>> they are in jurisdictions that have massive criminal justice systems where many times kate is lucky, she's an agreement small community where you can do this. in manhattan, in brooklyn, in our city in the bronx, it's almost impossible. >> i should point out in the federal system when it comes to plea bargaining, parties do not come up with a sentence.

the sentencing decisions to left up to the judge. although the government are the charges to which the defender will plead guilty come in most cases. there's a limited exception. there's sentencing advocacy. the judge is not bound by a plea agreement. >> in the book one of the interesting anecdotes, the case of iran which no is neither friend of america nor a model of human rights, but their legal system is interesting because the victim actually sits with the judge. when the case is over and a punishment is to be administered the judge will routinely turn to the victim and say, what would you like? what would you like me to do? here are my parameters. what do you think? there may be an overly emotional person and he's going to offer something up and the judge will listen and say, i'm not doing that and i can't do that, i won't do that. i'll take you what it will be.

so the victim has a full level of participation. the norwegian killer of the 77 children a number of years ago to me was a model of what i'm talking about. 77 kids, 77 lawyers representing each of the kids paid for by the state, not just the prosecutors, 77 autopsy reports for each of the kids. 77 opportunities for those private attorneys to address the jury to address the judge. a true opportunity to put those victims on center stage. photographs and projected images of the children during the guilty face of the truck, not just sentencing. i know that would be a nightmare for the three-year lease but it seems to -- >> i don't think the defendant would get a fair trial if the victim were sitting next to me on the bench. what with the jury think? >> i'm just saying just to give you a sense of when --

>> they sentenced him they would have gotten -- >> but you don't see the difference? you don't see the difference between the mere fact they did the same outcome? you don't see a difference of giving 77 people an opportunity to confront in a direct way the lives that were taken because of this brutal act? >> yes and i think it's emotionally helpful for them to have that moment, and your book points out that many victims even after they have that moment still feel helpless and to feel as if they had been avenged so i'm not certain it works. but that's a terrorist case. that's an individual case. you can't do that on a mass scale. and to be honest with you, talking about a woman having the right to sit next to the judge in iran, i take our criminal justice system over that criminal justice system despite

its flaws. the chances are the woman is probably the niece of the judge in the country. >> when i mean sitting, i knew it comes to actually the sentencing. there is a consultation in which to me what will make you feel avenged. tell me what you think is measure for measure. i talk about in the book this -- >> what does that mean? an eye for an eye, what if it is a rape case? what is appropriate for -- >> rape cases are fascinating. >> first oh, great is interesting because with his troubled even from the book of genesis, literally from the very first book of the bible, the rape of deny. but the rape of dean is played out in the opening scene of the godfather teaches fascinating because the godfather, there's the opening scene where the undertaker comes to them on the date of his, of his daughter's

wedding and he can't refuse a favor. he tells a story about how his daughter went out on a date with two guys, he beat her up, they try to take advantage of for so they beat her up. the police captured the two guys in their given a suspended sentence. he then says, famously, i turned to my wife at that moment that i said if you want justice in america one must go to the godfather which by the way is the worst indictment of the legal system ever. america's finest movies. and then he says, ben knows this line, the godfather says to tell me what you want me to do. and he was so embarrassed he whispers he says i want you to kill the boys. and the godfather says this i cannot do because your daughter is alive. answer this question has always been there. by the way, i'm not so sure morally speaking taking the life of a rape this isn't the appropriate measure for measure punishment. i don't know this. i do know that when you say some

rapists go to jail, if they're going to jail not for rape but for reckless endangerment and they're supposed to go to jail for 15 years but instead go for five, no victim is happy with that. >> but it may well be the appropriate verdict in that case for reasons that are unknown to us because every case is fact specific. >> the presumption of innocence and we have to prove a defending guilty beyond a reasonable doubt. so as ben is saying the victim may not be happy with the outcome but if you can ensure a conviction by plea bargain with a lower number, then you have at least taken the predator out of the community and incapacitated them for a bit of time. >> you haven't necessarily punish them commend mr. -- commensurate with what the victim would do. is part of from the our system is accused sensitive? the constitution there,

especially the fourth, fifth and sixth amendments, are designed to protect the accused. remember this is one of the things i talk in my classes about and in trenton. is something people don't think about. we offer presumption of innocence for all people who are accused of a crime. we don't follow what that means if the accused is presumed innocent, then the complaining witness is presumed to be line. but that's how we start off. if there's a presumption of innocence for the accused, this is one the reasons were not a victim centered system, one presumption must be canceled out by another prevention. we presume that the complaining parties, the victim is line. >> i don't think that's true. we don't start off presume the victim is lying. you start off and not presuming that just because he is sitting there and has been arrested and has been charged that he is done something wrong. >> but that's a perception we

make in this country. >> if we presume the victim would be like to be no victim sitting in the courtroom. some and leave the victim, identified because the grand jury believe the victim and now -- >> when we commenced the trial we say you're presumed innocent and, therefore, the reason you're here presumptively means you are here under some false recent. >> singh you or no one else ensure would like to live in a system where the kids would have to prove they were innocent. that's impossible. >> nobody thinks, it's interesting you're saying this because you're the one defense attorney here, and i would have thought you would say the system is rigged against my client. >> the system is. off but it's not rigged. rig is a bad worker i want to be careful it's not just because we're on tape, i'm generally careful. rig means something wrong. >> it's stacked against the. do you know why? my adversary is not an

individual but it's the state of new york organized its of america. most people come into a courtroom as perspective jurors look at the person sitting there and they don't think they would pick out of the yellow pages for the distinction of being named a defendant in the criminal tropic most people talk about the presumption of innocence. i've got to tell the ones the person is in the courtroom it's very hard to convince the jury that person is not guilty. it worked hard. i don't think the system is necessarily fair because the police are on the other side and the fbi with extraordinary resources. then you're standing there and there's nothing more frightening than to suddenly have the united states of america against john doe. and the whole country is against you. and what if you're really not guilty? we decided men in solitary confinement for 76 years of sending rice into a united states senator in the president of the united states, and seven days later they threw out the charges and released them.

you know why? because his defense lawyer, god bless her, for seven days believe him and she ran around the country trie trying to provt this was a terrible mistake. it's good that that happens on occasion. if you're presumed guilty they would just hang him for what he did, or allegedly did. >> judge chin, the system lacks too hard, too harsh and since it provides protection for the and, therefore, the victim feels left out of the process the? i don't think it's correct to look at it as dividing sections for the kid. i do think it's providing protections for everyone. that's the beauty of our system. mistakes do happen. but as i was saying earlier it works most of the time. these are dramatic cases that you discuss in your book and there are awful mistakes that made along the way. for the most part it works pretty well. >> i was thinking, the eighth amendment which is cruel and

unusual punishment, one of the things that's in the book is everyone knows what that means. to you can't torture someone, you can't inflict cruel and unusual punishment. no one ever says the conduct of the wrongdoer was his actions or heare actions against the in anyway cool and unusual. you don't ask the same question in the same way. we protect, it becomes a part of the case, the prosecution -- >> we do. at sentencing much is made of how much the defendant may have made the victim suffered. the cruelty. >> that's the sentence that ben referenced or get the judge so convinced of the wrongness of the defendant's conduct that the sentence is either what the judge initially anticipated. >> do you have anything to add? >> so, let's go beyond -- sorry, an american courtroom and let's look at the world. you're a political scientist, you've written a book about the

holocaust and genocide, defended books about both. what does revenge look like, nations? nations are permitted under international law to retaliate, a reprisal. i find it, again, the same level of confusion. after the holocaust we had the number of trials. winston churchill and henry morgan saw both said why i'm having a trial? what a waste of time. what a waste of everything. why not see him not to come kill a nazi. that would be the most morally efficient corrective thing to do. the united states and russia by the way -- an international tribunal, we will judge the nazis that way. on the streets of cairo simultaneously vichy collaborator being strangled industry. nobody said oh, my god, how come they don't have a trial for the vichy collaborator? both ideas seem like they were just as, also revenge.

most of the not see war criminals were prosecuted, number, ended up dying or spent their lives in jail. they essentially were punished but we conducted a trial. but in the same regard the same way we treated say osama bin laden, right clicks could easily talk about, could been kidnapped and brought back to the united states to stand trial. he was shot in it and even said that's just it. but isn't it also revenge? doesn't courtroom -- ways khalid sheikh mohammed sitting in guantánamo bay and he is still, still hasn't had his military commission concluded. and you have osama bin laden shot in it. in both cases they both seem vengeful. >> what was that? please turn that off. >> i'll put in a provocative way. is there any secret of the discussion were having with the

justice, highlighted international relations, which is when a crime is committed whether it's against an individual or by one country against the group, against the country, there's no way to make it right. unless of course someone stole $5 you can get the $5 back. we are all in the business or gain or arena of trying our best to do the best we can and figure out how to make it as right as one can. while acknowledging at least to ourselves it's never going to be right. you have a lot of trade-offs and have a lot of things consistent. i merely quite surprised by my colleagues on the panel that they speak about the system as if it's imperfect, everybody knows that but it's pretty good and we did a great job of walking that tightrope with thee winds blowing and the seas coming up underneath us and we don't fall off, and we sort and up at the right point despite all of this. this is highlighted, the problems are highlighted a

financial crimes of genocide and other mass atrocities because, because how do you make it right when there are victims of such a large number in the are perpetrators of such large numbers and then you deal with the problems of punishment and you get the issue of whether there should be collective guilt and who is responsible, is if the state or the people and so on? and the people, victims, the people been attacked, i'm speaking more of genocide now, have taken a variety of fast forward to try to do the best to negotiate this impossible task of making things right. sometimes i put people on trial in a very formal western procedurally oriented system to sometimes they have truth commission such as south africa were people would die just to get the perpetrators to speak the truth about what they did

and the victims get the satisfaction of having their stories be told publicly. in rwanda they have a process hundreds of thousands of perpetrators with no legal system that resorted to a form of a long-standing form of tribal justice where the village, the village essentially served as prosecutor and judge and jury of the people in the village who had committed the harm. and that includes the victims being part of it. they are all imperfect and they are all woefully imperfect when you start talking about crimes and transgressions and horrors of vast scale but i submit that only brings to light the many imperfections that are less glaring perhaps, less grand in scope when you look at what goes on in our legal system in this country. >> can i say something in response to what was said a moment ago?

as someone who has grown-up in the home of survivors and his grandparents were murdered in auschwitz, i was very happy that they had a trial at nuremberg. i wanted the world to see what had happened but i didn't want to go at industry and just a shooting nazis if they were not see them even though i would've felt that if i had a chance to do it. i wanted the world to see what they had done. everyone wanted to kill him but the fact of the trial and representative group of victims had the right to come in and confront him and he was ultimately found guilty and hanged, if they get their vengeance? yes. but was it done in a justifiable way through a legal system that worked? yes. if you get your rocks off by going out and shooting someone who tried to hur avert a memberf your family, but then what he accomplished? what are you saying to your children and to their children? it will all become just like vigilantes? that's what it is. >> so are you saying that will we did with osama bin laden was

wrong? that we should have not shot them in the head? he should've been brought back to serve trial? >> no. i'll tell you one premise that you cannot simply dismiss. we have not to what happened in that room. you have a navy s.e.a.l. in the space of three seconds and a dark room and in enemy territory making a decision whether switching for welcome, whether he is a suicide vest on and someone shoots him in the head, i'm not going to second-guess that got because i didn't have the guts to put on that armor and go into that room and try and kill them. that's a different is that if osama bin laden had been captured on the streets and handcuffed and brought to the united states, it would've been a big colossal horrific spectacle that would are just glorified him. if that's how they captured him that's what should happen and initiative shot in. >> the israelis had the same experience. they put in montreux, yet his opportunity to have a soapbox be dished they grabbed it without resistance.

they kidnapped them, they brought them back. they were going into a dark room, and they weren't armed to the teeth. these were agents wanted to kidnap him to bring him back and they brought them back and put him on trial specifically so holocaust survivors could have their day in court. >> and 9/11 victims families didn't have their day in court with osama bin laden. who knows? i'm saying, do you know whether the person who put the bullet and osama bin laden's head had a minute to react to speak with my interesting was the order from the very beginning with there's no point bringing him back. >> i have read so much about that, i tell you, if the order was just going until the son of a, then okay. that under the circumstances in which he was killed they -- i read everything that's been written i'm not certain the kids were in the room who had to decide whether or not he was going to kill them or they had to kill him. >> let's take questions from the audience but i assume at this

point you are just going insane. can we get a microphone? do we want them to come up front? start laying some people up, would you be the first one to do this? by the way, come on, i have to take issues with one other thing you said which is the book i would recommend, the bones of gotham. >> i've read that and i think it's as good but not as quite as good as secondhand -- >> we will have to have a spout afterwards. >> thank you, guys. yes, sir. your question. come closer to the microphone. >> civil litigation in new city is a method by which i seek proportional judgment for people even victimize and i represent the victims directly. so i hear somethings about the criminal justice system that are very different and some that are similar in concept. what i'm uncomfortable with is the idea that if you go to a

shoot them up movie and hear a shoot of the bad guys, then you feel good. i've always felt disgusted by that. i think that part of the reason came out with regard to the discussion, revenge in the case of genocide. i read the hatfields versus the mccoy section in huckleberry finn. i screamed. there's no closure like in the movies in real life, and i think mark twain told a better than the movies. so my question is, can we learn something by the truth commissions or the forgiveness processes or the village reconciliations, or even the christian model of simply forgiving people and bring that into the criminal justice system? i'm not sure if there's any hope for bring any of those principles into criminal justi

justice. >> said it better than i could. >> okay, we'll take another question, thank you your. [laughter] >> here's an actual longtime district attorney in manhattan. >> i have my question for my good friend, try to, but i want to preface it by saying the case i agree with you 100%, the prosecutor for in excess of 30 years i've always felt that i do represent the victim to the difference between me and ben is ben gets paid a little more. but that being said, my question is do you thane, and the practicalities, and the question is threefold. as a prosecutor you have a responsibility to victims budget responsibility goes beyond that of a victim. so here are three scenarios i would like you to address. the victim's relative is murdered and the victim is willing to forgive the murderer

and watch the case dismissed. that would be one scenario. or the other singer, the victim has been pickpocketed and wants the pickpockets hands cut off. or third scenario which i think kate falluja and so to ben was the very fact that imagery system with human beings and imperfection, one often sees half a loaf being better than them. the victim may insist on going to trial on a case which is very weak and will result in an acquittal, putting the person out in the community. so those three scenarios are things that i and i'm sure kate has to do with on a daily basis. how does your system factor in those three realities? >> the book is very clear about when it comes to feeling avenged, it also has restorative dimensions. when ben early surgical often choose him, i've never said that. people can define vengeance in the own terms. they may feel they've been

avenged by accepting forgiveness. that's tremendous if they think, if it does actually ultimately restore them. on the other hand, of course i think kate would say that's not enough for me because kate is saying i'm very happy for you, victim, but the people of orange county have elected me to do a job and i have to do that. with respect to number two, absolutely, in order for vengeance to be justified it has to be proportionate and know that cutting off the hands of some of the pickpockets is not proportionate. so that it is -- >> in some societies it is. >> but again it's not justified revenge. you can call it whatever, we judge it and say that's clearly disproportionate. there's a whole chapter in the book about the way in which under sharia law throughout the arab and muslim world there's lots of penalties under color of law that we would not accept in any way of being proportionate. beheading, dismemberment, lashing, stoning. so just because of to call it

measure for measure doesn't mean we have to accept measure for measure. we should be able to know what measure for measure looks like. and your third point is, i just don't, i think it's patronizing to tell the victim, oh, you don't know, you don't know, you will feel a lot better with half a loaf live. i think this is what the book is responding to. you know you're one of my heroes, incredibly well-intentioned but ultimately patronizing and i don't know how many prosecutors have ever been victimized. people speak so smug about what we should be doing and very few people have actually and victimize and say look, i can totally understand why someone needs to feel satisfied. >> you want measure for measure and i think we tried to provide that in the criminal justice system. i'm a criminal defense lawyer to represent a lot of bad people on occasion and when my home was burglarized and everything of value we had was taken, i was so angry if i could cost the person

i would've probably tried to be tempted to with my baseball bat, the only weapon i am. the police came, you know what i was told? i thought i was going to get royal treatment, he said to me, we have 20,000 burglaries and the hope of recovering any of your items is a ridiculous thought so forget it and buy new stuff. so did i feel good? know. do i understand i live in a city that has 20,000 burglaries at your? yes. >> by the way, this gentleman over here is my editor on this book. so you can blame him if there's anything you don't like. thank you, david. [applause] >> i found interesting the distinction being made between individuals, state and law. stated, revenge is the role of the individual. last time i checked i thought of as individuals who make up the state and make the law.

coming to a particular case, we were talking about bin laden perhaps more relevant case here has to do with targeted assassination, to attacks, including against american citizens who were not brought to american courts in ways that may or may not be question. i was just wanting in terms of how those distinctions follow through in a case like targeted assassinations in yemen of the american citizens? >> i don't want to take it on personal and/or sony reasons. all i would say is i'm interested in that question because i was just, i was interview the other day about the tamerlan tsarnaev the case. all of a sudden he will be in federal grant to be receiving the full complement of constitutional ditch but the

more you give them, constitutional protections the more on the al-awlaki's father was a you have to be kidding. you shot my kid in a car in yemen with a drone and this kid in boston gets the full panoply of constitutional protection. where's the constitution from i did where's the constitution for my big kid in gym and? >> deal with the problem for that is? we are living in a real different world, and the world we all grew up in. with a sense for the last maybe for the first 20, 30 years of our lives just to make any sense. if you read "the new york times" today you will see that there are bombings in suicides and terrorist acts in almost every country that you can mention, and these crimes are of a different dimension. and i think we are trying to figure out how to deal with them. and sometimes we get it right and sometimes we don't that it's an evolving process and i think very, very difficult circumstances. >> right but we might at the same time even in both of those remedies achieve both justice and revenge.

we should just be honest that the drone strike against, we think that's just us and we think that's vengeance and whatever trial tsarnaev gets in federal court in boston, you will probably receive the death penalty and when that happens it will look a lot like what happened in yemen. yes, question. >> i think the reason we don't want that, you said we're human, so human trait. it is cognitive dissonance. it makes us feel better. i respectfully disagree with you in two respects. one is you managed to avoid -- [inaudible]. you say measure for measure but there has to be an upper limit so you said different for every person but i would like your personal opinion, there has to be an upper limit like when it comes to torture.

are you allowed to torture? there has to be an upper limit. the last thing is to talk about being hardwired. that's synonymous with national instinct but civil exercise to be able to control those in ando present so you might be hardwired to a lot of things and that's the whole purpose, because you're afraid of the law or you are enlightened on whatever you want to call but that's the purpose of civil society. >> i've never said have the right to act like a maniac. the book never says that spent but when you see hardwired, that's -- >> what is hardwired is we as a species, unlike the animal kingdom, we insist on fairness and retribution and punishment. we cannot tolerate watching people get away with murder for watching people get away with highway robbery, and that's essentially what i'm talking about. with respect to the person to i

don't want to talk about torture because it's not torture for torture. but i think that's our question in terms of yes, there are upper limits and lower limits, and in many cases for the same age there is we all feel when something is under punished we feel morally revolted. when something is over punished we feel morally revolted. we understand both are quite is a we feel like we can't trust that sense of moral repulsion? to some degree that is the standard. that's how the threshold is met. let's take a few more questions. thank you. >> i wanted to thank the panel for coming today and giving us the benefit of their experience. i wanted to ask judge chin, in a civil context, when a plaintiff comes and brings a case that has an issue that seems fairly relevant but it's probably bringing the case in order to punish the defendant, either

monetarily by dragging him through a trial or if it's an enterprising law firm that is fishing for a class-action suit, how do you do with an individual trying to use the system to get revenge? >> well, litigants use this is all the time to try to get revenge. in the civil context there are frivolous lawsuits that are brought, ma and you have to deal with them on a case-by-case basis. something is patently frivolous and brought simply to annoy, hopefully the court will step in and do something about it. bringing a lawsuit to punish someone is not necessarily improper. you can seek punitive damages if someone does something really, really bad. it's appropriate to bring a civil suit to punish in the way you can and that's to make the person they punitive damages. so sometimes it is appropriate.

it's when litigants try to abuse the system that the lawyers should ask for help, even the judge should try to step in and do it. >> let's take one more question into have a reception outside and they look signing. you might actually read it and enjoy it, or not. >> i did read it. i did read and enjoyed. i think it's your best book, thane. one thing that really like about your writing in general is that you talk about popular culture and you mix it in with all kinds of other references. and when i was reading the book i thought about the movie 42 which i saw last weekend. and it's a little bit out of the league of context but really in a moral context i want to ask you what your feelings are about jackie robinson story, which don't have to see the movie to know is someone who went through the worst possible treatment you could possibly imagine and stood there and took it. and essentially he is known as a

hero for that. do you see that as a good thing, bad thing, what's your take? >> is a great example and a great challenge to the payback theme, right? remember, he said to them, this is why we're going to do this. it's the hardest thing you're ever going to did is he will not ever be able to respond to this is the way we're going to send this message. look, those ideas are as equally compelling, passive, nonviolence, you have no idea just endowment ready shows i've appeared in the last two weeks where either christ is being quoted to me or gandhi is being quoted to me. it's endless. yes i've heard that before. yes, oh, really, i forgot the. the whole world will be blind. there's no virtue in, there's moral cowardice in not punishing people deserve to be punished. there's nothing moral about. we make it seem like there's a virtue. everyone is accountable talk of

what christ would do. we don't have a clue. people are so smug about what would jesus christ -- we don't know. we shouldn't speak for jesus. we don't know. he never had a daughter raped and murdered. never have a wife to. we don't know what he would say. and by the way, good christians in this country believe that we should retaliate against the taliban. i don't know good christians who say oh, no, we charged the other church. no, no, no. 9/11, hopefully we won't do it again. we're turning the cheek. that's christ's sermon on the mount. that's right out of the book of matthew and i don't member nations and as a nation, as a christian nation we can't respond. because that's morally unbearable. that's just impossible to do. that's the kind of facial gymnastics that you can't ask anyone to do to just simply turn the other cheek. so in response to your great question, look, those other stories are equally corrupt

because they show restraint and to show that through restraint something else gets accomplished. but they are not models are how we treat wrong. they can't possibly be the template for how we deal with wrongdoers. all right, before we say good night there's a few things. this night was produced by the fordham law culture, and by our executive producer. [applause] >> if you're watching c-span or if you did know before, we have an annual film festival next year from october 18 through the 25th. we have a short film composition. this was her second for this year. there's another one in the fall on same-sex marriage. so check us out online, check our program, take a look at our highlight for him on law culture and society.org. a few people to thing. i think by editor, david, but also i had for research assistance that happened to be

here. three of them wanted and acknowledged. one dozen i'm going to do anyway. so megan rockwell and kate more and alana, and erin ritter. back there. thank them all because incredible invaluable. [applause] the fordham law society, produce great stuff but it's not cheap. we have a board of directors and directors. i hope i didn't miss anyone. deadeye? okay, so i want to lastly thank this incredible panel, a to conversation for the aged. thank god that c-span was here to archive it for ever for posterity. benjamin braddock, kathleen hogan, judge denny chin and jonah goldhagen. thank you all. [applause] there's a reception after. please stick around, have a drink, have some food. there's a book signing. where was that?

all, and janet. [inaudible conversations] >> for more information visit the author's website, thanerosenbaum.com. >> here's a look at some of the upcoming book fairs and festivals happening around the nation.

we will be happy to add them to our list. post into our wall at facebook.com/booktv or you can e-mail us at otb at c-span.org. >> what's happened in the senate most notably for three consecutive years we didn't even consider a budget resolution. i served on the budget community -- to me for ages. since 1974, there's been years in which the budget resolution hasn't passed but three consecutive years, this is the fourth, five past one in the senate, the house and senate have not reconciled their differences. this was supposed to be, april 15. so statutorily congress is

required to complete that process by april 15. and here we are, like wishing. it's no wonder everything has gotten so distorted and out of whack with sequestration, the automatic cuts. you get major debt piling up. we've had 16 points a turn dollars national debt. we're in uncharted territory without question. >> olympia snowe on the current state of congressional gridlock. part of a three-day holiday weekend. this weekend on c-span2's book booktv. >> we have supported something that one could call reparations for native americans. but when the question comes up for reparations for the descendents of slaves, america's

huge enterprise of wronging as i said, that the longest running human rights crime in the world over the last thousand years, not only is it not discussed and analyzed and thought about and responded to, it's just out of hand. and that is not, it is not proper. it's not acceptable. but it is most important that the descendents of those people who were ground into the dust under the profit-making wheels of slavery, it is most important

that those people recognize that we recognize that no matter what america, official america does, we know what we are owed. we know what happened. and we know that there's a story of us, the longer part of our history occurred before slavery. thousands of years when the great pyramid was built, 5000 years ago by the favor, it is now authenticated that he was very black, as were many of the of the pharaohs. it turns out the only one we know much about, the head of cleopatra because she was descended from greek ancestry. so we know about her but

virtually everyone in egypt have been built by men and built by black egyptians. long before the arrival of arabs in north africa. we should know this history. we should know all of this history. but we've been cut off from. when i was a child, as i said, i may have said before, woodson ground not far from where i grew up. but his great book, this education of negroes was not allowed in richmond public schools. he was a harvard ph.d, but his work was not acceptable. because it was -- that we could not be allowed to know. but we have to. we have to break through this because in the last analysis i think even more damaging than

the fact that has material sort of quantification to it. is even more important to that is the theft of our stories. that we don't know who we are as we said when i discovered when, i'll be free. >> you can watch this and others programs online at booktv.org. right st: bore is no word the process would history -- industry hates more than addiction. i do try to use it sparingly because they can ratheraddiion. convincingly argued that the our some differences between food fe cravings and narcotic ratings, certain technical thresholds. however, when they talk about

the allure of the this comic in the land which can so revealing, they use words like cradle, stackable, "salt sugar fat" is our online book club selection this month. it is your last chance to finish up a book and watch morbid of w michael moss at booktv.org. share your thoughts so far as to what others are saying on twitter at hashtag btvbookclub and on our facebook page. enjoyed our life moderated discussion online at both social sites. tuesday night at nine eastern. >> what are you reading this summer, books -- booktv wants to know.

>> let us know what you reading this summer. tweet us at booktv. posted on a facebook page or send us an e-mail at booktv@c-span.org. >> eric deggans is next on