discredited efforts against drinking earlier and we inherited that from the 20s and sort of drinking's cool and stuff. but you go back and actually read in the 18th and 19th century with no safety net, just what alcohol did to families, you can understand why this was the most persistent and most powerful impulse of female reformers. >> and coincides with the gendering of alcohol production. and -- >> and consumption. beer advertising today. we think always of the restrictive nature of temperance, the fight against this male preserve which led to so many true evils. but there's the constructive efforts, too. they went on here in milwaukee. the beer gardens, they were the attempt to make -- to -- >> domesticate. >> and embed drink in a family friendly setting. i went to the brewers game last

night, unfortunately they lost. but i -- it was a good game. i was really struck -- >> they lost because you left early. >> i had to prepare for back story. i was really struck by the efforts at least to create a family setting. beer was being sold. beer was being consumed. but there was a play area for kids, there were lots of young people there. and these beer gardens late 19th, early 20th century were an effort in a constructive way to domesticate drink within a larger set of family values. if you will. >> though i never want you to think that i'm not an american exceptionalist, americans have thought that the french have a real advantage and other sophisticated europeans, not the scotts, it's family centered. it is domesticated.

and it's precisely because drink takes place in dangerous places outside the home, and the great normalization and regularization of alcohol intake in america has been television, couch potatoes and all of those commercials are devoted to you guys particularly but even you -- >> this commercial is for you. >> to give you a chance, that's why they have commercials, to enable you to go get another one. >> and in the restroom later. yes. >> hi, guys. >> makes me nervous when you look at your iphone and suggest that you might be looking for hard questions. >> not allowed to twitter a question and ask one. >> are there any live twilters here? tweeters? >> don't want to forget what i want to say so. first of all i spent the entire weekend coming up with tough historical questions in panel after panel so it's a relief to be at the really important -- >> all right. >> quick question.

then perhaps one that you might not have the answer to. where does in his cup or in my cups come from. and the second question is, the word beer, i seem to have heard at some point when i did a lot of beer drinking -- >> sound likes he's reformed. >> temperant. >> that beer was one of the terms like pilsner and lauger that represented a type of brew so i wonder if that's true and if it is, when did beer become the overall umbrella term? >> thank goodness we have lucy here. yeah! >> should we give her -- we need give her a microphone? >> mine's on. i wanted to say you would think of beer as being the overall arcing term for that fermented beverage, and then under very close to it, though, is ale because for the longest time

beer that was consumed was the top fermenting ale. and so beer and ale were sort of synonymous. as other forms of fermentation through cultured yeast became part of the practice in brewing, and brewing became more commercialized and offered more beer styles, now you see beers that are wild fermented with variations that include -- >> free range. >> exactly. and those are the -- some of the belgian styles. and wild yeast beers, sour ales that are now being brewed and barrel aged a lot in the united states. then you also have you know, the various substyles that then become attempts to brand ap beer

and attempts bay commercial brewer to make their style uniquely theirs. there has been some effort at that too. >> i was going to say but i'm glad that lucy, especially the latin names for the yeast. >> what do you think, the cubs question? >> well, i mean, suggests it comes from a period when they had cups. >> we have two humans, we'll take these two questions. and then we will wrap up. we invite people to stay if you're interested to talk about sort of the public history component of this. >> we'll step out of character or into character. we'll find out. >> we'll stop being characters. >> we can talk about the show and perhaps what we what horrible mistakes we made. >> i'm jonathan from madison, wisconsin, so my question is, andrew jackson, when he was inaugurated, there is this huge

raucous crowd that follows him back to the white house and proceed to trash the place. the way the white house staff tries to get everyone out from like standing on chairs and swinging from shan la dears they take barrels of orange punch and out put it on the lawn. my question is how do i make orange punch? [ laughter ] >> i would say two things. one, they actually spilled the orange punch on the carpets of the white house. and it was one of the endearing stains. sorry. it was. step one, become elected president of the united states. the way to make that kind of orange punch. >> i guess was it was not russia's weak punch. it was russia's strong punch. >> kidding aside, that did -- that was seen as a symbol of

just how out of control and the way it was polluting american politics even in the white house was a sign, predates right before the great effort of temperance. >> we haven't talked about this but of course heavy drinking was associated with jackson and the democrats and wig middle class types such as myself most times, not tonight, certainly our latter day wigs that is a cultural cleavage then that has had a lot of significance in our politics ever since that time. >> i think you'll see it played out in the upcoming presidential election perhaps. our final question. >> thank you. >> i'm jasmine. i live in milwaukee, wisconsin. my question is about the role of religion and when religion was or was not invoked to justify temperance when this became a moral issue. and then maybe more specifically during prohibition were there kpengss so if wine plays an important role in communion or

passover, what happened? during prohibition. >> there were exemptions. >> yeah. i'm pretty sure there were exemptions for, in prohibition. there were huge fights as ed can tell you about it, all throughout it the -- especially the late 19th century about the use of liquor in religious ceremonies. it really drove politics in many ways. what peter was saying is many of the divisions between the republicans and the democrats turned on catering to catholics who were more inclined to -- who did use drink in their ceremonies and the protestants who were -- the protestants who were not as happy with the use of alcohol. >> and so today, in many churches you will find the use of grape juice because it's seen as a pollution of ritual. >> we were talking about some of the distinctions between

drinkers and those who abstain today. and ed mentioned one of them which is income. and people with low incomes are absolutely the most likely to abstain from drink absolutely. but the other difference is religion and of course some of these snap on to each other. people who attend church regularly are absolutely the most likely to abstain from alcohol completely. >> the connection is very strong of course between the conversion experience of a new birth as a kind of an effective technique to control behavior. and to make the absolute commitment. we talked about the end of a moderate temperance of benjamin rush and this embrace of the absolutism of yes or no, and that's very much in the sigh codynamics of the conversion experience, it's been a resource

for those heavy drinking tlrkts is a lot of heavy drinking in the lower income stra the, and that's precisely why a commitment not to drink is so powerful and so appealing, it's the privileged types at the top who have always from the beginning imported wine and drunk moderately, well not always. >> what we call social drinking. >> exactly right. social drinking is really class coated. >> so it is all tangled in with american politics and religion. i think as we think about an issue that we might be privileged to have a chance to talk with with fellow historians and fellow at least temporary milwaukeeans here, actually to have been a good choice. >> alcohol explains everything if i'm not mistaken. the expansion of the federal government. >> and that it's bankrupting. >> it does. but, as always, we'd love to keep the conversation going. pay us a visit and let you know

what you think the history of drinking reveals in american society in general. you'll be able to find those of you in the tv audience, find this on our website soon and to understand exactly what peter was laying out here. but you'll get a chance to look ahead about what shows they were doing, give us ideas and send us questions. so one of the things we say is don't be a stranger. >> today's episode of back story produced by tony field and anna pinkert with helpnal kneel bourbonstein, jamal minger, julie car low wits, and our executive producer is none other than andrew windham. [ applause ] >> not quite done. we want to -- several times. special thanks today to nancy mclean, kathleen france, amy stark, lucy saunders and elliott

nichersik, to ben franklin stand-ins and thank for your questions, chris nichols and mary burke, and last but not least, to our live audience here in milwaukee at the 2012 meeting of the organization of american historians and the national council on public history, you have been terrific. thank you very much. [ applause ] >> one more. work you up so you can't stop clapping. major production support provided by the national endowment for the humanities, the cornell foundation, the university of virginia weinstein properties, the history channel and an anonymous donor. thank you very much. [ applause ]

>> now we go out of character. you can go now. >> you can ask as many questions as you want. you just have to do it while the music's playing. >> so who would like to talk about public history and radio. >> if you are just our friends and want to say hello, do that too. >> in all honesty, andrew windham, standing in the back of the room got the first applause. i'd say stand up but you've been standing up the whole time. heard a couple of us give a talk and it occurred to him that we seem domy enough it would be a show. he came to us and we said come on. >> he said it would be like hard talk. that was counter suggestive for me. i snowed way i want to be like

car talk. then i said i don't think shift very funny. >> he said it could be. and we don't want to be entirely funny. we want some elements ever humor. it would not have occurred to us and we were dubious for the first two years and we didn't know what we were doing. >> and we were terrible. >> we kept -- no jokes. >> and we haven't improved. >> no jokes. but it was andrew's vision and he kept talking us into it. and then to raise the money so we could have full time producer and so forth. because you can imagine doing this every week and how much we actually have to suddenly learn about we're not in complete command about everything about alcohol consumption. >> i think they observed that first-hand. i don't think we need to tell them. >> the thing that has been wonderful for us is it's been the things that we have learned from our producers, we have a crew of kids who are back -- i

can say that because i'm really old and nearly dead. and these kids are like supergraduate students, they all come from media background and shift a way station for them. tony field who is the senior producer -- >> stand up. >> come on. [ applause ] >> tony's a genius. and we -- they were listening to us once in the studio going on and on about this, that and the other thing. wow, it must be fun being a historian. we said tony, we never talk like this. except for in the studio so. it's been a real privilege and treat for tuesday be able to talk with each other and they create the context for that talk. and we've learned through a lot of hard work how to be a little bit better at. it's been a wonderful experience. for us it is our public history, and our goal is maybe to be

stupid and silly and often inadvertently funny but we never want to talk down. i think that's the key thing for us. we'll give you our best. it may not be very good. >> i think that speaks for itself. yes. >> would you say this public history experience has changed your research teaching and writing in any way? >> it's changed my teaching. i think i'm much better at distilling central points, at getting to any point. and really being able to think about a framework through which to make the history interesting. i still fall far short but it really has changed my teaching, i think. >> we have a twitter message asking if people would stand up

to ask their questions if you would. so if you could ask those questions again and stand up. yes. >> did i hear you just say you had a stable of graduate students with a media background? >> like graduate students. we have, one is jamal, we have four producers or five including andrew. full time. and then nell, that's 5 1/2. and this, you can't do this on the cheap. if we could just put a mike in front of us and just talk that would be great and we'd be lousy. this is hard work. it's highly produced. and what i wanted to say is they are like the best graduate students because they are so eager, just soak things up and it's wonderful. and one of the things that teaches you, you don't have to be a history nut, you don't have to be somebody who wants to be an historian, to really get into

it and that's in a way they are our first audience. they push us hard sometimes. they say you know, i don't think that's very interesting. >> that reference from 1960 television is all about. >> the actual question was about the historical research, you have a team of researchers that are providing all of this material you have to master all the time. >> they do research but they also are producing, they are -- they are multi-talented people. >> when you listen to the shows that we're producing from when we go weekly may 11 you'll hear sometimes they are in front of the microphone, doing features, they go to harper's ferry and looked at the statute to the faithful slave and interview people there. we'll be doing right now we're doing three or four shows at a time. so they will focus intently on one subject. we have a show on terrorism, another on birth, another on infectious disease that we're working on simultaneously. so they will take responsibility. and find someone that we would

never know through research. and so it's not -- they are not doing our historical research as they are thinking of what song would connect, how would you find an ad if you've got the time i've got the beer. i think the important thing to remember is they are radio professionals and we are not. they have all done radio before on an important level. and they just tell us, no, that doesn't work in radio. we don't really know. so i think it really is one of the best things is among us, i don't want to add up how much, how many years we have in harness but to have these young people come in who believe in radio and see it as a fresh new medium in part because of the web and twitter. you can see we can have a national or international radio show and so i think that we did it for a long time with just for us. you know. and we tried it and we knew it was too hard. what's the we raised the money

for. we just do this as a public service. so but the money is to these young people who can actually sustain it. so i hope that's a full answer to your question. yes. >> you guys all have day jobs. i assume you're not giving up. >> day jobs i assume you're not giving up. >> i am. i'm retiring next week. [ applause ] >> reporter: how much time does this take and how in the world are you ever going to go weekly and still fulfill your other job responsibilities? >> well -- there's a reason we had four beers tonight. >> we were very worried about it, so we were doing this when i left virginia to become president at richmond in 2007. and we thought for sure that would be it, you know? so i actually do the show from my house in richmond. everybody else is in charlottesville. we have an isd in line and starting using i-chat to see each other, but for three years

we did it with me sitting in my study alone talking into the air. my wife -- >> surrounded by pillows. >> we do it at 7:00 a.m. until 8:45 in the mornings and then come in and do it 5:30 to 7:00 and then on saturdays and sundays. so it is just a labor of love. it's the sort of thing if you're planning your life, you may not say, hey, i can't wait to do radio at 7:00 in the morning, which means brian has to get up at 5:30 or something to drive in. so that sort of thing, it is too good now to not keep doing. >> peter is going to learn how to drive one of these days, i know it. >> oops. >> i would say, i don't know, tony, how many hours would you say -- >> throw it here. >> tony, how many hours does it take for us to produce an hour-long show? tony? could you please use the

microphone? >> 20 or 30. >> it is not that much for us. the real work is behind the scenes. >> maybe like ten hours of studio time. >> so doing an hour-long turns out to be really ambitious but i guess it feels to me now that the long form is necessary to use a different modality, to have parts of the show that are live, that show people that studying dead people can be fun. but on the other hand to have enough time to get into the register where you're facing the hard questions about things. and also nobody wants to hear us just talk for an hour and to have the guest, there's very clever music throughout all the shows and so forth. >> i have an interpretation of why ed does it and can do it, and that it is good therapy. i can't tell you how much fun we have. sometimes it is painful, they make us do things three times. a code word for something that has to be done again in the studio is great. >> that was great.

do it over. yes? right here. we now have microphones. thank you, tony. >> reporter: i was wondering if you guys rehearse beforehand, you sound very smooth together, and there was not any awkward pauses or any -- you sound like broadcasters. and you seem to all know what to say and when to say it and cover the top ins. >> thank you very much. >> that's very kind of you. >> it didn't sound like this last time we ran through it. >> yeah. >> we don't do that many live performances. and in the studio -- >> only for our best friends. >> and in the studio things are very highly produced. as peter said, we do things again and again. but for lack of performances, we do rehearse. we have parts of this that are scripted. we usually ignore the scripts.

there are parts, though, that they seem really innocuous, but it will just say, brian, three minutes. peter, three minutes. but, so what we did tonight, we probably rehearsed the freeform stuff three times over the last week. you know, just a few hours before this was the last time we did it. but, you know, what no one said is that we were all colleagues. we all respect each other's work. and we are all friends. so, i think, if we are any good at this, i think some of it comes from a natural repoire -- >> that didn't really work, brian. >> that answer was not really -- >> this one is not bad, though. >> that just can't be rehearsed. >> i think it is important to be

clear, we have an idea for a show, then there's just sessions where we just talk about what it might look like. we can't -- sound like, we can't expect our producers, who are not historians, to actually think of the substance of what we might do. but they push us. they'll say, well, that doesn't really sound very interesting or how about this? then they are out there doing research, and i say, did you know this? that's the reason, i mean, if it's 20 hours per hour, that gives you some idea of how much is involved. what's fun about it is, i think i have learned more any time since my comps of actually, okay, i have a show about america terrorism. all right, what might that mean and what might it -- >> i've learned a lot of facts. i agree with that, i have learned a lot from this, but in

terms of interpreting history, we don't, very often, think about problems across three centuries of history. we have all kinds of limitations. we do american history. almost everything we do could be set in a more global perspective. and there are five other ways we fall short, but simply thinking about problems across three or four centuries of u.s. history has certainly taught me a lot about history. >> yes? wait just one second. they are racing. you lost, tony. >> when do you need to add a 20th century expert? >> are you applying for the job? it's a really good question. it depends on how long we are on the air. >> yeah, i think -- >> don't mention the 17th century. we are not going there.

>> you got that covered. we all coach on the 21st century. we are all equally out of it. and we take shots at it. >> we are in a radio studio 20 hours, who knows what's going on out in the world. do we have another question? i think we have all been teachers long enough to recognize when there's the self-policing, people notice it's almost a round number. we have four or five questions, that seems enough to be polite. >> isn't that what benjamin rush was calling for, the policing? >> that's right. but, you know, it is so encouraging to us when people will call in or write us a note, give us a suggestion, correct us, because, you know, what we think that we are doing is that you know the excitement of the classroom and how seldom you see it in the outside world. those of you who are republican historians know the excitement of talking to someone at a museum and seeing it connect with them. and so what we think that we are

doing is trying to share with the world that history is exciting in all its dimensions, and that i thought that was a great introduction to say that we are trying to speak in sort of an intimate voice. the lesson we have to give each other is that we are talking across the table, even if i'm 100 miles away, the idea is that we know, if you're in this room, you have seen the difference that history can make in somebody's life. you have seen when it clicks to a kid. you have seen when somebody who is labored under a misconception, they are 80 years old and go, i never knew that. now that makes sense. we think ironically radio might be the oldest mass media, might be a way to give history what it really needs, which is sort of a human voice and a human scale that makes everybody realize that we all live in history all the time. and we appreciate you sharing this piece of your history with us. thank you so much for coming out. [ applause ]

♪ this is american history tv on c-span 3. and we have been live from milwaukee, wisconsin, where approximately 2,000 historians are gathered for the annual meeting of the organization of american historians and national council on public history. we'll reair this program on the history of beer and spirits in america tonight at midnight eastern time and again sunday at