we gave them the flyer. barbara polly lives up the street from us, and the drama's down the street. also we always advertise every year in the program. >> right. >> so it's a two-way. >> okay. since i'm here, are they ever going to do anything about the highway between big stone gap and lynch, kentucky? [laughter] to make it a little easier to get to you? >> no. [laughter] i'm very sorry, but, no, they're not. [laughter] if you have a question, go back to the mic back there. follow tina, she's on her way. >> i just want to know what's in the pipeline, what's the next book and what's it going to be about? >> there's a book being proposed right now, st. martin, i think it's called options. they get first refusal, and the proposal's actually with them right now. we're going up to new york november 4th-7th to hang out and chat and see. so i think st. martins is probably going to, we're going to continue to work together.

but the book is tentatively titled "little is the new big," or "why little is the new big." and it's about what we've been talking about with community shops and the explosive growth of farmers' markets, the explosive growth of independent bookstores and people looking to reclaim their own lives and, you know, no harm to them, the people who work in walmart are nice people, but to stay out of walmart, to stay out of the ways in which walmart and other very, very large businesses do business that the costs are hidden. the short-term cheapness is paying a long-term, is taking a long-term price out of us and out of our children's futures. be so i'm working on a book about that. >> well, my husband was born in a ham let in southwest virginia -- >> which one? >> darwin, virginia, which we found recently had more or less disappeared from the map. but when he was six months also, his parents moved to puff frees

borrow -- murfreesboro which was like moving to new york city. he had not been back until two years ago we went up there, and what i was just wondering is do you attract sight seers, customers, book lovers from the area? are most of them fairly close by? and i would think that your book would certainly have done something in just making curiosity seekers, maybe tourists in the area? >> yeah. >> pay a visit? but it's a beautiful, such a beautiful area. but it's, you know, it's appalachia. >> yeah. it is beautiful. we're surrounded by that mountain bowl, and it is a cool place to visit. yeah, there are, there are people who have come to see us because of the book. the farthest away has been oregon, which we found kind of interesting. what we usually find is i don't know how many of you ever looked big stone gap up on a map, you have to to work pretty hard to get there. you're going to be an hour off any major highway.

so what happens is people who are planning a trip for some reason deviate, and they add an extra day, or they road trip to the side. so it's not that the lady from oregon said, oh, i must see this bookstore. it was that she knew she was going to be in cincinnati, and she saw that cincinnati was about five hours' drive from us, so she added a day and came down to see us. i like to say i had somebody from oregon come and visit, but what actually happened was she added a day to her trip. of course, big stone gap has been home to some big writers, there's john fox jr.'s trail of the lonesome pine that's already been mentioned. so we have a history of literary tourism, if you will. and i'm, i'm kind of happy to have joined that. i know that people came when we held the celtic festival, they came to the bookstore, and they filled up the local hotels, and that was good for the economy and good for the town. we're happy about that. >> any other questions? um, i guess we've got time for

one more. i wanted to go ahead and say one quote that stuck in my held because i've talked to several people before this session and several of them talked about wanting to or dreaming about opening a bookstore down the line, and you had added a quote by robert specter, page 160 if you get the book out. if you're opening a bookstore because you love reading books, then become a night watchman because you'll be able to read more books that way. [laughter] but i wanted, aside from reading your book and the list that you made clefly within it as well -- cleverly within it, what advice would you give people about chasing that dream to run a bookstore? >> to run a bookstore? >> uh-huh. >> okay. this is going to sound funny. don't pay rent. seriously. don't pay rent. we made it because we bought the house we lived in, and it pays us to live in it. and when we successed ourself out of living above it, we moved into the basement of it.

my husband jack can build anything out of two nails and a 2x4. and i think i knit us a toilet at one point. [laughter] so we live in a scrapped-together but pleasant basement. and run the café out of the second story and the bookstore out of the first, and that's the reason we were able to offer kelly that arrangement where we didn't charge her rent. we wanted the community to have this café. and, you know, we're not stupid. we don't want to pay for having a café. but we had a very gentle profit-sharing agreement for that. so the first advice is don't pay rent. the second advice is don't open a bookstore if you just love books and you don't love people. you will kill someone, and you will go to jail for it. [laughter] third advice, don't open a bookstore if you're afraid of spiders if you're flying solo, because every box of books that comes into you will have a spider in it. you need a partner who is not afraid of spiders. and if you've got a partner who can kill spiders, if you're not

paying rent and you like people, you're going to be fine. you have to be smart. you have to start small, slow, gentle. you don't start within 30 miles of another bookstore, there's no point. but it's amazing where bricks and mortar store, where bricks and mortar stores are in america. it's not your grandma's bookstore anymore. or it is your grandma's bookstore, but it's in a different place. they're in the basements of churches, they're in the back rooms of people's houses, they're in sheds out by the highway. and they're thriving. and some of them are absolutely beautiful. if you ever go to square books or square one books in oxford, mississippi, that store is magnificent. it's beautiful. but then you can also go to the book barn just outside louisville, and it's not magnificent, but, boy, got a heartbeat that you can hear 40 miles away. it's this lovely place. that's my advice. don't open a bookstore if you don't like people. and i think that's probably all that we have time for. i'm going to be over at the

plaza ostensibly signing books, but my observation has been that usually there are two very, very large name authors signing books and everyone else is sitting there trying hard not to look embarrassed, so i would love it if you just came over and talked to me. i'll be crocheting items, and we'll look forward to seeing you there. thank you all for coming. [applause] [inaudible conversations] >> days of fire the name of the book, bush and cheney in the white house, the author, peter baker, white house correspondent for the washington post.

low do you describe the relationship in the year 2000? >> well, in 2000, it was close, when, obviously, bush picked cheney to be on the ticket. he wanted to reassure the public. he needed somebody with more seasoning he had. in the beginning, a close relationship. >> how did it develop? >> well, it evolve over time. we have an understanding where cheney is the punt master and bush is the puppet. that's not the case. no question he was influential, but they drift apart. bush takes another task on security policy, and which iny's left feeling disappointed by the approach, but also losing fights that he once won in the first term. >> so the second term is when

the change evolvedded? >> yeah, in particular there, opposite sides of the issues before them, economic, foreign policy, winning a number of battling issue # on defense more than the first term protecting policies he cared about most, add vo kateed most, and the president, ordinary , reasonable , and -- on the other hand is trying to have a program to survive one after the term, one his successor, democrat or republican, would keep, and president obama keeps the national security policies inherited from president bush. >> it seemed like you interviewed the principle. >> 275 including cheney, condoleezza rice, petraeus, everybody other than president bush who chose not to be interviewed. it was a great thing on the record, and we understand that it's history in a time to document what happened for the record.

>> why days of fire for the diet l? >> he refers to 9/11 as a day of fire because the title was eights years of crisis they confronted, war and natural disaster and financial collapse. really, eight years of cay days of fire, and it was for them and the country, and the one we need to look back at and figure out what happened so we understand what's happening today because we have the same issues. >> peter baker, days of fire: bush and cheney in the white house. you're watching booktv.org on c-span2. >> this is a special place because mrs. nixon designed it for the grand opening of the nixon library in 1990. she loved gardening, had a special affinity for roseses. she was instrumental for opening

up the white house for tours in the spring, a tradition continuing to this day. this is the pat nixon rose, developed in 1972 by a french designer when she was first lady. it is the only that continually grows at the white house. this is a final resting place of president and mrs. nixon, only steps away from the president's humble 1910 farmhouse. there's a great story behind the memorial site. she wanted to meet the people affected by the devastating earthquake that, and one the reporters said to her, mrs. nixon, what good will it do if the people you speak to can't understand what you are saying? she replied, even when people can't speak their language, they can tell if you have love in your heart. >> watch the program op first lady pat nixon on c-span.org slash firstlady or see us

saturday at c-span on 7 p.m. eastern, and the series continues live monday looking at first lady bet di ford. now joining us, the coauthor of enemies within, inside the nypd secret spy unit and laden's final plot against america. what's the topic of the book? >> well, at the core, it's a book about domestic surveil lansz, and, you know, i think the time has come on the topic as far as u.s. discussion goes. whether it's the nsa, cia, or in this case the nypd teaming up with the cia, you know, since 9/11, there's been an explosion in the surveillance industry and the surveillance state, and what we do is we file a narrative of 72 hours inside new york city with three guys with a bomb trained by bin laden, and we

take a look at what works and what doesn't to catch people like this, and to prevent terrorist attacks, and what do we need to give up as far as liberties go to get there. >> did the new york police department cooperate? >> well, initially, no. the official nypd did not, but we had help from the fbi, cia, and other three-letter agencies. >> is the new york police department the only local police department with an intelligence unit? >> it's not the only one, but it's the only one going this far in basically trying to map the human terrain of the city to sort of gauge sentiments and make notes and files on what people think about the state of the union address and what people think about drones and what do they think about foreign policy and try to sort of kind of predictive analysis which, you know, we all intuitively

want our government to try to stop terrorist attacks before they happen, you know, not just be responsive, but what you see is the nypd is on the leading edge and really going even further than what the federal government would be allowed to do under federal law. >> after finishing "enemies within," how do you feel? feel safe? secure? violated? >> you know, i feel drsh i feel like we're not exactly sure what we're fighting against, which is crazy after 12 years. we have this sort of idea we're at war with terrorism, which is tactics, sort of like being at war with fistfighting, like, you'll never -- america is not prepared to win the war on fistfighting, and, frankly, you'll never win a war against terrorism, and until we know exactly what we are fighting and what ideals are important to america to uphold, i think we're going to have a lot of debates like the ones we have now with

the nsa and other surveillance programs. >> with the soarpted press, in the washington office, colleague is now with the washington post, and you won a pulitzer. what for? >> for investigating court reporting, for some of what became the book for up covering some of the programs in the cia and nypd in new york city after 9/11. >> thank you for being on booktv.org. >> thanks so much. first of all, women's identities are tied to their work, it's disturbing, unnatural, but it is absolute. look at mayer, the ceo of yahoo, when she was visibly pregnant and asked, you know, how much

maternity leave diewcht to take, and she said, basically anyone. like, the fact that such women exist is not the way i would -- i mean, i took plenty of leave, but i feel like that is a agreeing -- that is the kind of woman there can be space for, and the fact there's some stay-at-home dads who are happy, not all living in oregon, that's okay too.

[applause] >> thank you so much for that introduction, such a pleasure to be here at politics and prose. when i was talking to my wife about the program here, and i said the great pleasure of coming here, you know, you guys are not only people who read books, but people who buy books. [laughter] the 20 #th century huge calamity what was then called the great war. those days are not as distant as some supposed when we remember a few people still alive today lived through them, all be it

with children. 2014 will mark the drama that profoundly changed the history of the world. i spent the last three years writing a book describing both how the war came about and what happened on the battlefields during the first months before the stalemate. there's a widely held view, a delusion, as i argue, that the two world wars belonged to different orders that where 1939-45 was the good war, and 1914-1918 was a bad one. the conflict was so horrendous the causes ghastly mounted. the british and american peoples always had a vivid idea of what they think happened in world war ii until 1941. britain defied naziism alone, and then russia and the united states took the strain

encompassing the destruction of hitler. the struggle was nothing like as bloody as the predecessor so people kid themselves because the allies had better generals who understood our soldiers should not be allowed to be futile sacrifices, but our ideas about the first world war are much cloudier and, indeed, thoroughly confused. even among exed people few have ideas why europe exploded, but they may know a big wig with a mustache was shot in seriatim vo. the conflict was a ghastly mistake to which all the european powers sharedded blame is fully compounded by the british incompetence of the military commanders. this is what i characterize as the poets do. first to articulate it by the likes of robert graves.

they felt that no cause could be worth the slaughter. today, some british people and maybe also americans feel almost embarrassed that we've finished up on the winning side. my opinion is somewhat different. while the war assured me it was a colossal tragedy, there was a cause at stake. certainly, britain couldn't remained knew rail while germany secured this over. neil ferguson wrote in perfect seriousness years ago with the serman victory in world war i would have created something like the european union half a century earlier. the united states could have remained rich and unbloody bystanders. in all seriousness, however, including the best german ones,

see the 1914 as a militarized atoke sigh whose victory would have been a disaster. i suggest that western civilization had almost as much reason to grateful they were frustrated in 1915 as in 1945 despite the costs, and even if the outcome of the first crash proved to have a tragic impermanence because germany, under hitler, a generation later. i have detailed events of the summer of 1914, but i'll make it quick. op the 28th of june, he was shot dead, and the men in charge of austria felt no special sorrow for fran, but they saw in the outrage an ide logical pretext

for settling accounts with serbia, a chronically troublesome little neighbor, whose leaders cited their own minorities to revolt. some army officers provided the weapons and perhaps also the imtous, but it's unlikely the government was involved. one aspect of 1914 seems, to our generation, inexrensble. most european nations regarded war, not as the supreme horror, but as a usable instrument of politics. many interpretations of how the conflict came about are possible. the only one that seems to be attainable was that it was actually every government believed it acted rationally in the pursuit of the its national interests. austria decided on the first days of july to invade and break up serbia because everybody knew that russia regarded the slov

iring's c nation under the czar's protection, and they had an invoice to berlin to ensure german backing if the russians interfered. on the sixth of july, he and the chancellor gave the australians what historians call the blank check, an up call fied promise of german diplomatic, and if necessary, military support to crush the serbias. this was wreckless. some historians produced arguments to deflect blame from germany on what followed, but it seems to me impossible to escape this trek. the government endorsed austria's decision to unleash a war on this. some serious historians like several germans one, and the

european conflict, i don't buy that. in july 1914, i think the germans wanted to crush serbia without anybody else getting involved. they saw only a local war. they were amazingly willing to accept the risk of the general european congregation would follow. germany was ruled not quite like a monarchy like the czar's russia, but an emperor who loved posture and stand from the premise that war served prussia well with three great victories in the previous half searching ri over denmark, austria, and france. they also recognized that the democracy now threatens their control of the own country. it was a socialist majority in the german's parliament who was opposedded to militarism and promised soon to end the

dysfunctional personal rules. more than a few politicians and soldiers believed that a abroad could halt the advance of the socialist highs. they made a mistake typical of their age underestimating the dominance their country was achieving through its industrial powers without firing a shot on any battlefield. the attorney generals majored stakes by counting soldiers. they were fix sated by russia's growing military might. their calculations showed as early as 1916 the russians would achieve a decisive advantage. it was this prospect that caused germany's army chief of staff to growl at a secret strategy meeting in december 1912 chaired, and the sooner the

better. in 1914, the germans were competent they could achieve victory over russia and its allies, france. they discounted britain, the third party, and its army was tiny, and as they remarked, the red north has no wheels. [laughter] the austrians, duly declared war on ser b ya on the 28th of july and bombarded belgrade. the russians mobilized three days later. apology jis for germany point out that the zaire's army vast move, and the russian government didn't have a choice. the vast distances of the country met it must take longer for their forces to concentrate, terrified the germans would steal a march on. there is an argument that some historians that i respect advance in which we should

acknowledge that the russians ought to have left the austrians to crush serbia rather than wyden the conflict, but i'm personally unpersuaded by it. a bizarre try -- triumph overtook on july, and after they had the wrong gesture the one noted everywhere beaming faces, people shaking hands in the corridors congratulating one another. russia had agented in accordance with the e vol deny evolved hopes, and the generals normally express fears france might decline to follow suit.

this lack of apprehension about fighting, and the french knew that the german war plan required a swift, smashing defeat of their oven army before turning on russia. sure enough, berlin sent a message to paris saying that unless france surrendered as a guarantee, its neutrality would not be accepted. instead, inevitably, the french mobilized. as for britain, even at this very late hour, most of its government and people opposed involvement in europe's war. they had no sympathies for either serbia or russia. some, instead, had a real feeling towards germany and its government. in july, the first duke of

wellington's great niece said in a fashion that echoed widespread sentiment, it's not the german, but the french i'm frightened of. [laughter] then, suddenly, everything changed. germany blundered. they demanded an assault on france through belgium of whose neutrality britain was a gal gallonto. britain, notified by london of intentions to invade. so sure britain would enter the war anyway, he decided marching would change nothing. he could not have been more wrong. that decision caused the british government to send an ultimate may tum to germany committing the country to fight unless invaders drew back, which, of course, they did not. on the 4th of august, britain was the last major european

power to enter the struggle. it must be wrong to attribute exclusive responsibility for what happened in 19 # 14 to any one nation. when considering what happened, going back again and again, the simple truth, scarcely any decent historian thinks the british, the french, or russians wanted a european conflict. the germans, on the other hand, though they did not want the big war that they got, certainly will have a balkan one that led to everything else which they could have prevented in any moment in july telling austria to stop, and that's why they seem, to me, most blameworthy. .. was so appalling that some people suggest that germany's triumph would have been a lesser evil. but the kaiser rights records was promised even by

contemporary standards. and in normative will be on the scope of any british colonial misdeed and responsible for 100,000 deaths. so some german socialists denounce the slaughter. the kaiser decorated the senior officers to carry it out. there army committed systematic massacres of all 6,400 civilians about which later. a few historians argue that britain could have stayed neutral in 1914 and prospered mightily by doing so. but the dominating instincts of germany's leader would scarcely have been moderated. it would almost certainly have been the consequence of british

neutrality. kaiser's regime did not go to war with a grand plan for world domination. but its leaders quickly identified massive rewards as their price for granting an armistice to the allied. on the ninth of september, 1914, when berlin saw victory limning, germany's chancellor drafted a shopping list. france was to surrender its entire armada deposits, the frontier region of belfort, a coastal strip which was to be resettled by german veterans, the western slopes of the rose mountains, a strategic fortress that would be demolished, and huge cash preparations page. elsewhere luxembourg would be annexed outright. belgium and holland transformed into battle states, russia's borders vastly shrunken. a vast colonial empire would be created in central africa together with a german economic

union extending from scandinavia to turkey. while other german leaders propose different demands, some of them even more draconian, all took it for granted that they should not stop fighting until their nation had been assured its enemy over europe. it is only important continental rivals, it seems to me sensible to imagine that its rulers would, afterwards, who offered a generous accommodation to a mutual great britain all acquiesce in a global status quo dominated by british financial interests. machiavelli observed that the wars began but do not end. it any responsible allied government between 1914 and 1814 and granted such a piece is germany sought command such as it did impose on the russians after its secured victory over them in 1917.

it remains very hard to see how allied states could be extracted once the struggle began until there was a decision on the battlefield. the pellets feel that the merits of the allied course became meaningless and the struggle has been allowed drastically to this port modern perceptions. many veterans in their lifetimes deplored the notions that they spoke for their generation. one revisionist was an old british soldier named in the knowledge. he wrote in 1978 that he utterly rejected the notion that the war was one of vast useless if you dial tragedy worthy to remember only as a pitiable mistake. instead, i and my like entered the war expecting an heroic venture and believing in the rightness of our cause. we ended, as to the nature of

the adventure, but still believing that our cause was right and we had not fought in vain. almost every scene, competent recoil from the miseries of the battlefield but this did not mean that they thought their countries should acquiesce in the triumph of their enemies. george orwell wrote with his accustomed in sight 30 years later that the only way to end the war quickly is to lose it. it is a myth that europeans welcome to the outbreak in 1914. most were appalled. but some romantics and nationalists did enthuse among the men austrian house wife who wrote lyrically in her diary about have budget grandeur of the time elsewhere, however, there was a terrible this may. not only on the eastern side of the edmonton.

an indiana newspaper wrote with a disdain widely shared across the american continent, whenever appreciate so keenly is now the foresight exercised by our forefathers in immigrating from europe. [laughter] >> in one community sure police ordeals' carry the water to the church square at 430 on the afternoon on the first of august. immediately the local bell ringers some of the population. the british teacher describes the effect. it seemed that suddenly the old tocsin had returned to haunt us. no one spoke for a long while. some more out of breath among others down with shock, many still carrying pitchforks and their hands. the women asked, what can it mean, what is going to happen to us? wives, children, husbands, all were overcome by english and emotion.

the wives come to the arms of their husbands with children seeing and others weeping and started to cry as well. most of the men resorted to a kafir to discuss the practical issue of how the artist was to be gutted. then the the young and even the not so young boarded the trains and went to join the army's. winston churchill wrote after it was all over cannot know part of the great work in pairs and interest with its opening, the measured, sunland, drawing together a gigantic forces, the uncertainty of their movements and positions, the number of unknown and unknowable facts made the first collision a drama never surpassed, nor was there any of their time in the war and the general battle was waged on so greater scale, the slaughter was so swift with the stakes so high. moreover, and the beginning our faculty is a wonder, or, and excitement, not authorized and

didn't mind the years. all this was said, the view of his fellow participants regarded lows as the events with such eager appetite. many british people were at first uncertain whether they had entered the war on the right side, but opinions hardened when reports emerged about the conduct of the german invaders a belgian. yes, some of the stories were fictions, crude propaganda, but the most modern scholarly research shows that beyond several other towns in many villages, the germans shot in cold blood hostages, some 6,400 civilians of all ages and both sexes. one among many german, an officer named count kessler wrote on the 22nd of august,

the inhabitants show protect our pioneers killing 20 of them. as a punishment approximately 200 citizens were court-martialed and shot. the story of the attack was offensive, with the execution was cold fact. unnecessary to persist in detailing such episodes. the latest research catalogs 129 major in trustees during the first weeks of the war. a grand total of 6,427 civilians known to have been deliberately killed by the german army during its 1914 operations. while it is mistaken to compare the kaiser's regime to that of the nazis in a generation later, its conduct in 1914 scarcely suggests that its victory would have been a triumph of european civilization. as for the way the war was fought once it begun, almost every modern scholar agrees that

it is an allusion to imagine it was never an easy part toward winning in and had commanders of napoleonic years led the army. in any struggle between great 20th-century industrial nations an enormous amount of dying in killing have to happen before one side or the other prevails. what distinguished the second or more from the first was not that the allies had better or more humane commanders in a letter conflict but that between 1941 and 45 the russians accepted almost all the sacrifice necessary to beat the nazis, 27 million dead and responsible for 92 percent of the german army's total war loss. although heaven knows it did not seem so to those around the time , the western allies paid only a small fraction of the blood price of winning world war ii. by contrast to 191418 the british and french people's

bidding much heavier forfeit, double assets of 1939 and 45 for us, the trouble for france. in the early weeks of the first war battles were fought utterly unlike those that can later and, indeed, more like the clashes of napoleon's era than the 20th century. every nation launched almost immediate offenses except the british is little exhibition reports were still in transit when the armies of france first clashed with those of germany. the most costly single day of the entire 1914 conflict was the 22nd of august. those early battles were not remotely like that. the late summer of 1914, french is -- the french army advanced

the attack across burgeoning countryside led by bands, flags flying officers wearing white gloves and waiting sores riding horses. in one clash on the morning of the 22nd of august in thick fog french columns marched north through the village of it all just inside belgium. cavalry trotting ahead approached the farm atop a steep hill and met heavy enemy fire. a day of chaos and what followed the germans started to events, ordered by their officers to identify themselves in the mark by singing national songs. suddenly, dramatically, the mists lifted. the french infantry exposed in

full view of german gunners. a slaughter followed. the infantry tried to renew there hands uphill in short rushes. french field service regulations is in that in 20 seconds attackers could run 50 yards, therefore an enemy could relive his rifles. a survivor observed bitterly, the people who wrote those regulations had simply forgotten the existence of such things as machine guns. we could distinctly hear two of the coffee grinder said work. every time our man got up to enhance the line got thinner. finally, our captain gave the order, fix bayonets in charge. it was midday by now. our main in full kid started running heavily at the grassy slope, drums beating, beatles son in the charge. we were all shot down. i was sick. and later until i was picked up,

that evening a survivor stunned by his experiences stood motionless muttering in and began cannot mona. further north and advanced up the ardennes. white man power against germany. he said about the french black soldiers, in future battles these parameters for whose life council. now war had come this suffered a

death rate shockingly higher than that of their white comrades. there were so often selected for suicidal tasks. the units advanced in column through the village into a force known. the french had not recommended. they simply marched into the midst of women led by the shutter of their feet. german troops among the trees waited patiently until the whole division was committee and in unleased and tormented. trapped on a narrow track, forces command, cards, chaos until the lucky ones contrived to surrender. a division in an hour and a half

loss 228 officers and 10,272 other ranks including 3,800. immemorial was elected by the fight. grieving parent never forgive himself because he responded to his sons prewar saying of wild goats by insisting that he should join to source and not. in such a fashion in a dozen battles along the frontiers of france, 27,000 young frenchman without gaining a yard of ground one general read c'mon of all, results hardly satisfactory. the next day the british in toward their own action just inside belgium.

they fought gallantly enough, but heavily outnumbered they had no choice but to retreat that night. three days later they staged another rearguard action which resembled the battle after the napoleonic wars. no one entrenches spirited germans advanced across cornfields. against british infantry and artillery deployed in full view. the slaughter was nothing like as severe as the french had faced a number of british losses or a savvy as they suffered at later on the sixth of june 1944 the british and french found themselves retreating under a blazing sun and the occasional thunderstorms in the case -- face of apparently invincible german masses.

it seems overwhelmingly likely that germany was on the brink of absolute power. it was not easy for the allied armies to altogether a retreat that turn to become a route. on the evening of the 21st of august a british officer rode in and a shock to find that to the italians and british infantry lying exhausted simply waiting to be taken prisoner by that germans. incredibly they were given that towns a written undertaking a surrender their cavalry officer hastily retrieve this damning piece of paper and somehow heard -- herded the interim in back on to their feet shuttling along the road to rejoin the army.

responded by enlisting as a private in a french foreign legion with which he lost a leg. after the working towards the fifth part and elkington and awarded him a dsl in recognition to his gallantry and searing rehabilitation. the colonel about the rest of his life as a recluse and refused ever to wear his battles humbler soldiers suffered even heart -- harsher fates. both the british and french resorted to drastic sanctions against those on whose side it was all too much. one such was private thomas high gate of the loyalists can't. on the afternoon of the sixth of september, the day the french launched their massive counteroffensive on the mark which drove back the germans from the gates of paris, and

english gamekeeper on the rothchild estate south of paris surprise tidied. the soldier made a personal decision that the glories of the moment or not for him and was wearing stolen civilian clothes. shot by firing squad on the eighth of september. a ceremony watched by two companies whose comrades falling in order from the corps commander. that officer said he wanted the executions and the maximum deterrent effect. specified that high gate should be killed as publicly as possible, so he was. today such punishments i thought to have been barbaric. regions receive posthumous pardons from the british government. to me this is a touch of market to tomorrow concede to pretend that we can retrospectively impose on our forefathers the more humane values of the 21st century.

it is a good question test you would have done. the indian army in danger of collapse, many runaway and deserve our sympathy, but they also put at risk host of their mates to must do double duty enough to make double sacrifice to compensate for those who flinch. i will not be so cruel as to say that, gate and his can deserve their fates, but i will say that if i had been the commander in that distant era and might have thought of not making the same decision on the eighth of september 1914. it soldiers had believed there was an acceptable way to get out of that ghastly clash of arms who would not have taken it? i've written a good deal about the predicament of women in the early months of the war their role was grotesquely constricted . some female patriots decided that if insufficient yemen or

volunteering for military service women could do there bit by shaming in into the amen was playing golf with a friend and just congratulate himself on a fine shot when two girls came out with the new by club house and one said, sharply, that was a good shot, wasn't it. i hope you will be making as good a shot against the germans the fog preventing both of them with white feathers. the players and identified themselves as officers in the london rifle brigade. amelie told me to monday and females are somewhat pressed and made inadequate excuses, but many women across europe found a profound sense of frustration that their own contribution to the war effort was initially confined to knitting for the troops. first of their neighbors was sometimes cynically received. cataloguing a consignment which reached his austrian unit in serbia in november.

warm underwear, neatly embroidered gloves, wristlets with the hard steps to and read convinced if it baby elephants, kneepads for stocks. grudgingly grateful but said he would have preferred cigarettes. that jim teal british magazine stirred to help women undress and expected social problems shown above the war. in its state the difficulty, on the tenth of december it raised the dilemma facing a can't-owning woman who houses a dog for an officer has gone to the front. and the doctor is killing her cats, what should she do? the lady said authoritatively that she had a responsibility to insure the dow was properly quarter but might reasonably sneak -- seek another home for it. i have ended my narrative of 1914 with the story of the first battle in october and november. the western corner of belgian the french and british avalon against huge and apparently

endless attacks, the cost of leaving most of their men, britain's professional army to propose forever in local signatories to the cemeteries. the allied victory was frustrating the germans last attempt to achieve a war-winning breaker and the west in 1914. but it was purchased at such cost in suffering and sacrifice that nobody felt like celebrating. the first true french battle of the war fought a bid -- amid mud and blood and sometimes waist-high water. those who took part found it impossible to imagine that such a struggle could continue for many more weeks, far less. today sometimes we are tempted to look upon those words, rest in peace, current on so many gravestones as a mere cliche.

to those who experience to eat and all the ghastly battles that followed, those words have are real and profound meaning. a brigadier guard officer wrote about a friend and colleague killed. when i think of poor bernard's other wariness, i looked in the trash in the early morning and we still could take his place. he was so done. i think we are now at peace away from all of this noise in misery a merit must be terrible for his wife. it cannot be bad for him. i must -- it must comfort to know that he can rest of last. well, words of that sort had a profound meaning. but me finish where i started by emphasizing my own belief that while the first world war was an unspeakable catastrophe for your and the sioux had divided, it is mistaken to consider it from an allied perspective to have been time. in the summer of 1918 the allies

now including the united states achieved a great victory in the western front which led to the armistice germany was obliged to accept a november. no sane person could suggest that next year should become an occasion for celebration of a conflict or, indeed, that victory. but i should like to hope that our respective societies can break free from the weary, stair aisle, futility cliches and a knowledge that if allied victory in the first world war led to the most imperfect peace, as do most complex, the best argument for welcoming the outcome of the first world war is to consider the alternative consequences of a german victory. 1914, germany has ruled by the kaiser and his generals. represented a maligned force. all deaths and all wars are

cause for lamentation. the only credible alternative to the huge sacrifice made by the allies was that a german military dictatorship prevailed his arbitration of europe would have been vastly more draconian than in many is the sign that for some night in june, 1919. thank you all very much, indeed. [applause] >> i'm very happy to do some questions. don't worry. it i'm terribly death. >> it is in exorable, inevitable , i substantiate,

austria, hungary. don't worry about it. could you elaborate on that? what was the relationship? >> alumnae. >> what did they say? >> no possibility. that is why the austrians on august the fifth, july the fifth, sent representatives from vienna to berlin to ensure ahead german support before they attacked serbia as they were terrified of the russians coming in against them on the run. there was one moment on the 28 in july when the kaiser and its chancellor suddenly had a crisis of nerve about what they were getting into and i'm suggesting that vienna should think about stopping. but on that same day the head of the german army was running things sent to another table, his own.

my that stays the answer. >> the air power. aircraft played a critical role. it did occasionally happen. he r when commanders used it would open in opporunity for the french.

on the other hand, when the german army was approaching they believed the pilots and asserted quizzing. they refuse the important. there were able to get away with more. aircraft were transformational. >> the germans used belgium as a gateway the russians said very early that they envisioned a

centralization. >> mostly the french communists. i have simply forgotten whether or not the intended to incorporate the belgian congo. i would think it highly likely, but it was most -- mostly the french communists they have their eyes on. >> have recently commenced reading. of if -- >> the first thing we said about 1914, the evidence is so confusing and contradictory that you can use it to advance a range of theories. and one thing i would always say myself about this, i have a take on this which is different. but i am not going to stand here

and say that i think he is completely wrong because it is possible the only way i do think he stretches too far, he argued in his extremely well-written book last year that serbia was effectively a rogue state and the austrians had a reasonable right to this rate, which i find impossible to accept. he also argued that the russians were composite in the assassination plot. there is not a shred of evidence for that. >> in your book or in print. >> i don't really believe in the first draft of my book. i expect most have been read by the age of 90i still regard this hour. when he read the first draft of my book he said, you're not writing a book reviews of everyone else's book. he persuaded me to cut out all direct references.

in the end all one can do is offer once on take. this sort of thing makes it very difficult for historians and makes a wide range of interpretations possible. for instance, we know 1945 after the allied victory, where were the allies in berlin? the american israel to ship off to washington most of the german archives. by contrast to 1918, the germans are still running things in berlin. and as soon as it became an issue we know that the germans had a terrific bonfire of documents which might conceivably have influenced, but the problem for historians as we know there was a bonfire, but we don't know exactly what was burned. and so you can -- you are always winning probabilities, and a need to give you one more example about this. chris clarke thought that the yugoslav government out that the

broker -- belgrade government was complicity in the plot to kill frons ferdinand. absolutely no evidence one way of the other. one conversation in the 1920's. as a matter of common sense i said to myself, says the army officer who was behind the plot had tried to and seriously considered assassinating the serbian prime minister a few months earlier and not persuaded that the civilian government was on sufficiently good terms still collaborate in a plot. and by the same token the suggestion that the russians would consider again as a matter of common sense, could the russians have wanted a war in 1914? the russians were in the midst of a huge rearmament program, building railways like crazy. if they waited two more years from 1916 that position would have been incorporated strongly. so i say to myself as a matter of common sense, is it likely that the russians secretly

wanted of war, but none of this is susceptible. i have great respect for this historian, even though i disagree with a good many of his points in the book, and all i can say is in the case of all of you, you take your choice. toward the back. >> you say it was trench warfare. was it true? the chinese people played no role in the out in the trenches? >> well, from the awesome everyone literally disappeared into the air if in october, november, 1914 and stayed invisible from october and november onwards. it was almost impossible for a man to raise that it literally without getting shot. and would change the nature of warfare, before october all

these huge battles in which the french lost a million casualties, everyone, it was just like the 19th century or you could see everything it was going on whereas from then on suddenly everyone burrows into the arrogance of the you look on the battlefield and it appears to be empty. no one appears except during these murderous attacks. from then onward, and the other thing, almost all serious fighting from november onward took place in the northern france and belgium sector because further south the ground was not very favorable for a tax. and in a place like that those mountains, they had little attacks. but not until 1916 did you get bigger action further south than the germans made this terrific bush. >> any more questions? >> i think we can manage to buy three more anyway. yes.

>> go through belgium. >> i personally argued in my book that it was a fantasist a lot of germans went on arguing after the war that if only yet executed the plan properly which involved a huge sweep around, then it could have won. but the big problem there were primitive motor cars, but these armies have to march on their feet and under whose of their horses. and taken 400 miles across ground. these men, it was a fantastic, beyond the mean. of course lost control of the army's so that by september it was taken 20 hours to find out where some of these forces at got to. and i think the german you right up into the 1930's and after was that it was only a loss of nerve

that caused the concept, as i call it in the book. the plan was never detailed. but i think this idea that it was the failure of execution, exercise disastrous influence because he convinced the kaiser and a lot of other people that it was possible for germany to wage a victorious war. and if they had not had that division. at the very back. >> early on. the germans looked forward to the war because the socialists were gaining power. the same argument, england, france, russia, domestication is rising. >> i am not -- in this case i am gone into this in considerable detail. but certainly in the case of the

british there were overwhelmingly preoccupied in 1914 with their own domestic crises and the striking, about the king and the crisis, they were not talking about the european crisis. and one problem, i don't actually think that the british, wherever they had done, i don't think it could influence what happened on the constant to cut kampf -- comment on that stage. not paying proper attention because it was totally preoccupied. not only had the irish crisis on its hand, but also it had huge industrial labor problems with widespread strikes and many people really thought england was on the verge of revolution. again, michael howard, my hero, always says, we must always remember, there was a time when even snell in the pastor still in the future. and the fact that -- although we

know now that there was not a civil war over ireland, there seemed to the british people of that time, a real prospect that it was going to happen. >> more explicitly comment. they surrendered. >> well, outside the scope of my book. stand up in the back. germans advanced after the war. but germany could have won. it's actually nonsense. although by that stage no one was in the mood to celebrate. the allies pushed right across france. part of the trouble is, he said

that he found in germany no great sense of guilt but a huge sense of defeat because the country had been flattened, mostly by bombing. that was not true in 1918. this was part of the trouble. germany was almost on start, untouched by the war. now i'm not here for a moment seeking to make an argument that they should have read in germany in 1918, but it did make a big difference in the german attitude. it was hard to believe that they had suffered total defeat. 1945, a kid yourself how you will, you knew that they had lost. i think one more. yes. over there. >> apprehension certainly that the rice. aziz said, in part by that same

movement. it had something to do with europe. socialism, the revolutionary forces. >> the only country in which one can say fairly confidently because the evidence is there that a good many german army officers and some conservative politicians put deeply on record that they thought a triumph of brocket hold back, push back the socialist side. germany had the largest socialist party in europe in 1914. it is more difficult to quantify. i don't think for a moment. never heard anyone suggest that as foolish as they may have been, they thought that a war

was a good means of sorting out the last. on the other hand, what is amazing is that several senior politicians in britain did say publicly, and ' in the book, that at least the european war was going to take everyone's mind of the prospect of civil war in ireland which in hindsight looks fantastic, but they did say. in russia, of course, by contrast, the reason that the czar was so reluctant to get into the work and may yet seen they had the limited revolution in 1905. he was terrified that it would be the end of the romanovs. on the other end, the austrians were very strongly motivated a belief that a small war in the balkans, they did not want the big bull -- for. there really thought this could solve the problems which we can see was a disastrous misconception. have to say, those of you who

don't know too much about 1914 will get the message. i heard a german historian say, i think we all agree that the july crisis of 1914 was the most complex series of events in human history. i have learned nothing in the last three years to suggest that he was wrong. anyway, thank you all so much for coming. [applause] >> book tv is on facebook. watch videos ended up today defamation and events.

[applause] could ease the in thank you for being here for inviting me to be in the conversation today. i told her this storyt privatelyi but when i was a an undergraduate at harvard i was 80 years old taking a survey course taught a head of the professor was absent a of the replacement was you

who was at the institute that year because that yearto as cafe brooks and ramseyw and as an 18 year-old whos ov was over the moon i was so thrilled and inspired all the time of the work of these scholars. the day that you came to speak to our class which is already one of my favorite books it was so moving because i realized it as she wa ss giving this wonderful guidance that it was the first time i was taught literature by a black woman. through reading and writing so it is one of those moments i feel should bemome marked to extend my gratitude to you for that. >> thank you so much.

that is one of the great joys of teaching is specially a lecture class you don't know who wastu sitting there it turns out and extraordinarily talented young writers who why would reid not knowing she was thet students also thank you. it is lovely. >> host: i want to farahou do share the introduction the way she brings thesesh women onto the stage. >> guest: i will just read a and find myself around the prologue. >> new york bacchant one came as a child by immigrant parents. ought by immigrant parents the other as a live-in seeking freedom if they were shaped by the city with the movement of their bodies and they walk and listen they

dance and then they came. new york told them anything was possible with new boundaries. although the city welcome them as residents there were not always received with enthusiasm so and some point they all lived in harlem board of the migration of black people from the caribbean and american south the anti-black fallen -- violence erupted in the entrepreneurialism energies. harlem. raise capital the immigrants daughter moved to another neighborhood in brooklyn. harlem, who wanted to live anywhere else? but they would like to have

the choice so they protest the limitations meanwhile helping to build a city within the city speaking a multitude of languages making music and new people. it was the city of changes of brown face children some enraged a city that dances and the lindy hop and african isolation. [applause] >> what was your first introduction? immelt the book is about three women a jazz pianist and a composer and ann petri

the writer i was introduced to each at various stages as a student as an undergraduate at harvard. i started to read and peachtree and her books would be reprinted for the first time. so they encountered them as a graduate student and later whose work i have the longest relationship with and i have the opportunity to meet her. the dancer choreographer i first encountered through people like of picture book

that would tell me about these wonderful women and a book like brown sugar was a way to know her as a figure before a dancer and choreographer and to bury the williams added that no although i grew up warehouse jazz was played all the time i did not encounter marylou williams until i was an adult during the time my started to study about women's contribution to jazz music aside from people like billie holiday. i discovered the latest of the three women but also fell in love with her but i am biased so i am in love with all of them. [laughter] >> host: what was the moment you wanted to tell

their story together? >> guest: i actually discovered or thought about telling their stories together here at the schomburg i was a fellow when i wrote the book but the idea was born when i first moved to york around 2001. there was some small projects i was engaged in here at the schomburg center but i was writing notes for the issue of illegal foreign cd and a completely over research and i thought this was an interesting era and '03 with and are important. i have a forecast of characters and they were the three who survived. >> host: can you talk about this time period?

it is an interesting moment that does get lost with our popular imagination because it comes after the harlem renaissance from the it great depression and as prominent voices in a powerful way. >> guest: you are right we were talking about this that harland is constantly always exciting within the historical decade you can put your finger there and you did that with your work with the contemporary bill meant that the '40's were fascinating and everything is overshadowed there's so

glamorous and talented they tend to overshadow everything but the '40's were vibrant period you enter it coming out of the depression with a little bit of prosperity and it is a period of the second straight migration so all these people coming in and found it is the lindy hop for the birth of be-bop the period that malcolm x plates about when he first comes to harlem or miles davis so before they become the e -- the icon they walk the streets of harlem so that is a fascinating period unlike

any that have gone before to pave the way for what would would, later so i thought it was worth attention and focus. . .

>> or who are making access to certain publishing houses and things like that available. i think in the '40s what you get are people who are much more self-consciously politicized. not that the earlier moments aren't, but these are people who, artists who are coming of age in a period where there is a, there's a kind of activist momentum, and they see themselves very consciously as part of that activist moment. so that the institutions, it's not so much individuals who are offering patronage to them, but there are institutions that are providing venues and places for them to publish and perform. and many of those institutions actually come out of a sort of more radical sensibility from the 1930s. their artistic organizations or publications, but they see themselves as having a kind of social action mission, you know?

>> and what about the political consciousness of these women? because they unfold in different ways. >> right. >> and you talk about that in the book. someone like mary lee williams doesn't -- well, she does consider herself an activist. put some distance between the more tradition always of defining her work as political. >> absolutely. i mean, i think that they -- i wanted to show, one of the reasons why when i was narrowing down and i decided on these three is, one, i i wanted to show a range of engagement in different art forms, but also i wanted to show a kind of continuum of political engagement and involvement. so someone like a young dancer who's a student at hunter college who joins various kind of political organizations while she's a student and is probably the most, you know, what we think of as conventionally radical of the three, actually joins the communist party for a

while. and so that helps to shape her analysis of the world, so that would be -- and then someone like ann petri who's a writer who is surrounded by people who are radical political activists and respects and admires and defends them when they come under assault, but also keeps her distance and, you know, doesn't join -- she's not a joiner, she doesn't join organizations. she won't call herself a maxist or a -- marxist or a communist. she has sort of a left-leaning sensibility, but she doesn't like to be labeled or boxed in in a particular way. and she is very active. i mean, she's engaged in various forms of activism. and then someone like a mary lou williams, i think, who says, you know, her interest is always in how can she be of assistance to people who are in need. and sometimes that might be people who are in need because of their poverty, and it might be through individual acts of

philanthropy or supporting certain kind of activist activities, or it might be fellow musicians who are having issues with drug addiction. and she becomes a kind of one-woman rehab center or something. so they all have, you know, they fall along a kind of continuum and are brought to sort of what we think of as a political consness through -- consciousness through very different means. >> and how then does that express itself in the work? because i was looking for pry miss moving, a hard thing to find, but i did find some things. i also have a dance -- [inaudible] background, actually, and all i ever saw was the leap, that fantastic leap. but i'm thinking about something you do really beautifully in the book where you talk about different kinds of movement, pearl premise specifically as a mover. the movement and music, the idea of a movement through a phrase of music or a piece of music, a

movement through a literary work and then the actual movements that people find themselves engaged in or living alongside if not directly engaged in. what -- how does the work itself express that or sigh away from it? -- or shy away from it? did they keep it separate, and is it possible to separate them? >> that's a good question and a difficult one. i think that one of the things i try to stress is that even though they are political agents, and they're involved and see themselves as involved in a certain kind of political work, they are, all of them, are first and foremost artists. and their art forms, i mean, they have, you know, they define that differently. but they really are trying to find ways for the expression of their creative ideas. and so it finds its way in the

work, and for someone like -- [inaudible] she starts taking dance can lessons at a place called the new dance group which was founded to use dance as a way of, you know, cultivating a certain kind of social activism. so she's already engaged in that process, and she's creating dances both that sort of narrate the stories of and the struggles and the difficulties of black people, but also celebrate the joy of black people. she tries to create a dance, a kind of movement vocabulary that's informed by whether it's the dance of people many trinidad during cash -- in trinidad during carnival or sharecroppers in the south, she's really creating a kind of dance vocabulary that tells those stories and sees dance as a way of educating people about, you know, the experience of people of african descent. and for ann petri i think it

really does, it comes about in the forms she chooses. in some ways she's writing within a kind of social realism, you know, mode. but she also, i think, most importantly it's the people whose stories she chooses to tell. i mean, she's not -- she doesn't come from an elite -- i mean, she comes from a fairly elite background, but she chooses to tell stories about working class and working poor people. and to try and give a fully-networked portrait of them -- fully-fleshed portrait of them and their struggles. so in that way, that shapes her art. and with mary lou, it's a little more complicated, but i think she tries to, you know, she's very much invested in making sure that there's a certain history of black music in particular, that black music carries with it, bears with it a kind of archive and that she tries to make sure that that

history is in the sort of contemporary popular music that she's playing and that it's also kind of informing its moment as well. it carries a history, but it also tries to shape its moment. so in those ways i think their social engagement, you know, you can see it or feel it in their art. but they aren't sacrificing sort of their creative expression for the sake of their politics or their social consciousness. >> uh-huh. can i ask you a question about petri that i think it's always been there for me, but reading your book it really came into relief because you describe the world that she inhabits in harlem. you describe some of the worlds she inhabited literally on 116 street including the art center. >> right. >> and just that moment of you giving the address of whatever it is,116th street, i thought why isn't that on the street? why isn't the existence of a community art center in the

street? >> i mean, that's one of the big questions about the choices that she makes. i have a theory, but it's only a theory. so ann petri writes a novel, for people who don't know it, it's published in 1946. it's about a female character who's separated from her husband. she's got a little boy. she's struggling to make ends meet. and it's a very kind of, you know, desolate view of what her possibilities are. and ann petri herself is very much engaged in a much more vibrant and diverse harlem than the one she represents in the novel. so this art center, for instance, that sharifa's talking about that produces, is a place where children can come and learn various forms of the visual arts and various artists are involved in it, petri and her son -- excuse me, the

character and her son never have access to any of that. none of that is represented there. so in some ways i think it can be a critique that petri so insistent upon telling a certain kind of story that she flattened out certain possibilities of what's available to people who live in harlem. on the other hand, i think that -- and this is where i think that she's fully aware that there's so many people in harlem during her time that even though these resources are available that they don't necessarily know they are available, that they don't have access to them, that they aren't able to take advantage of them and that we can't take our eye off of those people who our sort of theories and activism, you know, sometimes we don't see them. and i think she wants to shed that light. so i think it's a real paradox in her work, you know? >> it's a paradox i can identify with. [laughter]

in terms of what you choose to represent and what you don't. >> right. >> something someone told me when my book came out, it was people of a certain class in harlem feel like i didn't represent them. >> right. >> i won't go into any details. [laughter] read between my lines. >> no, i think, i understand that. and i think that was, you know, you probably can identify with petri, that was a criticism that petri got also. i mean, when we think about, you talked about the difference between the harlem renaissance and this period. when we think about the harlem renaissance, the books that were most championed or were books that represented the better class of negro, is literally what they would call them. and so the, petri and her generation of writers were not representing that version of harlem life or black life, and it's a consistent criticism at the time particularly from the african-american press that she is not representing the best of

the race, so to speak. right. so, i mean, i'm sorry to hear you had to deal with the same thing, but there's a long history of that kind of critique. >> and what about the reception of her work and the other women? >> one of the things that i was fascinated by when i did the research is that i, you know, you have these assumptions that you bring to a project. and so i assumed, oh, this is interesting. all of them are working during this period. and because they're black women, they probably are not getting any attention for their work. and that's why so many of us don't know about them today. and what i discovered here at the schomburg reading through microfilm because not everything was online yet was that i was absolutely wrong and that all of them actually got a tremendous amount of attention for their work. petri was widely published. i mean, widely reviewed in both the black press and the

mainstream press and the left-wing press. pearl primus was the darling of "the new york times" dance critic, john martin, who was a very powerful man at the time. mary lou williams had a radio show, had -- her long works would premiere at town hall. so they actually had a great reception, a reception that i really, i couldn't have imagined that they had. and then they sort of fall off of the radar later on. so, now within that reception there's a variety of responses to them, so some people are celebrating ann petri's work, some people in the black press are saying, oh, it's too downtrodden. some people in the left press are saying that it's not revolutionary enough because it doesn't provide a political way out. so there's a variety of responses, but at least the work is being attended to seriously, which is what we all want. we want our work to be attended to and to be recognized. so they get the recognition at

that time. >> one thread that goes through the book is the double v movement, victory at home and abroad for civil rights. at home and victory against fascism abroad. it's something that all three women encounter. >> right. >> and reflect upon. and it made me think about these different levels of their, of their political concern. there's the super local, community-based concerns, think of them as race women, just thinking about the situation in america generally and then there are global concerns. i wondered if you could talk a little more about conceptualizing their work into a contemporary movement, the reference to harlem and also the global political movements. >> i think of the three at that particular time, of the three pearl primus is most, probably most articulate about a kind of

understanding of global issues particularly as they relate to people of african descent. most vocal about seeing the war against segregation, you know, the fight against segregation -- and this is, you know, during kind of the height of jim crow, so they're fighting against jim crow -- but she absolutely sees that not only as a fight that's a fight that's necessary for democracy in the united states and a fight that's necessary for democracy, you know, kind of against fascism abroad, but with her she, she's also always cognizant of what's going on in the caribbean and africa before she even visits africa, right? she also, i mean, she comes out of a household that is kind of a garvey-based household. if they aren't card-carrying g

garveyites, they're very aware. so she has this global sensibility. and it's most apparent in what she says and in her work, and it's, you know, less apparent in what's going on with petri and with mary lou williams although all of them recognize the kind of local struggles that they're involved in as being struggles that are about the question, larger questions of democracy. and they're all linking issues of race with issues of poverty and class, right? they haven't, none of them are separating those two things, right? that they see the struggle against jim crow not only as a way of freeing african-americans, but as a way of freeing this nation at the same time that world war ii is claiming to free the world in some ways. yeah. >> i was thinking about their

moment and some recent discussions that have happened about artists being politically engaged or not and coming from harry belafonte who was a contemporary and who was informed by some of these same halls and conversations really. and could you talk a little bit about that, the context that gives rise to a generation of engaged artists versus the lack of context that might exist for that today? and really i'm interested in kind of tracing the line of, like, where it got dropped. >> yeah. >> or not. >> complex set of issues there. [laughter] it's funny that you mentioned harry belafonte, because he did, he actually is someone who knew all three women in different ways. he actually ann petri was part of the american negro theater right here in this building, and

she, so she knew poitier and belafonte and ruby dee and ozzy davis, and that's part of that generation. we think of them as, you know, very kind of socially active, politicized artists. one of the things i think that was clear was that none of them -- and i see this with the women -- none of them were kind of sitting back saying we're going to strategize and build a movement, right? as artists. that we're going to sit back, and we're going to strategize, and we're going to build a movement. i think that they came along at a time when the long, what we think of as the long black freedom movement, you know, had a breath -- a new breath. and it was happening, right? it was, this is also a time when ella baker is living in harlem. i mean, there's a lot of ongoing

political activity. and so there's already a movement in place whether it be through double v, whether it be through what adam clayton powell was doing, there's already a movement in place and that these or artists find their place in that movement. it's, you know, it's the movement that embraces them, that they then acquire a certain sensibility and analysis. if you hear harry belafonte talk today, you're struck by his level of analysis, right? and so i think instead of being so hypercritical of contemporary artists for what they do and what they don't do, i also think that they aren't in a moment where there's a kind of heightened political activity on the part of any of us, right? that that -- it's not a moment of that kind of political movement. and i think if it were, it might produce a different context, and it might produce a different set of responses from the artists themselves. >> um, i wanted to shift gears a

little bit. i was just thinking about mary lou williams, she's the artist of the three that i knew the least. i know a little bit of her music and listened to some in reading your book. can you talk about writing her life after having done the work with billie holliday and, you know, your different approaches to music, just writing about music and how do you -- i always find it's the most challenging thing. in fact, i didn't write about music in harlem. i was a big failure. but i'm just curious how you inhabit the music and what that's like for you. >> yeah. mary lou williams was so intimidating to me to write about, and i initially wanted to write about her, and then i decided that i wouldn't. and the reason why i wouldn't was because i didn't think i knew enough to write well about her music. and then i had, you know, friends and colleagues who said,

well, then that's why you should write about her, because you choose -- sometimes it's good to choose subjects that force you to grow and learn something that you don't know. and i felt most at home with billie holliday. i'd lived longest with her. and i studied her and had written about her. i think what i wanted to do was i wanted to, one, choose a woman who was engaged in the production of music who wasn't a singer. because we know the singers, we know some of the singers, and that's usually our way of, our way of thinking about women in jazz. and i wanted to try something else like what does it mean to think of yourself as a composer and an arranger at this period in such a male-dominated way. and i also, you know, she -- all three of these women, i think, their sense of themselves was just so incredible to me. and especially mary lou williams. i mean, there were so few examples for her of what it was

she was trying to become, and most of those examples were male. and yet she pursued it, she had absolute confidence in her talent and ability and importance. and so i think that i just, i sort of learned to welcome the opportunity to try and learn how to write about her. and how to write about the music. and then it just was a process of listening and listening and listening and trying to really write down what it was that i heard. and it was such a moving encounter. i mean, if you don't know her music, i strongly recommend -- i hope this book will make people listen to her. it was such a moving encounter and so powerful to me that i just decided to write about that element of it. that, you know, that there's something very soulful about her music and very ambitious. she's an incredibly ambitious

writer and and arranger. and she -- i loved her because she thought, ah, duke elington is writing these long forms and he gets a concert at carnegie hall, why not me? and so she does it. yeah, i'll just say that. she was the biggest challenge and the one from whom i think i learned the most. yeah. >> i loved reading about her coming uptown and stopping in minton's. can you, for the people who haven't read the book, just talk about that moment that she's a mentor to the bee boppers. >> so she's the oldest of the three women at the time of the book. by the time she moves to new york, she's already very well known. she's been called the lady who swings the band with the andy kirk orchestra, she's arranged for duke elington. so she's a star, she's a celebrity by the time she moves to harlem.

so much so that newspapers like the amster or dam -- amsterdam news say mary rue williams moves to harlem. it's a big deal. and all the big musicians who are struggling are like, wow, mary lou williams is here. and they want her to hear their music. they want her to critique it, they want her to tutor them, and she does. she welcomes them. and unlike many musicians of her generation, she doesn't dismiss them, right? she's sort of the way that a max roach would have been with the hip-hop people, you know? with older musicians might have been like, oh, hip-hop is horrible, max roach was like, no, we have to listen and, in fact, embrace this. this is what mary lou williams was doing. and she's a star. and she's performing every night downtown at café society but before she ends up at home in her apartment in hamilton terrace,. >> she stops off at miton's because -- minton's because she's really excited by what's going on there.

and it feeds her, and she actually hears some of what she's already been doing there as well. and she just thinks this it's ts whole new set of possibilities. and sominton's becomes -- it's a very important site for her and a very important site in the chapter about her. >> and what about some of the other sites of convergence? like you speak about the people of the voice paper which was founded by adam clayton powell or the new dance group. it just struck me that they even had these locations -- each had these locations, these bases which seems really important to the possibility of in this kind of work. and something that i think is lacking today in harlem. >> well, it's absolutely central. i mean, i don't think they would have been able to do what they did without those locations. so ann petri is writing. she writes a little for the amsterdam news, she sells ad space, but when adam clayton

powell finds "the people's voice," he come comes on board there with a number of very interesting journalists. and it's the way she gets to know harlem. she's a reporter, and she has a reporter's eye, and she literally writes all of harlem. she writes from the high to the low about everything. it informs her fiction. it's a, you know, i mean i think now we think of certain spaces as being intellectual, and they're very narrow. we think of the academy or the classroom. all of these spaces had such incredible intellectual and political energy. so for her, for ann petri it would be "the people's voice." for pearl primus it would be the new dance group where she was taking these dance lessons and learning from martha graham and any number of people. and for pearl and for mary lou williams, it's place like café

society, the nightclub where at any given night langston hughes and eleanor roosevelt might be in the audience. but it also, i mean, i i thisst the also -- i think it's also important to note where these women create their own spaces. mary lou williams also creates a space in her apartment which becomes one of the most important saw a loans for the development of bee bop music. so she brings that energy into her own home and opens up her home for that kind of place, you know, that kind of activity. what happens to them, i mean, i think one of the lessons of period be, again, is that these sites come under assault. i mean, they don't just disappear or grow out of fashion. as the decade gets more conservative and we get the kind of anti-communist fervor that comes at the end of the '40s and early '50s, there's assaults on places like "the people's voice" and on places like café society.

and so those venues fold, and when they fold, you know, you no longer have those kinds of spaces to nurture the voices in the way that they would have in the earlier part of the decade. >> thinking about today's harlem, i'm always vexed with the celebration of restaurants as sites of possibility, like a restaurant not a site of -- i mean, it's -- i like going out occasionally, but i always feel like there's a, we are really detached from that kind of space making and what it's for. even the private kind, i think, is also something we need to initiate. >> i think, i mean, i would like to ask you, i have a question for you too about, you know, given that you documented this moment in harlem and this transition and change. that might be one of those changes, young? the celebration of a certain kind of opening of a restaurant as a space. i think that those spaces can become that, right? but they aren't necessarily meant to be that.

like, what's fascinating about several of the spaces in the book are that it's the actual work and activity of the artists themselves that turn these spaces into something else, right? >> sure. >> but you're right, i mean, one of the things that also happens at the end of the narrative is something like the urban renewal act which really destroys our especially of continuity and community and gets rid of local establishments, local bars, local businesses where people can develop community and replaces them with something else. and that, you know, again, is one of those moments of transition. and then it's sort of like out of those ruins what does a new general ration create -- generation create. what comes -- and so one of the things that i, you know, in reading your work, i was reading sharifa's book just as i finished the first draft -- well, that's a high. there were many drafts. one draft -- almost the

penultimate draft -- [laughter] i read her book and the first thing i thought was, wow, when someone writes another version of harlem focturne, her books will be one of the ones they study. but one of the things i thought about, from your vantage point what are some of the similarities and differences in what you see? you clearly know these periods to get to what you're writing. what's the major continuity or major difference that you see? >> gosh, i don't even know where to begin. i mean, the first thing that pops in my head is the research that i -- well, it didn't start out as research, but the experience that i had of being involved with the 125th street rezoning campaign which was ourly one of me just going to meetings, following signs to

meetings and going there with a pen just to observe and going there because my friend, michael adams, said go there, you know? i wasn't very self-motivated. but i went. and it was a moment when i had been away from new york, from harlem for ant a year. and i came back, and i was just really aware of all of this change happening. it seemed it hit a critical moment. and so i became involved in that campaign. and after it was finished and after the campaign was with lost and 125th street was rezoned even though you don't see the physical, you don't see high-rise condominiums yet -- but it's legal to build them there now -- i was doing research again, and i found narratives of meetings that had happened in 1955 that were almost the same meeting where there was a plan in place to

redevine 125th -- redesign 125th street. so i became aware of this cycle of questions that have been posed to this community and a consistent response from the community. so that's just one similarity. it was actually the same activity was happening 50 years later. and the way this community has been the subject of a reimagination or a plan, you know? >> right. >> okay. i'm being asked to wrap it up. >> okay. >> now, the differences? i mean, i think what you've raised about the spaces and the way that the work of individuals created those spaces is something for us to really consider deeply. as much as i can say flippantly that these restaurants are just places to go have a drink or, you know, they're also amazing institutions that exist like

harlem stage which is nurturing incredible work and funding new work and other institutions. and, of course, the possibility of the schomburg and its revitalization and really, i mean, just the continuity that exists in this building is an incredible thing. >> right. >> you talk about some of the work that ann petri did was at the 175th street branch working with a theater group. so i'm always looking around and seeing, you know, on 138th street you can go and see the sign of where marcus garvey had husband first heating -- his first meeting in harlem. it's the first meeting room in a church or other spaces. i'm always interested in like what's that, what happened there, and i'm really interested in reinhabitatting those spaces. and there's projects that i have done or want to do, and i just am energized by the possibilities of those collaborations, you know? so that's, i guess, where my eye

is. i've always spent time away. i lived this new orleans for two years which is a really amazing school for community and arts and politics existing all at the same time, as the same thing. and so i felt like i came through that, that place and returned to harlem with a new perspective of what was kneaded and what was -- needed and what was possible. >> it's possible. i think that's a great place to end, because even though the, you know, the narrative of harlem nocturne ends in the end of the '40s, beginning of the '50s where we get a kind of repression that comes onboard, i try to end it by showing that there are always a new generation that sees a new set of possibilities. so my women -- i call them my women. they're not my women, but they leave harlem, they leave new york, but a whole new generation comes. lorraine hasn't bury comes and

maya angelou comes. and so there is, there is always kind of generating this sense of possibility. and then sharifa rhodes-pitts comes. it's all good. okay. [applause] so, questions? do we have time for questions, or are we done? >> i think there are time for questions, sure. i think there's a mic here, so if you want to ask a question, go to the mic. >> when you talk about the notion of place in harlem, you know, this new restaurant, the cecil and mintons, are just opening up. and it seems almost sort of prophetic