>> in the 20th century 3.2 million americans died as a result of automobile accidents. most of my students and most people i know have direct experience with an automobile accident. that's not the same as military service, combat infection disease, etc. it's ubiquitous. and so that question is really what lies at the heart of the study.

if americans do, as i say embrace the automobile culturally, how do they respond when by the 1920s -- and really it was it wasn't million the 1920s where -- it wasn't until the 1920s where there was a national human cry over unavoidable automobile accidents that are killing individuals and particularly pedestrians who have nothing to do with the freedoms of driving. others were paying for the liberties of these drivers. when the car was first introduced, the rule was very different, and the reaction to those rules were very different. and so the study looks at 900 to 1940 -- 1900 to 1940, a period of time where there weren't uniform rules for driving and universal signs for speed limits and grade crossings and what have you. and so that created in a sense a national dialogue over the difference between our love for automobiles and the social responsibility we have as

drivers of automobiles. in the first internal combustion engine automobile, it dates back to the 1870s in germany. and as a result, most of the early imports of the internal combustion automobile are luxury automobiles available for only the richest of americans. what really defines american automobility is the arrival of the ford motor company. to be fair, there were other cheaper automobiles available, but henry ford's model t and mass production through the ford motor company make -- around 1908 1909 -- mass produced, inexpensive automobiles available for every man. one of the aspects of the model t which is really telling for the issue of safety is that that vehicle was capable of driving on the worst roads and in the worst conditions. it could be modified by most anyone who had basic mechanical

skills which in the 19 teens was a lot of people and could be modified as well to do a lot of different tasks. not simply driving but also as a threshing machine, as a source of power in rural environments. so its versatility was really the calling card of these mass produced inexpensive automobiles. reforms often tried to limit the very function of what an automobile does. and what i mean by that is its ability to access all parts of one's life, its ability to be driven in urban locations and so there were all kinds of restrictions in terms of driving within a city limit, within a town limit. those efforts really were ones geared at, initially, the way in which americans drove and who had the right to drive. but it wasn't an easy question. and one of the, again one of the elements that i tried to pick up on in this study is

there's an indetermine nance, there's an unanswered question between freedom and safety that is exposed by mass automobility. i begin the book with an epigraph from sin lair lewis -- sinclair lewis who is the first american to win a nobel prize for literature and most americans -- if they know lewis -- will know him from babbitt, and who's babbitt? he's this middle class, pompous individual who sees the car as a privilege. sees the car as something that is due him, and mechanics are greasy individuals who are serving him and pedestrians are in the way of this kind of champion driving throughout the city. ironically enough, three years before he writes babbitt sinclair lewis goes on an automotive trip across the country. he writes for the saturday evening post and in three long essays he adores the car, he adores the freedoms. he is, ironically enough, standing in for babbitt and yet

making an argument that here is a device that is going to fulfill all of the modern expectations for personal freedom. his wife loves it because she can drive, and women are quick adapters to these automobiles. you can go out into the countryside and see a country that has yet to be developed for the first time. certainly, the railroads would allow that freedom within the structure of a fixed rail system what the automobile did was to allow people like sinclair lewis and others to take that device, take that tool and to accentuate their individual freedom. in the 1920s as the automobile sent crisis appears -- accident crisis appears and, again, it's existed for some time it becomes a national issue. the states become very active. here in texas they're quite active in finding ways in which to respond to the motor menace. in the 1920s during the administration of president

coolidge herbert hoover is tasked as secretary of the interior of trying to to pull together these state initiatives and mandates. and in the mid 1920s, the hoover commission does a remarkable job of standardizing -- and really that's the key component with automobile safety -- standardizing expectations for manufacturing, expectations for road design standardizing expectations for grade crossings where railroads and roads intersected, how those transitions were going to be governed. and so the government plays an important role at the federal state and local level beginning in the 1920s. before that the federal government is going to be much more important for funding road development and road improvement. and what you see is not really a growth in the mileage of roads but an improvement of the miles that existed. what they do is, quite honestly borrow from industry. and industry has been concerned

with safety for 20 years by the 1920s, if not longer. these industrial safety experts are going to, are going to focus on the three es of reform; education, engineering and enforcement. education is preparing drivers to, for the complexities of the roadway. not only, you know weather conditions, but also rules of the road the ability to drive a much more complex piece of equipment than what we consider today in an automobile. an automobile today we turn the key, and we drive. put some gas in it and drive. it's a much more complex device. and so education was seen as a way in which to limit particularly young people who have a desire to drive, limit their access to the road and to, in essence, force those who are habitual violaters or have repeat accidents or drunk driving and what not to be held accountable through state apparatus, through education programs etc.

engineering, by contrast, really focuses on perfecting the device itself. safety components, there was an intense debate about seat belts. there is a debate in terms of how fast these cars should be allowed to go. even today you get into a passenger automobile, and the speedometer often exceeds any posted splint even here in texas. -- speed limit even here in texas and that focus is going to really standardize the automobile and the roads in which they drove over. by all accounts in both instances -- although one could quibble about education -- they're successful. the challenge became enforcement. and i go back to that speedometer. why is it that a personal piece of property can, is built to break the law? why is it possible to buy legally radar detectors? back when i started driving in the '70s, it was possible to discan -- disengage the seat belt monitors. and to take it even further, why

today do we have mandatory seat belt laws do we have zero tolerance for drug and alcohol use? the answer to that is that the enforcement question has not been effectively brought into american culture. it really does kind of play against the idea of the automobile as a symbol of freedom. and so they struggled with that. government reformers are trying to get people to recognize that speeding and drunk driving are not a right or a privilege but rather an imminent menace. in the '20s and '30s you see an effort on the part of states to beef up their motorized traffic police. again, here in texas the department of public safety is founded. there's an interesting sort of dynamic in place because the state police, to that point had generally been texas rangers. texas rangers do a very different thing other than, you know, traffic stops and speed violations. and so there is an internal tension in terms of how to

enforce. what you generally see in the cities is a police department that is tasked with a herculean job. because you have more and more drivers in a denser environment. there are numerous campaigns and you'll see these images of police officers going car to car and literally inspecting the automobiles, talking to drives gathering information about what kind of menace they're dealing with. and so i think in regards to how did they respond to this, they saw the problem and reacted. the irony was the sticking point was enforcement. generally, the automobile response was positive. they didn't want to kill their customers, and they certainly didn't want to see themselves as feeding an addiction to speed or to recklessness. having said that, what sold cars? what sold cars in their

businesses, they're capitalists they're making must be. what sold -- they're making money. what sold cars was a promise of freedom, a promise of speed, a notion of excitement. you still see it in the automobile advertisements today. you know? sitting there watching these commercials with my family, i always have to point out notice how all the streets are empty? when you see these cars driving they're driving and having a wonderful time whereas reality today, again, is much more complex. we don't usually have wide open roads when we're driving in a commute time. but the automobile manufacturers, to their credit saw this as -- particularly in the 1920s and '30s -- as a major impediment to expanding their marketplace. they were concerned about government regulation. it was possible for a state or municipality to demand speed governors. the technology was this to keep an internal combustion -- was there to keep an internal combustion engine from creating

enough speed for an automobile, could keep it well below 40 miles an hour there were devices, curious devices that would light lightbulbs when a car passed the espressossed speed limit. speedspeed limit. the technology of our vehicles today is smart enough to know how fast we're going but it opens up similar questions about our own willingness to give away personal freedom at the expense of social safety. and really that is at the heart of this book, is this question between independence and individualism versus the social responsibility that comes with that. once you're talking about commuting, once you're talking about just the density of automobiles on our roadways, the idea of -- and the nature of the car itself all of the support structures for what i define as the love affair, this kind of

progressive pride i have no pride in my ability to turn the start key of my automobile. it just, it just gets me from point a to point b. by the 1950s, if not sooner but certainly by the 1950s and '60s that postmodern reality is starting to sink in. and a lot of, i'm a cultural historian, a lot of study and work has gone into what does that mean culturally for instances of technology like the automobile which is so risk -- it carries with it such a risk for others who are around there. gibbons and beck have written in the last decade on the risk society, and to boil it, to net it out is throughout most of human history most human beings were concerned with food clothing and shelter. we have very material needs. for the most part, most in western societies don't have those needs anymore. we aren't going to starve, or we

have, you know, an ability to talk care of all those material needs. as a result more esoteric concerns start factoring in, ip including pass -- including passive secondhand cigarette smoke, including post-9/11 terrorist attacks, including automobiles and drunk drivers. so bringing it back to automobiles, it's no consequence. i should say it's no coincidence that beginning in the 1970s and 1980s you see americans starting to focus on not those material needs, but rather saying we're going to have zero tolerance for those who are drinking and driving. mothers against drunk driving passive restraint. there's increasingly a lot of technology being built into the automobile. it's not there by accident. it's there to provide some evidence and arguably the ability to predict and to prevent automobile accidents in the future. >> and while in corpus christi

we spoke with robert wooster author of "american military frontiers," which explores the various roles the american military has played in america's westward expansion. >> when people think of the american military and the west they think quite naturally of fighting indians. and there's good reason because there were over 1100 combat actions between the army and american indians during this period. so there's frequent combat. and that's a key role in the story. but there are other things that many people don't really understand. in the 19th century, the federal government's very limited. they don't have many deployable resources. and so the army does a whole variety of things. they're discoverers, they're explorers. army contracts are an important part of the western economy. the army plays a role in

conservation. in the recent ken burns series on the development of american national parks it points out that the parks were established in the 19th century, but there was no one to protect them or preserve them or keep trespassers away or to keep hunters off of them. and so the army, really because of the efforts of phil sheridan the commanding general at the time, the army steps in and literally is saves the national -- and literally saves the national parks until another organization can be created. for better or worse, the army in the west did much more than just fight indians. the more than people have historically had an antipathy a fear of the regular army from our english traditions, really, and revolutionary war traditions. we fear a standing army as antithetical to liberty. again, it's hard for modern observers to to kind of realize because now the military's one of the most trusted institutions in the united states.

but that wasn't wasn't the case in the 19th century. and so the army really even as late as the 1870s the army's about 25,000 men. it has a lot of jobs to do, and so the army would argue we're too spread out. and the army would argue or the army would have argued at the time that they don't have nearly enough men to do the things they're supposed to do as effectively and as efficiently as they could have. but the american people again, didn't see it that way. although they certainly welcomed the army's presence in those cases. the army is often placed in the middle of two competing interests. for example, the army sees itself, often sees itself as being in the middle of american indians and non-indians who want to take that indian land. but it goes beyond just the indian/non-indian issue. for example, in the 1880s in

wyoming of all places there are some riots where local workers are opposed to the introduction of chinese immigrants who are coming to do various tasks. and the army gets called in to restore order to. and there's this wonderful scene in the book where you have the chinese consul from san francisco, the chinese consul from new york, a translator and two army officers meeting in rock springs wyoming trying to protect the chinese immigrants trying to restore order. and so the army's placed in all sorts of difficult balancing acts. and sometimes it does pretty well. sometimes it bungles the job, unfortunately. this is at wounded knee. over 200 indian men women children are slaughtered. now, there were about 30 army soldiers killed as well. but it's one of those tragedies

that didn't need to happen and just a horrible example of things gone wrong and the needless thought or of hundreds of non-- slaughter of hundreds of noncombatants. i guess i would argue that although the last major indian conflict ends in 1890 that the army continued to see the west as fundamental importance to its mission really until the spanish-american war. that we know with the advantage of hindsight that there are no major conflicts with the indians after 1890. but army officers at the time are sure talking about the possibility of those conflicts. and so the army remains heavily involved in the west really up until the spanish-american war when ironically it quickly finds itself in a somewhat analogous position in the philippines. here again they're called upon to try to not only conquer an area, but then to try to provide law and order and provide some

sense of order and stability. and so in many ways the experience in the philippines very similar to what many of them had undergone in the west. in many cases this love/hate relationship that westerners have with the federal government is reflected in their dealings with the army. and against this -- this is nothing new. we still have it today. i happened to be in washington, d.c. at the beginnings of the modern day tea party movement. and it was fascinating to me, and i'm not trying to -- this is not a policy issue it's just fascinating as an observer to watch the tea partiers go on the metro, the washington metro system -- which, of course, was funded largely by federal dollars -- that i thought it was ironic that the tea partiers were going to their demonstrations opposing the federal government on this creation of the federal

government. and they didn't see an irony in that. i saw the irony at least. westerners kind of take the same attitude, very much that same attitude. that on the one hand, in theory they dislike the government. they don't want the government. but when they want the government's help they're more than happy to accept it. and so again typically, westerners are more supportive of the army and congress than nonwesterners in the 19th century. you can see clear patterns where western congressmen who are traditionally opposed to the federal government vote for bigger army appropriations in part because they want those soldiers there helping them conquer a continent. i think many of those connections to historians in the 19th century we find it interesting that the army has

traditionally not tried to incorporate, that the army has attempted to focus on conventional warfare. and that's understandable. conventional warfare is, in many ways, a potentially bigger danger to american security, it's in many ways easier in that there's an enemy and you know who the enemy is. you don't have to -- there's not a lot of fooling around with that. but it's interesting that at least until the 2000s, this we got involved in iraq and afghanistan, that the army's interest was on conventional affairs. and that runs counter to the history of the american army which traditionally has handled all sorts of nonconventional operations. in the mid 2000s, right as we were getting involved in iraq the army conducted a big study,

brought a bunch of dumb historians together, and we were supposed to give papers on the army's roles in these nonconventional affairs. and the interesting thing to us was, well, this is the history of the army. under current doctrine, that's changed. that current doctrine underwent massive changes under david petraeus with much greater focus on what they now call asymmetric warfare. but i would argue that this is nothing new for the army. these are the conditions they find all the individual issues are different, the basic conditions are pretty similar, that you're trying to restore order in a very complex world. often with very few resources. >> during booktv's recent visit to corpus christi, texas, we talked with the author of "claiming citizenship," anthony quiroz who recounts mexican-americans and their

fight for civil rights in victoria, texas. >> i think that american history itself is a story of citizenship and who's a citizen and who's not and who decides. and so for mexican-americans the story of our history has been this ongoing struggle for equality, for inclusion. my book looks at the period from about 1940 through the mid 1980s, and i examine the different ways in which mexican-americans in victoria texas, struggled to become equal citizens. so i look at their behavior in the churches their activities trying to change the public schools, political action and then their private organizations, those sorts of things, to find examples of ways in which these people try to, as i say in the title claim citizenship. victoria, texas, is a town located 90 miles north of here about halfway roughly between corpus christi and eastern texas. today the city is integrating, but back then i'll give you some

examples. there was an organization in the state called the good neighbor commission, and they were supposed to investigate charges of discrimination, and they had a very thick file of discriminatory charges from victoria county. and so you still have, again, some discrimination but not to the same extent you did back then. laws have changed, civil rights act of 1964 made a big difference. so things have sort of evolved. but 1940s victoria, texas, was very, very different. it was much more racially segregated, a lot more racially tense. you could go places but, for example, you couldn't date can interracially. it was probably unhealthy. i had a crush on a girl in high school. i won't give you her name but her father was a local policeman whose nickname was nightstick. so i never asked her out -- [laughter] but that's just kind of a sense of what things were like. give you an example of the

institutional discrimination. in that book i'm looking at the victoria independent school district. and when i went to the high school to public high school -- 1974 '75 '76 -- i went to a school with about 2400 students and i think there were three mexican-american teachers. well, that's more mexican-american teachers than i'd seen in my life. i thought, well, they're pretty progressive. what i learned when i researched this book was they had been hired two years priestly. there had been -- previously there had been done. and when i was looking at school district records i found a note from one official to the superintendent saying i interviewed this woman she's hispanic speaks english clearly, may be all right to teach anglo children. and i wondered well where's the note that says this woman's anglo, she may be okay to teach mexican children? is but that's not how it worked. institutional racism. mexicans didn't get promoted. they got hired at the plants as laborers, never got moved into

management, never got moved into operator positions. now they do. so that's the kind of institutional racism that they faced. a lot of the literature focusing on mexican-american history focuses on the demonstrations, the chicano movement, you know the anti-vietnam war demonstrations. you didn't have much of that in victoria. people tried to bring about change by voting, by suing by holding meetings with, you know, local business leaders. it was very much a sort of con sense yule view of american citizenship. let me explain that for a second. so when i first started researching this as a dissertation, i was a grad student at the university of iowa. i'd been through all these class, and i thought, well now i know what to look for. clearly there must have been a story like this in victoria. nothing. not one little bitty bit. so i'm looking and i'm finding no evidence of overt resistance.

what i found was subtle resistance. so here's the point: these folks were very con sense july. they were patriotic americans. so they bought into american values practices, traits and beliefs. you know, if we talk about citizenship, it's where you were born us what country are you loyal to, that sort of thing. but there's a whole list of unwritten rules that define citizenship; your race your gender, your class, your level of education, where you live, your religion. if you're an atheist you're not getting elected to office. so there's a whole spate of qualifications that are never written down and you're never taught this in school. but it matters. so what i found was these folks were trying to lay claim to those same things. so they bought into values like patriotism, hard work catholicism, family values. all the sorts of things that i grew up learning white society had claimed as their own

invention, that's not true at all. it cuts across all different groups. and that was part of what angered me so much. and as i was writing that book even though these folks were not as radical as i'd sort of imagined they might be boy they were very seriously struggling to change that status quo. people disagree with this, but there's a segment of historians who think about mexican-american history generationally. so we look at the 1800s as a conquered generation. that's when mexico became, you know was taken over by the u.s. 1900-1930 is the immigrant generation. mexican revolution 1910 1920, you know, a million people moved north. through that time most people who lived here saw themselves as mexicans who happened to live in america. 1920ish to 1960 we have the mexican-american generation. now people see themselves as americans who happen to be mexican. those are folks that created the

ideology that i describe in this book. very american very patriotic, very much by -- they very much buy into traditional values. chicanos wanted to reject all that. to them mexicans were workers. they're brown, we're not white. we want to reject americanism. hence, not mexican-american, not spanish-american, chicano. and they looked at people from this generation or people with these ideas as traitors as sellouts. how can you turn your back? one of the arguments they made was how can you support the american military that's over in vietnam killing people like you? whereas people who are in the military say, no we're defending freedom and, you know, the american way. so yes, two different people that looked at the world very differently. but over time the chicano movementing left a legacy. we do have some of that ideology

around. i would make the case that really what you have today as you look around the country is some blend of that mexican-american generation's ideology and the chicano ideology. but what is, what they've developed into is more of a still rather consensual kind of world view. things have changed since then. you see many more interracial couples, you have somewhat more integrated schools. you do see more elected officials that are mexican-american. but there's still a long, long way to go. first of all, i don't think our story's being told at all. not very much. we've had some very acrimonious hearings at the state level here in texas over what should go in social studies books. a lot of folks at the state level don't want the curriculum watered down, as they might say. so they might be okay with a

photo of selena quintanilla, but i think that story has to be woven into the entire tale. so students are coming to this campus not knowing, in many cases, who dr. hector garcia was who, in my opinion was our version of martin luther king. we take one or two steps forward, and then we take a step back as society. in order to continue to make progress, we need to continue to struggle, and eventually things will change. i'll give you some examples. one of the things that happened is we passed anti-- well we got rid of misonly nation laws. it used to be legal for blacks to marry -- illegal for blacks to marry whites. now they can do that. you don't see that everywhere you go, but i see a lot more interracial couples than i used to when i was in high school a lot more anglo-mexican relationships. gay marriage is about to become

legal, marijuana is changing, those laws. it's just evolutionary. the society just has to organically, even subconsciously i'm guessing decide it's time for a change and time to move in a new direction. but you can't legislate that, you know? people often will say you can't legislate morality. you kind of can because if you couldn't, you wouldn't make certain things illegal like murder and rape. so yeah, you can legislate morality. but you can't legislate people's inside values. and everybody agrees you can't rape and murder. can you discriminate? well, you know some people are pushing for that right now religiously. i the right to discriminate against homosexuals because that's my religion. what we have to do, again is just wait. and i would like to think over time subsequent generations -- my children are far more tolerant of their peers and of other things that go on around the world than my generation was

and certainly far more tolerant than my parents' generation were. >> and we spoke with norman delaney who is book "the maltby brothers' civil war" tells the story of two brothers who ended up on opposite sides of the civil war. >> in regards to the civil war it was a brothers' war. it was such a great tragedy in all, too that divided so many families. but as far as the personal relationships, they remained very very close as it had been before the war and would remain after wards. you know that cliche blood is thicker than water? and i think it really holds in the case of, well, certainly the maltby brothers. my book then, "the maltby brothers' civil war," concerns three of these brothers -- henry maltby was the second brother second son of david maltby from

ohio. and he he originally came to texas. he wanted to blush -- to establish the newspaper the ranchero. so that was when the younger brother, william, came down here. in referring to the older brother, jasper maltby, he has no links whatsoever with texas. jasper maltby, also from -- [inaudible] wound up in, of all places georgia lean that illinois -- galena, illinois, and he had served in the mexican war and he became a gunsmith in galena. and later he becomes one of the nine galena generals who served the union during the civil war. so it's quite a remarkable family. their relationship was very, very close. even with the war and the divisions and the fact that we

have one brother jasper, faithfully serving as far as the initially a colonel in the 45th illinois regiment and then having the two brothers down here in texas firmly committed to the southern cause, secession, and then, of course the civil war. jasper maltby was a true hero. we have letters from generals grant, logan and other union generals expressing their great esteem and respect for this individual who during the battle of fort donaldson in 1863, he suffered from a tremendous injury and all too and eventually recovered from this and was able to serve during the siege of vicksburg. and during that siege before the

city was eventually taken, there was an attempt to build a tunnel, if you will underneath the confederate fortification fort hill. and when the explosion occurred, there was the 45th illinois led by its then-colonel jasper maltby. and there was a terrible incident in which he was struck by a timber and suffered such interim injuries -- internal injuries that eventually that would lead to his death. william maltby became the captain of an artillery battery that actually wound up on mustang island. it was concerned with local defense of the coastline in corpus christi, of course. so in november of 1863, there

was, in fact, a very very large union army that had taken over brownsville. and then that unit from that army moved up in november of 1863 to capture key points along the coast. they were headed to at corpus christi, they were headed up toward indianola, and eventually they intended to get to gavel son. -- galveston. so at fort simms now it's out there on the tip of mustang island. so this large army then of union soldiers wound up actually capturing, taking fort simms and capturing the entire garrison including captain william maltby. what happened to william and the other prisoners were taken, and they were sent to new orleans. by this time jasper -- because

of the seriousness of his wounds and all -- had been, he had been appointed commandant of the vicksburg garrison. and when he found out that his brother, william, was down in new orleans, he immediately arranged that william be brought up to vicksburg to be his ward. so i can only imagine, we can only imagine the, you know, the emotion involved in the two brothers; one in the blue uniform of the brigadier general and the other in the gray uniform of a confederate captain. and, in fact, that's where my book begins. because this is such a stirring emotional incident, that i wanted to bring it to the attention of the readers right from the start. and that meant for the next several months before he was finally exchanged, william captain william maltby, confederate states army then is spending time in vicksburg at

the ward of his brother, jasper. it must have been very interesting, the conversation. and the older brother, i'm sure, tried to get his brother to take the oath of allegiance to the united states. and then, of course he would be, he would be released. but he refused to do so along with other prisoners who were eventually exchanged. and only then were they allowed to return back to texas, and there would have been the reunion of william maltby with his wife and by this time also he had an infant child as well. i think it's a very, very important story that people would find of great interest because it is a personal story about these brothers. the civil war was so much more than just the blood and gore and the battles and all campaigns and, you know, there's so much interest there too yes. but also let's get into the

personal side of the war. the maltby brothers are a good example of what we need another side of the civil war to look at. >> you're watching booktv on c-span2, and this weekend we're visiting corpus christi texas, to talk with local authors and to tour the city's literary sites with the help of our local cable partner time warner. up next, david blanke discusses his book "a destiny of choice," which argues there's been a reduction of consumer choice in america. >> well, the premise of the book really is based on this question of choice of consumer choice. what role, what influence, what power do consumers have in a consumer society? what choice do they have? and how is that choice manifest in american society and culture? and david and i are sort of on two -- at least we began on two further, on two polar opposites in terms of answering that.

as a cultural historian i think there is agency. i think there are ways in which the consumers influence the market, influence products change the way in which products are interpreted and meaning that is ascribed to them in american society. dave, by contrast, is a little bit more of a materialist and a little bit more of a you know the argument being that capitalism and consumerism is driven by what sells. and that paradigm that distinction between agency on the one hand, consumer agency on the one hand and control on the other is as old as the study of american consumer history. i always think of john wannamaker was a philadelphia retailer in the 19th century and he spent hundreds of thousands of dollars on advertising, and he once famously said i waste half of my advertising dollars, the problem is i don't know which half. and it cuts to the heart of this relationship of how and where

consumer agency is expressed. advertising in the early 20th century was traditionally the primary source that scholars would rook at when -- would look at when trying to assess consumerism. and before i answer the question, i'd just like to point out therein lies part of the problem; who's creating the ads? who are the ones -- as historians, we have access to records. most of the records that we have are marketers, capitalists who are trying to sell something they're trying to guess at what are the desires of the consuming population. they're not the consuming population. so what we get from advertisers is a very rich source of primary source primary source material. but it's only one perspective, and it goes back to that wannamaker quote i mentioned earlier. they're guessing at what works. early in the 20th century what you see is the formation of reason why advertising. and previous to this, most

advertising was announcements broadcasting, here's my product, here's the price here's its availability. beginning in the 1920s and probably most famously with listerine, listerine was an ain't septic got turned into a mouth warren. and the -- mouthwash. and the advertising campaign put the user in the context of a social setting and said what's going to happen to you if you haven't taken care of bad breath? and all of these now sort of humorous settings there's one -- and these are, these are readily available images -- one is a young girl sitting on her bread dreaming what's happened to her boyfriend and why her boyfriend hasn't called, and it's an advertisement for listerine. the clear answer is, well, you know a little mouthwash honey, and you'll be out on a saturday night. otherwise you're going to be sitting at home. advertising became much more sophisticated once mass consumer culture sort of pervaded the united states around mid

century. and it's at that point in time -- and that's the area that dave steigerwald spends most of his scholarship at least in this anthology on -- are we being manipulated? are we -- who's in charge here? who is calling the shots? we play with that with the title of the anthology, "a destiny of choice." destiny is preordained, choice is not. choice is a variable. b when we get to film late in one of the areas that i study is film, the term that's used most often is perversity. and it's a term that has morphed into a very different, different meaning, but perversity is the unexpected the unforeseen. when you talk about this question, there are a number of examples that kind of come to mind. most famously in 1985 coca-cola company summarily announced that they had done taste tests, and they were losing the cola wars to pepsi.

they summarily announced they were ending production of classic coke, what we now know of as classic coke, and rereleasing coke as a knockoff of pepsi. the taste was the same. the response was overwhelming and this was at the dawn of cnn and so they were covering these sort of mass runs on department stores to get the old classic coke. and within three months coca-cola had said we're taking -- we've made a mistake. we're going to go back to the original formula. now, evaluate that. is that an example of real consumer agency or is that a brilliant marketing campaign on the part of coca-cola to sort of juice their consumers to say no we really want this? to this day coca-cola officials maintained that it was just a mistake, and i take them at their word. contemporary society, we were running into that with the film "the interview." the sony hacking and "the interview." most people kind of intuitively knew the minute that took place and the minute sony withdrew

that from general withdrawal what was going to happen? it was going to be an overnight sensation. my kids both watched it the first night it was available on the internet. and so we're left with this paradox between who's calling the shots. and it's the wheelhouse of cultural historians because we're very comfortable with that indeterminate answer but it's, it's the genesis of the book, and it drives through the contributions that we kind of included there throughout the text. i'd like to think that most americans, most people are generally -- you know caveat emptor, there's a reason it's in latin and not in the modern language. probably the most famous, infamous of the hucksters of the early 19th century was p.t. barnum. and so the presence and the influence of someone like barnum was widely understood by consuming public. the first book that i did was on the consuming behaviors of rural

farmers in organizing cooperative purchasing effectively creating little walmarts to try and get access to urban supplies and using mail order catalogs and what not. they were clearly aware that the middlemen, right, the term that was most pervasive the middlemen were taking a chunk. they were taking a part of either their consumer dollar or the profits from a manufacturer. and that was an unacceptable -- that was a cost savings available. so sam walton is credited with, you know, with walmart, but that sensibility goes back to, again kind of the dawn of modern mass consumerism. it ebbs and flows in terms of americans' relationship with that. and really it reaches a peak following the second world war for a lot of very complex reasons. the united states was victorious in that war, they were proud of the culture, the american

lifestyle. not necessarily the american dream which is a work dream, but the american lifestyle the consumer lifestyle. nixon famously has his kitchen debates with nikita khrushchev in moscow, and almost at the same time with the counterculture you begin to see a lot of doubt creeping in. what are we actually buying here? and, again the literature on this period of time is diverse but it's also very clearly focused on those types of questions. when you look at the kinds of questions that are posed it's how much and how often do consumers realize this. some advertisers are all over this. the volkswagen corporation to go back to automobiles, is that automobiles were releasing new models in the 1950s that basically had just different sheet metal on the exterior. the car itself hadn't changed all that much. volkswagen in the 1950s has an advertising campaign which shows sequentially the released models

of volkswagen 1955 '56, they're all identical. and come see our new model which looks exactly like the old model. what's the implicit message? you know as the consumer that you're being sold a bill of goods by just having some bent sheet metal, taller tail fins or more gorp on the automobile. so certainly by the counterculture and the 1970s in a challenge to the american lifestyle, the challenge of middle class lifestyle -- a new car, suburban homes etc. -- that puts a lot of questioning on the by the american public on consumer culture in general as to what we're getting from this. are we happier? are we more content? it was famously said it don't mean a thing if it ain't got that swing. this is my argument and i want to make sure i give dave steigerwald his too as well that's my argument it's a very powerful -- again, that

terminology that's an unknown, it's an unplanned-for response. who knew that people would be so interested in a twinkie that they would demand quote-unquote, its production? given its relatively easy manufacture and distribution it's an easy kind of product to reproduce from another manufacturing base. the contrary question though and the notion that there's more going on here or less -- actually, there's less going on here in terms of consumer agency and more in terms of being minuted by puppet masters you do see this notion of an ability by manufacturers and producers to target their products in a particular way. there are multiple perspectives upon which to view consumer society and consumer culture. and those perspectives change given who you're looking at.

if you're looking at it from the perspective of the producer right? so back to the question about advertising. if you're looking at what advertisers think are going to motivate us, you're going to get certain answers. if you're looking at what consumers are expecting of the things that they consume, you're going to get different answers. what you see traditionally -- traditionally, what you see in the last 15-20 years with new electronic media is that it's much easier for fans for consumers, again, these terms are sort of i you wick bytous -- you big bytous and mean different things for different clients, but that the fan culture is becoming stronger and stronger because it's much easier to micro to slice those demographics down so that you're just looking at "american idol," 18-24 year-olds as opposed to downton abbey, pbs subscribe user. i guess that's where i would

come to and say you see historically this am ambiguity in the marketplace become much more pronounced the closer and closer we get to the modern era. >> for more information on booktv's recent visit to corpus christi texas, and the many other cities visited by our local content vehicles, go to c-span.org/localcontent. >> from time to time "the washington post" will publish e-books on topics that their reporters cover. here's a collection of some of those books. in "the case against cosby," the post interviewed five of the women who have accused bill cosby of assaulting them. it also looks at court records from a previous case against the comedian. next a profile of the 36th president, lyndon johnson, and a look back at his legacy in "the great society." also on the list is a collection of eli saslow's pulitzer prize-winning articles on the impact of food stamps on a small town's economy. in "nsa secrets," the post puts

into book form its reporting on edward snowden. also on the list is a series of stories on america's relationship with personal firearms and the history of gun control in "guns in america." and wrapping up the list investigative reporter robert o'hara jr. expounds on the potential for cyber warfare and computer hacking. to see what other e-books "the washington post" has published visit washingtonpost.com/e-books. >> was he smart you write, no, not exceptionally. instead he was a genius. >> well, you know, i compare him and contrast him to an absolutely wonderful smart guy of course, bill gates. and bill gates had, you know, more of what you would call conventional mental processing power. you know, i marvel and watch bill gates take large amounts of information, sometimes two screens on his desk screens

that would have four windows on 'em, and he'd be processing the information and just be absolutely brilliant. steve was not brilliant in that way. he didn't have that analytical processing power. what he had was an intuitive genius. he could just have a feel for things. a feel for what people would like, a feel for beauty, a feel for what would work. and so to me, that's what i meant by genius. i even saw it in albert einstein who i wrote about. where is albert einstein was not the best physicist in europe in 1905. in fact, he was a third class patent examiner in the swiss patent office because he couldn't even get his ph.d.. they kept rejecting his thesis. so you wouldn't say, oh, he is by conventional standards, you know the greatest physicist mind of 1905. but he was the greatest genius.

he was able to make imaginative and intuitive leaps. now, i would never put nor would steve jobs ever put steve in the same quantum orbit as albert einstein. but there was a similarity which is that the genius of steve jobs came from making intuitive leaps, imaginative leaps, questioning perceived wisdom. ask can that's what ben franklin did, steve jobs did, albert einstein did, is question things that you and i might say are obvious, question the perceived wisdom of, i don't know, newton writing that time marches along second by second irrespective of how we observe it. and you get this patent, you know clerk albert einstein, saying how do we know that? how would we test that? how would we take two clocks and try to synchronize them so we can test that? likewise with steve jobs, people didn't know we need a thousand

songs in our pocket. we had backman we had mp -- walkman, we had mp3 players. but steve was able to have a feel for beauty and a feel for customer experience that, to me, made him the greatest intuitive genius of the digital age. and that's what i meant by that sentence. >> you can watch this and other programs online at booktv.org. >> you're watching booktv on c-span2 with top nonfiction books and authors every weekend. booktv television for serious readers. >> on booktv this weekend we're live from politics & prose bookstore in washington, d.c. with rafia zakaria, author of "the upstairs wife" about her experiences as a woman in pakistan. we take a trip to corpus christi, texas to bring you the area's literary scene as well as a visit to johns hopkins university to talk with

professors for our college series. on "after words" journalist toby harnden recalls his time embedded in afghanistan. stephen brill and dr. ezekiel emanuel discuss the health care system and mark krotov of melville house talks about the decision to release the senate intelligence committee report on torture. for a complete television schedule booktv.org. booktv, 48 hours of nonfiction books and authors. television for serious readers. >> barack obama is the first, probably not the last african-american president that you will cover. [laughter] but his grade on race relations isn't as high in your book as bill clinton's. >> because of first term. because of the first term.

the -- i'm not going to say inaction, but because he did not come out. his second term there are two different barack obamas first term, second term. we see a more as i say african-american president who is african-american versus i'm president who happens to be african-american. he's comfortable in his skin now. he knows who he is. and he's not ashamed of it. first term he had to be strategic. he had to be very strategic. i mean, there was a fight within the white house even to pay the black farmers, you know? but he was the president who did give the black farmer payout after 17, 18 years of waiting for that money. so he was the president who did that. but at the same time it wasn't necessarily i'm going to do it. it took, it took tactics -- >> you surprised that -- are you surprised that barack obama didn't make a stronger case his first term? >> no, because looking back he had to be who he was.

>> you can watch this and other programs online at booktv.org. >> well joining us now on booktv is allan karl who has written a book called "forks." mr. karl, first of all what's on the front of your book? >> it's actually a motorcycle, believe it or not, and it's in the middle of nowhere place in patgonia, actually. it's a bmw f-650 because i actually took that motorcycle for three years alone and rode it all over the world. >> you rode it around the world? >> yep. >> why? >> well, you know, a lot of us have passions and dreams, and i always wanted to travel around the world. my passions have been photography, certainly writing and motorcycle riding. and i found myself at a fork in the road unemployed and just recently divorced. so i decided that instead of just scrambling to try to find the next job, i sold everything that i had and hopped on that

motorcycle to visit and experience different cultures different peoples all over the world. .. this book does have recipes. >> guest: one thing i think this book is about, it is my experience with connecting with people, i went on this trip alone but i can tell you that it didn't take long for me to realize i was never alone.

i got lonely and hungry, i turned around and someone was there. amazing how easy it is to connect with people. a lot of times we do that over food or drink so i thought rather than just to the travel narrative, the memoir story in "forks" i would bring another element, the full sensory experience. what is the reason tasting of the flavor of different cultures? we always talk about food. people in that in the kitchen, that is where we are connecting, we connect to each other and culture. >> host: did you run into any political situations? >> there were few places they didn't want me to come into the country, one of them being sudan. the united states hasn't had a diplomatic relations with sudan. one i got to the order, my own practice in diplomacy and negotiation in order to convince them to let me into the country.

here is where it gets funny, i had been on the audience with different forums, chiron americans trying to come into sudan, all of them had been turned down by the sudanese embassy. hamite going to -- delight turnaround and go back to kenya? i can't go into chad, where will i go next? somehow after going to three different visits to the sudanese embassy they decided to grant me at visa but there was a catch. sudan from a geography point of view is the largest country in africa. they gave me 7 days to get through it, transit visas i had to time that very carefully. same thing in syria. as an american you are supposed to have an opportunity supposed to acquire your visa in washington d.c. and the syrian

embassy before you go there. they don't grant visas to anybody who has lived in the country from a country with diplomatic relations which we did and so when i got to the border they said go to washington together. i could have gotten this feasible for headed to syria. plus they expire in six months and only good for 90 days. how do you get into syria. i turnaround and go through jordan which is where i was or i could try to go into lebanon but i really wanted to see syria and i took out my tent, camped out between jordan and cn and waited until i convinced somebody to call damascus and give me the okay to go to syria and i tell you it was one of the most -- expectations were low but it was

one of the best countries i visited. i never once had to pay for a tank of gas. any gas station my went into you are the american friend and even at the border, all the stamps and pomp and circumstance to get this visa into the country and got one in my motorcycle too here's what they said. wait here, the chief inspector wants to see you and i thought they will not let me through. the chief inspector shows up at the border where i am waiting in my motorcycle ready to go and before you go you must have shots. in the middle east is all about having tea. what we might call here we have a bear get together or whatever let's have this -- on this side of this dusty border stop and on the dirt road crew and outline of the map of syria.

really experience syria. different people are warm, it is sad that the government -- to think about what is going on there now because i had such a positive experience in syria. that is where we connect with people, over the tee and culture. i had the experience is too. i loved -- i embraced south africa in its diversity, all over south america a fantastic people all over the world, fantastic food and beyond the border, hassles or challenges which i call opportunities, we can get through those things, great stuff all over the world. >> host: where you ever treated poorly because you are an american? >> guest: never once was i treated for the.

i was in brazil and was that a little cafe, a restaurant chatting and texting my portuguese at this point and i actually -- there was another american who brought up the fact, i can't believe we are always treated, mistreated or may be misunderstood. i am actually getting tired of hearing americans think people i mistreating them or look at them differently. he said i think that is all in your mind. profound that very similar with other travelers that i met from all over the world. people were more interested in learning about us and it is no amazing fact but i would meet people in all the different countries who tried many times to go through getting a visa to get into our country. people want to come here.

they don't want to push us away. >> host: did you ever have to call upon good graces of potential influence of your brother the white house correspondent for abc news? >> there was one case, i shared the story of sudan and this is amazing. the atm card and internet access, it is tough to convert american money or use an atm card, or international bank. i was challenged with how to get money or currency to make my way to seven days going through that. and different expeditions conlan and he had left a safe in the

hotel some money he had forgotten when he checked out of that motel and believe it or not this is what is so amazing, the sudanese had his money. it was two years, he called this guy to tell him after he left the hotel, when is john going to be back in sudan? i went to that hotel and picked up the sudanese money. >> host: little bit from alan i'll "forks: a quest for culture, cuisine, and connection. 3 years. 5 continents. 1 motorcycle.". this is booktv on c-span2. >> here's a look at some books, senior adviser to president obama david axelrod.

look for these titles in bookstores this coming weekend watch for the authors in the near future on booktv.org.

>> you know that she capture your attention. >> here was a woman who could speak in paragraphs without notes, who was indomitable in the face of the most horrifying kinds of criticism and sexist behavior and in particular hated by women like her another highly educator and prominent women. it was the tremendous role of painter for staying with bill clinton. i knew from early on when i interviewed her is that she would never leave bill clinton also people would constantly say she will leave him when they are out of the white house or when she goes to the senate. they were symbiotic. can you imagine anybody being

able to be like hillary for bill clinton. it took hillary to make a president and it took bill clinton to put hillary in a position where she could actually run for president. they were symbiotic can still a lot and i am still fascinated by them because they have dominated democratic politics for 25 years, longer even -- they were 17 or 18 years, teddy and fdr they're still doing it. quite amazing despite certain flaws. at the end of the summer some

of hillary's friends and colleagues had been with them in the white house saying they really didn't want -- they would tell her not to run and she was having conflicted thoughts about whether she was going to run because she is a nice lady, has plenty of money and a portable bully pulpit anywhere she goes she can make an issue, one of the most famous women in the world, she now has a grandchild she is long for for so long, why would she subject herself to be lying began sliding and rehashing of everything they have to endure? there is one overriding reason i finally figured out. from the very beginning hillary has been about improving the lives of women and girls and she made that part of the policy portfolio of the secretary of

state when she bonded with obama whether to take that role, that was it. if he didn't agree to that she wasn't interested. anywhere she went in the world she put that into practice and would be able to do much more as president but more than that, when she finally acknowledge a victory it took three days to digest that reality and when she finally made her speech in a big hall in washington, there were many women supporters there and they were crying bitter tears, it was a bitter, angry crowd feeling that hillary had been denied because somebody else had jumped the line. and her last words were don't spend a minute thinking about what might have been. life is too short. time has to be spent well.

we need to work together for what still can be and that was the promise and if she didn't fulfill that promise in 2016 it would be a lot of women who would feel failed by her and i don't think she could live with that. >> you can watch this and other programs online at booktv.org. >> karina korostelina looks at cases where minor insults between ethnic groups and nations had escalated to violence and political conflict. this hour and 20 minute program is next on booktv. >> i think we can get started. good afternoon. i am william pomerantz, director of the cannon institute. i would like to welcome you to the second to last event before the holidays. a quick reminder this coming