the weather government to direct, the way people speak to each other. all of that is madison's monument. christopher ruddy said look around your if you seek is monument. in washington dc you will see his monument everywhere. .m.q&a tonight at 8:00 p eastern. nexen interview with david feels. he talks with us about the history of u.s. korea relations and the current political system on the korean peninsula in between the u.s. and north korea. this was recorded at the american historical association's annual meeting in washington dc. >> david fields is a historian. who specializes in a very timely

field of u.s. and korea relations. things the most important for anyone worrying about the state of things should know about korea and u.s. korea relations? >> i think the most important thing to understand is that the division of korea was originally a u.s. idea. this idea was never supposed to be permanent. was, they would have a joint occupation between the united states and soviet union which would result in a unified state. the division became permanent, and it is no doubt whose idea it was originally. the reason this matters so much as the koreans have never seen themselves as one people, one race. they would very much like to be reunified. especially the older generation of koreans who still have families in the north and who have not spoken for decades. this matters because in many ways, koreans hold the u.s. responsible for that decision. there is a latent stream of anti-americanism running through

korean society that does not always manifest itself. they could manifest itself in very strong ways under the right circumstance. >> the perplexing thing about them seeing themselves as one nation, is they have two very different governing systems. how is that rectified? >> how would a rectify itself? >> if you look at the situation and deprivation of people have an north korea versus the south, how does that all fit? >> it all fits by looking backwards. the koreans like to claim that they have 7000 years of history. that is simply not true, but they do have a very long history as one united people. they have become very divergent. that has been a fairly recent development in the last 50 years. they look at the very long path they have had together as proof that in the future, we can reunified. we can reunified the nation.

how exactly would that happen, that very much remains to be seen. it is not clear how that would happen. the official plan is for a confederation, a loose confederation between the north and south initially while they work to work out the very sticky details of how you reunify the state. it is probably impossible as long as they can regime is in -- the kim regime is in power in the north. it does not stop them from wishing it could happen. >> to protect the partition, how many troops do we have on the ground today and how many are also from the south? >> i believe there are around 28,000 troops on the korean peninsula right now. spread in bases all through korea. are under a base for the concentration right now. base inl have a large

seoul, this is important because previously they were stationed around the dmz. any invasion of the south by the north meant almost immediate shedding of american blood. that would guarantee an american entrance into the war. that would probably still happen but the dynamics of it have changed. one of the reasons they wanted to do that, was they wanted to narrow the american footprints in south korea. they wanted to concentrate them in one zone and get them out of the center of the city. seoul has grown so rapidly that the space is now in the very center. this is a minor irritant for the koreans. >> does the south korean government present -- respect the presence of u.s. troops? >> it certainly does. in a perfect world, the koreans

would wish the u.s. was not there. they would wish that they could manage their own security affairs on their own. i think it is a widely held view that the u.s. presence is needed to balance the competing interests of china, north korea, formally of the soviet union. the koreans would certainly like to live in a world where the americans could be gone. there is that tension of meeting -- needing the americans but not necessarily wanting them. >> you said it is impossible as long as the kim regime is in power. give us a history of the kim regime. >> the first leader is kim il-sung who was a guerrilla fighter against the japanese. he was very young, he was actually an officer in the red army, he was brought into north korea by the soviet union to establish him as a puppet leader. when they did that, they were probably thinking they could exert more influence on him than they could. in fact, kim il-sung maintained

an independent line, both from the soviet union and from the chinese communist party. after he consolidated power in north korea. he ruled north korea until the early 90's, at which point his son kim jong-il took over and then with his death i believe in , kim jong-un,s his grandson, took over. >> when you're watching news reports and other ways you get information on kim jong-un, how do you see his leadership style comparing with his predecessors, his father and grandfather? >> it is a bit hard to tell. it is still a bit early. it is difficult to credit a lot of the news reports that come out of north korea. it is opaque, what goes on. there are tales of extreme violence which may or may not be true. it is true that he has definitely purged some of the holdover leadership from his

father's regime, including his uncle. it seems unlikely that his style of leadership is going to end up in results that are all that different from what his father and grandfather pursued. >> what should the american public know about the everyday korean's life and how it has changed in the years since the conflict? >> it is important understand that north koreans lives vary tremendously by what class they are a part of. there is the class that lives in pyongyang which has a fairly good life by north korean standards. an excellent life by north korean standards. it would not compare much to the life of a high-level bureaucrat in the west, but these people do not get hungry, they live in buildings that have heat, they have a certain amount of privilege. there are millions of other north koreans in what is referred to as the wavering

class who live in immense deprivation and a daily struggle for subsistence. there is not a lot of starvation right now, but there was a time when north koreans in these wavering classes were starving by the hundreds of thousands. i think it is important to understand that the kim regime uses under development as a way of maintaining its power. this is what makes it different from the soviet regimes. we make a mistake if we still think of north korea as a communist regime. they modified their constitution in the early 2000's to remove all references of communism. this is not a state interested in developing its people. it is interested in keeping them under developed. people that have to spend 12 hours per day begin their own subsistence will not be a threat to the regime. they are too busy with their own survival. >> we occasionally see these dramatic bids for escape, most recently a soldier from north

korea that crossed the lines. korea that crossed the lines. our policy is based on the fact that we presume that all north koreans wish for a better life and for some semblance of a democratic process -- is that the case? >> i'm not sure that is. i think, if you would ask north koreans, they would see the 1960's and the 1970's under kim il-sung as a golden era. what they would prefer is to go back to that rather than life in the west. >> what is the golden era? >> they had economically secure lives. north korea had a robust ration system, nobody went hungry. they were developing quickly. north koreans lived in apartments. their lives were fairly good, compared to what they had under the japanese. there is an ideological element to it. many north korean defectors who live in the south find south

korean existence empty because their lives are about nothing from their perspective besides the pursuit of profits, which they are taught to disparage. life in north korea's about something, it is about maintaining the north korean race, about maintaining the north korean revolution and every north korean has a purpose in that struggle. a lot of them, especially the north korean defectors, say terrible things about kim jong-un. there are less likely to say those things about kim jong-il and you'll never hear them say anything about kim il-sung. even defectors see kim il-sung as a visionary leader and a great nationalist for the korean people. >> what should the everyday american know about the current south korean government? >> i think it is important to understand that south koreans have a sense of grievance

against the united states, not just because of the division, it is well-known that we divided korea and established a separate state. we helped establish a separate state. then we left korea in 1949 against the wishes of the south korean government at that time who begged us to stay, who said if you leave the north koreans will invade. when we left they asked for , concrete guarantees from the united states that in the event of a northern invasion we would come back. those guarantees were never given. this is part of the reason that joseph stalin gave kim il-sung permission to invade south korea. that was not the only factor, but that was an important factor and one the south koreans have not forgotten. if you go to the war memorial museum in seoul you will see it laid out that it was the lack of american security guarantees that encouraged the north to invade. there is this underlying sense of distrust against the

americans. when our president does things like call south koreans free riders, threatens to tear up the korea u.s. free trade agreement, these things are very upsetting to south koreans. when he refers to the sea between korea and japan as the sea of japan instead of the east sea, it makes south korean blood boil. i think there is a possibility that a preemptive or preventative strike against north korea without firm south korean support could lead to a backlash against the american presence in south korea that could have unforeseen consequences as far as our position in east asia. >> this is the historians lesson for the age, to understand we do not have a rock solid ally in south korea. >> we do at the moment but that could change drastically with a rash american decision.

it is possible we could do this and get away with it, but nobody knows. i feel like there is a subset of possibilities as to how this crisis could play out. we think if we strike the north first, x number of south koreans will die. this is not a spurious conclusion. i think it would make much more sense from the north korean perspective if we were to attack them, not to level seoul, but to point out to south koreans that americans had just rolled the dice with tens of millions of korean lives hanging in the balance. which is what we would be doing. and then to ask the south koreans, do you really think you still need the americans, because they are the greatest threat to security on the korean peninsula. >> we have referenced china a few times. what is the current influence that china can exert on north korea?

we always see from our policy makers that we are looking to them to have a bigger footprint and to help stabilize the kim jong-un regime. what kind of influence do they have? >> the chinese have tremendous influence but it is a blunt weapon. the chinese could put enormous pressure on the north korean regime, they could cut imports, but doing so would risk the collapse of the regime. if the north korean regime collapsed, most of the people would not go south, they would go north into china. the northern border is not militarized at all. in a some places it is hardly even a marked. that is the chosen route by defectors. this is not at all what the chinese want because they could lose a buffer between themselves and the americans in the south and there is a tremendous number of ethnic koreans who are chinese citizens, who live in that region.

this is one of the minority populations in china that has had no problems with nationalism. the north koreans are extreme and ardent nationalists and you would be inviting tens of millions of them into your country which has problems with minorities in other places. this is not at all what the chinese want. the chinese want the north koreans to behave, they want them to stop doing missile tests, but they do not have a way of forcing them to do it. they have one button they can push and the repercussions from pushing that button could be much more severe than they want. >> let's spend a minute on our other important ally, japan. what are their interests and have they matured or changed? >> the effect of this crisis on japan is alarming and one of the bigger stories that is not being told. for the first time in decades the japanese are talking about rearmament. japan has an explicitly pacifist constitution.

we wrote for them after the war. they have no armed forces, they do not possess the right to wage war, to wage offensive or outside of japan, all of that is changing now because of the north korean threat and the japanese are beginning to discuss revising their constitution. this matters because relations between the south koreans and the japanese are not good. japanese militarism causes further mistrust among the south koreans. one way of viewing what the north koreans are doing is forcing all of the nations involved -- south korea, the united states, and japan, to ask fundamental questions about the relationship with each other and the security of northeast asia. this is at a time when the answer to those questions will not be agreeable to all parties. >> in closing, as a historian, is there a metaphor you can use to describe the current situation as you're looking at it? i am thinking -- is it a

tinderbox waiting for a spark or something other than that? >> a better metaphor might be some sort of precarious tower that is fairly strong but brittle, something made of iron. it is strong, but it cannot stand a lot of shocks. it can look strong and collapse suddenly. i think our alliances with south korea, with japan are fairly strong and robust, but that does not mean that certain actions, particularly preventative strikes against north korea, could cause this edifice to come down with shocking speed. >> a very timely subject for historians. thank you so much for your time. >> thank you very much. [captioning performed by the national captioning institute, which is responsible for its caption content and accuracy. visit ncicap.org] [captions copyright national cable satellite corp. 2016] does that relate to what we

are seeing with football players and the national anthem? >> i think we have a long history of racism -- >> you could be featured during our next life program. join the conversation on facebook. and on twitter at c-span history. afterwards, the woman's march on washington leader reflects on the 2017 marge and what is ahead for the movement in her book, together we rise. she is interviewed by heather mcghee, the president of the most. them whoo you say to may not have marched but are otherwise sharing in their culture and belief? >> i say we are fighting for them too, we are counting on them to do the right thing. oftentimes can

disappoint. the 49 percent or 47% who do not vote for republicans. amsked people to do it, i not loyal to any political party. i have been a big critic of the democratic party. if you don't assume what the movement is about. the reason i say that is lester we got into a big controversy about pro-abortion and pro-life, being part of the movement. we never said we were a pro-abortion movement. that is not the language we use. we are very intentional about language. we are pro-choice, we are able to that believes a woman should have the agency to choose whatever is right for her and her family. >> watch tonight at 9:00 p.m. eastern on c-span2. the national institute on abuse was established in

with the mission to better 1974 understand drug abuse and addiction. in addition, it focuses on treatment, prevention, and educating the public about the risks and societal costs associated with drug abuse. america," --eel "drug abuse: meeting the challenge," a half-hour film produced in 1987 to highlight their most recent findings regarding because causes, treatment, and prevention of drug abuse. ♪ narrator: throughout recorded history, people have used substances to relieve suffering and change their moods. every society has struggled with substance abuse and addiction.