and don't address. i think your absolute right that a more for tax policy is also perceived as fair will have a big influence on all of these issues. we are just about wrapped up, is that correct? yes. okay, thank you very, very much, rana. i hope it would else enjoyed this as much as i have. [applause] [inaudible conversations] >> here's a look at the finalists for this year's
>> watch the announcement of the national book awards live on c-span2 on november 16. many of these authors have appeared or will be appearing on booktv. euchre watch them on our website booktv.org. will. >> the book is titled first lady for presidential historians on the lives of 45 iconic american
women. it's now out in paperback and mark farkas from executive producer behind the series and this project is joining us. let's talk about hillary clinton, one of the first ladies featured. you talk about her roles in the first eight years of her husband presents. what will readers learn? >> there so many different scenes from her life. you'll learn about how she will approach potentially being president, how she handles the press. one of the authors who is part of the hillary clinton chapter takes us back when things were really getting rough during the campaign in 92. she was with her when gennifer flowers came out. and what she wrote about hillary and turns out she handled that, it was just focus, focus, focus. not so much on that problem but the republicans. so a real window into she's very political even as first lady.
>> are there parallels to how she is approached this election? >> i think so. she didn't do a lot of interviews the last time around. she's not done a lot this time, but as a communicator i think you can read parts of the chapter and figure out for who she is as a politician. she's not a politician her husband is in terms of public speaking but i think the first part of the chapter, david maraniss said this is the most well-known woman in the world and so she is capitalizing on that. >> melania trump has been a reluctant candidate. we haven't seen her that often. she did deliver a speech at her husband's nominating speech include the. if donald trump is elected are there parallels or less and she can take from previous first lady's? >> she sort of a mix. she's 46. hillary was 46 when she first lady. she has a small child will be 10 or 11 when they get in the white house. so there's parallels to other first lady who may not have been as into the role of active a
first lady. even jacqueline kennedy, they had two small children but behind the scenes she was -- there've been a number of first ladies in history, bess truman did one thing with the role of first lady. i don't get the sense of melania trump is going to be a voodoo what bess truman did which was a back to independence, missouri. it's a different time in the media is different. adventure play a role somewhere between jackie kennedy and maybe a laura bush. >> we are seeing michelle obama on the campaign trail about. has she evolved in the role of first lady? >> i think so. she just did an event we covered with laura bush and michelle obama. she started out with the first priority and the kids. she was front and center about that but then you can see all the things she's taken on since then, and comes back to what a lot of first ladies do. these are causes that's easy to get behind the bench it would with laura bush was about military veterans.
there are commonalities between i think a lot of first lady. i think she's grown in the role. it's hard to take it's going up in the white house. >> the book part of a series looking at the first lady. as you look back, available on our website, what is your take away? what do you think people will learn about these women who serve in this important role? >> whether they really involved in policy like rosalynn carter or that's behind the scenes may be like laura bush or even michelle obama. they have the ear of the president and it's going to be very interesting after this time around if it is bill clinton who has the ear of the president or melania trump. they've got an impact. some of the very political. sarah polk was very political. some of them did want to do it but all of implacable with the most powerful person in world. >> the platform the first ladies have, go back to eleanor roosevelt, really tried to redefine the position we've seen that change in the modern
presidencies. >> it's fascinating to watch them in the air of film and television because it has evolved conflict from eleanor roosevelt who was out there, before eleanor roosevelt, they did not a public platform. michelle obama will be a tough one to follow but when you think about the two people who may follow michelle obama, they've had a lot of practice in the public spotlight and it's a role of a lifetime for a lot of them. ..
the imac respect to his ownership is not necessarily widespread throughout the region. after 1914 is different. that was the main company as well. pueblo, which has -- [inaudible] the west. we're talking about almost all of southeastern colorado from the colorado to go border to pueblo 100 miles that way and
probably 100 miles across so definitely controlling this portion of the state. early 1900s in colorado is more of the growth of industry and has stayed with charcoal minds to reflect the story of immigration people coming rumor throughout the world greece, italy, poland at the migration north from mexico, migration from new mexico, so there is a large mixture. so what happens is they start controlling the area. new mexicans are hispanics are living in a big houses. they will build cold camps better with structures but then the employees can't keep their houses the way the adobes have
kept the wood paneling, so employees relate now have to start using coal and end up paying the cost for the coal. their times are measured at different rates beta 2000 pounds of the time, they might say 2600 because there's rock mixed in with the coal or in order to mine you have to dig in that you don't get paid. you just get paid for the whole you pull out. there is definitely what i would label as economics. the work that the work that you are doing is valued or we are not going to pay you. and nicole manders timbres have to be laid but they are not paid for any of that. they are also living in coming houses. the company is really nice and they rent them.
that and said to be a problem later on because they are charged more than they should have for the houses. definitely an issue as housing. this issues in regards to barbed wire fences around the coal mining communities. they are told they have to shop at the company store, get credit or the company store but then it becomes a cycle of debt but they're always beholden to the company because they economically can't get out of the rut. in times when there's not a lot of mine production committee will maybe still say in the company house that they have pay rent and they owe the company money. so you have fathers, kid and more kids pay generations and generations of people in the mines. >> the rockefellers are involved because they buy stock in the 1900 almost 40 years.
the rockefellers become very prominent in 194 team because that do not secure. it starts off in september 1913. employees are the miners go on strike in their victory from their houses onto the plains of colorado in the tent colony founded by the workers. they are basically fighting for 2000 pounds is a ton or for it to be paid in dollars. they are fighting to be able to have safer working conditions. 1913 is one of the deadliest years in the history of colorado. so there's definitely a push to have better working conditions. everything they are asked back and forth as the colorado mindscape dr. they're not asking for anything that should have
been given to them. they go on strike they called the national guard and who actually finds it appeared the miners predominately asked of course low in at the national guard is coming to protect them. in april of team sport team, the people in the camp celebrated the greek miners. and then there is the baseball game going on unlimited national guardsmen set came out to the field with the other national guardsmen and then still have your fun today appears will today appears well have arafat tomorrow here in the morning of april 20 at, 1914, shots are fired in the national guard
starts attacking the camp. they will shoot into the tents. by the end of the day they will like kerosene to the coal camp. there is a tense silence of the group of women will crawl into. that is what offense of making the level massacre that mark on national history because when works led to the massacre it is not just a fact that men are killed because women and children died. southern colorado for the next 10 days will be at war for miners will attack law enforcement and it only ends when federal wilson calls out troops. they knew what was going on. the minutes from the meeting basically september team with basically no business which didn't eventually they deal with
it. it's congressional hearings that are held. we are just stuck are just stock owners. we don't know what's going on there. in 1915 john rockefeller junior would have an industrial representation plan in his idea is the employees were like a three-legged stool. there's the park city says the employees than me is the stock owners, but we are really kind of the same people but never made any money. what kind of in the same boat as you guys. so he comes to pueblo first-period i think the documents don't reflected as much in a teen 151918, rockefeller runs back and he tries to speak at the building of the dedication of the memorial. frank hayes actually walked out
to rockefellers car and tells them to turn around and since you're not welcome here. i cannot guarantee your safety. the rockefellers thought he would be welcomed because what happens when it comes to pablo because the steel mill was less involved in pablo massacre but they would come and meet with him and the idea is a wanted union, i'll give you a union. it's a company-sponsored union. all of the pr from the time is great and wonderful appeared at a documents talking about the backlash of it. the united mine workers will actually march the pablo massacre to remember it. in. it lives on in the mine workers but as far as my good rockefeller comes in his welcomed. but you have the spots where it's clear that it's not. because he's going to go -- not all the miners come together.
he may go to starkville or camp or hope still. so then there is less -- they are less able. it is new york city that's protesting him here a year after it happens. this company held meetings with employees within the structure of the company. there's also a series of letters in the archives or they have families living in 19 kim's writing letters and asking him. he actually will donate money to the area. the jurors knew about what was happening to pablo, could've avoided this but didn't. also these moments of thinking he didn't know how bad the situation was. but i also think there was such a difference between his end of
the nation in the minors nation. for him, living in a mansion in new york city and these miners are living in squalor in southern colorado. there was a huge disconnect between them and also a language disconnect. some of the programs implement specifically are funny because the lectures on the 100th anniversary of the ymca in pub owner became of rockefeller. it's a great partnership and a reporter. it's a report on all these coal mine camps which is great for documentation to give suggestions of how to improve the coal camps. there's also gymnasiums that are built. bowling alleys, basketball courts. reading rooms, but also implement camps that will be held for the kids. there's one we talked about
stonewalling a group of kids. there's failed days that are kind of occurring already, but this'll be like official implementation. usually in the summer fair held in the different mining camps. they will have competitions. i look more at the women's competitions. they will have a good meal driving contest. i think it's made -- they will have the heaviest women competition. they'll weigh the women and whoever is the heaviest. it public way and and whoever is the heaviest pulling her weight and flowers. they will have whoever has the most children. the camp doctor has to sign a paper for the woman who ever has most children do she wears shoes for all her cape fear for the men, they will have first aid competition basically showing that there is a mining accident that it actually be able to patch everybody a good based on the competitions baseball comes
more implemented internet today. it is seen by the company and the employee is beneficial. i i'd argue this is a prosecutor innovation and a symbol of american conversation. one other thing that happened is the idea that if you get hurt then you can come with your representative bileca and talk about how you got heard. most of this incident report defendants almost always the fault of the employee. so it's basically flawed. they will continue to do mine strikes in southern colorado. and so this idea that his representation plan doesn't work. he will actually go and give speeches throughout the united states and also canada about how great his plan is that you don't have to have the socialist union to have a company union. no, it doesn't work.
it is the way to say these are the things we are doing to improve our situations that the camp. most of these people stand with the advantage. also the idea of the generations of family members. the people who were, the big shift is world war ii because a lot of them will be in the coal mines. the blood work, come back and be able to get their associates degree or they'll be able to descend computer programming. that kind of ship set for them to get the coal mines and gives them more of a living wage. but nothing really changes. i would argue nothing really changes after. it is a good idea -- this is still the question today. there's still issues with coal mining. we are still fighting for pensions for employees.
last week i met with coal makers have been in the men's 43 years. for him is like i did a great pension but he also has a health can -- and that's never going to be treated. so for them, the scars of what the coal miners lived with long term is still an issue that is based in our nation, still a discussion we are having. as this becomes part of the presidential debate as far as how do we use our raw materials, how do we use natural resources and then we still have mines collapsing in west virginia. when we had the huge incident in chile where there was a coal mine in the phoenix came in and rescued all of these people come in the next week there was the collapse in west virginia that didn't even make the headlines. the cost of coal is still weighing on our nation. i just don't think we are dealing with the nation forced to deal with it, but we are still having the same discussion
years later. >> .tv is an public to learn about the city's history and literary culture. while here we interviewed about professor matt harris to talk about the founding fathers and religions. >> i've been hearing in the media that the culture war especially with religion began in the 1980s when ronald reagan in the moral majority of the folks who were instrumental in raising him to office. one of the things they learned as there has always been conflict with religion in the roller should play in public life. during the founding generation i was amazed at the conflict that emerged very clearly. most of the founders believed the religion was necessary to prop up the new democracy you are new nations created. religion was incredibly important to most of these families. one of the only things these guys could agree on in terms of
what it meant that they shouldn't be a state-sponsored religion which is part of the first amendment, but also americans should freely exercise religious beliefs. there's a whole host of differences in the first amendment in terms of what it meant and why they included it. james madison was like his contemporary thomas jefferson. both virginians had fought against the revolution in the seventh teen 80s. madison was responsible in 1785 for creating a bill in virginia or a pamphlet, memorial and his colleague, jefferson later wrote about for religious freedom in which they argued the religions of natural right and you can freely believe what you want to believe or not believe anything at all. these two virginians were instrumental in trying to separate church from state. the first amendment is a
reflection on jefferson and madison's efforts during this debate in the virginia legislature. so it really tears their imprint that they think the church and state ought to be on two sides of the fence. having said that though, if you back at the 1770s and 80s, really it was kind of a novel idea at the time because religion permeated everything these guys stayed right in the day constitution. you have to believe in the bible in order to hold public office. so that was the kind of thing they were fighting against. let's not do that sort of thing. let people believe what they want to believe in if they are fit for public office they will describe what that is. let's not make them pledge belief in some pain. they didn't like religious dogma but they did recognize a vital role of the nation's founding. they didn't talk about religion at the constitutional convention.
one of the only things they said is you didn't have to hold public office but he didn't have to believe in the bible. there would be no religious litmus test, which is really interesting. there were a lot of people that are good christians were the only ones who are fit for public office. so they didn't talk about religion a lot because i think they understood how divisive it was. a lot of folks there were strong personalities who wanted to separate church and state and then some of the more committed christians i guess committed christians i guess you would say like patrick henry if he were there at the convention, he wouldn't go. if he did go, almost certainly he wouldn't have agreed on the final outcome of the convention. he would've insisted some christianity i'm certain of it. patrick henry wanted to place a bigger role because it was important for states to support or for the government to pass laws that would pop up religion.
for example, before the constitution, many states have establishments of religion. and so, if you were living in doing and in the 1700, you would support the congregational church, which is a brand of puritanism. they pay taxes and would support a congregational church. patrick henry and others like him believed if you removed that government support, but somehow the churches would crumble, that they wouldn't exist, that people wouldn't pay and support them on their own. but yet patrick henry and his virginia neighbors, madison and jefferson believed in the exact opposite of religion would flourish on its own because people would see the need for faith and you wouldn't need government to impose those men
need. so you can see that religious conflict in the earliest debate talking about the constitutional convention. was there a topic is heavily debated as religion? yes. religion didn't govern them front and center, but it would be later on during the ratification campaign when the constitution was finished in september 1787 and i went out to each of the states for ratification were the states would vote in a special conventions if they wanted to support the new constitution. they had to have nine states supports. it didn't have to be unanimous. religion was a fairly big issue because a lot of these anti-federalist became as they were called the folks that opposed the constitution, they saw the constitution was island with greece back to religion and it really bothered them.
and so they proposed a bit map amendments from the get go acknowledging jesus christ as creator of lord of acknowledging the governor of the universe, asking to include a phrase in the constitution that acknowledges the bible of the word of god in that sort of thing. it didn't get anywhere. but yet they tried. i think there is a strong is a stronger faith, just as there is now that this is a christian nation. of course the doubles always in the details of this statement like that. does that in a number of us are christians in this country if we count? does that mean we should privilege christianity? and if so, which version should we privilege? the founding there were people who thought that this was a christian nation from the very get-go in the early 17th century when the first european settled back and they wanted to acknowledge christianity and founding documents. though i think that was the real
issue for people like patrick henry and samuel adams of massachusetts. roger sherman of connecticut another local christians who we would call founding others. my students often asked me, why does it matter if we characterize this as a christian nation or secular founding? why does it matter? who cares? apart from the fact we want to get the history right, even though it's highly controversial in some respects, but it does matter because public policy debates are tied into this. if we think this is a christian founding, we are more likely to support misstates we can pray in a classroom or a gift tax dollars to private religious schools. if we think it is a secular founding, we are more likely to impose tax dollars to religious schools are saying prayers that the ballgames for convocation ceremonies. those questions are historical
questions than they do matter because of her connections of public policy today. most people in this country recognize that religion has a role to play, that it is codified in the u.s. can't do to shine, the first amendment, but when we start talking about limitations on religious beliefs, limiting muslims from coming here for excluding religious group from public office because you don't like what their church teaches her son dean. that is where you can enter rough water with the constitution because it's very clear we are not supposed to impose a witness test on these people. when joseph lieberman was running with al gore as vice president in the election in 2000 he said we have a jewish man on the ticket. if you believe in the constitution of course you can. when mitt romney ran in 2012 can you have a mormon? of course you can if you believe in the constitution. the constitution says there's no
litmus test on a presumably we can have an atheist. we can have any number of religious beliefs among these people. the whole idea is american sensory wouldn't judge them on religious belief. they would judge them on their agenda, their politics. religion shouldn't play a role in whether we elect somebody or not. sadly it does but it shouldn't. one of the things i learned writing this book with my co-author, thomas skid, is religion was very contentious or in the founding generation just as it is today. the question is would they be shocked at the disagreements we have today in the conflict we experience today in public space? i don't think so at all because they experience it themselves. we've always had challenges in our nation and sad to say we are always so because religion is such a divisive topic.
>> .tv is in the steel city of pueblo, colorado, learning more about the scene. up next we hope to study about her books coming out mafia which chronicles the history of the mafia write about. >> you think of denmark or and pablo was connected with these. in fact, pablo was known as little chicago. so the mafia was big here as the black team as it was originally called. it started with italian immigrants coming over into colorado to work in the coal mines in the southern part of the state or to work in the steel mill. kudlow and they were actually recruited. the steel mill didn't have enough men. so as were sent out all over the united states and not for the people here in the black hand, which was basically extortion came with them.
most of them have, as we say, a lot of them farmed. many of them own. so when does they were called in night clubs around town out on the mesa. some of them were businessmen. for example, one of the bars was between santa fe and main street and seventh street was owned by charlie blanda at that time it was called the holiday inn. not like the hotel chain, but this was a bar that most of us as kids knew that it was mayor, could do the people going in and out. they were legitimate businessmen. some of them had machine that dispense candy, et cetera. this was a time -- this is a different period of time. i can remember going to the grocery store as a young child where they would have what they call punch board, where you could pay a penny and stick a
little knife through one of the holes and you might win something, but usually you didn't win anything. this is basically a form of gambling. no one ever said you were a kid. you can't do this. but it was a small town. i grew up here and he was 50,000 people. everybody knew everybody. as these to say, you couldn't see us without somebody saying bless you. it was an interesting time and obviously you a different groups of people and different levels of income. you had a wealthier and the other people who are poor like any town. that it was a nice place to be. the mafia didn't just pray on ordinary citizens walking along the street. there were two factions here that really came during prohibition for the four brothers in the currently
announced, two brothers and they were fighting for control for sale of liquor in the southern part of the state. one of the very famous instances was the baxter bridge across the arkansas. the deer mouse for coming down the hills so they had the advantage to shoot from. they were coming in from the lower part. two of the currently no people were killed. ..
and in the book we have the lawyers believe, how could you arrest these two farmers were only making their living on the land and leave their families at christmas without their fathers? the trial actually lasted five days. the jury debated 20 hours, and it was a hung jury. so eventually they were to be tried again but nothing ever happened. it just disappeared. obviously, when the two hardly knows takeover with bootlegging, they of all this but it was a much population in southern colorado. a lot of booze, no people to buy it. they decide to go to denver to challenge little caesar. he was about five-foot tall. he's doing the bootlegging in denver. shortly after they get up there, sam carlino has his house blown
up and then he's killed by one of his own man, a young man, 19 years old. this scares pete so he goes east to cleveland, to new york, to stay there with the people he knows. but eventually comes back to pueblo, or to the mesa, and a denver police find out about it and they arrest him and taking up to denver and put them in jail. $5000 bail. this is a monkey head from pueblo. he has $47 in his pocket when he is arrested. who's going to bail them out? joe roma. go rummells comes, pays the bill. there's a picture in our book of the two of them shoulder to shoulder, arm around each other and joe says, you know, he is a good friend of mine. i had no trouble with pete at all.
about three weeks later he is found shot. but it was a business. what was it al capone said about bootlegging? it was not a just business. it was big business, and this was a true. but again they were not in your home, in your face. these people who involved in bootlegging provided a service. you cannot have a bootlegger if you don't have someone to buy the liquor. we've been asked many times to compare the prohibition here with the people who are upset about marijuana, or drugs in general. well, the people who sell the obviously are selling in the same way you and i go to the grocery store. so they provide a service. so to some degree the mafia provide a service. they sold the booze that
legitimate people bought. i have a close friend whose father owned a barbershop down on union avenue which at that time is now the place to go, the riverwalk. at that time he didn't. when i was young you didn't go down on union avenue. at any rate, always the underboss sort of for all these others, very interesting man. used to go in there to get his haircut, and this friend of mine who was a kid at the time said whiskers always gave he and his twin brother a penny. penny, you could buy a little bag of candy for a penny. what he remembers about whiskers was his dad. he was just a customer that came in regularly and he always gave the kids of any. they were just family man. they had a different job. most people who read the mafia book, even the kids, we thought
the people we named would be very upset. they were intrigued by this, i want the family had been. they were never told this. i received a call one night from a gentleman in california, and his name was sam carlino. and i thought that can be sam carlino. sam is dead, you know? and he was the grandson and someone had sent him the book and he said, ayatollahs been told my grandfather died of pneumonia. i did not know he had been shot until i read your book. so for most of the people it was kept under cover in the family, and your neighbor, they were good neighbors with other people around them. i think that's what we try to show, or say. they just had a different business. it's a business of crime. it was a very profitable business.
>> if you lived. >> during booktv's recent visit to pueblo we spoke with colorado state university history professor judy gaughan about the way murder was viewed in the roman republic. >> the concept of the word murder is different depending on who those people are. so people who are professionals in the law know that there's a distinction between murder and homicide. one of the things i had to deal with my book was his question of terminology and how we as murder and homicide. because technically there is a difference. homicide just need to kill someone. it doesn't mean it's justified or unjustified. it's just killing. and murder in the united states is a criminal act. if you kill someone intentionally with malicious
intent that is, then that is what qualifies as murder. my book explores the question of murder in the roman republic mostly because as i was looking at the development of roman public law, i couldn't find murder. i found specific acts that were related to murder. for example, poisoning are walking around with a weapon with intent to kill someone or commit theft. and the specific acts were punishable in roman court, leased by the late republic. their punishable in roman court, but they are not murder per se. slicer to ask why is -- so i decided to ask why is murder not
a crime? murder, of course it's a criminal act. so what makes it a criminal act, and crime is closely connected with state. the definition i've been using of crime is not just a bad thing but it is an act that the state takes an interest in. so this legislation that we passed so that we can punish people who do wrong, right? in the united states that's criminal law. in rome falls under the category of public law. so the roman state is interested in certain offenses that end up in somebody's death, but they are not interested in murder per se. they are not interested in should we put on trial someone who was killed someone.
that's not the question they deal with. that's not what their laws are going. the theory i proposed in the book about why the romans are not interested in murder, per se, is that there's not that much cohesiveness in the state. and so the state doesn't have enough of an entity to make killing someone of interest. it gets a little more complicated than that, of course. there's a couple other issues at stake. the father in the roman family has what we call -- the right of life and death over his children. and this is for the most part not practiced, but ideologically the father has the power to kill his children.
and the roman state is conceived of as being a community of fathers of the family. and even the senators in rome are known as fathers. and so that power belongs to individuals fathers who are obligated as roman citizens to make sure that the people are under their authority are behaving appropriately. and so if the state were to take over the power, the rules about killing, then that diminishes this will of the father in the family. the question is what do we do with fathers who don't have any living fathers, right? so there's nobody who has authority over them in the family and how do we treat their
misbehavior or the acts of homicide, should they commit homicide? and there are two answers to that question. one of them is that much of the roman republic we have very little primary source evidence. and the romans are not asking this question of themselves so we don't get them directly dealing with this problem. and they're interested in government and big things like war and things like that, so not so much the ordinary everyday life. so there's very little evidence for ordinary people interacting. so what that means for the question about how these things are actionable in a roman court is that some things we get little snippets of information about but we don't have a lot. one of them is arbitration. that is, agreements made to find
a third party, right, so the family of the person who was murdered in the person who murdered them or kill them, and then that third party who will arbitrate a dispute. and so we know there's arbitration in rome, but we have very limited in how much we know about it. so it may be that some of that gets resolved by arbitration. the other issue is that we do see that when senators are involved, when people of higher class are involved in offenses like some kind of killing, poisoning, stabbing, whatever, that we do get the state to be more involved. because the state is made up of the senators. the senators sort of policed each other in a way come in a very personal way, but they
policed each other. and so sometimes what we do have is people of upper class come into the public works and being tried for offenses like poisoning. but it's also very interesting in how the romans into creating permanent court, to try these offenses. because they don't, for longtime they don't have criminal court. so the republicans found it, it's on to the medal of the second century around 149 that we get the first standing permanent court in rome, permanent public court in rome. and so, that stand a public court is on extortion virtually senators can commit because it's about how you behave in the provinces. but after that we get a couple connected with homicides. among these are poisoning, poisoning becomes an offense.
and poisoning seems to become a this because as a couple strange incidents of the earlier and begin the second century of the supposedly mass poisoning cases. the romans are suffering from plague and are panicked about what's going wrong, and they go and they finally, they find these women making potions. but people are dying of the plague really. and among the people who died are members of the senate and the chief magistrate of rome. and so everyone gets suspicious because the romans don't think anyone dies of natural causes. if anyone dies, okay, who killed them? so with these poisonous cases they find these women making potions and they say, the one thing we're just trying to help, and they say well then, drink it yourself, and the women drink it and died. but what happens is the state has taken interest because the
people who are involved are the senators. the whole army is in a state of confusion because people are dying of the plague. the reason for the involvement of the state is not the sum has committed murder but that the state is no longer able to function because of what's going on. we are trying to find some way to fix it and to try to find all sorts of ways. it's not just the poisoning trials but it's also they try to look at their sacred books to see if anything is being done wrongly according to the gods. there are all sorts of other ways to deal with is but one way to do with this is a put people and offer voice and. eventually we get a permanent poisoning court. when the romans change their mind or change their ideas about
when killings become murder, i stopped quite figured out i am still sort of working on a. my suspicion is that occurs in the early empire. because what you do is you transition from a republic where there are numerous senators who have authority and its influence over each other, but then you transition to an imperial form of government and now you have more centralized government in the form of the monarch, or not they wanted to be called monarchs at in the form of the emperor. one of the main reasons i got involved in this question of the relationship between murder and the state and why that's important for understanding the roman republic is that when i was writing my dissertation, i
saw, i basically a paragraph in my dissertation that is what grew into this book. it was a bit hesitant paragraph. but what i noticed was the romans, during the monarchy, seems to have a law about murder. and then in the republic i couldn't find a law that was directly about murder. and so i asked myself, why is this? what's the reason that there's not a law for murder, if our evidence is accurate, there's not a lot for murder in the republic but there was a law for murder in the monarchy. one of the main differences between monarch and republic is the nature of government and the centralization of government. during the monarchy you have one person in charge of government, and that's the king. more or less what the king says goes. although with all monarchies it's not always that straightforward but you still have a monarch who is the ultimate authority.
and in this changes. in the republic the nature of authority changes to the nature of power changes. i think that the limitations on the right to kill our way to look at how power works in the republic. and the way power works in the republic is it belongs to individual fathers of the family, and he belongs to magistrates but it belongs to magistrate only for a year and think it's going. not like a monarch who gets a for life. and it belongs to the power doesn't -- the particular doesn't belong to the senate but the power belongs to the senators. there's also individual people with their own individual desires for power and things like that. i think there's a close
connection between the ability to control whether someone gets to live or die and the centralization of the state. part of the reason the transition is easy in the united states is because of the strength of the bureaucracy. you have a supreme court stays in place for a long time. you have all of the bureaucratic elements of governing, all of these institutes of various sorts were the bureaucracy remains in place even though the political person in charge changes. and the romans sort of bring their own people with them when the power changes. and so that makes it less stable in a way. although remarkably last for nearly 500 years. >> you are watching booktv on c-span2. this weekend where visiting
weblog all about to talk with local authors and t toured the city's literary sites would help of our local cable partners comcast. next we are from colorado state university professor juan morales about his experiences growing up as a hispanic american in colorado. >> take the middle aged man in a lot bette of that once asked met my ancestry and boasted of his 15th generation spanish heritage help on tracks of land he held cling to in mexico or spain. i don't remember which. when i tell my parents never taught me spanish, he constructed with a condescending click of a ton to learn. his tone was enough to read my face like a slap you would've obliged what i would ever give myself enough in the form of awkward conjugations and that repeated phrase of. [speaking spanish] thinking about it now, this mentioned how we can associate
ourselves with one side and deny the concord have to grab bag of always been a writer. i start out as a kid drooling but i was never aware of it. it's one of those surprise "wizard of oz" moment where you were a writer all along. i started taking seriously when i was a college student. i started just taking some creative writing classes for fun and fell in love with it. my father is puerto rican my mother is ecuador in. and i was born in iowa city but my father was in the military for 31 years, and then he moved in after retired he moved us to just a set of fort carson because he fell in love with colorado. i grew up on the south side of colorado springs. pueblo is similar to that because what about half chicano, latino, mexican-american, hispanic, whatever terms you want to use, and the other half is white and others.
living here has been culturally rich. you can hear spanish regularly, and it's ingrained in our food, and our culture as well. the arkansas river was originally the border from mexico back in the day. so you can kind of see the cultural roots. i would argue pueblo is like the northernmost point of the american southwest. so for that reason growing up like tino, chicano, latino, just with the brown berets and a lot of other poets another historic movements in the steel mill with, i think those things make it easy to be culturally proud of who you are. but is always a struggle as well where ever you go, whether it be texas, new mexico, arizona or
other parts of the southwest. my family story, i told you, my heritage are definitely important subject matter that i explored. for example, the first book, it was actually born out of stories sitting at the coffee table with my parents and just hearing these crazy ghost stories, my father's war stories. my father was in the army for 31 years. he did two tours in vietnam and he fought in the korean conflict and the receipt to purple hearts. he tells a great story. my mother tells a great story about surviving a cataclysmic quake in 1941 in ecuador. all these different stories i kind of felt this panic when moment saying these stories need to be told. they need to be preserved. who's going to do it? i guess why not me? when i was 14 and estimate
indian blood inside, my mother's point like answer, no. even then i didn't believe her. i was angry. she didn't understand why a manager recognized the accused was a blood together why i didn't consider how concealing how protected are going up in ecuador. and then my second book, "the siren world," kind of like continued without left off when i started writing poetry about many securities, not speaking spanish very well be because i think that's important part of my cultural heritage, that idea of not being bilingual or being bilingual and the shame and the regulations that come with it. i wanted to tell some similar stories about my heritage but try to incorporate myself into. there's stories not going to puerto rico, going to ecuador and being a little -- when i visit those places. then when i am here at home in colorado or in the u.s., i'm
culturally diverse. so there's the interesting paradox. i think a lot of times there's a lot of conflict even just with the identity of being a chicano and latino we choose to identify yourself, like, for example, in an inert terms is -- i think the brown berets in the chicano movement gave them energized a lot of mexican-american, hispanics and latinos to be more politically active and have their voices heard, kind of echoing what the civil rights movement has done for the african-american community. there's always that cynicism with people that our voice on the third of the chicano movement of the movements have reminded people that your voices can and should be heard. when it comes to the current political climate, i think that there's a lot of good intentions out there where people don't
mean to exclude groups of people and so forth just like there are people that do it inevitably. we are standing under a bridge that since love and i think there has to be this strong contention towards inclusion and remembering our mistakes and remembering the good parts of our history. for example, i think a lot of us can agree that building a wall to the south of us is an absurd notion, that does not speak a message of peace and inclusion. and, of course, want to have solidarity with great movements like the black lives matter, because they're doing important work and history has caused so many mistakes and wrongs that there has to be some way that people have to get a voice back. to forgive the native within, to
smother origins in denial, these are the adopted habits from time before i got to track a pain to work. i think about my confusion bearing the on the line on incense notable all be erased by a rising tide. and then i turn again to write future and past as together as the skin we wish to call out of but we have to accept it as a gift your. >> for more information on booktv's recent visit to pueblo and in many other destinations on our cities to her go to c-span.org/see these two are. >> that's when they got their idea. he's going to make the greatest propaganda for the most diabolical epic propaganda ever. it's won't be so powerful it will turn the world opinion against the allies and for the germans. they're watching a movie that
keeps them off and after the movie instead of debating like usually do they sit and watch the credits roll. something dawns on them, the director, the producer, the actors, the cinematographers, they are all jewish. he takes over all the chairs in the room and that's when they come up with the idea. the film is going to make is that titanic. the story remains interesting today, doesn't it? a thousand or so they will stay that they'll still be making movies. they're going to make in 10. -- "the nazi titanic" to the high the most beatable actresses and models, the most dashing leading man. they we allocate and i military units to be the cast of thousands. it's like a cecil b. demille epic, cast a thousand, greatest story ever told. they assign an unlimited budget. the problem is they can't find a director. it seems most of jimmy's great directors were in the concentration camps.
they find a guy who sort of a new book in which he makes movies like indiana jones, muscular, action picking berries action with. so they hiding. he proceeds t with the most expensive film ever at the time. fortunately for us everything that could go wrong with the movie goes wrong. they run over budget or when actresses gets pregnant by one of the leading men. the german soldiers that are the extras are rapid ascent. they want to film at night because the titanic sunk in that but germany is under medical blackout. you need huge light comes to light. they give an exception. and let them felt at night with these giant lights. is that gets bombed. everything goes wrong. finally, he is desperate. the movie is late. it's over budget. they're ready to finish the movie but something happened.
he arrived on set one day and editing is done wrong. the director goes nuts. he curses hitler and the nazi party. the gestapo citing a civic he is summoned to berlin and they kill him. surprisingly they can find another director to take us by. they eventually do. they're basically shooting actors if they miss the queue and get the understudy. finally, the movie is finished. before they show the movie to hitler, launched an epic propaganda film that would change the were they want to open up a competition against quote-unquote jewish hollywood. about great hollywood on the rhine. before the launched this movie to do so, he sits and watches the film and he's horrified. the director opposed the nazis. the film was filled with anti-not see subliminal messages to its basically don't about it fanatical captain who drives his ship to its death.
he orders the film destroy. fortunately a few pirated copies of survived. you can watch it today with english subtitles. >> you can watch this and other programs online at booktv.org. >> and now joining us here live at the national book festival is congressman john lewis and his co-author andrew aydin. here is the book, it's beens nominated for a national book award. congressman lewis, what period of time does this book cover? >> guest: this book covers a lot of part of my ownominee involvement in the american civil rights movement. that part that started with, right after the march on washington, the bombing of the church in