had a 4-year-old daughter when i graduated from law school. >> you were a mother. >> so if they would take a chance on a woman, a mother was more than they were willing to risk. >> so you had top grades at harvard, and in your last year of law school when you moved to new york with your husband, you were tied for first place at columbia law school. and you're applying for clerkships. and tell us how you finally did get a clerkship, because nobody, by and large, would even interview you for the most part. >> yes. those were pre-title vii days. so employers were up front about saying women are not welcome at this workplace, or we had a lady lawyer once, and she was dreadful. [laughter] so how many men have you had that didn't work out? [laughter]

but i had a wonderful professor at columbia law school who later moved to stanford, jerry gunther. he was in charge of getting clerkships for columbia students, and he called every federal judge on the second circuit, in the southern, eastern districts of new york, and he was not meeting with success. so he called a columbia graduate, judge edmund palmieri, who was a columbia undergraduate, columbia law school graduate and always took his clerks from columbia. and he said i strongly recommend that you engage ruth bader ginsburg. and palmieri's response was i've had women law clerks, i know

they're okay, but she's a mother, and sometimes we have to work on weekends, even on a sunday. so professor gunther said give her a chance, and if she doesn't work out, a young man in her class who's going to a downtown firm will jump in and take over. so that was the carrot. it was also a stick, and the stick was if you don't give her a chance, i will never recommend another columbia graduate as your law clerk. [laughter] [applause] and that's the way it was in not-so-ancient days for women. the big hurdle was to get that first job.

once a woman got the job, she did it at least as well as the men. so the second job was not the same obstacle. there's a wonderful book -- this is a meeting about books, so let me mention it -- it's called "with firsts." and it's about, it's a biography of sandra day to conner. she was very -- sandra day o'connor. she was very high e in her class at stanford law school, but no law firm would hire her. she was asked do you type, and maybe there would be a place as a legal secretary. so what did she do? she went to a county attorney and said i will work for you without pay for four months, and then if you think i'm worth it, you can put me on the payroll.

that's how sandra day o'connor got her first job. >> but even after your clerkship, you couldn't get a job in a law firm. you ended up being a law professor. >> i could have gotten a job. in fact, i was going to a firm when a professor, another professor from columbia, al schmidt, said how would you like to write a book about the swedish judicial system? well -- >> this is a part of her life you will not hear generally discussed, so you're in on a question that normally doesn't come up. >> anyway, this was an irresistible offer because here i was in my 20s, before i turned 30 i would have a book

between hard covers. marty and i married the same month i graduated from cornell, so i had never lived on my own. i went from a college dormitory to being married, and i had what might be called the eight-year itch. [laughter] i wanted to see if i could manage on my e own. and the deal was i would go to sweden. my daughter jane would be taken care of by her father for about six weeks, and when she finished school, she a came and joined me in sweden. and i got that out of my system. i never again yearned to live on my own. [laughter] oh, and then there was the opportunity to learn about a culture and to learn a language that i knew nothing at all

about. >> wendy, one of you, did you go back to -- did you go to sweden with her? >> i did. >> mary, you -- she went back to sweden this year. >> this year. >> it was the 50th anniversary of my honorary degree from the university. >> and you saw there -- what did you see on the street? your picture. >> yes. [laughter] >> there were posters up and down the streets of one of the many, many -- [inaudible] that the justice did in sweden. we kept trying to see the posters. the car was zooming through the streets, and it was like that scene in the movie "french kiss" where they never see the eiffel tower? we kept looking and looking, and finally driving to the airport, remember? we turned and there it was.

>> wendy, you've been working on this book for 15 years with mary. did you interview all of the justices she served with? how often did you interview her? what do you do when you have 15 plus years? what is your agenda? >> wendy, before you answer, let me tell you how -- [laughter] all this began. >> you're not going to get -- >> wendy and mary came to see me, and they said inevitably people are going to write about your life. so why don't you make it your official biography, people you really trust. and i certainly trusted wendy and i were in the trenches in the '70s when for the first time in history it became possible for courts to accept, the equal protection clause

meant that women were people, equal in stature to men. [applause] so i knew wendy's strategy and mine were pretty much the same. i knew that she understood what we were trying to accomplish. so i said yes without hesitation. >> in fact, when we, when we came to her to talk about it, she sat us down at a little table. and on the table, there was a stack of documents and opinions and other things about this high, and she said, oh, here's a little something that you might want to look at. [laughter] that's how we knew we were in, so to speak. [laughter] >> so did you, in fact, interview all of the justices she's served with? >> i did not interview any of the justices that she served with, but mary did.

>> between the two of you, you interviewed them all. >> we did. >> actually, not all of them -- >> some of them refused to be interviewed. >> well, and there are some newer additions we still plan to interview. but most of them. >> and how often did you sit down with her for an extended interview? i'm assuming it's a lot. >> well, it's a lot. we started out in that little moment in time after she was done with her summer and just before she had to knuckle down and prepare for the coming term, and every year in august -- most often in the last week -- we sit down with her for three days in a row in the late afternoons. so we have our own big stack from that. and she -- and this year it was a little different. we went up to new york where she

was getting her radiation treatments, and it was amazing. how could you -- anyway, so we sat with her twice up there, and she, she remembered everything. she was perfectly normal except she was very tired, which she has never let stop her, and she wasn't letting it stop her then. and that was, and that was, that was a new experience for us in new york. but then we came back down for one day, day before yesterday, and did our third day. so every year we do that. and then we do a lot of things in between to keep track of her. [laughter] >> so let me just say this to do you two here in front of god and everybody. justice brennan famously had an authorized biographer who got writers' block after he died, and somebody else eventually had to take over the project.

>> yes. and i'm getting old, is that what you're saying? [laughter] >> i'm saying to you, you better not get writers' block. we all want to see that. [laughter] everybody here, some of whom are a great deal younger than me, want to be able to read the product of your labor. >> well, we do too. [laughter] [applause] >> you know, i'm taking for granted, this is a very educated and curious audience. i'm taking for granted that everybody in this room has seen rbg at least once -- [applause] and on the basis, and on the basis of sex. so i'm not going to go through all of the cases and the strategy and all of that of justice ginsburg, because there are other places where you've seen this, but there are also a lot of young people in this

audience, men and women. and i wanted to ask justice ginsburg in light of that and in light of all of the conversation that we have these days about a balance between work and family life, could you tell us the story of the elevator piece? [laughter] >> the elevator thief was my lively son. it was when he was in the sixth grade. i called him riley, his teachers called him hyperactive. [laughter] lively. and i would get calls about once every month to come down to the school to talk about my son's late escapades. one day i was sitting in my office at columbia law school, the phone rang. it was the headmaster, we need

to see you immediately. now, i've been particularly weary that day because i had stayed up all night writing a brief. so i said this child has two parents -- [laughter] please alternate calls, and it's his father's turn. [cheers and applause] so they called marty who had been the head of the tack department at a -- tax department at a large law firm. he came down and was told your son stole the elevator. [laughter] and marty's immediate response was, he stole the elevator? how far could he take it? [laughter] so i don't know if it was marty's sense of humor -- and, by the way, the theft was it was one of those old-fashioned hand held elevators?

the operator went out for a smoke, one of james' classmates challenged him to take the kindergarten class up to top floor. [laughter] >> which he did. [laughter] >> so after that episode, the calls came barely once a semester. [laughter] there was no quick change if my son's behavior -- in my son's behavior, but the school was much more reluctant to take a father away from his work than a mother. so the suggestion to alternate calls did the trick. [laughter] [applause] >> so i want to -- >> let me just add that that son is today a fine human -- [laughter] >> he's not in prison anywhere. >> he's a great parent to the

two girls. >> and because she won't do it, i will. he has -- he runs a thing called sedilla records, and they produce magnificent classical recordings. okay, that's my -- that would be inappropriate for you to do but not me. [laughter] so let's talk about your time on the supreme court. you were appointed by president clinton, and within three years of getting to the supreme court, you were still a very junior justice, you're assigned to write the virginia military institute case striking down their policy of exclusion of women. and you would not have gotten that assignment but for your female colleague, justice o'connor, right?

>> yes. seniority is very big in our workplace, so justice o'connor wouldn't have been way ahead of me as a chosen opinion writer. but sandra said ruth could write e this opinion. so it's thanks to justice o'connor that i got to write the decision in the virginia military institute case. >> so you wrote in that case that most, most women -- indeed, most men -- would probably not want to meet the demands, the rigorous demands of the portfolio -- m.i., but those extraordinary individuals who can meet those demands and want to meet those demands should be permitted to. so you were invited to vmi a little over a year ago, i think, to give a speech.

how did that go? >> in fact, they had invited me to come toll vmi at the 20th -- to come to vmi at the 20th anniversary of the decision. my calendar was too crowded, so it turned out to be the 21st anniversary. and you were with me -- >> yes. >> -- for that. the change in that school has been enormous. the commanding officer was so proud of his women cadets. they live in the same quarters that the men live in, but they were so enthusiastic. many of them were in the engineering program. one wanted to be an atomic scientist. the school, by admitting women,

they were able to upgrade their applicant pool considerably -- [laughter] [applause] >> wendy, what did she leave out? >> >> well, she left out a ginsburg/scalia moment. to begin with. because justice scalia found her opinion fairly outrageous, and he was very upset about the whole thing. and his last sentence of his opinion said something like this is going to destroy vmi. he used the word "destroy." and i asked justice ginsburg about that later, and she said to me with perfect -- this was not so long after the opinion, i think. she said to me with the utmost

confidence, vmi will be a better place if there are women. and it won't be destroyed, and the wonderful thing about that was when we were there for the 21st anniversary, people there were so proud and excited to have you in person come there after you had transfigured the place. there was an audience almost as big as this, and back there there were what do you call them -- >> bleachers. >> bleachers, bleachers. all the cadets were there in their uniforms, and for ruth ginsburg they all stood up and applauded. it was just remarkable. [applause]

>> as it turned out, justice is scalia was the sole dissenter in the vmi case. >> yes. [laughter] >> justice rehnquist didn't join my opinion, but he did join the judgment. justice thomas was recused because his son attended vmi. >> he couldn't participate. >> so that left scalia all alone. [laughter] justice scalia knew i felt deeply about the case, as he did the other way, and he came to my chambers one day, took out a sheaf of papers and said, ruth, this is the penultimate draft of my dissent in the vmi case. i'm not yet ready to circulate to the court, but the clock was ticking, and he wanted to give me as much time as he could to

answer husband rather strident dissent. [laughter] >> you were going to the second circuit meeting -- >> yes. i was going to the judicial conference in lake george. i was on the plane, opened up his dissent. it absolutely ruined my weekend -- [laughter] but i was certainly glad to have the extra time to respond. >> so talking about vmi reminds me that when you get to the court, justice o'connor, of course, was the first woman justice. she's there, she's been there for quite a while -- >> twelve years. >> -- by herself. and as you would later learn, that's no fun, because you had to be the only one for a while too. and, you know, she was a reagan appointee, she was a girl of the west. you were a clinton appointee,

you were from new york city, and i wondered -- you very quickly, though, established a very special bond. >> she was as close as i came to having a big sister. when i came onboard, she gave me some advice, not too much. she didn't want to douse me with excessive information. just what i needed to know to navigate those first few weeks. and then she was an enormous help in my first cancer bout with. justice o'connor had a mastectomy and was on the bench nine days after her surgery. so she was going to tell me how to manage this. she said you schedule chemotherapy for friday, that way you can get over it during the weekend and be back in court

on monday. and she also said you're going to get, in those days they were not yet e-mails, but you're going to get calls, you're going to get letters from all over. don't even try to respond. just concentrate on getting the court's work done. >> i'm not telling secrets here when i say that in many of the court's biggest cases of late you are -- not all, but you are in the minority, on the dissenting side. but, you know, in the last five years or more you have pulled out some unexpected victories. and i'm thinking, for instance, of the court's 2015 decision upholding arizona's redistricting commission. these were created by state referenda by the voters to limit

partisanship in the drawing of legislative districts in the state. and will you tell the audience what your opinion said? >> what the opinion said? >> >> the opinion said. you upheld them. why? >> because something needed to be done about the partisan gerrymander -- [applause] i think california was in the lead, then arizona, the good voters of arizona were tired of drawing district lines when there was very little incentive to vote because your districts had been rigged. it was going to be a republican seat or a democratic seat. so your vote didn't count. that's not the way a democracy should run. [applause] so arizona and california had

the idea, and this is not done by the state legislature. state legislatures would not willingly give up the monopoly they had on redistricting. so the good people of the state said this should be done, the redistricting should be done by an independent commission, not by partisan members of the legislature. it presented a constitutional question because the constitution says redistricting will be done by the legislature thereof. so some of my colleagues said legislature means legislature, and it doesn't mean the people. to me, it seemed quite clear that the state had made the people the legislature for this purpose. they should have referenda do

that. they gave the deciding voice to people, to we, the people, and not the partisan members of the legislate can church and i think -- legislature. and i think that after that case other states were encouraged, other states that had referenda. >> so the dissent in that case was written by chief justice roberts, and he argued very vigorously that the legislature means only the legislature. now, fast forward to this year, a 5-4 conservative majority ruled, essentially, that the voters have no ability to challenge extreme partisan gerrymandering in court. but at the same time, the opinion -- written, this time majority opinion written by the chief justice -- seemed to suggest that other remedies like independent redistricting commissions provide they were ways to address -- alternative ways to address the problem of partisanship in redistricting.

so could you please explain what's going on here? [laughter] have the court's conservatives changed their minds about redistricting? is it just window dressing or what? >> as one lives, one learns. so i think the chief learned that he was wrong in the arizona -- [laughter] [applause] >> so i want you to look at this crowd. they tell me this is 4,000 people, i'm not quite sure. next week you and i are going to another interview in little rock, arkansas, in a venue that holds 18,000 people. and not only are all the tickets gone, there's a waiting list of

16,000 people. [applause] so, my dear notorious rbg, how does it feel to be a cultural and pop icon in your 80s? [cheers and applause] >> it's amazing. [laughter] at the advanced age of 86, everyone wants to take a picture with me. [laughter] the notorious rbg was started by a second-year student at new york university law school. she was displayed about a

decision the court had recently rendered in shelby county case that held the key provision of the voting rights act of 1965 unconstitutional. then she thought to herself, i'm angry about that. but anger will not get me any place, so i'm going to do something positive. the positive thing that she did was she put on the internet x can it's tumbler? [laughter] announced it from the the bench in my dissenting opinion in the shelby county case, and she called it the notorious rbg because she had in mind a well known rapper, the notorious b.i.g -- [laughter] and people ask me, what in the

world do you have in common with the notorious be. b.i.g.? [laughter] uh-uh e said, it's evident. [laughter] [applause] we were both born and bred in brooklyn, new york. [laughter] [cheers and applause] >> by the way, when you and justice o'connor were on the court, even at the end of her tenure, some very seasoned supreme court advocates, not newbies -- really seasoned people -- kept confusing you. [laughter] they would call you justice to conner and her justice ginsburg and, excuse me, you don't look anything alike. [laughter] she had at least 6 inches on you. [laughter] her hair style was different, her accent was -- everything was

different. why? >> for 12 years sandra day o'connor was the lone woman on the supreme court. and advocates were accustomedded to there -- accustomed to there being a woman on the court. her name was sandra day o'connor, so if they heard a woman's voice, it had to be justice o'connor. [laughter] she would come out and say, i am justice o'connor, she's justice ginsburg. that happened not just occasion al a lawyers who showed up, but even the solicitor general -- [laughter] mortified as soon as he called me justice o'connor and realized the mistake that he had made. >> he said he wanted, he had -- wished that there was a trap door under his feet. [laughter] ..

ask justice kagan on the other. people who have behind ad arguments at the court know that my two sisters in law are not shrinking violets. they're very active and there was a rivalry between justice scalia and justice sotomayor who could ask the most questions. >> several times she won. so it seems to me appropriate since we began this interview talking about justice scalia, we should end it in some way there,

because the two of you were such pals for so many decades and such unlikely -- such an unlikely friendship. to people from the outside. what dead you love about him so much? >> he was a very funny man. he had been buddies on the d.c. circuit for some years before he was appointed to at the supreme court, and that was a three-judge bench. sometimes he would whisper something to me that was so funny, i had everything i could do to contain myself from bursting out into hysterical rafter and the supreme court, while we didn't sit next to each other, he would sometimes send me notes. i can't reveal for the audience what some of them were, but -- [laughter] -- and there's a comic opera

called scalia-ginsburg that characterizes the two of us, the different way we approach reading legal text, but our reverence for the court as an institution and for our constitution, so to leave you with just a small sample of this very amusing opera. scalia's open, aria is a rage are aria and guess like this, the justices lined how can they possibly spout this, the constitution says, absolutely nothing about this. and then i answer him, dear justice school you're your searching for brightline solutions. the problems that don't have easy answers.

but the great thing about our constitution is that society it can evolve. the -- [applause] >> so the plot is roughly based on the magic flute. justice scalia is lock up in a dark room, being punished for excessive dissenting. [laughter] and i enter the cashing room through a glass ceiling -- [laughter] [applause] -- and say i'm there to help him pass the test he needs to pass to get out of the dark room. and a character called the commentery says, why would you want to help him? he is your enemy.

and i explain, he is not my enemy. he is my dear friend. and then we sing a wonderful duet foes like this: we are different, we are one. different in our approach to legal text, but one in our reverence nor institution we search and for the united states constitution. [applause] >> so, i know this seems like a very short time, but we have already exceeded it. and i thank the justice, her biographers, all the people here who waited so long to come, this has been a lovely morning.

thank you justice ginsburg. [applause] [cheers and applause] >> thank you. thank you very much. [cheers and applause] >> thank you. thank you very much. [inaudible conversations] >> there were 4,000 people in

that ballroom to hear justice right bader ginsburg and another 6,000 trying to get in. very popular event here at the national book festival. our coverage continues, booktv is here. we have some callins coming up, we have some volunteers handing out bags. that's doug and eric of the book -- of the c-span staff, and those book bags are free. we do it every year in conjunction with the national book festival. a full day of coverage still head. many callins. you can find the full schedule on your program guide through booktv.org some the right gater ginsburg event is reairing at 3:00 a.m. on the east coast, which is midnight on the west cores. so if you're not going to be awake you can set your recording devices to cover that if you didn't get to see it.

now we'll join in progress another book event here. this is parag khan na and steve pearlstein talk can about the economic.this is live coverage of the national book festival on booktv. >> far across the indian ocean as frick but then retreat in order to focus on domestic economic issues and sort of border skirmishes, and that allowed for the european colonial powers, particularly portugal to move into the indian ocean space. but imagine degam na rounding the cape of good hope and seeing ming dynasty fleets in the indian ocean. how successful would the port fees portuguese explorer heards been and then their ottomans

and -- so, the lessons that asians draw from those historical episodes that enable the rise of the west are that. a, they should not retreat from their now political commercial expansionism how to belton road and they should not be divided. they should not allow themselves to be divided and conquered and don't view europe's success 0 are the west success as the product of great ingenuity but rather of luck. >> so, the trans-pacific partnership, tpp, would that have been a good thing for the u.s. to keep our foot in aches or have we hurt ourselves by not moving forward if it. >> a major own goal. economics is everything to asians. economic growth. building their own economies. building trade networks. othe last 30 years since the collapse of the soviet union and now with the rise of the regional comprehensive regional partship. all of those acronyms you see unfolding in real-time in asia

are meant to integrate asian economies and for us it would have been an enormous opportunity to sell more into asia and every day we can see the dat about american corporate's declining market share in asia and what you're seeing perversely is that our experts may fall to condition trues like some china as a result of the trade war and we'll lose to canada, mexico, japan, australia, new zealand, actively joining the tpp, even competing to lead it and eat away at american market share and then asians will trade with each other and we'll be left out. >> what is built in road and where did the name come from. >> the beltin road initiative is a continuation of what has been happening over the last 25-30 years in terms of this resurrection of the silk road from the precolonial words wordd asians had moyer to do with each. other beltin road is china's contribution, in the last five to ten. >> but really i've been working

this over the last 20 years, investing massively in cross-border railways, pipelines, highways, now they call it the digital silk road with huawei, fiber, optic cable and 5g. the infrastructural networking of asia, and china has committed hundreds of bill offed dollars to it. others as well. it's the bazooka of infrastructure. >> your definition of asia from where to where. >> that's a bug bear for me as a student of geography. they're on one definition of asia and is not not a continent. our kids always learn the wrong thing. which is that asia is a continent and europe is a continent. there's one big constant nantz called our eurasia from the mediterranean sea to the sea of japan, from russia to sing polar and-1/2 that's asia. there's no dispute about what is aches. the fact is the last 10, 10, 20

years we have been focuses on asia as if it's china and china revs all asia and children is only a third of the asian pop legislation is, only half of asia's gdp and other asian countries glowing faster than china and the middle east, saudi arabia, turkey, israel, these countries are geographically in asia, and more and more they are gravitating towards the rest of asia and away from the west economically and even strategically. >> steve.in your book you make the 1970s which i lived through and work at the white house -- as a great team. people were happier then, is that true? >> i don't -- i would say the 1970s was a transition period and wasn't a great time, not because you were working in the white house. but in fact -- this is apropos what mark said, it was during the 1970s that our economy gap

to become very uncompetitive for a variety of reasons and was as a result of that and as a reaction to that, that we decided that japan looked like they were going to take over, and germany, and we were going to be left behind, be like britain, a falling industrial power. and we really pulled up our socks and we made our capitalism leaner and meaner and it worked. and we on again became in the most competitive country in the world. so the 1970s was not a particularly good period. you say for workers. it was a pretty good peered for workers at least absent inflation. but the 1950s and the 60s are considered the golden era. >> okay. so, in the 1980s, reagan took over, thatch are took over and the concept of shareholder being most important part of a corporation can do over. now the business roundtable said shareholders not the only thing that crowes and companies should

work about what about this business around statement. >> well, add i had a smile minor role in that. i would say the pendulum swung from too little regard for shareholders and profits to do much regard for shareholers and profits and now happily the pendulum is swinging back and the statement by the roundtable was more a signal that the leaders of the biggest done-companies in the country understood that it had gone too far, and they would like a more balanced approach, which not like the 1970s, but more like then 1950s. >> income inequality as bad the late 1920s. to what do you attribute our growing income inequality. >> technology. trade, deregulation, which happened during the 1970s when you were in the white house. >> they didn't listen to me.

>> we've -- there has been a natural tendency toward winner take all competition among companies, and among workers. the top lawyers today get paid much more than the people slightly below them. the top professors, the top athletes, so -- and also companies, the top companies make huge profits, google, facebook, compared to companies that are almost as -- have almost as good products so the win are take all quality, the lack of antitrust enforce; it's a long list but they're not all because of government, however, and i think this is a mistake people make. the think that's reagan and thatcher, and obviously they play a role, but a lot of it has to do with norms of behavior. in the 1950s and 60s, a chief executive probably had the power over the bored of director -- board of directors to pay himself -- it would have been a himself in those days -- himself huge fees and wouldn't have

thought to do. so it would have been socially unacceptable. if they'd gone to train club another ceo would have said, joe, don't do that. it makes us all look bad and anyway, you'll make democrats of our worker and they didn't do it in those days. >> okay, and you think that people were happier in the 1950s than they are today. >> yes. we know they were, actually. >> father knows best period of time. >> we do sir fays -- surveys. we ask people of satisfaction with life and economic situation, and they were. they weren't richer, by the way. they only had one bathroom in the house, formica countertops. >> but the people who were happier were white presumably because minorities were disenfranchise inside i our economic system the 50s and 40s. >> well, yes, but that doesn't necessarily mean they weren't happy. they had actually more vibrant communities than some of them have today.

and there was build around their church and their communities, and to say that happiness as you know -- whole know, people get happier, they get richer until they have incomes that are equivalent today of $70,000 and then money and happiness -- those lines start to depart. so, people were happy most his because they had economic security, and this is something that i think the market people, the market fundamentalists don't understand. people assign a very high value to economic security. and we have a much less secure economy for middle class and working class people. >> some people say that economic security and happiness with your financial situation arises when you have exactly twice what you already have. in other words, you need twice what you had before your financially secure, but that may be a different issue. in terms of politics, you say in your book that the political contribution system in our country is really secured

towards wealthy people and it's really making our economic system not so competitive. is that right? >> i what i said was the following. that there are things we can do and should do and if you want we can talk but that on a policy sense to make our capitalism more palatable to people. but we can't do any of those things until we first change the political money situation. >> how would you change it? >> constitutionat amendment. >> but as you know constitutional amendment requires a constitutional convention or two-thirds of each house and three-quarters of the states. is that realistic? >> i think so. it's realistic if now think having a democratic congress and democratic president at the same time are realistic, there's a lot of support for on amendment that would allow a reasonable restriction on political money, and can we do something? everyone who thinks that they would vote for that constitutional amendment could you raise your hand? there's broad support for that idea.

it's not considered a crazy idea. >> but -- [applause] people who come to book festivals may not be a cross-section of america. >> they're not. they're not. so, they're older, they're richer, more liberal and live in washington, dc or a lot of them do. so that's right. but polling has been done on this. there is broad support for that. >> all right. what about -- >> will the way you mo who against that. politician of both parties. why? they mastered the current system and don't want to change it. they're happy with the current system we have to force it on them. >> any other constitutional amendment you would recommend. >> no. >> that's the only one. >> yes. i'll take that one. >> any legislation that congress can pass -- not a constitutional amendment -- that would bring us closer to what you would like to us have. >> there is some of it has to do with boring stuff live antitrust. one its the two fer. i think that we should have a

modest $3,000 per person universal basic income in the united states. [cheers and applause] some of that to replace some of he programs we have and i wouldn't call it universal basic income. i'd call it's dividend for all citizens. and then i would pair that with universal -- required universal service. three years sometime during your life when you have to -- >> how would you pay for that -- where would the money come from? we have a big debt already. >> right. well part of where i come from is eliminate existing programs we have and part of it i would raise money on people like me and you. >> higher taxes. >> yeah. >> all right. so, you're not running for congress, though to do that, right? >> you know something? i think if the democrats should stop stalk but how hey'll give a middle class tax cut. that's not what people want. they want good services, they want social security and medicare and child care and good education, and they don't -- they don't neat a tax cut and

don't want a tax cut. i wish democrats -- i'm a democrat and you used to be a democrat -- [laughter] -- i think -- i wish stop playing the tax cut game. no tax cuts. period. [applause] >> okay. >> i guess maybe if i rap for congress here i could do all right. >> social security systemming more or less financially bankrupt. >> well, it is not insolvent over a long period of time by a little amount. it could be made solvent very easily. >> by increasing the taxes or -- >> i would say you could do two things. one is very slowly raise the age and secondly, you could subject all income to the payroll tax rather than only up to whatever it is, $225,000. >> okay. ron, let me ask you is this, is xi jinping going to be in charge

of china for our lifetime,ike putin, president for life? >> i would strongly distinguish between putin and xi because china has a governing system. an ethos instead of institution, common, almost bureaucratic decision. russian, i an author tearon -- so even though you have two liters who appears as they've could i rule for life you have two different systems. xi can technically rule now -- they still -- not -- he abolished term limits adult there are term structures and in russia put has been president and prime minister and can decide which portfolio is more important. so i can imagine a scenario where xi jinping steps down either after one more term, let's say, because he has a number of rings -- >> in his second term now. >> he is, he could do one more, for example and that would be republican desendded bit a

finite period and he has a set of people around him from which he can choose. >> does xi jinping for the chinese people, want a tariff agreement or trade agreement with the united states or really not want one. >> i mean, one of the hardest things to know is whats the chinese people think other than what is mediated through the -- >> that's why i'm asking you. >> the official spokesman. do enough description in the book without trying to psychologically sort of capture the sentiments of billions of people but if if if i could i would china's largest trading pear nurse it asian neighbors and the second larger trading partner is europeans, we are actually its third most important trading partner and that trade volume is going down so they actually are decoupling significantly from the united states. we should be selling the motorhome oil, gas, soybeans, more machinery, tools, technology, instead we're seeing them less. >> they an want agreement or not? >> bateer to have one than not

to have one but has to be one that isn't such a sort of disruptive to their supply chain. >> chain what is going nonhong kong now. are the chinese going to send troops in or not. >> technically the troops there are. the question is whether they release them on to the streets and the answer is they might. if you want to know the answer without knowing what is going to happen tomorrow it's still the sort of death by a thousand cuts strategy that began 20 years on when the handover began. part of the agreement with the handover was that something on the order of one to 200 chinese mainland chinese families would be allowed to move into hong kong every day. so, if you take 20 years, and multiply it by that number of days, bottom line there's a million -- more than one million nameland chinese who have entered and now's in hong kong over just the last 20 years in addition to those that were there before. so a very divided policy. clearly there is a certain hong

kong ethos we all know and love, one that has -- they have different passports, hong kong-british linked p. passport so there is that hong kong identity that i strongly sympathize with but given the proximity and the politic head legal handover it's not likely they -- >> in the 1970s, we were worried in the united states that japan would take over the world economically. what happened to japan's economy and its demographics are the worst in the world. heat goes to happen to jap over the next 10, 20, 30 injuries. >> it was wrong to believe that japan would take over the world it and doesn't mean that we are equally wrong to view china as a major peer competitor. because they're two very, very different countries obviously. china vastly larger demographic include and now economically. when it comes to japan, yes they are in demographic decline.

however, we've kind of -- i think we need a new conversation but japan that doesn't really judge the country solely on the basis of the fact their population is decreasing. for one thing, the most evolved technological society in the world. they are moving towards this kind of man-machine synthesis like no other place in the world. robots in restaurants and hotels and so on. then they are actually significantly revising their immigration policies. so there have nonbeen in the history of japan two million nonjapanese people living on the four main japanese islands. half of them are chinese and then 700,000 koreans, 300,000 vietnamese, 50,000 indians, so you have literally several million and counting and greg foreigners so gipsies the last place on erring we think of an immigrant society and melting but. but they are drastically change thing immigration policy to fill

labor shortages. >> what but north korea is kim jong-un going to survive and will there be an agreement with him. >> i think there well be some kind of agreement with him. already been underway. think what trump -- >> what kind of agreement. wouldn't remove their existing nuclear power. >> no. i think you go through stages of creating like a con minimummum. japan -- remember that china and south korea agree on what they want to see have in the country that is between them. those two countries have a lot more influence over north korea than we do. i think the trump summit helped to kick off or maybe amplify a certain dynamic but ultimately we -- >> who write this love letters he is sending to president trump? what it in those letters. >> i don't know. but he could have his own cottage industry but this is a place that is all economically -- he says it has an economy. that's already colonized in some ways by china and south korea, and those countries have strong

interests in extracting the resources there and using the agriculture and the low cost labor force and going to continue to do so. >> then he chance of north korean got% overthrown internally is zero. >> close so zero. >> is india going to be growing faster than china. >> the think that is surprising that india and china have in common despite festivity of different political skims, they beth lie but their numbers. they're so flagrant it's unbearable. you don't tote what to believe when it comes to economic statistics but the closer you look at it you have revise downward which is unfortunate of being a chaotic democratic place that india it. they have structural problems around unemployment, the risk of labor odd make, there is no -- automation, i there's no real labor productivity and climate change and the decertifiesation and the water shortages so big structural problems there.

>> steve, as i mentioned you won the pulitzer pry for your commentary on what happened in the financial crisis. you see any similarity to what you wrote about then now and do you think we're heading interest a big financial crisis again? >> yes, there's some similarity and i think we are heading into one that's not so big. this-the previous one had a lot to do with consumer debt, home debt, mortgages, but cars and college loans. i think this one is mostly in the business sector, and there's a lot of debt that has been taken out, not all of which has been productively used, and if there's a slowdown, that will come home to roost. >> the recession starting win when would you say? >> actually, our basic economy is in pretty good shape. so there is this divergence between the financial sector and the real economy, and if you

look at all of the recent resessions sense 1987, they have been caused by financial market. not been the normal ups and downs of an industrial economy that we had in the 1950s and '60s. these are financially driven recessions so i think it starts in finance and then that tens to bring down the -- >> and she wrote about the last financial crisis. who was the greatest hero? was is benazir benber thank keym geithner, pressure approximation the congress w.h.o. deserves most credit for helping us get out of the mess. >> i would say hank paulsen. >> because? >> because it was a lot harder for republican treasury sect in the bush administration who had been in goldman sack to get the country to agree something very

unpalatable, that you had to help the institutions -- you had to prevent the meltdown of the institutions that is caused the problem in order to prevent a worse outcome for everybody else. >> now, many people today will say that for the free enterprise system but they don't like to say they're capitalist. why is the word capitalist such an offensive thing jibing i don't know. see it in my students at george mason university but they -- it conjures up sort of moral distaste, and again that goes to routhlessness and the inequality and the unfairness they see. they're not socialists. if you ask them, they're don't really know what socialism is but they're not for the government controlling everything, and owning everything. they're certainly not for that. so, my students dish ask them how many of you want to work for

the government? and i think we would bowling be very unhappy to know i never get anyone to put their hand up. then i say would you like to work for a big business? how many and no nobody puts the hand up. i say who wants to work at goldman sachs, maybe one person would put their hand up. i ask what do you want to do. >> what but private equity? >> i didn't. i'm not sure they know. but i would recommend they do, but where they want to work, work at ngos, nongovernmentat organizations, they want to work at startups which they thinksen part of capitalism. >> startups become unicorns. >> not they want to get rich. they think that those kinds of companies don't have this sort of moral stain on them. >> how long have you been teaching at george mason. >> eight years. >> so eight years ago were the students different than they are today. >> not much. >> the big e question is issue this on the exam?

that's all i always asked. >> no. i tend not to give exams and tell them that grades are like sex. the more you worry about them and focus on them, the less well you'll do. >> is that from experience or observation? >> observation. >> observation, not experience, okay. so, the most popular export from china is the panda bear. we have two in the zoo here. why are the pandas used by the chinese as tools of diplomacy? why don't they just give them to a lot of people. >> they're actually supply and demand. there's limited supply. just like we're trying to save the northern white rye know. anywhere a constant effort to breed pandas. they're slothful creatures. so, not at energetic as steve's students i imagine.

but i'm not sure what the exact origin are, i think that it's just a reminder that lot of chinese diplomacy is symbolism, and you have to really differentiate between the rhetoric of paternity and the reality which is much more capitalist than anything else. >> so let's talk but australia. how is australia -- is australia part of asia? >> it is. not tech ton include part of asia but very much geographically and when you think but their include as well, it's -- their economy as well it's a giant ore mine that hitched itself to china and they realize that and they're in a desperate quest to diversify they're expert destination to make more of other sectors of their economy like education and health care, real estate. they are today the largest net per kappa recipient of high net worth individuals in the world because they have this fairly

transparent immigration'll si and you have japanese, koreans and planeloads or chinese that are buying real estate in australia, moving their, taking australian citizenship. under the age of i guess 30-35, there is a much faster growth rate of the asian population of australia than the white population. so, it is becoming asian in many, many ways. >> why did the chinese government want to build islands in the south china see, for tourism or what? >> yes. tourism in which you get to fly an f-16. so the island fortification in the south china sea good back to the fact that it's a legal gray area. these are islands that have passed hands and control over centuries, and china wants to use the fact there is no clear dee du jour demarcation to build fact necessary water. once china claims something, it starts to build -- dredge sand

and put air strips there and put military assets. basically controls it and you'll never get them through arbitration to give it back. so they're on a island build right and other country are doing the same thing, the philippine is doing it, we're helping. the. vietnam is doing it. eventually they will have a de facto settlement, even though they well have a du jour disgraham, yeah how is vietnam doing economically. >> vamp is an amaze growing story. one of the countries when i first went more than 15 years ago and wrote very positive things about its incredible potential, i snubbed estimated it then. you go there and see that the hundred million people they are -- they remind coherent, organized. don't have teeming uncontrolled polluted mega cities like ma nilla. ho chi minh city is organized of 25 million people. so a disciplined country version

hard working, a lot of high-tech supply chains, not just cheap manufacturing stuff and sam sung. >> because of our trade disagreement right now with china, is it the case that you observe people are -- companies moving their manufacturing out of china to maces like vietnam. >> definite live happening but i want us to get our facts and our sequencing correct so that five, ten years from now we don't look back and say the trade war caused american firms to shift their supply out of china, china's -- japan began massively shifting fdi out of china, into southeast asia. ten years ago, way were before the trade war and way before trump. the trade war is accelerating something that was already happening and it's great for southeast asia. >> what about russia and its asian ambitions. its russia an asia pair. >> russian irvery mach asian. russia is become mortgage relevant to asia but not as

influential in asia as china or other countries like japan. they view it as a rear kind of resource base. it's oil and gas, timber, agriculture so russia now has -- i think it was during the obama administration actually when we -- there's this phrase, pivot to asia was coined and putin says we pivoted to asia a long time ago and russia has constant diplomacy with china, according to the there's an index that peking university -- russia is anybody one. anything china wants in terms of modernizing railways build this highway, allow it to transit goods through your country to europe. russia does it. >> all these builtin roads things built by china in the silk road area, said there's a lot of debt that has awe kid and they don't give the roads. they finance them.

it that debt going no be paid back or the chinese going to walk away from it. >> depths. there's wide spectrum of possibilities there write-downs and projects that never see the light of day. there are white elephants like you expect in countries infrastructuring and countries very strategic and even though the debt is high and they can't repay, those countries so important to china that the china will forgive the debt and reduce the volume of-like pakistan, and then there's cases in between where china is going to switch from concessional and than concessional, fancy way of saying ramping up the interest rate to punish countries and seize assets. >> do i need to work about a pakistan-india nuclear problem? >> no. for better or worse, this is something where they move in a by a preemptively to de facto settle something that was under some ways settled. >> the pakistan government know that osama bin laden was living in pakistan? >> depends who you mean by government.

leave itself at that it. >> me o'important question. if have some money continue vest and i want to instress in asia. >> he does, he does. >> but clearly hypothetical. >> what country should i invest in first and second and what country should i avoid. >> remember that southeast asian countries are small. invest in assets costs, industry, because they're all cross-border supply chains now. invest in e-commerce and look at e-commerce con groom lat inside singapore but singapore is a tiny country but they're operating everywhere so you look at the rise of automotive manufacturing, mobile phone production, looking at health care, and financial services and all the digital stuff. you would invest in those things, not a country but in the region. >> so where are are you investing. >> i live in singapore but -- >> we didn't talk but singapore. why is singapore pretty prosperous and happy place. >> it wasn't always.

>> since in the last 20 years. >> even superficially people know the story, it actually had a very rough start as a former british colony and then ejected from malaysia against its own will in the 1960s says only in the to -- the country is 54 years old formally, and it's become incredibly wealthy, obviously very much a free trade driven model of foreign investment driven and open immigration model. education focus. talent driven model. very good government, low corruption. >> who is the most popular american president in recent years in asia. >> obviously obama. no question. >> still very popular. he goes asia maybe once, twice a year. >> the most popular american cultural figure in asia. >> a good question. the answer in china would be different. >> okay. >> it could be basketball players. [music playing] >> oh, okay.

>> musicians. >> so the chances of our country doing what you want us to do is 50%? 100%? zero%? you have a lot of structure changes you want us to make or legislative changes. you think these are going to happen or not. >> the things that i cite specifically are actually i think fairly modest. there are lefties who think i'm a woos. i diagraph with liz warren on almost everything. so -- you're against a wealth tax. >> yes, actually. but so i'm not really that radical. and the chances -- i think the chances of us not improving antitrust, the chances of us not raising taxes on wealth anymore perks chance of as nut dealing we plate cat money are pretty low. as bad as our political system is today, it's still reasonably

responsive to what people want, and it's pretty clear what people want, which is they want a more humane and moral capitalism. >> we have given people a little tease of this book, can american capitalism survive. why should somebody buy this book and now rate after you have already told them what's in it? [laughter] >> because it makes a fairly -- it's a book in some ways about ideas, and about how we glommed on to some very bad ideas. greeds good all that matters ease quality of opportunity and not income. that if we become more fair that our economy will shrink of we grandmotherred on to those ideas and they became widely accepted, and this book explains why in fact they're not right. >> when you won the pulitzer prize and they call you up, were you surprised or save i deserved it? what was your reaction when you

won it? >> i'm one of the few people who ever won a pulitzer prize who was not nominated by his or already newspaper. >> who nominated you? >> an individual. back in those days anyone can nominate anybody, and so it was a little surprising to the editors of the "washington post" when i won. >> what did you say to them? see, i don't need you? >> i didn't say anything. >> okay. >> i didn't need to. >> so why should somebody after hearing this about your become, why should somebody go buy this book and read this book, the future is asia. >> we haven't even scratched the surface. that's reason. if you want to understand what five billion people think and what they're doing right now, and how to pit bluntly they don't care what we think but them, there's a lot of learning we have to do as americans about this vast majority of the world's population. >> how long it take you to write this book. >> a couple of years. >> honk it take you to write

this book? >> well, it had a false start but once i got working on it by myself and not with a previous co-author it went pretty fast. this writing isn't hard for me. >> okay. i've read both of them enjoy they would and i home people will have a chance to read that's books. thank you very much. >> thank you. [applause] >> thank you. [inaudible conversations] [inaudible] [inaudible conversations]

>> your watching live coverage of the national book festival on boost on c-span2. the next author event is at 2:3. that will be david brooks talking about his newest book, the second mountain, the quest for a moral life. in the meantime, we're pleased to have join us here on our set at the convention center, david treuer, the author of this book, the heartbeat of wounded knee, native america from 1890 to the present. mr. treuer, describe the united states in 1890. >> guest: describe the united states in 1890. start with the hard question. why you have to make so it tough? 1890 was a really important time, really strange time. both for americans generally but also native americans in particular. the frontier was declared officially closed. the reservation system was officially in full swing.

it was a time of great change but it was sort of the beginning of what we think of as modern america. and the end of what we think of as native american bought those thing were untrue. >> why do you 1890 to by that dividing line. >> 1890 was the year of arguably the last conflict, armed conflict between native folks and the american government. at the massacre another wind knee in south dakota where between 150 and 300 lakota men, women and children, principally women and children were massacred by the reconstitutioned cavalry, and that moment, that moment came to stand in for so much of american history up to that point. >> host: december 28, 1890, what happened? >> guest: there was -- this is on the tail end of the murder of sitting bull. things were unsettled around

the -- on the agency and people were looking for shelter, and there was a band of native people who were going to find shelter with another band ask they left where they were and they were on foot and horseback, heading to the agency, and they were intercepted by the cavalry, who rounded them up and tried to disarm them, and unclear what happened next but the cavalry started shooting, opened fire with guns, and murdered about 150 people. the government was really nervous about what they were convince weed be an indian uprising because of the ghost dance and other things going on in the plains, but really they just murdered a bunch of people trying to find shelter. >> host: what's the ghost dance. >> guest: the ghost dance was a religion that was group never plains in mid-19th century, a fundamental list movement in some ways.

the precepts of the movement if you dehas to dances, wear shildts are you abstain from alcohol, work hard and get along with white people, you will he saved. kind of populistic movement, a cleansing of the earth you'll be lifted up and saved. and the white people will be wiped out. you can see why it bee an attractive religion to tribes. >> host: how reported was what happened at wounded knee. >> guest: widely reported. the author of wizard of oz, he was a reporter for various south dakota papers and he said that's a good start. we should wipe out all the indians and other reporters said this is just another instance in a long list of injustices against native people. there was coverage, wide coverage, some pro master, some

anti-massacre. my book isn't just but the stat ijust wanted to get start thread before we move on. a book came out in 1970, bury my heart at wounded knee. you book is the heartbeat of wind anymore. there is a connection between the two book. >> guest: there is. i read the browns classic bury my heart at wounded knee in 1990 on the 100th anniversary of massacre of wind knee, and the book is to this day the best selling book about american nip e indian history ever published. there are over 7 million copies in print. it's never been out of print. it's published in 17 different languages. and in the book he says on the very first page, this book is about the plains wars and the plains tribes and started in 1850 and ended in 1890 at the massacre at wounded knee, where quote, the culture and civilization of the american indian was final he destroyed, end quote, and guess on, on the

second page to say so if you happen to travel to a contemporary reservation you notice the poverty me and hopelessness and squalor, perhaps by reading my book you'll understand why. and i read that when i was 20 years old. and i had left my verse vacation in minnesota, leech lake reservation, i was in college, and i was so upset because there's more to my life and there's more to my regs sir vacation than poverty and hopelessness and squalor, and our cultures and civilizations were not destroyed in 1890. it was perhaps a low point but a point from which native people across the country have been working and striving and living. we have been since than point making our own history, not always with tools of our choosing but making our own history. making our own lives but dee brown was expressing a pretty widely held belief that america has an indian past and a modern

present that indians are necessarily of the past and are disappeared and gone, in order to make way for america. and that's just not true. >> host: in your book you write i launched my life as a fiction write and i was oppositional at that time. i abhorred the publishing industry's presence to make multicultural fiction engage in cultural show and tell. what does that mean? >> guest: well, in fiction, and movies, people and in life people like their indians but only in very specific ways. pipe like indians to be dead, of the past, necessarily spiritual, some sort of ethnic and ethical alternative to the ruination of western society if you're a

liberal. people like us to be exotic. people don't like to imagine us as lawyer, look my mother, an american indian woman lawyer and judge. they don't us to be professors, don't like us not to wear feathers. don't like to us be modern americans, native and modern at the same time. and so i've always sort of written against the grain, always tried to upset the apple cart just a bit. >> host: you write about your life as leech lake and how much you miss evidence it when you went off to college. >> guest: yes, i did. i mean, like a lot of kids, when i was living my life in my parents' home and my community, i could not wait to leave. i hated it. and i think in many ways, just as most americans persist in this thinking about indians that we're again, we're necessarily the past, that indian life if it exists now is not life, it's

just a state of perpetual suffering. that's what most americans think but i income many ways us native folk have internalizes the thoughts, too because that's how i felt. nothing good happening here where i'm from. there's nothing happening here except suffering and i want out. i want to get out. but as soon as i left, as soon as i left, and i went away to college in jersey, i missed it. i didn't miss the suffering. i didn't miss the poverty. didn't miss all that crap. i missed what i could only then recognize as the richness of my community, the sort of complexity of it, the energy, cultural, spiritual, professional, energy of the place i was from. it's a beautiful place. full of interesting people. but i thought where i was from was where good idea goods to die and only after leaving did i realize that there's life here.

nobody understands that and even i didn't forward it and this book is not just me explaining our life to outerred. this was a written for me to understand for myself what our lives mean. >> host: different treuer, the u.s., continental u.s., 2.4 billion with a b acres. how much of that is controlled by indian tribes? >> guest: now? win one% and two -- 1 publishes and 2 publish are let's than 5 been years ago. >> host: you used the word indian in your book. i do. some people care a great deal. some native people prefer native american, some prefer american indian, some don't like either and want to be referred to in their tribal languages. i just use all of them for

verisimilitude. have to use all the word and i'm not beholding to any one but this is my opinion. not anyone else's. >> host: we have some callers line up to take some calls. let's hear from jeff in providence, rhode island. hi, jeff. >> caller: he local, good afternoon, can you hear me? >> host: we're listening, sir. >> caller: okay. that's good. i know a little bit about this subject. his situation, my ancestry, i would say is culpable a lot of this were germanic ancestry, and it happened. the indians, native americans, were evict. from their land but that it were vanquished. and the gentleman is very bright individual, but the united

states, a lot of people don't realize, was formed through conquest. you take a look. we were going west, the indians were removed, and --/or killed and we went toy hawaii and we told the queen there we're going to take it over and there's nothing you can do about it. she was smart -- >> host: jack, i'm going to -- >> what? >> host: i'm going. >> guest: he i'm game into interrupt and injury expect and push back. my tribe, ojibwe, our tribal home landed on great lakes and we still live there our native communes are still there. in hawaii you last mentioned there's still communities of nate different hawaiians in hawaii and this is the thing. right? people think about native tribes as being sort of just demolished and destroyed by first colonialis and then american

society with think of what remains as little island native communities in an american sea bus threat not the case, jack. that's the first thing the american colonialists do -- the dumped tea in boston harbor and i tresses dress up it an indians and dumped tea in the harbor. have the revolution when the founding fathers were looking around for an alternative form of government? they looked to the iroquois con con fed was simple. america has been made in relation to us ever since the beginning. you're wrong, dude. >> host: we are going to go to our next call because we only have a few minutes with our guest, david treuer. we'll hear from iris, and iris fliss south lyon, michigan go ahead, please. >> caller: sure. ow don't look indian, whatever indian is supposed to be and i wonder how they came here in the first place, because they didn't grow out of the ground.

they're not turnips. they, we, none of us are human are turnips. so we all came from someplace, didn't we not, and do a lot of people who are indians speak words in hebrew? i know wyandotte indians have hebrew expressions and want to know didn't we all come from someplace? none of us grew from the ground. >> host: irish in south lyon, michigan. mr. treuer. >> guest: well, no, we're not turnips, and the only native people who speak any hebrew are native people who are mixed maybe native and jewish, like myself. my father is jewish, yet i don't know any hebrew. where do native people come from? depends on who you ask. argueolists and biologists think there was a migration to new world, although new arrangeol

evidence is push thing date back to 20 to 40, now souther america they found archaeologyol evidence going back 55,000 years. but if you ask native people, we emerged here as people accord, tower legends, according to my tribe we were lowered down here and were meant to be to the comy arose out of the ground. according to den anyway, they engaged in a long migration and emerged in southwest where they currently live. where we emerged as human organisms is one question. where we emerged as people is a different question. one i ans by science maybe. the other answered by culture. >> host: when did the american indian movement begin. >> guest: the american indian movement ban in the late 60s and gathered steam in the early 70s and then reached a cries moment around 1975. -- a crisis moment around 1975. >> host: what did it chief.

>> guest: the indian movement was a complicated political movement. started in urban areas. that myth but native people is wisconsin we only live in rural or reservation commune out but over half of all native people live in cities like chicago, cincinnati, d.c., l.a., denver. and the american indian movement was largely an urban movement, it was largely a protest sort of activist movement meant to draw america's attention to our continued existence, so, jack, the american indian movement is speaking to you. and it was meant to sort of also draw people's attention to the ways in which the american government has refused to honor itself treaties and agreements with native tribes. which are in perpetuity and should continue to honor. to do that it engaged in lots of really public, really highly visible theatrical takeovers. protests and marches and they took over the bureau indian

affairs here in d.c. and occupied the building, i forget how many days in '71 or '72. they accomplished a lot i think. and they were very effective at grabbing america's attention. >> host: david treuer you mentioned your folks. mom, lawyer, judge. native american, father, jewish, survivor of the holocaust. hough did they meet? >> guest: they met at leech lake. when they were -- >> host: in minnesota. >> guest: yes niksch reservation, my mom's reservation, my father moved there to teach high school, and they met back then, and then my mom became a nurse and was working on a health care initiative on the reservation my father stopped teaching by that point and was working on the same health care program so they were coworkers, both trying to improve health care on minnesota

reservations, and fell in love and had my brother and me and my younger brother and sister. >> host: next call for david treuer, from denice in new jersey. hi, denice. >> caller: good afternoon. a pleasure to speak to mr. treuer. one off my favorite books war bury my heart at wounded need and i would like to know if he can tell me how his book compares and contrasts to dee brown's mo is one of my heroes. second part of my question is, i have seen some programming on mostly on the pbs channel but what has happened to lakotas, indian is believe that's the tribe that in north dakota. and thirdly, there's been some standoff but pipeline and federal government trying to push indians off of their sacred ground. and has a lot of press but sort

of been in the back burner as far as i can see. so in terms of indian affairs, history has how our present author feels as a continuing of dee brown, a special set of highlighted issues of the women, indian women and what is going on with -- >> host: denice, i'm going to cut you off there that's a lot to work with. mr. treuer, go. >> guest: i think you're asking how my book is related to dee brown's book. >> host: that was the original question. >> guest: dee brown's book, his focuses on the plains wars and he starts like he says in 1850 and end inside 1890 where as i mentioned he says, native american life, the culture and civilization was destroyed mitchell book starts in 1890 in the year that dee brown's left off with the opposite thesis. that 1890 was not the ennorth the owned of temperature culture or civilization or communesle

might have ban low point from which we have been emerging ever since. 1890, our populations were the lowest they'd had ever been, fewer than 200,000 native people left in the united states. now there are over 3 million. our land base was the smallest it had ever been, it has since regrown. our communes lack infrastructure, a political organization, our religions were under attack and now our religion being reborn and flourishing, our political systems are becoming healthier and happenier and people are living longer and longer and that's what my book is about. my book is about -- not about about indian death. my book is about native american life. and that's the crucial difference. >> host: soming else crowley is indian casinos. are those a success story? >> guest: everyone asks about casinos. and. >> host: that's a lot of

people's only connection. >> guest: fair enough. and people ask -- people usually have strong opinion when they ask the question. they're lucre gets more often than not, not what are kinds like but how have they destroyed american indian life. people think of them as negative. i you can tell mel how apple destroyed anglo life. 'll tell you how to casinos have destroyed native life. tell me how microsoft destroyed french culture, i'll tell you how casinos have destroyed native culture. it's no so simple little. are corporations generally good for, say, the country of madagascar? it's mixed. are corporations good for america? well, decidedly mixed. are casinos good for native communities? mixed. they provide revenue. they've provide funding for infrastructure and schools and retirement homes for our elders. they provide funding for arts initiatives and pow-wows and

language revitalization programs but it's also not a lifestyle economy. like tax-free cigarettes or like maybe not the healthiest. forcommunitys that always -- already in some ways struggle with addiction. so it's a mixed bag. some community he have been radically reshaped by the advent of indian game neglect the 80s and some have barely changed. mine is barely different and we have two casinos. >> host: what isster but native americans today that doesn't get out. >> guest: the story that doesn't get out in my opinion is the story that i mentioned this easterly karl marx said all men make history just not always with tools of their choosing, not always as they please. and that's the thing that gets lost in most of america's myths about us. about our suffering, about our disenfranchisement, according ao our friend, jacks, our complete

destruction. what gets missed or the ways in which we have been always making our own history and in doing so shaping the fabric of this country herself. so, for example, between 19 -- the 60s through the 1990s, the united states supreme court heard more cases about federal indian law than any other genre of law. and the post watergate years, in the post vietnam years, as america was trying to rethink what kind of country it wanted to be, the most vexing, perplexing, legal questions through chit remade itself and reimaged itself involved native people. the first test of states rights versus the federal government was not over the question 0 slave rhythm it was over the were oremoval of the civilized trained in southeastern united states in the 1820s and 30s. which pitted the federal government against the state of georgia and the cherokee,

seminoles, choctaw tribes of the region. that was the first test of states power versus federal rights and that was good-ed in relation to indian communities. america has been making its and its history since the beginning through its relation to us, and the protests in north dakota at standing rock in 2016 and '17, that was a protest of native people trying to protect native homelands, but by extension, what they were doing was protesting on behalf of all americans what kind of country do we want to live in the one that values ex-tracktive capitalism or that privileges the common good. that was the fight we saw at standing rock it and was native people leading the fight for all americans. so that's what people miss. >> host: the biked caution the heartbeat another wounded knee, nativemer from 1890 to the preempt. the author, david treuer. thank you for joining us on booktv. >> guest: thank you so much. >> and booktv's live coverage

of the national book festival continues in a minute. sharon robinson will be here to talk but memoir, child of the dream, memoir of 1963. tomorrow, on booktv, live at noon, the story of joanne freeman we'll be talking but the leadup to the civil war, talking about al alexander hamilton and other issues here's other preview of joanne freedman from a recent q & a program. >> i call this duel no one wanted. and it happened because it's so hard to pull out once that sort of thing goes into motion. so the duel really shows the power of violence, both in congress and around the nation and the ways in which congressmen in particular northern congressmen who were not accustomed necessarily to dueling culture oh, hard to

maneuver that in congress. >> whoa southerners bullies. >> a few reasons. on a basic level, slave regime is grounded on violence. people who as leaders have to be violent. that's just the nature of the slave regime. they also knew that dueling and dueling culture and he code of honor which we're beginning to seem very much like southern things and not northern things. northerners are calling it barbaric. they newell they could play with that, throw out the threat of duel challenges and that northerners would not know what to do. what die do? if if move into that duel, my constituents are going to as extra size me and i'll lose my standening back home if if turn my back i'll look like a coward and humiliate my constituents and my region. so, i refer to is at the northern congressman's del him half. zornes knew they'd had an advantage of number boffs the three-fifths compromise and had

a culture of advantage because of violence and they could use violence na anortherners were not comfortable with and they deployed that to manipulate what happened on the floor. a lot of what the book shows is southerners kind of stampede over the rules and bullying northernersers into compliance r silence. >> how often did people -- the 1830s , 40s and 50s, up to the civil war. how often did the members of congress carry guns. >> well, so i've been drying to track nat an organized way and it's very hard because there's no way to record it. i think a lot of southerners -- not all of them but a good number of them were juice rue teenly armed in life and armed in congress, more so than northerners. but as time guess along by the time you get to the 1850s and northerners are beginning to feel threatened, the sectional crisis is beginning to heat up and northerners are beginning to want their congressmen to be a little more aggressive on their behalf, more northerners have

guns than before and that keeps -- continues to build through the 1850s. >> host: in the house of representatives. >> in the house and senate. >> host: they're wearing them on their body. >> guest: wearing on their body, guns and knives, bowie knives and guns. i found one letter from a north carolina congressman in 1850 in which he and a friend are trying estimate how many people in the house have guns and they guess 70 or 80. that's a lot of guns. so a lot of people were armed and sometimes you an had to be known as a man was armed to be threatening. if you are known to carry a gun or notify u.v. knife and you say something threatening people know you mean business. so bullying is powerful for a lot of reasons, and here it's a tool of debate. >> host: how much would aknife be pulled on the floor. >> um, again, it's hard to -- >> host: but i mean there is example of -- >> guest: oh, yes. for sure.

there's an incident when john quincy adams in the house is trying to say something but antislavery petitions, and a congressman actually a southerner but a fellow whig, wants him to be allowed to say what the wants to say. he says let him speak, it's his right to speak. and a congressman from louisiana, who stocks over in the fellow who said let adam speak and he wore a gun and notify and makes visible the knife and says to this congressman, you do not again and i'll cut your throat from ear to ear. and we know that because not long after that fellow raised hit hand and said, you know what happened? we're talking about order in the house. can i tell you about something that happened a little while back that feels to me like it's somewhat disorderly? but that's one of the interesting thing about writing the book, is that you find the violence, fine incidents like that by accident. when they're leaked.

when someone says something they shouldn't. and very often someone will say henry wise had the wonderful habit of saying just what he shouldn't say. so that's -- the other congressmen we sale, s-h-h-h, and i say hosana to the evidence god us bus the said and now i know heels not supposed to say it so both things well be wonderful content. >> yale history professor and author joanne freeman will be our guest on "in depth" sunday from noon to 2:00 p.m. eastern. miss freeman's latest book is the field of blood. her other titles clue the essential hamilton, hamilton, writings and affairs of honor. join our live conversation with your phone calls, tweets and facebook questions. >> we are back live testify national book festival and another call-in opportunity with author sharon robinson. her book, child of a dream,

enemy more of 1963. miss robinson, where were you living living and what was life like. >> we were living in stand -- stanford, connection and a house on six acres and a lake and rounds by woods so we had the privacy my parents were seeking. it was in a predominantly white community in northern stanford. so integrated our neighborhood and our school. >> i did want to ask that question. how many black people were living in stanford, california, in 1963? >> well, it was north stanford so that's -- mad mow -- had more land it and was our family. in '63 may have been more. may have been two or three. in that section of the south. very much signature segregated ourselves in stanford,

connecticut. >> host: what would you. at that segregation, one of the fee african-americans. >> guest: i remember in elementary school children asking me if i bathed and me feeling very insecure, very shy, not -- didn't speak at all. i wouldn't ask questions. i wouldn't wear my glasses because i didn't want to be different in any other way and didn't understand that was part of my experience there, being the only black child in the fifth grade. so fifth grade i was the only black child in the school. >> host: why did mom and dad want you to have that? or wanted you to live there. >> guest: i don't think they wanted to us have that level of isolation nor lack of -- really they weren't sending us out there as an experiment. it was that my father was still playing for the brooklyn dodgers, wanted to live on land, have privacy. thought it would be better for the family and stanford was 45

minutes from new york city he could get in for grahams and practice, easily. and so that's really kind of set us up there and we -- they actually ran into housing discrimination when they were looking for land and a house, so it was actually with the help of andrea simon from simon & schuster family because she lived in the community in the tumortime that we were able to even find this particular piece of property. >> host: were you aware that you were jackie robinson's daughter. >> guest: i was. we had a trophy room in our house. our friends were very enamored over all the trophies and plaques. and wherever we went in public, there was a different experience. we were a public family. we could go up to -- on weekends and you'd walk interest the dining room and everyone would turn and look. so we were very much aware that we had a public side and had this privacy at home so it balanced out. >> host: from your book child of the dream you write: --

something somebody told you, maybe your older brother: not easy being a robinson. to come to such high expectations and not enough praise. what does that mean? >> guest: well, wasn't even so much from our family. comes from everyone else. people, for example, my brother, who was played baseball and babe ruth baseball, they would compare him to my father. that is what the heckling was about. you can't do it as well as jackie. so you're constantly told you're not doing it as well. so that was jackie's experience and certain of set him up for a number of failure toes in school and life because he was compared all of the time. for us we didn't know how to measure success. we had this super dad and really a super mom as well.

and so we weren't sure how you measure success. my dad told us it's not but trophy and awards. it's about how you live your life, and what kind -- how you change other people's lives. so we weren't there yet and we weren't kind of achieving at that level yet. >> host: who is rachel robinson? >> guest: she is my extraordinary mother. now 97 and i will see her on sunday. she is -- she was my dad's partner. they had a wonderful marriage. and he died relatively early in his life and her life and he moved in from -- shifted careers so she could take over something he had gun in housing and that gave her a new career model and she founded the jackie robinson foundation so she has had a number of successful careers as nurse and educator, and then in housing and then with the jackie

robinson foundation. >> host: sharon robinson, 1963, a benchmark year in the country, but also for your family. what were the activities that happened? >> guest: the most important thing was birmingham, alabama. that's where dr. king centralized this activity, birmingham was considered the most segregated city in america also that point, and dr. king had a birmingham campaign, and during that year, the beginning of the year, just every turned 13, we had this governor george wallace, announced segregation today, segregation tomorrow, segregation forever and set a tone that i thought just declared war women were talking but war anyway, and i was like, is this another form of war, but set the country up to understand what our battle was, and that was like a battle cry for us and dr. king had organized in birmingham, alabama, after

coming out awful albany, georgia and they were marching -- they sort of learn from albany, georgia, not to be as broad in what they're marching for and expectations. and they had been organizing with adults but by april they weren't able to mobilize enough adults any longer and they turned to children. so for me the whole inspiration of this book was the children's march because as a child, watching it on television every day which having my dad good down to birmingham i wanted to march with he children and wanted to join the movement in a more substantial way and not just be isolated in staffford, connection. so my dad found a way to bring us into the civil rights movement that him and floyd -- back then it was the becomessers that would go down and travel

with my damped one the baseball players. they needed people to bring visibility to the movement and floyd was juan of the great guys that win down. that picture right there is actually ag gaston motel where dr. king was staying. >> host: the one by my finger. >> guest: right. and my dad was -- went down the next day to bring money for the children who had been jailed during the marches, and they -- went to the site and also stayed at that motel. >> host: where it had been bombed? just been bombed. >> host: martin luther king, friend of the family. >> guest: yes. so what we did, is we did -- start doing jazz concerts and thirst -- the first one was in june. >> host: at the house. >> guest: at the house, and our house, yes, and my brothers and i sold hot dogs anded so daz. we turned in -- sodas, earned a

thousand dollars and then we had a second one after the march on washington, and we had gone -- and that was our first time as a family, participating in the larger movement, and it was just an amazing experience because this is what we were asking for. used to ask dad can we go with you to birmingham and he said no and i'll figure it out and he brought us with him through the march on washington. and then just after the march on washington we had our second jazz concert, and dr. king came to our house himself. it was amazing. >> host: we are talking with sharon robinson think author of this book "child of the dream, memoir of 1963." talk budget the civil rights movements, her childhood during that time and she is dedaughter of jackie robinson,

202-748-8200 east to central time zone. 202-748-8201 in the mountain and pacific time zones. sharon robinson, i shaved the daughter of until the end do you get tired of hearing that? >> guest: i -- no. i don't get tired of it. as long as it's in a business world. i do get tired of itself in -- where i live. i want to come home and just be sharon, and i don't want to be the daughter of. i just want to be me. and i feel like that's where i should have privacy. so i'm working on my community to let them know, okay, now we know this, let's just good on and realize i'm a neighbor. >> host: do you work with major league baseball today. >> guest: i still do. an incredible program for 24

years which i started in 19ed 7 called break can barriers in sports and life and it's essentially help kids understand that barriers are part of life. give my dad's story and give them values i associate with his success on and off the field. they eventually tell their story in a national essay contest and what barrier they had to overcome and talk about how that process, including which values they use. i go out and we select national winner, get between 11,020 toe 15,000 essays each year from all over the united states. i go out and visit with the winners and their classrooms, bring them to local major or minor league parks if we can and then the grandgrand pride winners honored at the sister-in-law game for the world series and it's an incredible program. i've been work with kids on the importance of finding their voice and i tell them to me, voice is confidence. and by el -- writhing it do and

unshowing what they every overcome is helping to build confidence and helping to build inner strength and that's been my work. it's just been incredible . i i've met some amazing children and stay the touch. >> host: 56 years ago, i believe, i got that right, just gout right now, that the march on washington happened. >> guest: yes. >> host: two miles from where we're sitting. >> guest: yes. >> host: what do you remember that those august 1963 days in washington. >> guest: i remember it was hot very, very crowded and people came from all over. buses all over the city. i remember us going as a family because, again, this is our first time going on a march, and we had only seen the marches in birmingham on television. so, we didn't quite know what to expect. and i remember we were separated from my dad at one point, and in

that process i get overheated and dehydrated and fainted, so i remember being carried off to the medical tent and they get me back together, and then we went and met up with my dad and heard dr. king speech. so it was an experience that -- i wanted to be part of the larger movement and this was my first experience of really participating as a -- in an -- being an activist on that level. started being an active-tivist on a lower level in terms of school papers and activating and advocating for myself in school. but now i felt the energy and the excitement of being in this mass of people that were all striving for equality and

justice. >> host: what do you think of the movies mad but your dad and family. >> guest: i loved "42". felt they understood the determination versus -- i felt the original jackie robinson story, which is made in 1950, and -- >> host: as dade audrey davidson and ruby dee. >> guest: my dad plays himself in that movie. black and white, of course. but i -- even as a child -- i was a child when this was made and watching it in day camp. didn't recognize my dad because of the way he was directed. so it was -- you can direct somebody to sort of -- people came away feeling he had the personality that he could handle that adversity as opposed to someone who is so determined and see the larger mission and is pushing forward, and sort of holding back some