eloquently or multiculturalism and tolerance of ideologies. where do ethics and morality and? how do we deal with slavery and other countries where half the population is behind a veil? the economy is where they have six day workweeks where children are working? >> a good question

especially with the debate tonight. it is not an easy question to reassert. because the united states needs to retain a strong moral component in the united states has been a moral compass for the world with the power from the end of the 19th century but we need to buy a happy medium. even if we don't agree with the nature of government. at the same time being unabashed to express our disapproval or violation of what we considered to be moral standards of behavior.

but to be somewhat more tolerant and ready to work with receives we will do much better to build a coalition against those regimes that gives much more moral persuasion than where we are now. to 88 the russians, the tidies i ain't the russians were on the excusable but why did that happen? one final comment. united states but through

encouragement and inducement. over the last few decades we have lost to some extent our sense of proportion and our ability. my worry what an iraq and afghanistan say is that we are last resort. to go into countries very different me an associate economically is the bridge to par and a black hole to the united states. the need to find a happy medium. >> as we talk about western

interest but i wonder if we were to look at the values if there is not in essence with these other cultures in the world that is not compatible how we look at the world. our these necessary. >> materials? >> but do we maintain a

proper place? >> one of the conceptual differences between myself and many other people who write about this issue is that they believe the world in which we live today is the threat of western values and ideas they have universal appeal not just our rules. i believe it is difficult to untangle b.a.t is in american ideals partly because this other people like them they are to the

aircraft carrier. as a becomes less dominant our ideas do not travel quite as far. in a world where powering is more diffused to outlast the conditions. what i would try to do is to drop down to lock them and make mac even if not liberal democracies to be theocratic

to like the egyptians or chinese but i do feel we could come home with the deal if we aim the sites to high we may come home empty-handed. >> we hope people in washington are listening. thank you. [applause]eles >> the next author interview

is kareem abdul-jabbar whose latest book project is america. children's book, what color is my world. >> guest: it has its roots in a book that i did in 1996 which was a and overview of black history in america. i focused on who inventedfocsed the ofilm end of the whiteemar ball to make it practical. looking at what different inventors did in the 19th century i realize there weret of a lot of black inventors. i got the idea from thatdo a experience to do a book on inventors because so many children are not aware.hink thah

>> host: kid seem interested in the mean. why a book? >> guest: of book has the ability to reach nine different levels and it is more in depth and random access. through any part phically, of it. >> host: let me show that. it has biographies of the inventors. i am sure you spent timetha deciding who would be in theecie book. i how did they maken the cut? >> guest: we wanted to things aw pick people who had important inventions tochine everyday life. who refrigeration, you cancan ship food around the world.

that was the idea there are so many others also blood typing and the blood bank most n most people don't understand black americans were figuring these things out. >> also the super soakers squirt gun?of t >> sheo many kids play with it.

most people that do 3-d dow or using the application you can call us if you want to talk about his writing. this is his seventh book. the first one is back from 1983. and to find out what his life is like as an author. there is only one woman? >> guest: we picked dr. thomas because it was so significant. but to make a significant bu invention it is the most

practical one. >> the concept of the church african-americans, are you targeting african-american in readers alone? >> not just the malone but because they came from thecan-a community i would focus onthoug that. is crucial we read to theial minority kids.t u ask them who they wanted to they will name an athlete orntra an entertainer. we have such of wide variety of themes that could make aconto significant contribution to

american life to lourdes a great living to do something mean" end quote. -- mingle. >> there are many more avenues it sounds ironic for saose who cannot claim the young life i had a wonderful >> ioesn't leer. so that i could be an authorable and public speaker knowledge is power and we want people to know that message.sation. >> host: let's take of first call.all. >> caller: i am surprised

i made it through. what about african-americans with coaches in the nba? also my third question i hate to take up your timee who but who is your favorite never can american inventor? >> guest: my favorite fao inventor is between the two what they did so cigna began. vladimir by doing alexander graham bell's dryness has

the foundation of telecommunications and electronics. modern life could not exist without artificial life his invention is important and it impacted so many liveswe through the science of blood typing. that is an important contribution worldwide. sorry i don't have time tosorr answer all three. >> host: go-ahead. >> >> caller: could you talk about the above will show -- soldiers and alsowe cout

american history? >> the buffalo soldiers with westward expansion was a key element for us to become a world power. so to utilize all of the land of what it is comprised of.to do it took people to map theroa, te roads and telegraph lines with the best place to live and it is accompanied byforces that our forces and the calgary.e still look at the efforts of the buffalo soldiers named

whout how we became a great nation in. so many of your titles are biographies. why are you attracted to people? most people don't envision and black americans doing the things everybody else does. so if those are the federalse ae citizens, they tried to helpreat make this a great nation. >> with individual young people who was the biggestobinsa

influence on you? >> if in so many ways, jackie robinson. he was also a will model. >> host: you are on another campus. [laughter] >> guest: is okay. th [laughter] it is then example and b 2.doubt they this withgard regard to economics he wasver very much a role model inin man many aspects of his life. >> thank you for taking my call.

is an honor to talk with you i knew you weren't offered what is the title of your first book and how do you decide on the subject? >> it is my biography.pers, i te i take long steps. with reg how to impact people whatlly aw they are notar aware of. >> host: how does your partnership work? >> guest: i put together bremenr in great ways. -- we sit down and work together

and defined areas that we want to touch on. i will give him notes, and he will write some of the things that i want to say. if he has captured my voice on it, then we go back and forth. i rewrite things to give him things to edit and vice versa. >> is writing easy for you or is it a real labor? >> writing is a labor for everybody. you have to really have a real set purpose to be a writer. the longer i do it, the easier it gets. >> next question for you is from jane and calabasas, california. i'm sorry, first jane in new york city. >> that afternoon. i appreciate you. you raised the question of of only one woman being in the

book. you did not answer that question and i would like to revisit it. my concern is that there is only one woman. there are several women inventors. why out of all african american inventors fair, white is there only one -- why is there only one -- and all only one -- and all the ones we did during black history month, okay, joy, thanks. >> the ones that we were able to work fine, -- the ones we were able to find, of course, there could be a book on women inventors. all the other ones we thought were significant and we didn't want to exclude women.

so we made sure that we had our women's invention. the woman whose future. >> you are also very involved in education, which is a big effort to get science technology and math and engineering and the like. is this in concert without ever? >> yes, i think that is a fact that all the people that are heroes in this book, they are mathematicians and engineers and, a chemist and other people involved in science. it really is a key issue in what is talked about with regard to education. so many young people don't understand that those subjects are the ones that will be the key for us having a job in the 21st century. it will be very technologically

oriented with regard to the positioning for good jobs. people with good math and science backgrounds will be able to find jobs in many areas, and that is a key issue for any young people who are thinking about going to college and trying to pursue higher education and. >> it is time for jane now in calabasas. >> did you attend a catholic high school in new york city? >> yes, i did. i attended an academy. it is closed now, but i graduated in 1965. >> are you so they're? >> didn't have an influence on you? >> i was wondering why the question. >> my high school definitely had an influence on me. it helped me understand what the fundamentals are and foundations of education.

i know a lot of my friends went to school where they could take shop and stuff like that. you could not do it at my school. everything was academically oriented. >> julie in birmingham, alabama. probably the last. caller: hello? >> yes, go ahead, please. to . caller: julie, are you there? to yes, i am there be not. caller: i think that your book is a wonderful thing. it is a great idea. the reasons behind it are very important, and i just wanted to say thank you for writing the book. >> thank you very much. i hope you enjoy it, and i hope you get a chance to talk to your friends and let them know that there are some great types of information in here for young

people and what the deal with. >> that was a nice way to end our segment with kareem abdul-jabbar. or is the book. "what color is my world: the lost history of african-american inventors." as we closer, you just accepted a request from secretary clinton to be an ambassador, cultural ambassador. he just started that. what is the job going to be? >> the job entails me going and speaking to people, selects -- select groups in young countries and emphasizing the value of education and giving them an 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