tv Latino Americans U.S. Politics CSPAN August 21, 2019 5:24pm-6:55pm EDT
walk one, a 1970 feature length documentary about the mission commissioned by nasa. the film covers prelift off preparations to parades for the astronauts after the safe return with rarely seen footage and scenes from around the world as people watched the first steps on the man. see it at 8 eastern on cspan3. enjoy american history tv this week and every weekend on cspan3. all week we're featuring american history tv programs as a preview of what's available every weekend on cspan3. lectures in history, american artifacts, real america, the civil war, oral histories, the presidency, and special event coverage about our nation's history. enjoy american history tv now and every weekend on cspan3. next on american history tv, historians discuss the role impact and voting trends of
latino americans in u.s. political history. in conversation was part of a two-day purdue university event called, remaking american political history. it's an hour and a half. hi, my name is sanchez jr. i'll be guiding our conversation in afternoon. our panel is making the case for latino american history. the idea central to the remaking of american political history. this is not to say that no one has ever thought of or written about latinos and politics in history. in fact the conversation follows in the foot steps of many major works and scholars. but instead it's about rethinking about what political historians pay attention to. in an earlier panel in morning leah right the riggera asked a request about the segregation of american political history. and there was a real barrier to
what organizations and individuals are labeled as political or got diplomatics actors. in conversation sees latino as central rather than per i havele to development of american dpkz. forged in fire of the 19th century warfare. boosted by constant migration throughout the 20th. latinos have been part and parcel of the social fabric with well over 150 years of history in the united states latinos have made an indelible mark on u.s. politics. be it in the early legislative histories of the southwest territories, as founders of longstanding civic and political organizations in the protest movements of 1960s and 70s or as voters. latinos made u.s. politics their own. yet in reading the major synthetic works of political history or examining a sil bus for a course on the subject we are hard pressed to find much representation of latino
experiences and politics at all in mainstream political history. it seems this conference is is as auspicious an occasion as any to make the case for latino political history. traditional political history narratives based in sing sis written by earlier historians have emphasized elite white men as the movers and shakers of the american politics. newer works in political history have complicated our predecessors. and in the revival we have seen the critical approach to race and formal politics. however race and politics in our field is often short-hand for black plkt li politics though much is done to illustrate the essentially importance of african-americans scholarship has done live to move wrnd beyond the black white binary that per tazed old and new political history. other fields have done better in incorporating of latinos in the narrative including urban history, labor history, immigration and studies of the
welfare state. in the context of city politics for example, urban histories on cities such as chicago, new york and los angeles are some of the best examples we have for any analysis of latino politics. but what about the national? and more importantly, where is political history in this intellectual conversation? today as panel is a rallying call for politic the historians to rethink our intellectual engagement or lack there of with what is now the largest community of color in the united states. in calling for a new research agenda of nuanced ka patience and comprehensive latino political history, we must first ask many preliminary question base what research has been done is currently on the table or yet to be pursued. is there such a thing as latino liktle history? if so what does it look? what does mainstream political history stand to lose by not including latino actors and institution sns how would incorporating latinos into the discourse of american political history change the field and the
larger narrative? today we will discuss many so of the most pressing issues concerning the role of latinos in the american political past. joining us today and making the case for latino political history is are some of the leading voices in this nascent field. rosina on my far right is a historian of latino history with the research and teaching focus on mexican american history, the american west, migration and immigration and kpafrt studies in race and ethniccity an author the american language the history of spanish in the united states which is a political history of the spanish language in the united states from the incorporation of the mexican session in 1848 through world war ii with some discussion of the following decades and present day concerns. an american language was published in 2018 by the university of california press. rosina is a associate professor in the kpt of history at princeton. geraldo cadava is a historian of
latinos in united states. american borderlands and kpafrt ethnic and racial politics. his first book standing on commoned ground the breaking making of the sun belt was published in 2014 by mavd press. he is now completing a book about hispanic conservativism to be published in 20 by echo press, an improhibit print of harper colin, the director of northwestern university latino studies problem and sociability professor of history. benjamin fallon is a historian who centered on ethnicity in the united states. his forthcome back the rise of the latino vote a history examines how electle officials. attempt today forge cuban and mexican into a nationwood constituency. institutionalizing sprp latino
identity in the united states. it's due out in december of this year by harvard university press. very excising. francis fallon received the ph.d. from georgetown university and currently coordinator of social sciences education at western carolina university. and finally my name is sanchez junior a ph.d. candidate in the department of history at princeton where i focus on 20th century u.s. politics. i explore the history of democratic national committee and latino political organization. a new host for the new books and latinos studies podcast. i'm the organizer and moderator of the discussion. and we'll try to cover as much time as possible during the short time and siem time at the end for questions from the audience. and with that said, we should get started in making the case for latino political history. and so i think the first question i would like to open up to the panel is, what is latino political history in your view? and what is the most interesting issue in this field for you?
and we can start with professor lozano. >> thank you for bringing us together op this important topic. i see latino political history as a broad category that includes many fields and ties together issues that have been and remain important to the national politics of the united states. so while many political histories stay more recent and focused on immigration in my view the lant political history begins in the 19th century and includes debates over land ownership and land use in what is the u.s. southwest but other regions earlier in florida or places along what became the midwest eastern southern midwest. i think it's a crucial to tie what have largely been considered as regional or local stories into the larger forms of the nation. as i show in my book which thank you for plugging. the political history of mexican americans includes how those who became u.s. citizens following the u.s. mexican war through the treaty of gaud luba hidalgo participated in the u.s.
political system. and explain how the largely monolingual spanish citizens implemented the the pligtle system in states like california, colorado and new mexico. by participating in politics in spanish, many also became devoted appear patriotic u.s. citizens. and that includes being recognized by and participating in both major political parties. there is a lot more work to be done about the political involvement and the ways that those political parties kind of recognize that they were there, right. they were the ones pottering the newspapers in spanish, they were the ones giving them money and funding to make sure that they were involved in the political process. in the 20th century latino politics has revolved largely around increasing political representation immigration, civil rights and it's really only in the 20th century i would argue that latino political history is an appropriate name, right. earlier mystery histories of political participation and activism by individuals maybe calling them latino were
conducted almost entirely in isolation. while ethnic mexicans puerto ricoens and cubans may have been could gonessant and supportive the there is little evidence to should go they saw their struggle as one in the same. for me it's the potential misgnome of latino pligtle history that yields an interesting question. how does a latino political entity come to be we have a good start with the become making hispanics but there is more to count cover about the process and where we are today in the the way he was look at the lant publication. hopefully he will answer some of the question base his upcoming work. >> i would i would largely echo a lot of what rosina said. a couple of things in particular, a story of latino politics and political history would stretch back for the 19th
century and including a whole range of issues like land ownership. that to me suggests the necessity to have a kind of broad vision of what it means. and also the need to is integrate latino and american political history, i think kind of including in a much larger story of american politics. i did think the title of the panel, making a case for latino political history is a little curious just because my -- i mean my first response was well why not why wouldn't you have latino politics in american political history. it was curious to me that there is a need to make a case for it or something. and it made me wonder about the longer history of american political history, that has maybe excluded it, that would necessitate its inclusion or necessitate our panelists making a case for it. because i do think, at a --
there must have been some chasm in the beginning of american political history and latino history that necessitates bringing those together now. any did evolve as two separate things. and maybe there have been recent evolutions in american political history writ large that make the field hospitable to even including something like latino history. the main two things that i wanted to highlight is just the difference between latino political history and a history of latino politics. and i think, you know, latino political history as i understand is it in a large degree concerned with partisan political behavior and the involvement of latinos in the democratic party or the republican party, or a third party for latinos, larasa party
in the texas in the 1970s. and the inherit of latino politics would be a much longer struggle for inclusion in american political life. and political life. i don't just mean in terms of the parties but recognition, civil rights access to property and jobs and education. i would think of all of those things as part of the history of latino politics that has been a real part of latino history and american history for a long time. i do think that both within american political history and the history of latinos in the united states, histories of the involvement of latinos in partisan politics over a long period of time is largely lacking. i think that there are individual books -- i think, you know the bread and butter of the
field of latino history as a fold for a long time has been community studies. i'm thinking -- we'll talk about books in a mont minute but studies of texas and california. and i think in those places historians have looked at someone like edward roibal for whom it was important to register latino voters in los angeles in the mid-20th century. that's a story that gets told. but it's not part of a much longer history of the involvement of latinos in partisan politics. and i think that that is one major direction that the field of latino history will move in soon, i hope. and as it does so i think the story of latino political history and its involvement in american political history more broadly about li will come together more. >> i think a lot of what geraldo
said. i'm reminded of two things antonio activist and tone toe albert jr. said in 1963 speaking to a set of latino political activists while insisting the americanism pen o demanded that they would organize themselves as a distinct minority bloc. he said if the irish in boston, the italians in new york and the negroes could do it so could the mexican people of the united states. second once any adopted the assertive ethnic posture the price of the vote would be two things, recognition and representation. so for me pena's remarks reveal that latino politics and political history developed simultaneously as a vast jt project of soul searching and communal identification. processes that were for specific reasons unique to latinos unfolds.
but as a search for political inclusion raising question base pat tron annual, jobs, access, status and that were timely and broadly plikable. if the first call it raised questions beyond texas. it invites considering questions how the latinos sought to harmon size diverse local state histories national origins and self-understanding to create did your shl forms and pan ethnic and ethnic solidarity. and organizations capable of wielding power across the vast expanse of the facing's latino political communities. or to put it another which now would have peemt to attempted to mobilize individual who is claimis case sent from spanish flory sploer toes new mexico. puerto ricoen mierpgt to the soutd bronx fl the 50s and salvadoran refugees in washington, d.c. in the '90s. these questions are linked to the second half the pena's remarks the quest for recognition and representation,
because latino politics emerged in an unequal clog with the white elites from both major parties whose support was needed to sponsor the project of integrating all the communities and voices and mobilizing them for particular cusses, most often thought of as a need to fulfill some kind of destiny of a group nationwide in scope. but a question has to be asked about how the party elites, including u.s. presidents used ability to reward or withhold -- to influence the larger construction of the latino political community. and it's that dance of validation between latinos seeking to reimagine their community to cope with economic social and political challenges and pressures and the necessity of aligning the sigss of community with an ever changing set of candidates, ideologies and programs that i find so important in latino political history. >> and so i think there are a
lot of interesting themes that we have all have heard from you three regarding pan ethnicity and complications that brings, the earlier 19th century origins of latinos in the united states and the political engagement from the get-go. i think all of us would like to hear about your specific interventions in this historical endeavor. and so could you tell us about, up where most recent work in the field of latino political military or the inherit of latino politics, and how it's going. >> as jaimie mentioned i'm excited to see my first book is called the rise of the latino vote, a history due to be published in september in it i examine how mexican americans puerto ricoens and cubans came
to be seen and to some degree see themselves as a single political swaends and in some cases a people. and i explain gnat latino vote was not simply the inevitable consequence of immigration fueled demographic growth. nor was the emergence of an accepted pan ethnicity in american life simply the product of a top-down imposition from washington bureaucrats who created a hispanic category. but rather the book shows how over a couple of decades begins in 1960, a network of political active its from grass roots activists up to u.s. presidents really really labored to mold all spanish speaking americans as they called them into a single u.s. minority constituency. the book shows how the architects of latino politics devised new programs and platform but replaces with reach other and elaborated -- again elaborated ideas about what the
people's common needs were. that'sflective conditions on the ground that but constituted new senses of group identity. it shows how they formed new organizations and devised new ways of distributing power among the populations that were really quite unequal as to size. and tennessee shows how they productively mined this -- the ambiguity and whether they were a coalition building effort or whether they were soaking to transcend their national origins and pursue the creation of something new, a new community. it was this relentless creative action and a through apartment repudiation of color bindness on the part of self-zrbd lant democrats and republicans alike that drew parties liberal and conservatives into this self-reinforced consensus that spanish speaking americans later hispanic later latino constituted a ewe fleek civil rights constituency. statistical population and
electoral block in do soing the activists and the elite patrons transcend the the nation's black and white binary pushed the united states firmly into the age of multicultural politics. in the book i also show that even as they constructed the latino vote summonsing into existence a sort of national political community man identity, the process also worked to undermine the coheerns and the stability of that latino political identity. as i indicated earlier, the makers of the latino vote were dependent on national party elites to support this project. but powerful interests often sought more to control than empower the constituency. no fiez. party leaders speak if hispanic political unification but when it came down to it they were more willing to divide or rank or exclude latino constituency from one another as they were to promote in re solidarity. and the shifting ideological
orientations and electoral strategies of party elites often exposed or exacerbated internal hierarchies latent in the embreenic political community. thus it was i showed while there was a burgeoning latino vote accepted as fact, independent latino power was a much more elusive thing. >> well we went this way with the first question. so we can go in way now. so i'm finishing a book right now about the history of the hispanic in the republican party and republican hispanics since about the 1960s. it's first important to say that ben and i are both maybe calling the voters hispanics because at least in my case for sure this is what republicans called themselves for all kinds of reasons that we can get into. -- but i know that that's not exactly the -- you know, the
current fashion within kaemia to call them hispanics. i wanted to say which i'm doing that. so for me, the main questions were, you know, why? why do hispanics vote for republicans? as i've explained my project, this is the first question that i'm always asked, why? because it is a bit of curiousty to many people. and so i've wanted to explain why. and whenever that question is asked of me it's always with a surprised tone that donald trump could have won as much as 30% of the hispanic votes or in the 2018 mid-terms ted cruz or rick scott or even rdesantis it's expressed as surprise followed as some attempt to undercut the numbers by calling into question
the differences between the the exit polls versus what might be a more accurate polling of latino communities. so it's always expressed as a surprise. and i think part of my answer is that it shouldn't be a surprise because if you look at the republican party and hispanic voters over the past 50 or 60 years, discuss me especially since the re-election of richard nixon in 1972, the percentage of hispanics voting for the republican party has been around a third consistently. so over a 50-year period, the republican party has built a hispanic -- hispanic voting base of about a third of hispanic votersers. that fluctuates a bit but not a lot. and if you compare that with african-american voters at the same time period, the -- if you graph these things, they're going in exact opposite directions at the same time that
the african-american support for the republican party plummets, and has consistently remained single digits or low double digits the past 50 years hispanics have shot upward. and there is a relationship between the two facts, i think. so i have wanted to explain the long development of the hispanic base -- republican base. i also wanted to kind of correct what i have come to see as to misunderstandings about republican hispanics. the first is that their conservativism must be motivated by their catholicism and traditional family vows, views of abortion and marriage for example. i'm not denying that that's part of it. but i think if we kind of hang all of hispanic conservativism on that we're missing a whole bunch. and catholicism is more complicated than just
conservativism. there is a kind of social justice motivated branch of catholicism -- dsh thinking just of the liberation so, catholicism and his conservatism. the other thing is, they must be cuban, they must be cuban exiles. i think that also just lets us off the hook a lot. really just allows us to dismiss, well, we can't dismiss because while florida because it is a critical swing state that we can't dismiss it, and allows us to ignore lots of other strains of hispanic conservatism that are just as important. i think i knew the story from the fact that it was more complicated than just catholicism among cubans from my grandpa who is a mix of panamanian, colombian, and filipino. and, you know, lived in
tucson, arizona which is predominately mexican-american place. and he served in the military, became a citizen because of his service in the military and voted for reagan for the first time because he was a minor, silver minor in tucson, arizona outside of tucson, arizona when reagan was running in 1980 and was promising to put more money back into his pitch my grandfather voted for a republican for the first time in 1980 and he kind of defined those two ideas. he is not cuban, he is catholic, but never observed his faith. you know, i don't know when the last time he went to church was. i knew for my grandpa, at least, that there are other kinds of hispanic conservatives beyond cubans or catholics. when writing my first book, i wrote about a department a mexican-american department store owner named alex and i wrote a chapter about him and he too was largely catholic,
for sure. but he checked that box but he wasn't at all cuban and his kind of local upbringing was more about like arizona's territorial politics, early statehood politics. he was a businessman. he didn't have a union in his store because he thought that all of his employees were so happy that they didn't need a union. he hated cesar chavez who he saw as a communist and a rabble-rouser. just individual too they let me down the path of wondering what, the wider world of hispanic republican partisan identity was like. those two things, wanting to answer the question of why, and, you know, i think his door sizing the question and looking at how political identity, partisan identity has developed over a long period of time is important because it will stop scratching our heads and kind of grasping in the dark for all of these reasons that
hispanics would vote for a republican. and, then not wanting to complicate these two main ideas about how cuban nationality and catholicism as being the two things that republican identity of hispanics is all about. and those were the things that kind of led me down this path. >> well, i am at the beginning of my second book project and it comes partly out of my first book project but also out of a larger sense when i teach comparative to graduate students. there is a lot of discussion about native americans in the borderland and what it is like for them. they disappear and a lot of the 20th century literature especially in the comparative sense. part of my desire with this book is to trace that line or history, but to do it also by looking at it in terms of the
way that the federal government and state government had jurisdiction over those individuals who were either native american or who were mexican-american. they have very different timetables and terms of citizenship, they have very different relationships to both of the federal government and the state government. that is kind of, in a nutshell where i am going with my second project and a people have more questions i can answer it. i am currently finishing an article i can talk a little bit more about that examined the language minority extensions to the voting rights act in 1975 and uses a broad range of documents that include congressional records, the papers of the mexican american legal defense fund as well as the we can see are the off crl the f. crldf. offering a competitive history of mexican-american, and put reagan lobbying strategies and based out of congress, this research research uncovers the way that they are working through the way of categorization of latinos into the u.s. i think by then we'll
have some things to talk about a special because i'm more of a 19 hit sensory historian, but my first book led me here and i kind of got hooked. 20th century historians in the late 20th century is just a deluge of documents. i am enjoying it but it's also very different for me. and really looking forward to extend language right to increase in the voting participation of latino citizens. at the same time the more restriction legislation when against mexicans were being pushed through congress and being discouraged. while it was often dominating that the media and that continues today, the voting rights act extension offers evidence that the federal government also saw latinos as citizens too, and were supportive of extending their voting rights and other civil rights as well. so, by looking into that, and also, there is a separate case that is kind of happening at the same time. it doesn't come into play until 1978 were being discussed in 1975 which is to allow interpreters into
bilingual courtrooms. allow for courtrooms to become bilingual and having interpreters in there as well. trying to figure out like what is it that allows for language minorities to be a categorization that would envelop everyone who is not black but a person of color including american indians, separate alaska natives to our separate asian american broad category for language. as well as initially kind of latinos, specifically meeting mexican-american and puerto rican. >> i will plug my works since rosina lozano mentioned it earlier. my current administration or the institutional history of the dnc, and, unlike the representation of african- americans in the national democratic party, it is not until the 1970s where you even have conversations with in the organization to think about hiring some sort of latino
outreach representative. so, it is shocking to think it wasn't until the late 1970s where you have conversations about national democratic outage to latinos. and, i think that if we look at these kind of national institutions or party organizations, just like jerry said earlier, there is a serious lack in the scholarship, even just the basic facts of, you know, residential elections and latinos. before then, of course, this will be my segue into the next section. before the 70s of course, the engagement between the dnc or presidential elections was very touch and go and interpersonal politics. you see that in ds kennedy the history of the viva kennedy club that sprouted up mostly in texas but in other places like chicago and in california where you have independent
led, and cause i formal relationships with the national party, a fundraising service for jfk. so, there is some work, and i think that influences my perspective on things. there is an evolution of latinos and the national democratic party. so that leads me to my next question. what are some of the key texts that have informed your approach to the history of latinos and u.s. politics. and thinking about that, maybe jerry can start. singing about that, i think this is a good way to discuss ways in which we as political as people can diversify our syllabi. >> well, i have lots of different answers to this. in one way every book written in the field is an important touchstone for me because i
think all of them, in one way or another pick up on parts of the story. but, at the same time, nothing picks up on, nothing, i wouldn't point to any single thing political history of latinos were at large. but, i think 1987 book angle the mexicans and the making of texas as important. there is politics and throughout that, from the texas revolution to the party, to early efforts by the democratic party or democratic party machine bosses. in texas, trying to recruit or buy, in many cases the votes of mexican workers. so there are moments of politics, also of, for me, conservatism or although it is not expressed in this way [ foreign language ]'s book walls and mirrors and the pedicle divides between
mexican immigrants, well basically it's about mexican- american's views of mexican immigration. that is politics but he doesn't frame it as a little history and the groups that he is mostly writing about our groups like the league of united american citizens, the kind of mutual aid society, erred early civil rights organization founded in corpus christi in 1929. that is politics, but none of these books talk about their actors in political terms as members of the republican party or the democratic party, they are engaged in politics, but they, for example, i don't know if there has been a historian that has written about the political history. they have been engaged in all kinds of things but among the leadership some are republicans, some are
democrats. they are often taken by historians to be a kind of conservative, democratic organization. where, it was an early requirement that all of their members beasts speak english, that they pledge allegiance to the flag. that they speak english. so luac is a good example of a group whose identity and local terms has been debated as, well there politics are conservative or they are moderate democrats so, but we don't know about the political mean leaning of their individual members. so, i look at all of the books out there about luac as examples of how lots of history of latino politics has been written but not of latino political history. but, for me, specifically when it comes to republican hispanics, there are some, i don't know that i could point really to a scholarly text until the one is coming out in
september written by ben that deals with republican hispanics a lot. but, there are a lot of public republican hispanics who have written memoirs that are really interesting. like linda chavez. who was in the reagan administration, she was nominated to be george w. bush's i think labor secretary but had to withdraw her nomination when it was discovered that she had employed undocumented immigrants. so she wrote really? kind of memoirs, one is called out of the barrio in 1991. that is a really good place to look for, you know, conservative latino positions on language issues, on affirmative action primarily that is kind of her, her hobbyhorse, i would say. and then she wrote a second memoir after she had to withdraw her nomination called an unlikely conservative or how i became the most hated his panic in america. his panic in america.
that's good, a guy named lionel sosa who organized the reagan's media campaigns for hispanics. wrote a book called the americano dream. the chairman of the cabinet committee on opportunities for spanish-speaking people in them nixon administration, henry ramirez wrote a fascinating memoir of his time in the white house called a chicano in the white house and even though i spent some time in my first area talking about how i'm using the term hispanic and i find it fascinating that he chose to call his book a chicano in the white house. he has some interesting ideas about identity politics. if you wanted to find something about conservatism among hispanics i might look at some of those memoirs rather than a scholarly text.
>> okay, i have been influence a lot by the coalition literature. i've thinking about that to the book blue texas. on port dickinson african- americans in new york city. and a couple by george j sanchez describing how multiracial politics work in los angeles. these works were influential to me for two reasons. they introduce us to a world of. but, it's particularly interesting because they use these unique amenities brought forth the people who would become the leaders of latino politics in the united states. people like edward of los angeles, henry b gonzalez of san antonio and henry of new york city. so respectively the first mexican-american elected to the congress and from california in the 20th century, texas and the first puerto rican congressman ever.
what's really interesting about these folks is that they are elevated to a position of province by multiracial coalitions operating locally. but, when viewed from the national level, they become the basis of a latino block. first beginning to crystallize and aviva kennedy. so, appreciating the deeply embedded coalition all experiences and traditions of these latino political leaders, suggest to us the importance of coalition as a concept employed by latinos in their dealings with each other. and the making of latino politics during the 70s and beyond. it's often assumed that latino leaders are bore some responsibility under the emergence of latinos as a national constituency was just a reduction of these groups of mexican americans, puerto ricans, and cubans kind of recognizing their natural and pre-existing ties. but what was more natural black support weekends living
in harlem and organizing together or put reagan's from harlem organizing and finding allies among rural new mexicans and spanish americans. dealing with latino politics is coalition rather than natural and helps us to appreciate much of the eclecticism. moderates and liberals, for example a vision coalition typically as a search for common issues that they can work on some bilingual education, affirmative action, equal access to the war on poverty. some have a different perspective they viewed as the basis of achievement and separate objectives which is put reagan independence and recovery of land grants from the southwest. this was the approach that the radical labor organizer a puerto rican called [ foreign language ], together but not scrambled. and latino coalitions who are really experimental and their structure, sometimes they were sort of 1-1. mexican americans are a group of puerto ricans or a group. each gets one vote. sometimes coalitions that debated power more and
reflection of their population numbers. even as latinos, really pursuing what i think our coalition among each other is still working on alliances with african-americans, indigenous and poor whites. i think it's really just doubly coalition will nature of latino politics that is an exciting propagation to h. looks at the 60s and the 70s as one of the next steps. great, i echo, you guys took a lot of what i was going to say, that is good. i think that another place to look is within labor histories and is important to remember that immigrants are not coming without the personal history of their own. so they are active and they are becoming activists in their own home country. they are bringing the activism into the united states. so, there are numerous books that show this. one, and i'm blanking on his name is the biography of the
people who surround [ foreign language ]. within it you get a sense of yes he is talking about revolution in mexico but he's also making he and the others that are writing the kind of radical newspaper also making very pointed critiques of what is happening in texas and what is happening to workers all throughout the united states as well. deborah weber is another one. but other works that she has done as well show the similar that individuals are coming and you see them holding up signs during the great depression knowing the whole alphabet soup that we try to get our students to learn, though spanish-speaking immigrants new what they meant, they were also pushing for those rights and to be included in those federal resources. labor rights or civil rights is another example of this sweeping hundred year history that shows the potable activists and immigrants in skin americans in the labor sector and the ways that union organizing kind of fed their
politicization as well. i mentioned the blue text. another new book that is really important is city of inmates. kelly hernandez's new work that, it looks into the incarceration and the creation of a state and what that means for mexican americans and also has the origins of immigrant detention within it that it has really been wonderful for my students. they really enjoy reading a particular chapter and getting a sense of what it looked like and why individuals were being held in near los angeles. another book that is probably a little too long to assign two classes at a great place to give a sense of just how long the history is in new mexico in particular in the political parties is political politica by philippe a gonzalez and is about an 800 page book that only really covers the 19th century, the
mid to late 19th century but talks about how they created both a democratic republic and party in the ways in which they operated in different elections, kind of has chapters, sometimes three chapters on the same election. you can really see the way in which they are modeling that, the u.s. government system. again largely in spanish but also just the political, there's a reason that new mexico is an outlier. there's a reason they continue to have governors and senators who have spanish surnames an hour skin american origins. another one that's more in the legal field is manifest destiny by laura gomez who she doesn't write anymore historical way it is accessible and my students have found it incredibly to think about what it means to have double colonization. what is it mean to have mexican americans be citizens you can kind of see her influence in my second book project over a group they had artie colonized. so you the native americans were colonized by the mexican americans who are then colonized by the u.s.
>> i think the book you were mentioning, the return of -- >> yeah. >> llamas yes, yes. >> i want to go back to something that jerry brought up which is the contentious nature of naming the protocols and self identity. so what is the politics of names? and what latinos call themselves or, maybe they didn't even consider themselves latinos. you mentioned the chicano in the white house. what is, do you have a sense of the evolution of self identification in politics and i think this brings up one of the biggest conflicts in writing latino potable history, which is does the contest or context of latino politics even make sense? if it's how benjamin was just
talking about it, you have this often times of vulcanized organized set of communities of puerto ricans and mexicans in very separate groups. that are, you know, united conveniently in coalition, but maybe not as unified as we may assume as historians and public memory. >> mind if i --? >> oh yeah. and it's open. >> i want to go back to the 19th century. >> [ laughter ] >> being a historian i would like to go first. this is something that is not new. in the 19th century you would see aunt within each of the communities that were are that became the u.s. southwest. in texas they were kontos diners. in california they were california's californios that's who they were and they talked about themselves as a larger group, they were part of hispanic america and that meant the whole america.
the whole spanish-speaking america, in the name hispanic americans in the united states. they weren't a part of the united states at that part. so that's one of the things that you see again and again in the document. not only did you figure out how mexican became, you figure out how mexican became mexican. next again americans, not just how mexican american amber aiken became latino because there was a larger process that happened in the 19th century had to begin to see themselves as united and that was a process that continued into the 20th century as well. >> i, personally, i don't even know what the right word is. it is not agnostic, maybe just open-minded or something. i view of names, maybe i am thinking about this a little bit now because right now northwestern latino and latina studies programs i was think about changing the name to the lot next latinx study program., an argument with a
name change means, and what is gained and what is lost. but i think something that undergrad pushing for the name change, not that i'm opposed to it at all, fine, i think is a part of my open-mindedness, call it whatever you want. call it latinx, that is fine. they would be mad at me if i just dismissed it, cast it aside, the importance of that decision so easily right now. but, as a historian, undergrads do not necessarily know this and have not been alive or whoever studied it as much as we have, these kinds of name changes happen all the time. so i don't want to get hung up on any particular name. some groups choose mexican american political association are mexican american league of educational fund, and that has to do with where they are located. if they are founded in california or the southwest maybe logo with one name whereas the is a spinoff of for a group that modeled
itself which in turn modeled itself on the end of the acp. if they chose the political puerto rican legal defense fund because that is where they are located. nixon, we know introduced the term hispanic on the 1970 census the term on the census in 1930 was mexican. that is the first time mexican was designated as a separate category of kind of american. i guess. spanish-speaking was an important term in the 60s. so there's just so many names. yes they have some kind of meaning and the meaning can have, you know, political valences but i also don't know that anyone of you service is tied closely or exclusively with a particular partisan identity. i don't know.
chicano, is thought of as being more of an activist identity from the 60s and 70s but then you have henry ramirez calling himself a chicano so i'm not sure that it is tied to any of these names is tied closely to partisan identity. i just gave you a whole bunch of nonsense. but, i don't place a whole bunch of emphasis on the different names. >> it is just always shifting. it is just always shifting. i think in the early part of the 60s, it is, naming is one of the stumbling blocks for organizations from different parts and even the southwest and are composed primarily of mexicans getting together. the reason why they call it aviva kennedy viva kennedy is because it had john kennedy and everybody would not have
to come up with a name. so, that was a very valuable thing and then once aviva kennedy ended it was who are we? mexican american activists, especially, really found it because they're out of the different regional names. they, at least for some corresponded to kind of political orientations or socialization so x can american, you probably adopted the name in california but this was too much for a lot of texan activists. so, in some sense at certain times, names were a way of not really talking about actual real political differences and tactical differences and ideas about aggressiveness and how ethnic to be. i think that the names also speak to who is really trying to be the leader of this vast population. so, i think in the case of the mexican american political
association, the people who establish this in california, had a founding connection had to explain to the many puerto ricans who existed in california, who were publicly active, why it was that their name was not going to be reflected in this organization. and that it was so vital for them to overcome the stigmatization attached to the idea of mexican. so the names are, at different times maybe really important in establishing something. but, over time, it becomes kind of a convergence. and, bureaucratic names and political names start to kind of align. go ahead. >> you sure? >> okay. so gerry mentioned a spanish speaking as a kind of a bureaucratic name and that was thought to be really inclusive and then avoided a lot of the pitfalls of nationality but of course the raise questions about but if you don't speak
spanish and you are mexican american are you still spanish- speaking? statisticians attempted to employ seemingly objective terms like spanish surname where they can look at a fist of names and say okay, you belong to this group and that was the first epoxy for latino ethnicity. so just a whole set of competing terms operating throughout at least into the middle 70s, and then sort of moved to be a standardization around hispanic/latino. your people, the ones that you're studying in your current book -- >> i'm not going to own them. they're not my people. >> [ laughter ] no, but they tended to reject latino, generally, which is interesting because in 1964 barry goldwater had a latino con goldwater supported campaign, so latino was a
conservative monaco moniker at different points and then became a liberal democratic moniker by the 70s. an example of how it changes. two the only thing i would add with that, part of it, part of why i wanted to add this is because the question about the challenge that this naming issue kind of poses, perhaps to writing latino particle history. you think of two other things. the first is that i think there is a difference between explaining these name changes to a historian and inhabiting them as an identity. and you know, i have friends who say i am a chicano with a x, and that means they spell chicana with a x at the beginning instead of ach, which is a clear statement of the political meeting and that is the position they inhabit. or students that call themselves latinx. i think there's a difference between inhabiting that identity, and trying to explain it as a historian.
they're all kinds of convocations and i think that maybe why i maybe don't hang too much meaning on any one of the terms. try to see them holistically. maybe i'm just confused about my own ethnic or political identity. i am half white, half mexican or half latino and my uncle called me green bean when i was growing up because i gringowas half and half which is nice but maybe i'm just dealing with these things on my own but i don't think in any way these kinds of name considerations are unique to latino or hispanic. african-american, black, , all kinds of you know selfie debited identification that black people used all over time and is anglo and white and caucasian. those kinds of terms are present their own challenges when writing about them. so, yet i do think that this
question of naming an identity is often posed as one of the challenges to writing latino political history or the local history of hispanics and one of the questions i often get asked is is there, i'm sure you heard a version of this but is there such a thing as the latino vote, hispanic vote? and, i don't know that there is a thing called the latino vote or the hispanic vote yet and there are millions, millions of voters that whoever you want to call them hispanic, latino, mexican- american, cuban-american, there are millions of them who do vote and to the extent that they do a little behaviors is worth explaining, regardless of what you call them. so, i don't, it is often posed as a kind of challenge to your project well, there's no such thing as the hispanic vote and part of me just wants to answer the question by saying okay, well where does that get
us if that is what you want to begin and end the conversation? that doesn't help us understand, really. >> i'm looking at the clock. we have so much to talk about. >> [ laughter ] i want to keep open the question about what challenges face the writing of political history latino political history, but i also want to expand and ask a different question which is where do we stand to lose in mainstream medical history by ignoring or not paying attention to latino actors and institutions? what is at stake here? >> could i go first? i feel like i have been talking a lot but i will try to be quickly about this one. i think fundamentally, you run the risk of like misunderstanding electoral outcomes if you ask or ignore latino politics i will .24 particular elections. the 1976 presidential election.
the 1996 presidential election, the 2000 presidential election, the 2012 presidential election. the 1976 presidential election. many political analysts after the fact put a lot of weight on texas, which, carter won by not many votes i think it was like, it was in the 10,000, i can't remember how much. but, the argument afterwards. if ford had even one out of 10. if one out of 10 mexican- americans had shifted their vote from carter to ford, court ford would have one. if you would've won texas he would've won the election. why did he lose texas? maybe because he bit into a tamale that had the shock chuck on it on april of 1976 amex can americans do not like him after that, maybe it was because reagan was much more popular. but, certainly the mexican american vote in texas is a part of the story. of the texas, how texas voted in 1976. in 1996, this was a couple
years after proposition 187. in the same year as clinton, yes clinton signed the illegal immigration reform and immigrant responsibility act but the bill, itself, was largely seen as a product of the republican house. and, you know, latinos, robert dole ended up winning only 19% of hispanic vote which was the lowest of any republican candidate since you know ford, and ford had other things going on with watergate, the aftermath of that and etc. 2000 you look at the alley and gonzales elian gonzales case which was part of what was going on in florida, it wasn't a total of what was going on in florida, there was also, you know, the famous kind of airport case, i can't member what it is called. elian gonzales, we will stick with that. it's not the whole story but the part of the story. and, the 2012 barack obama was
seen to be reelected largely because of hispanic support and swing states like virginia, colorado, new mexico. so the point for me is i wouldn't say that latinos are everything, in order to understand american politics over the past 50 years, but you have to look centrally at latinos but it is an important part of the story and i don't know why, if you're a local historian you would want to include that part of the story that helps explain even electoral politics and i'm sure you lots of other reasons too. >> split latinos up little history helps us think about political time to a degree of support traditional practice of ping attention to presidential administrations. after all from a perspective latino politics is a ritual.
is the moment when there is this massive effort of party sponsors, latino organizations, advertisers and campaigns to summon a latino vote to integrate a national are and nationalize important in some directory point in some direction to latino communities. it's a time to convince them to develop a common language of aspiration any set of policies policies germane to the ethnic community. and then in the wake is the reckoning. it's whether or not the administration that is elected will recognize latinos importance with cabinet post, supreme court appointments. and a commitment to resolving urgent latino issues. at the same time, latino potable history is driven by congressional activity. by bringing congress back in the local history helps us to read. eyes a bit in u.s. politics. i found that it allows us to see the important between the heyday of the new deal order and the more conservative but more multicultural. that follows. the liberal architects of
latino politics came in the age of the depression in the shadow of the new deal, and is true that by the 1970s, they were practicing a so-called identity politics found in a congressional hispanic caucus, advocating for bilingual education programs and recognition of their people. but they did that just as much to preserve and update the new deal with class-based politics and policy universalism. windy as their task was to sympathize the democratic party traditional commitment to educational security with a new at this emphasis on cultural security. a closer look reveals that the leaders talked about language and culture, and the unique the uniqueness of the latino family life as a means to an end and that end was often pursuing and expanding welfare estate marked by things like national healthcare insurance.
>> i agree with everything that has been said. with a great conversation about reaching the public and what does that mean to reach the public or to reach your students in a different way because they in many ways are the public. what i have noticed when i have been presenting about my book two different audiences is that invariably someone will come up at the end and say i didn't realize that there were people who were speaking spanish that were involved in politics in the 1840s. i didn't realize that i have this longer history in this country that i can be a part of because the rhetoric around the undocumented, around the border, rent immigration is all i hear that we are new here. so, it is one way to combat also the kind of view that
perpetual foreignness of mexican-americans. i would argue that a asian americans and definitely also for american indians. i think those are some of the reasons to include more of the comparative histories but also a larger sense of the multiracial coalitions that is topics in general and gives us a really good place to talk about foreign policy and why things have operated the way that they have. latin america has been a central, key point of interest for the united states for over a century. with funding going there kind of influencing the politics in those regions and that can also help to understand those individuals that are here, now it's at the politics that they bring in the way that they view the united states itself. >> i think i would add that by simply talking about latinos as a side note or even a footnote, we make a lot of
assumptions about large political blocks. and the assumption is that there is a block that is natural or pre-existing and i think that gerry's work and -- >> your article, talk about your article. >> sure. >> i'm working on a piece about the 1983 election of chicago. remember that the election for select mayor and there's this wonderful, beautiful narrative that dominates, which is black people registered in record numbers and voted more than ever before, and it was this rainbow coalition where mexican-americans and puerto ricans also joined forces for chicago's first black mayor. deeper dives into latino politics show that more often than not division and intention dominate the political conversation in a lot of ways.
that is my personal take an cynical view of latino politics. but, when we don't do the deep sigh and dive into the process in which latinos are courted by politicians or parties, we lose the ways in which latinos are actually more complicated and divided and we see them. that is what i am working on is showing how it wasn't as beautiful a coalition as thought. and, in general, we look at presidential elections today, 30% is a lot. right? where as over 90% of african- americans vote together. so there's a lot more there to impact and there's not a new development. there's something rooted in a history of, you know, front coalition that are not just an interethnic but. with that we can keep talking
and also open it up to questions from the audience. yet we have two in the back. >> to have a microphone? >> i had a question about latino politics and presidential politics and how people think about what is typically american and you have me thinking or maybe you're thinking about some of your students who go to conferences saying people don't think that i view history because i've studied latinos in the midwest. talk about regionalism and the way it weighs in the discussion. [ inaudible question ] >> well, i mean, it is a long history in the midwest right? so the first book that i can think of is the first book on
michigan. but, anytime i see, i think there's a recent book on wisconsin with the earliest settlers coming in at the turn of the 20th century. so there's been a lot of activism, emily is here one of her tractors chapters and her dissertation looks at one of those histories, and is a lot of parallels going on with the southwest, and i think, it is such an important place for the studies to be and also just so that the students who do come, i had a student from oklahoma who is like people do not think that we are in oklahoma and she is like fourth generation. i think that that is another component of it. the hard part for the politics of that is that they are usually a smaller population. so, having that political weight to have that sort of political discussion. it kind of, and usually will probably come up around coalitions rather than the latino block, whether or not that exists as we have talked
about war. >> uptrend think of what i would add to that but, i think that your last observation about numbers and stuff, i think it really does depend on where you look. in chicago where there are really has been a longer tradition of people like luis gutiirrez, i mean more than 1.2, 1.3 million mexicans in the little village. kind of a densely populated puerto rican area primarily and it's incredibly diverse so it's diversity, of course, need to different things with the coalition politics we are talking about. it is there. and the kind of political influence. i'm also thinking of mark rodriguez's book about the connections between texas and migrant mexican farmworkers in wisconsin. and there kind of political activism and labor organizing in wisconsin influencing labor
politics both in wisconsin and texas. so, there are examples i think if this were midwestern history conference, maybe in some way it is a. there are some midwestern politics, i do think that you would be having a version of the same conversation, latino historians for a long time have been arguing for the inclusion of midwestern latino communities in the field of latino history, which has come historically been dominated by california, new york or florida. but, i don't know how new that argument is in the sense that by this point historians have been doing that for maybe 20 years. so, i don't know, if you wanted a bibliography i'm sure we can give you a long list. >> avenue latino midwest reader a lot of stuff in there. >> omar, and others, -- >> in the back?
>> for someone who writes about national american legal history and so on, what groups are appropriate to compare latinos with if you are writing about politics? they're sort of a tendency to think of them as people as color or people of color. i was talking to a distinguishable scientist at sanford and, just other ways of thinking and i asked are they the new italian-american? and this particular, very distinguished local scientist at stanford with italian ancestry said they absolutely are. that struck me. as someone who teaches american political, those are very different comparisons, they are like african- americans, are like italian- americans. and he is an italian-american, they are a group once thought of as not quite white but now as thought of is very much white, which would lead in a different direction and help explain the folks that gerry studies. right, so, my question for
you is is that a fruitful comparison? should latinos be compared with italian-americans more often than they are in the literature on the subject? especially with reference to politics and voting behavior? >> i missed the one word when you talk about the political scientist and you brought up italian he said absolutely? >> they absolutely are. the new italian-american. >> okay. so is that a fruitful way of thinking about latinos politically? >> >> i'm generally interested in where you would come out with that. >> i would say one of the great things about latino studies, and latino history is that in defining the constituency, we draw or we can draw from a lot of other disciplines such as sociology and medical science. i think he should have given you a source for that
statement. i always make a comparison with african-americans because that follows the trend of natural pinnacle science that focuses on latinos in african- american politics, it is the concept that says african- americans see their chances as integral and connected to the chances of other people in their race. so, there is this political unity because what happens to my neighbor, or my cousin can happen to me. more recent work by local scientist named gary segura at ucla, he argues that links fate can also apply to latino politics where, increasingly, people of the same pan ethnic label come to see an attack on one group or one community as an attack on us. it is not as statistically strong, but he makes the argument that latinos, as a
collective, diverse, multiracial and pan ethnic group, see themselves more connected with each other. and so, i think that would be the focal science answer. he should have said. >> [ laughter ] >> i'm not sure that i agree with that. gary segura i haven't read that, but i should, and i will. but, a quick answer would be i think you could compare latinos to any group you want to compare them to but you would just get, i think the basis for comparing them with defer upon what group you are comparing them to the time period. i think that to a couple of quick examples when latinos are compared with italian- americans, it often is a conversation about the assimilation and kind of upward mobility of second- generation or third- generation. like will mexicans be the next italians in terms of
assimilation and it's usually, the answer to that is yes, it is usually brought about an argument against local scientist samuel huntington who continue to say that we segregate ourselves in language, barrios and never fully integrate, we say among our own, etc. i think that is the italian- american comparison if you want to compare it with african-american, a.b. will look at someone like, arturo shamburg who was afro descended puerto rican who moved to new york in the late 19th, early 20th century and once he moved to new york started to identify as an aquifer can african americanamerican and then started the schaumburg collection, the greatest collection of african- american, or american history and culture, so, you know, the, yeah, and, you would also look there at latinos latino self identification around issues of whiteness and like the cubans in florida in the late 19th century who distance
themselves from african- americans because florida is a jim crow state. i think you can compare them to anyone, compare them to anyone and everyone. i think the issue will change. you can compare them to any person on the block. >> here it's important in the region, international origin because in the thinking of at least with respect to the bill cole political position of latinos, in, say the late 60s and 70s, it really mattered where we were talking about, a talking about mexican- americans in the southwest a sought after constituency for law and order republicans. latinos, mexican-americans, look and are appealed to an republicans want to convince themselves are alike our family, hard-working, oriented, against welfare
dependency. further patriotic members of the silent majority. the very same against viewport weekends as a racially ambiguous disenchanted, disillusioned pro-welfare dependent constituency. one that is at odds with the white ethnics of new york city whom they wish to court. so, place matters in the national organization very much and of course indefinitely so with cubans. i guess the way i would think about it, how are people understood in relation to each other in the buckle system at particular times. political system at particular times. >> you haven't said a lot about gender and why biblical scientist as he did he tends to think of latino voters as patriarchal. more so than the average american, whatever that means today.
and, so, the issue of male versus female roles and relations in the commit latino community. my question for you is that an accurate perspective and? >> i would think the opposite. i've heard opposite that latino males are basically vote how their wives vote. >> i ask because i was asked to speak to the latino state troopers of ohio. they now have their own, these are highway patrolman, right, almost all men, very few women, all latino. i think roughly 70% of the voters for donald trump and they are a patriarchal group as you could imagine. but they are only one segment, right. so, again i wonder if place also matters. the midwest is more patriarchal than california or new york. so, i don't want to come look at the story too much. but, there is regrettably a panel on gender at this moment as well, and i want to go to both, and i couldn't.
and i wish the two of you both were up there talking about this together. thank you, by the way for doing this do not be discouraged that there aren't more people. >> not to give you buyers remorse but this one is going to be on c-span so you could have watched this one later. anyway. >> you get the real life experience here, that is right. >> i mean i for the opposite. i mean, one of my characters, ben fernandez was one of the first hispanics to run for president as a republican said that he learned fiscal conservatism at the knees of his mother. so, a mother's influence in the family is just as important. i don't know. >> i have stories from the 1850s where men who were marrying were americans and spoke english and coming from the states. and, were marrying mexican- american women and, their children did not know english. so, they were learning
spanish, that is why the spanish remained in the system for so long that. and, definitely, i think it depends on time and place but, that is the other thing, people usually hear my story in terms of language are always comparing with the germans. because it was so powerful politically. >> think about the state troopers is really interesting. i think another challenge, in addition to the pan and ethnicity and, you know, individual groups versus collective and one of the things i've often wondered and do not know the answer to empirically as how much latino voters just resemble voters, like other voters in a particular place or in a particular field. i mean what did other state troopers who are non-latinos vote like that. maybe 70% of them also voted for donald trump or, you know the county where they lived in in ohio went for trump 70%. i don't know, i guess this is an argument about paying attention to place and latinos in relation to other groups in
a particular place. yeah. >> i just want to thank you guys. i have been working on asian american political through the 1970s. i thought of a different comparison which is asian americans in historical time, it either parallels or what i've learned from talking to some of the folks who work in the federal government. one person, in particular, was telling me whatever the latinos did, we just followed a step behind them and at that that was really interesting. the cabinet committee on spanish-speaking people, asian americans basically tried to create a cabinet and, it failed actually. but, that latino politics set up a model for them. to follow. so, anyway i'm just really excited about all of this and i wanted to ask maybe this is an offshoot question. in researching this history and looking at papers of
members of congress who were asian american. what i found, i'm just curious because if you are finding similar things asian americans the matter where they live. so it could be like hawaii or california but these people live all over, the citizens and the writing, these members of congress are people relatively in positions of power and in the federal government asking for help as a fellow, you know, -- and was wondering if this was something you have seen in your research, all this, all this expectation based on certain people who look like them or from their similar communities? and what they might offer to hispanics or latinos. >> absolutely. i mean, this goes back a really long time the first and it came to mind was mark antonio the left is congressman from spanish harlem who is basically the congressman from puerto rico. and everybody from the island was asking him for help and one of the problems are.
but, yeah, i think the parallels in the period are clear, that there, there is a real effort to put people in positions, politicians to put latinos and asian americans to a lesser degree and, visible positions within cabinet agencies within the war on poverty, not just in the vastly expanded federal federal government and those people are but the representatives and the representation of the larger group of americans in society but also a conduit for assistance. mainly and programs. i think it's because there were still so much of an expectation in the beginning of the federal programs.
was their job . >> i would say that you also see that in local politics and where national latino politicians travel the country to areas that no local congressman or the mayor or any latino figure of the race and, so, a good example is the governor of new mexico, campaign for washington because chicago had no latino elected officials in 1982. so, in 1983, they do a lot of legwork because, and i'm sure the case could be similar to
the first woman of congress and she becomes a national figurehead for a lot of asian americans who wanted to see representation. and the other thing is, a friend of mine who is in political science and works on asian-american politics. in the contemporary period and at the end of the 20th century face a lot of challenges where so many different countries and different languages, that's a different problem but the issue of pan- ethnicity and what holds us together is similar in both groups. >> really quickly, there is an interesting connection between asian-american latinos in the 70s and i'm sure these are people that you have heard of. bill is actually the head of the
mafia, the chicano point representative of chicanos in many ways and he tells stories about growing up in the bayou in los angeles and is an interesting figure. sml is also an interesting figure in california and then, finally there's a graduate student named vivian yan who is working on asian-american conservatism and i'm sure she would love to know more about your work . >> that is a great comparison also, in the 19th century i feel like it's the opposite. the chinese that lead to the term alien that they were considered the first and documented in many ways and so that is kind of an interesting point. the other person i would mention but dennis chavez is traveling and is the only senator and so a representative for the whole group .
>> the way to make this turn into a national saga, you see the stories turn into these few important figures that everyone looks into. >> do you see them going internationally? >> because dennis chavez was sent to pan- america for all these different reasons. >> i think in the early 40s, 50s and 60s yes but i am working on the 70s and 80s but i'm certain there is a lot there . >> with that i like to close the panel and i would like to thank everyone who has spoken. thank you for your questions and thank you for coming. [ applause ] thank you. weeknights this month we feature american history tv programs and a preview of what is available every weekend on cspan-3. tomorrow we continue our look at apollo 11 at moonwalk one a feature-length
documentary about the mission commissioned by nasa. the film covers pre-lift off two parades for the astronauts after their safe return, rarely seen to jen scenes from around the world as people watch man's first steps on the moon. you can see it tonight starting at 8 pm eastern on cspan-3 >> enjoy american history tv every week and on cspan-3 >> all week we are featuring american history tv programs as a preview of what is available every weekend on cspan-3. lectures and history, american artifacts real america, the civil war, oral histories, the presidency and special event coverage about our nations history. enjoy american history tv now and every weekend on cspan-3. >> up next on american history tv,