tv Book Discussion on A Nation of Nations CSPAN December 5, 2015 9:00am-10:01am EST
library and museum. on behalf of the kennedy library foundation and all my library and foundation qualities i thank you for coming, welcome our viewers on c-span and acknowledge generous underwriters of the kennedy library forum. these funds make america, the boston foundation and our immediate sponsors, the boston globe and wb 0 r. of many memorable moments in my 16 years working at the library none compare to the two days when senator edward kennedy's body lay in repose in this very hall to allow his friends, colleagues and and buyers to pay their last respects before he was buried in arlington national cemetery next to his brothers. we had announced we would close at midnight the first day and reopen at 6:00 a.m. the next. that initial night wore on i sensed staff and security were tiring, i went out the front
door at 11:30 p.m. to see how many folks remained in line. i have never been so moved in my life, hundreds if not thousands of people waited patiently under a summer night sky and walked and walked searching for the end of the line, casting laborers, educators, politicals and most notably recent immigrants of all generations and ethnicities, many holding sleeping children and their arms, they had come to paris that still a man they credited with making their dreams of a new life in an adopted homeland a reality. in his new book "a nation of nations: a great american immigration story," tom gjelten are fully captures both the personal and political nuances, traces the journeyes of a number
of recent immigrants and their families, toils and triumphs in their new homeland and charts the political battle in principle figures whose efforts led to the passing of the 1965 immigration act, 50th anniversary we celebrate today, exactly 50 years ago on october 1st/31965 president lyndon johnson signed the act into law at a ceremony in lady liberty's shadow. ted kennedy was not the only member of the family who played a role. president kennedy had been a supporter of dropping quotas that favored immigration from europe. in 1960 to send the bill to abolish nationality discrimination and immigration policy with his youngest brother. years before that their maternal grandfather who faced off with
his political nemesis when lodge questioned whether jews or italian tenor any rights to emigrate to the united states fitzgerald allegedly responded as much as your father or mine, it was only the difference of a few ships which reminds me of dave powers's quote about another boston brahmin family politician, he is irish on his show for's side. tom gjelten is the author of numerous books and award winning correspondent for national public radio. in 1986 he became one of npr's finest foreign correspondent mostly in latin america and new york and covering wars throughout the world after returning from overseas tom gjelten covered u.s. diplomacy in military affairs from the state department and the pentagon where he was reporting live the moment it was hit on september 11th, 2001. more often he covers the changing religious landscape in america, a graduate of the
university of minnesota and began his professional career as a public-school teacher. we are pleased to welcome our moderator who writes for the boston globe editorial page where she has been a contributor since 2013 writing editorialss, she is a frequent commentator on wg b t radio and worked in the boston business journal. six times the year the kennedy library is on it to serve as the host site for a special federal court proceedings in which recent immigrants are nationalized. these unique ceremonies remind me of a treasured moment in the history of my family when the adoption of our son and daughter who were born in guatemala and south korea were finalizing course and they became citizens of the united states. perhaps that is why i was so taken by this brief personal
passage in tom gjelten's book. when martha derived from bellsouth adored she thought life would be easier and it turned out to be. you have to work hard but after a childhood of poverty and violence, found severity in america and that is what mattered most, quote, i come home from work, park my car in the parking lot, come into my apartment and lock the door and see my children, i can sleep peacefully here and not think somebody will come in the night. that is just one of many beautiful in yet that tom gjelten has given us in his new book. join me in welcoming him and marcela garcia. >> thank you for being here.
and again for inviting me and talking about this book, the timing is quick squeeze another. and the fact that it is honoring the 50th anniversary, i wanted to ask first a very simple question, if you could tell us how did you arrive, what did you decide to write about? there are many topics. you had an extensive career? >> most of my career has been overseas or writing about foreign policy or national security but as i get older and got over i wanted to write more about this nation, our identity,
culture, history, so for a while i was looking for a new way to focus on my reporting and eyes on this anniversary coming up and i didn't really -- it is one of the most unrecognized losses and monumental. we are approaching the 50th anniversary and this law as much as anything else is responsible for changing the character of america, the identity and for the first time forced america to live up to its promise of being an open country. and force america to define what
is american exceptionalism. that term is thrown around a lot. i saw this as an opportunity to redirect my reporting for a while land look at the country. >> i did not know there was a 1965 immigration act. what i think about when people say 1965 is the voting rights act, the year before the civil rights act. was that the same spirit as this act? tell us what this law did and maybe we can do that. >> the areas to get rid of national origin, to make america a more open in its immigration policy, john fitzgerald was fighting this fight back then and when john kennedy ran for congress in 1946 he was campaigning and one of the things he discovered is italian
and jewish voters felt they were discriminated against in the immigration policy. the drive to change -- to get rid of the national origins quota which the numbers are just staggering. there were a thousand pieces reserved for people from the united kingdom, the national origins quota with 100 from japan, 100 from india, 100 from korea. the push to get rid of those national origin quote ofs goes a long way back but you are absolutely right, it only was in the context of the civil rights movement and the great society that the mobilization was finally possible to do this. high was looking -- doing research on a recording on a
meeting and insurance and had in the white house a few months after taking office where he was trying to line up support, and everyone was saying it will never happen. there was a feeling that time was not yet right. it became right when the great majority, after the elections. this civil rights movement, shortly after the civil rights act was passed we have gotten rid of the idea of second-class citizenship, time to get rid of second class status of people
applying to emigrants. when it was passed finally. >> exactly what did the law on do, the national origin quota, let me understand the political climate you talk about, like you were saying, this is never going to happen. how did it work out? >> amazing to go back and read the debate, the committee hearings, to use one of donald trump's favorite terms, we are politically correct in our language. there was literally standing up, members of congress saying we don't want asia here or africans here, don't have the same rights here. very candid about their
preference in northern western europeans, anglo-saxon country and we need to keep it that way. this is how couple unique things about that moment when the law is approved by congress. 55 denigration and got a larger share, the main opposition to the civil rights act, voting rights act and immigration act aimed at southern democrats and at that time there were more liberal republicans in congress than they are in state. the still there was opposition to it and this is an interesting story and an important one, the chairman of the house immigration subcommittee was basically allied with these
conservative groups who were opposed, and 4 months refuse to hold hearings on president johnson's bill and president johnson, very direct pressure on him and after a scary primary race in his district, only then that he agreed on this bill but he agreed to support the bill only after getting a really important to him in change. president johnson, the senator from michigan, bill hart, but originally proposed that the main preference categories should be those who have skills and training especially at that -- reverse the preference and
instead elevated the importance of family unification forgiving out reasons. interestingly enough, by giving preference to immigrants who had relatives you would bring in more of the same. it would be in the words of the american legion a naturally operating national origin because the assumption was those who had largely european, that is the key to getting enough concerted support to get the bill passed. when it went into law years ago today the top priority once technology here and the fact when they fail to realize is that demand to boost the united states no longer in europe but in the developing world, in asia, to come to the united
states largely through those categories. as each of those immigrants came into the united states, offered the opportunity to bring in not only their children or their parents but brothers and sisters, the spouse's brothers and sisters so you saw that chain phenomenon, bringing in exactly the kind of people they wanted to keep out which ones -- nine of ten were outside europe. the allies thought would happen when they emphasized that. >> it is amazing. i would like to read a paragraph, 60 years ago in 1965 and i will read what happened
when assigned into law. president johnson signed the immigration act. and blue skies and blustery winds. onlookers gathered at a round. they hand out, a hand the preparation and passage of the immigration legislation, the symphony conductor from austria, lyndon johnson to immigrant concerns and who had been able to escape thanks to johnson's personal intervention. it was delivered at a podium in the shadow of the statue of
liberty, the interpretation of the legislature. the bill we signed today is not a revolutionary bill bleated does not affect the lives of millions but it is one of the most important acts of congress and the administration. 50 years ago, 50 years later, backfired. what is the significance of this legislative move? what lessons can we learn relevant today to current immigration climate and talk about the passage of this lock contributed to the current immigration system. what you have, increasing flow of people and their families coming in, prioritizing them in visas and green cards which we probably know suffer from
incredible backlogs. >> when president johnson said union address to announce this, the key question is we should ask what can you do not in what country were you born, so his idea was to be selected in the basis of whether it they contribute to economy. in the current moment fewer than 10% of immigrants in the country are coming and by that criteria. the great majority are coming in, this is the big and intended part of this legislation. no one realized family unification would drive immigration down and that is what has overloaded this. i am not going to get into whether it makes sense for a naturalized citizen to bring in their brothers and sisters and
spouses and so forth but no question that is the provision that explains the numbers we have which i would guess if the country ever get anywhere in immigration reform that is going to be one of the most debated the issues. i don't get into is that, i am just explaining but for me, the symbolic importance of this legislation that it committed the united states for the first time in its history to colorblind immigration policy. that is the key principle. no longer did we select immigrants based on what kind of people claim were, what culture they came from. so now it made possible for the first time to have diversity and that is the key thing.
we are redefining what does it mean to be an american. what is the american nation all about, that is a really important thing to focus on in the current political climate. up until now there has been so much of the immigration debate. undocumented immigrants, should there be a wall between the united states and mexico but what this occasion brings up is the question of are we still committed as a country to bringing in people from all cultures, all backgrounds, are we willing to deal with the challenges diversity and multicultural as an raised for a society. that is why this anniversary is so important. >> to repeat those statistics, 80% of the organization was white and seven of eight
immigrants coming from europe, overseas tripled in nine coming from outside of europe. if i can ask, a different day in america did the law not go through. could just imagine perhaps, we were talking about this before. there has been a deliciously unchangeds, that impacted immigration for the makeup of the country and amnesty, 9/11 for sure, prompted a lot of immigration policies. i wonder if 1965 -- >> it is in my interest as someone who has written, exaggerated its importance. i want to be careful not to do that because there are other
factors that contributed to the current situation. one thing i pointed out before was the geopolitical situation changed dramatically. europe in 1965 was becoming prosperous again. a whole wave of european immigration was in the aftermath when europe largely devastated, prosperous and growing and no longer much motivation for european as much as a motivation so that is one factor. meanwhile in what we used to call the third world, the developing world, but that africa, there were wars and violence all over africa, ties to colonial motherlands as it were, being broken, so for the first time there was a push on the part of many people in
african countries to migrate. changes in global transportation and global communication, making migration more practical and feasible than it had ever been. all of those factors contributed to this change in migration patterns and with respect to hispanic immigration, in 1964, the program was abolished which brought largely agricultural workers from mexico into other countries into the united states legally to work in fields. that program was eliminating in 1964 by the same people who voted for the immigration act, what happened was a lot of workers coming in to the united states came to the united states afterwards along the same group in the same fields.
they were illegal and been abolished. the rise in undocumented immigration as a consequence of the elimination of the program. there are many other factors that explains the change. >> i don't to -- the thing that love about your work is you are able to intertwine the human story with policy act, immigrants that arrive in the past 50 years in the context of a policy change and how affected them. i don't want people to think it is entirely legislative but it has a lot of policy that helps explain the situation. i want to ask about assimilation, another topic or
other theme along this story, immigrants, what did you learn about the experience? any lessons for americans we can draw from this? >> you have written a lot, assimilation is a loaded term. taking on the dominant culture. if that was possible in the early 20th century is less possible for people in non-european backgrounds with is they want to or not, you probably may very well have a different religion, a lot of immigrants have different ways. s, there are certain things you
can do nothing about like skin color or your religion or your cultural philosophical background. those factors set you apart, with the u.n. to assimilate or not. this to me is the core issue. when you spend time thinking about this society, arthur solicitor, those who are followers of john f. kenny know him very well, famous kennedy liberal wrote a book in which he is very critical of multiculturalism movement and famously said the national motto, out of many, one. he famously said my concern is we have too much pluroibus and n not enough unum.
what about working for unity? on the one hand, the stories that illustrate this, you can't have absolute unity because people are coming from different backgrounds but it is important as that nation to think about what does the concept of we mean? what is the concept of unity? what can we establish didn't feel we are now multicultural nation, diversity, still important to have a unity but we have to think about it in creative ways, really work to establish a new definition of what we as the nation need to. that is one of the questions-i x for in writing about the experience because one of the things that unites them all, bolivia, libya, a house of the
door, and they all in one way or another are committed to the idea of being american and all do believe there is something about being american that unites them all. it is an interesting story to explore because people come up with different ideas of what it means. is a key issue. >> one thing i found on the topic of diversity, one of the topics i found very interesting, you dedicate chapter on what happens post 1965. given the spirit of this moment, the civil rights bill lynch, you explore what happened, the dynamic between african-american and americans. you can talk about little about that because it is fascinating. >> there is a chapter called
crossroads in which i explore in detail the history of a historically black community in northern virginia. they are not immigrants and their struggles have nothing to do with immigration but i wanted to establish that setting because that part of northern virginia with fruit three really difficult, traumatic experiences in two years. that part of the region the was racially segregated in terms of neighborhoods and schoolss so it went crew desegregation in the 1960s which for them was very traumatic. the others then they were a distant suburb of washington d.c. a rural areas throughout the 50s, washington d.c. was expanding, got swallowed up in metropolitan areas so they went through urbanization, the big process they went through, huge
population growth, it also happened to be the area at that experienced the immigration in flux than any other part of the area. desegregation, urbanization and immigration, this produced tremendous stress and the black community had finally just barely gotten the same level of public service, finally had schools, went to integrated schools, the story of them being able to build a community center for the first time with support of local government. no sooner had they achieved those things than they were in a non pejorative way we inundated, one of the lower-income neighborhoods in the county and that is where the immigrants soft their own housing so no sooner had these
african-american leaders established some kind of justice for their community where they had to share these resources with immigrants and the immigrants were not necessarily aware how much work had gone into establishing this. there was fierce conflict between those african-american leaders and this is the dynamic that had gone on for different period, it was not entirely resolved and i tried to dodge the question whether immigrants taking jobs away from american workers which is a key issue. i think one of the data points that is currently clear is the very low skill low income levels labor market, there is competition with native-born
workers and that impacts african-americans. the strong argument if you get the economy in macro terms that effective immigration, some jobs, economic growth, it is hard, and impact at the lowest level. that is an issue african-american and immigrant leaders have dealt with through all this period. what unites them particularly in this period is the sense that the power structure is supposed to both of their interests. political lead they may have something in common that they don't have in common economically. that relationship and alliance is developing but it is another key issue. >> in certain instances out
there. and to learn from those. in the late 1800s or early 1900s, very anti immigrants, unwanted immigrants, why do you think that is coming back now? was it always there? did it ever leave? why it is in the country so long? >> i don't know if it is coming back. certain individuals get a lot of attention, a really wide spread statement of resentment, immigrants or people of color. i have to be convinced, i would
like to think during of primary season when you have a polarized population, gerrymandered congressional districts, a candidate's appeal to their narrow party base and certain sentiments blown out of proportion, the of everything that is the most successful period of enculturation integration or economic growth when the pie is bigger, when there is more fear and anxiety, there's a temptation to blame your anxiety or your insecurity on others. we have seen that in the united states and the war in bosnia and i saw how the economic stress
prodigious away of of nationalism that was directly attributable to dictators, demagogues who were encouraging people to blame their neighbors. that is a phenomenon we see over and over again except we live in a period of economic stress. again, we are sort of back where we were 50 years ago. >> the voting rights act is being challenged in many ways, many counties with voter id loss, and lot of people may say it is almost cyclical, coming back. i wanted to ask you going back to human stories when you talk
to people that you chose, this county in with the impact of immigration law, something that surprise you in your reporting or your research, you found professional wisdom or something that strikes you as i never thought i would find it. >> there were 2 ways i could approach this. i wanted to write about real people who were here indirectly or directly as a result of the 65 backed. there are two ways to approach that. to approach we're ten interesting people from around the country. in stead i decided i wanted all of it these people to be from a really defined area because in many ways character is focused
on in my book include not just the immigrants but law-enforcement people, government people, education people, those people who had to do it. i wanted to tell the story in a particular setting and not just the stories of disparate individuals so i chose fairfax county as a place because there i could establish the context in which this happened and also interaction of the immigrants themselves. i tell the story in the book of a young man from bolivia his closest friends in high school were another young man his age from south korea and another young man from pakistan. all three came to the country at the same time, none of them spoke english when they came, none of them came from a high
income background, they had similar struggles but they are coming from a latin culture, asian culture and muslim culture in pakistan speaking spanish and korean. there was far more that separated them than united them. the shared experience of being immigrants brought them to get there and they became very close friends and those interconnections intrigued me, how this community, i went off on a tangent that you asked what surprised me or challenged conventional wisdom. one thing i've found in fairfax county was unlike previous high immigrant areas you did not have the group said lim, you don't have little italy. there is a place called koreatown but there mostly hispanic. what you had in fairfax county
was immigrants and because they were coming largely one by one settling with families they chose neighborhoods that had the safest communities in and did not necessarily go to the korean neighborhood or latino neighborhood or muslim neighborhood. there weren't neighborhoods like that. you saw a whole different pattern of immigrant settlement really different from previous settlement patterns. what it made possible once really nurtured this sense of a new national identity because these people were for the most part separated from other immigrants's background and forced to find things they had in common with each other and native-born americans so this, i thought, some of the things i read about in this book are elements that contribute to what i said before, this new sense of
height did. what is it these people living in this country from other backgrounds, what is it they are working together to identify as their common identity and being able to articulate an elaborate that is what fairfax county offers. i should point out fairfax county in 1960 was 92% white, 7.9% african-american and 0.1% foreign-born. end today 29% of the presidents of fairfax county -- it has gone through this tremendous change. >> we will take some questions if you can start preparing going to the mic but i wanted to ask without giving away too much, about your experience, you talk
about your family, where it is from and their immigrant experience in the united states years ago. talk a little bit about that and how that change your views. >> i debated whether to be so self and agent as telling that story and i decided to do it because my ancestors represented, and i have a chapter called good immigrants that immigrants. my ancestors exemplified the good immigrants, they came from norway, they were white, right around the turn of the century, came in different groups. the last few years of the nineteenth century, they represented everything, it was the most racist you could imagine where you had eugenics' experts from harvard saying scandinavian is where the purist
race. my ancestors were of the purists race according to these immigration experts at the time. so i thought it was important to explore what drove these good immigrants to come to the united states. you find out factors, forces the drove my immigrants to the country were to the no different than the fact is that drive people to central america. they were coming from norway in the nineteenth century, preindustrial agrarian economy where you to and inherit the family farm. there was a lot of poverty head if you had any initiative at all and tour at all enterprising, you would go to america. that is what you did. it was easy in those days because they were white end you
could buy a package amazingly by norway you could buy a ticket not only got you land ticket to the coast, steam ship tickets across the ocean and railway ticket into the interior you have this package that took you into the interior. there were years in which norway lost 5% of its population to immigration every year. that is more than what you see in central america and these days and same forces that drive people, people have been migrating for a million years. they migrate when circumstances force them to migrate. i want to stress the continuity of my ancestors's experience with the experience of immigrants today and to contrast the way they were received and the openness and they encountered versus what is facing immigrants doing that
today. >> the other fame that fascinated me, you really demonstrate an exhibit that immigrants--the one immigrant that will come regardless of their motivation, they are already deciding to be someone, already enterprising and the kind of immigrant -- >> the different families tell the difference story. i focus on a muslim family who explores what it means to be muslims in this day and age, asians with their incredible loyalty to their parents, there's a bolivian family, not everybody in the grades so i focused on this bolivian family who exhibited incredible enterprise, determination to start their own businesses, most have failed.
they exemplify risktaking, immigrants out of the whole community which are the immigrants that break ties? the ones that are willing to take a risk and sacrifice and work hard and that is why you have a somewhat higher than average rate among immigrants. >> we can leave it here, take some questions. go ahead. >> very interesting. i have a question. today in the debate at difference in the rights of legalization versus the rights of citizenship. i assume it wasn't, now because of a majority of immigrants associated with the democratic party. that was the time frame to become a citizen at that time.
>> as i recall i don't think it was that different. the phenomenon of people coming here outside the law is a post 65 phenomena in. there wasn't a lot of -- the whole issue of when the u.n. legal or not was not a big issue back then. if you were able to get into the country with the exception of chinese who had a sort of special status where they could be contract laborers where they were not allowed to nationalize with the exception of that category, largely the issue was whether you could get into the country, not whether you could -- >> if i can -- in 1965 process was pretty much the same, the difference is the numbers. the demand right now is
incredible to the point that depending on where you are and why you are applying for citizenship whether it is employment base for marriage, marriage is the fastest way to become a citizen in reality. i think it was the same, the rating period should not have been that long because the sheer numbers the we have now, that wasn't an issue because there -- the system was not flaw in the way we have now. >> if you become a permanent resident under employment category or brother or sister of naturalized citizen this five years i don't know -- i don't recall. >> you have to wait five years. >> to become a legal permanent resident. >> if you marry someone is less, three years or something after you become a legal resident.
>> wondering, the undocumented immigrants, has it always been a problem, the reason we have so many undocumented immigrants and what do you think the cause of that is? >> this is a recent phenomenon and you know what the number one category of immigrants who are here illegally is? not people whose across-the-board, there is a myth out there that these are coming through the border when it may just as well be a british citizen who has overstayed or something else so there are misconceptions about that. as far as the cause, the elimination of certain programs
that had previously been legal that are now illegal but i would say right now the biggest single factor is the backlog, you may be here legally under a tourist visa or student visa and want to stay and become a citizen, you have to wait so long for your number to come at at isn't point your visa expires and at that point you become illegal and you are only illegal because you are waiting your turn for your hearing to come, not because you set out deliberately is a question of the back lawn. >> it is the myth to say people should just draw a line. there is no line because he eventually all these numbers, there really is no clear process for someone to become a citizen who overstay their visas. they are forced to become
illegal. other factors, central american and political situations in latin american, geopolitics which the u.s. had a lot to do, we s seeing in europe as well. wars force people to be huge in poverty too. a combination of all the factors in latin america, 70s and 80s, they get a visa. >> sounds like a lot to blame on the government. the backlog -- >> totally. the system is completely broken. >> not enough to judges publix >> it is incredible amount of work they have to.
is impossible unless you reform the system and change the rules, with a you call it amnesty or not you have to do something to deal with the 11 million people endured point about the cost, these people are paying taxes as well, the undocumented pay taxes in many ways and again there is the myth that they take public benefits so it is the system that is broken. >> thank you. >> people who overstay their visas is 40%, the majority sneak over and there is a way to -- it is called deportation. a close acquaintance of the kennedys was a well-known journalist and historian, the immigration act of 65 the most of this act of many acts of the great society. went on to say there's only one
great republican in history, seen such and that was the roman republic. it ultimately made that republic ungovernable and that is what is happening in the states, the republic is becoming ungovernable because people are apologizing for blatant violations of the law and of the border. the discussion around immigration turned into advocacy. if we look at people that i looked at in more effective ways, they had a very detrimental affect. we should heed the lessons that are so overlooked. >> you must have missed my explanation of how this happened because president johnson had in mind a completely different outcome. a had an outcome where people would get visas on the basis of their employability. the number of people getting a visa on their employability is
10% immigrants coming in. instead the numbers you are referring to are a result of the family unification provisions which were put in place by a congressman who was supposed to the e elimination of national origin quote ofs. it is hard to see how you can speculate that this outcome was the intent. it wasn't the intent. was the opposite of what happens and what happens once the results of a specific decision by one member of congress to elevate family unification of employability. that is the fact is absolutely clear if you read the testimony and what happened. >> that is why we need to go back and revise and change it. >> be clear who made a strategic error. >> i want to avoid advocacy. >> ronald reagan and what
follows the administration. >> in 1986 president ronald reagan, who will lot of the current presidential candidates looking to get nominated for that gop always referred to him as their hero and their savior and their number one, they fail to mention he was the main engineer of this act which be essentially offered amnesty. i don't remember the number of undocumented immigrants living back in here but he legalize all these people land it is very interesting, to -- that does not get recognized as part of president reagan's legacy
outside of emigrant advocacy. >> i argue as i say, vested interest in the most import act ever passed because i have written about it. but the '86 act was incredibly important because it had amnesty. we have our director. >> the conversation, an interesting exchange at the end of the book and one of the other heroes of the library. in later years wrote a book uniting america, you talk about that and the professor at the university, might be an interesting way. >> he said something that i
alluded to earlier, a very brief quote i think is worth mentioning. as i said before her this russian share was a critic of multiculturalism as it was playing out. he felt there was too much ol oluribus and not enough unum.. is professor of african-american studies at the university sort of wrote a rejoinder to that end he said his critics countered that that was a white anglo-saxon construct reflective of an earlier, less diverse america that could not find any americans in oppose linking 65 period. in the nation of more than 130 cultural groups cannot hope to
have all of them anglo-saxon in his book but painful demise of euros central. professor of african-american studies argue they wrote critically that they were not only of judge with contemporary u.s. reality but advocating a vision that would divide america, not bring it together. the american at diet is dynamic, we must constantly reinvent ourselves. one reason this nation works the way it does is our diversity, tried to make african, asian, africans and asians copies of europeans, you will force that unity to appear. i don't want to get into advocacy but i thought that was a very eloquent sort of response with this concern about a lack of unity. >> thank you sell much. unless anyone else has
questions, thank you. it is an amazing account. [inaudible conversations] >> booktv is on instagram. follow us for publishing news, scheduling update and behind-the-scenes pictures and videos, instagram.com/book tb. booktv. >> here is a look at some authors recently featured on the tv's afterwards, a weekly