tv Origins of Environmental Consumerism CSPAN September 24, 2017 12:00am-12:48am EDT
of the banks and all of the people. >> interested in american history tv? visit our website. you can see our schedule, preview upcoming programs and watch lectures, archival films and more. american history tv, at c-span.org/history. >> up next, temple university professor andrew eisenberg teaches a class about consumerism in the 1970's. he talks about how the united states has dealt with waste and recycling programs. this is about 45 minutes. prof. isenberg: good morning. i'm going to start off with a brief one minute video. this ran for the first time in april 1971.
it was scheduled to be released on the anniversary of the first earth day. in 1970. it has become famous as the crying indian video put out by a group called keep america beautiful foundation, or keep america beautiful organization. it is one minute long. we're just going to watch it. here we go. [video clip] ♪
>> some people have a deep , abiding respect for the natural beauty that was once this country. and some people don't. people start pollution. people can stop it. ♪ prof. isenberg: that is pretty crazy, isn't it? what do you think? initial reactions? >> is that iron eyes cody? prof. isenberg: i will get to that in a minute. yes. >> it was a heart-wrenching image for a lot of americans back then. prof. isenberg: there is nothing ironic about how that was presented. >> it shows the contrast of how the native americans view the environment versus european settlers. prof. isenberg: absolutely. other thoughts about this?
the video itself? >> [indiscernible] prof. isenberg: i was hoping somebody would say that. the first 20 seconds of the advertisement you would not realize this is set in a modern period. iron eyes cody is paddling a canoe down the river. all of a sudden there is pollution, then there is a highway. there is all this garbage. other thoughts? >> [indiscernible] no, this was the early 1970's. people were more comfortable with this casual ethnic stereotyping. i am going to show you another advertisement at the end of the lecture and you will see something similar there. part of that casual ethnic stereotyping is the indian as ecological saint.
you were saying this is contrasting the indian view and the settlers, but in a very kind of cursory, almost stereotypical way. i think there is more complexity to it than that. the only other thing that always strikes me when i see the advertisement, when that guy is driving by and puts his hand out the window, by the time the garbage lands, it is a week's worth of household trash. it is all over the place. there is something very strange about that. this ad had an extraordinary effect on people of a certain age. people of my age. we all knew this advertisement as children. what we did not know is the actor, he called himself iron eyes cody. his parents were migrants from
sicily who moved to louisiana. iron eyes cody and his brothers migrated to southern california in the 1920's, found work in the film industry as stuntmen. iron eyes cody did 200 films starting in the 1920's. he increasingly found himself playing an indian on film because he was dark haired and dark featured. he started to claim that he was an indian. that he with both cherokee and cree. he stuck to that story until he died in 1987. the keep america beautiful organization was a group but -- group put together by big corporations. phillip morris, anheuser-busch, pepsi. they started organizing after the first interstate highways went up. shortly after those highways came online, the size of those
sides of the highways were strewn with litter. a lot of the litter on those highways are cigarette butts, and coke cans. the things that these corporations are selling. this is part of the irony of early 1970's environmentalism. consumerism led to pollution. so the very industries that produced the packaging marshaled the same advertising agencies to sell their products to sell the idea that it was a virtuous to clean up those products. think about it a minute, it takes a while to unpack that. we will work on that. another irony is the way in which the noble savage ideal of native americans was pressed into service to sell products and to sell environmentalism. iron eyes cody is not the only questionable indian being invoked by the environmental movement.
the other one i want to talk about is chief seattle. i will say at the beginning, that image of that native american there is not chief seattle. anyone know who that is? i don't expect you to. that is sitting bull. they present that as if it is chief seattle. some environmentalists like to caricature indians as ecological saints. that keep america beautiful ad is doing that. the a pity -- the academy of --s character is probably epitomeemy of this -- of this is probably the infamous speech attributed to chief seattle. sometimes it is a letter, written in 1854 or addressed to the president of the united states at the time. it is a standard reading at
earth day celebrations. some of you are probably familiar with it. "the earth is our mother. i have seen a thousand rotting buffaloes on the prairie. what will happen when all of the buffalo are slaughtered?" it goes on from there. seattle is an indian born in 1786. he was 68 years old at the time of this speech. by 1854, he had made considerable adaptations to your euro-american culture. he converted at the time of this speech. he owned eight slaves. slavery had been practiced in the pacific northwest among these indian groups. because he was thinking of himself as a good american, when , in 1863, when he heard about the emancipation proclamation he , freed his slaves. in 1854, he delivered a speech to a man named isaac stevens.
he was the federal superintendent of indian affairs in the pacific northwest. he delivered that speech in his native language. it was translated into a trade dialect, a combination of english and russian, used to facilitate communication and trade. nobody recorded the speech at the time. it was not written down until 33 years later. by a guy named henry smith, who attended the conference. his translation of the speech has none of these references to the buffalo or the whippoorwill. if you look at other speeches written down that seattle gave, they are rather mundane things, hoping the united states will hold onto its treaty obligations. it is not surprising he would not mention these things. because the web oil -- whippoorwill is rarely seen in
the region he was in. the buffalo was probably never seen there. the slaughter of the buffalo didn't start until the late 1860's. seattle allegedly refers to people shooting bison from trains. that had not happened yet. the first transcontinental railroad is not completed until 1868. none of this could have happened yet. where did this come from? it came from a speech writer, a screenwriter. his name was ted perry. he later taught at middlebury college. he wrote a screenplay for a film about ecology, in 1972. and hecalled "home," essentially made up or invented what seattle said. his speech was further embellished and became a letter in a aident pierce
-- in a a children's book. phyllis fogelman, the president of the press that publish this, when told about the inauthenticity about this version of this each said, "for want of a tape recorder, maybe we have a book that will change children's is about the environment." the creator of the illustration of the book said, "i don't know what he said the native american people live this philosophy and that is what is important." i will give some credit to that point of view. for the record, there is not a single native american culture. there are hundreds native american cultures. most of them practice ecological sensible hunting and gathering. a lot of the things they did work admirable. the bean crops, the beans replace nitrogen in the soil. they restrain their hunting.
they regarded animals as animate spirits. this led to a general sustainable practice. but at the same time, native americans are human beings and they made mistakes. you can look at archaeological records and see that at certain points in the past, california indians over hunted deer. subarctic indians over hunted caribou. plains indians over hunted bison. they did good things and bad. the indian as environmentalist is basically a noble savage myth that imagines culturally static people living in permanent harmony with nature. what i want to argue here is that the noble savage environmentalist was a product that was sold to american consumers like big macs or cars. before i get to that, we have to talk about pollution.
the iron eyes cody ad is a message about pollution. what is pollution? the way to think about it, the resources we get in nature that we don't use. think about it. the particulates emitted into the atmosphere in the process of steelmaking are the iron ore that are wasted. they go into the atmosphere. cfcs are emitted when refrigerators are decommissioned. most solid waste is packaging we don't use. so in the postwar consumer economy, we are told to consume and consume. waste is the inevitable result. pollution is not the concern of the producers. they just incorporate into the cost of their product the waste and pass that on to the consumer in the form of a higher price. so pollution, whether it is air or water it can impair your , health.
solid waste is also a problem. a conceit into the environment. -- it can seep into the environment. the biggest pollution problem currently is climate change. i want to talk briefly about that. the united states shifted from relying on would to fossil fuels at the end of the 19th, beginning of the 20th century. there was a huge jump after the second world war. people stopped riding public transportation. it is a major source of atmospheric pollution. between 1960 and 1990, the amount of carbon dioxide in the atmosphere increased to 352 parts per million to -- increased to 352 parts per million, the highest concentration in a hundred thousand years. between 1990 and 2011, it rose to 392 parts per million. now by some estimates, it is
over 400. carbon dioxide is a greenhouse gas that traps heat. this excess carbon dioxide warms the earth. in fact, the earth has become one degree fahrenheit warmer over the last 100 years. over the last 12,000 years, it takes a thousand years for the average global temperature to change by one degree. we have done it in 100. the earth is getting warmer at a rapid pace. there are other periods of warming that had nothing to do with industrial pollution. there was an ice age. the earth periods of being warmer. the earth does go through warming and cooling on its own. sometimes people will use that fact and say therefore what is happening with carbon emissions is not what is causing global warming. those are not mutually exclusive
arguments. if the earth is getting warmer on its own, the last thing we want to do is contribute to that by adding carbon into the atmosphere. so, carbon dioxide in the atmosphere traps heat, warms the earth's surface. we need some of that. it has warmed the earth enough allow water to form lakes and rivers. but the natural background of carbon monoxide -- carbon the dioxide in the atmosphere is supposed to be .03%. most is composed of nitrogen and oxygen. what causes excess amounts is the burning of fossil fuels. 80% is caused by the burning of fossil fuels. the rest comes from other sources. deforestation. because trees are pulling carbon dioxide out of the atmosphere. when trees are destroyed or burned, carbon is released. the burning of the wood and other things releases methane.
heat much more potent trapping gas than carbon dioxide. the amount of methane in the atmosphere has more than doubled since 1750. what are the effects? first of all, crop failure. this is nothing new. if it gets too warm, you are going to have a drought. the dustbowl of the 1930's was a huge crop failure caused by drought. the connection between crop failure and rising global temperatures was first noticed in the 1980's, 1988. it was so hot in the midwest there was widespread crop failure. corn and soybean. but this has been masked because of increased use of fertilizer. you can't really see it because we are dumping more and more fertilizer on things.
so the other thing going on is there are forests burning down in the west. wildfires. forests in the west were so dry in the 1980's lightning started fires that torched large parts of yellowstone national park. i was there the summer it started. i swear i did not do it. but i was able to see the park before the fire happened. i was back there in 2010 and you can still see the effects of the fire that swept through that part. according to the scripps institution of oceanography, global warming has contributed to wildfires in the western united states and made them worse. since 1987, the number of wildfires has increased by a factor of four. the area burned has increased by that same factor as well. the fire season is five weeks longer.
hurricanes,ct, severe storms. tropical storms have been numerous and powerful. it makes sense, the storms draw their energy from the heat in the ocean. if the ocean is warmer the storms are going to be more powerful. between 1990 and 2006, the number of category 4 and category 5 storms has doubled. arctic sea ice. what this does, it leads to the extinction of certain species who live in polar regions. arctic sea ice is disappearing at a rate of 9% per decade. 65% of polar bear cubs reached the age of 12. now only 42% reach that age. all of these effects are so recent it is hard to say is this a trend? is this something that may shift in the other direction? it is impossible to say. it is also recent that much of
this is speculative. i can see that. but it is a warning of what might happen if industrial pollution continues to go up. even though we have moved back gases, wee greenhouse still have to deal with the effects of it in the atmosphere because a lot has been released and it will warm the atmosphere for some time to come. one more point on this. when global warming is discussed in the media, it is often talked about as if there is a global average. one fahrenheit degree warmer as a global average, it's all people think about. one fahrenheit degree warmer, that is not going to make that much difference. we have to realize it does not happen uniformly across the planet. you produce more rain in the tropics. it would produce rising sea levels in coastal regions. high latitude regions experience more warming. polar areas would be hit the worst.
toy will experience two three times the warming. some places might get colder. northern europe is warmed by the gulf stream. all of the melting ice from the polarized cap may change the way the gulfstream works and not make your as warm, -- make that. as warm or offset this is such a depressing story. i'm going to give you three happy stories about how pollution has been mitigated. the first one is particulates. air pollution contains a lot of particulates. basically dust, oil, coal that industrial in pollution. every year in the united states, this kind of pollution kills maybe 100,000 people. but it used to be worse before
the clean air act, which was amended in the 1970's, and a big amendment in 1990. a recent report has argued that inan air act as amended 1990, saved 160,000 lives just in 2010, and that amount every year. saved 13 million lost work days. so, the clean air act has worked. as a public health measure, one of the most successful public health laws in the united states. ozone is a naturally occurring molecule. it consists of three oxygen atoms. at ground level, it is basically smog. it is harmful. in the stratosphere, it absorbs ultraviolet light from the sun. the problem is, air pollution breaks down the ozone layer and then holes develop. ultraviolet radiation reaches the earth. the chief culprits in breaking
cfcs,he ozone layer are which dupont used to use in the manufacture of freon, and dow chemical used to make styrofoam. ultraviolet light, when it reaches the earth's surface , causes human skin to dry out, it can cause cancer and cataracts. there are some indication it might inhibit the human immune system. here is the happy part. since the 1990's, cfcs are on the decline thanks to the clean also thanks990, and to an international agreement called the montreal protocol that has undergone several amendments since then. 196 countries have signed it. so ozone holes that have developed over the antarctic have started to close. one more happy story. acid rain. a strange sentence to say.
a happy story, and acid rain. but there have been improvements in this. when coal that is high in sulfur is burned, the sulfur is released into the atmosphere. when gasoline is burned, nitrogen compounds are released. when sulfur and nitrogen compounds combine with oxygen in the air, you get acids. the acids are washed from the atmosphere and enter streams and lakes and groundwater. this is particularly the case in industrial regions in the northern hemisphere. canada, new york, northern europe, new england. acid rain and snow has killed tens of thousands of lakes, raising the acidity level to the point where microorganisms, small fish, insects could not live in them anymore. in 2005, congress passed a cap
and trade law for emissions of sulfur dioxide. since then, emissions have dropped 40%. there is even stricter legislation in europe. they have managed to have these compounds drop by 75%. if you can have cap and trade law for nitrogen and sulfur dioxide you can have a cap and dioxide, ascarbon well. let me move on to solid waste. so, fresh kills landfill, it was in staten island. it is now covered with earth. it opened in 1947. it closed in 2001. by the time it closed, its volume was 25 times that of the great pyramid at giza.
solid waste is a problem. it is mostly a problem of where to put it. most garbage in the united states used to be burned. that created bad air quality. so the 1970 clean air act addressed that. after 1970, burning of garbage was prohibited. people tried to figure where to put it. that is when disposal of solid waste started to become a problem. where did the holes where they decided to put the garbage come from? nobody thought about this. you won't know. i will just tell you. in 1956, congress passed the interstate highway act. $30 billion to build highways. to build these highways, contractors needed a lot of dirt. you need dirt to build on ramps and off ramps. where do you get this dirt?
people would just dig up a huge hole in the ground. enterprising contractors went to these pits and bought them for next to nothing. because who wanted a hole in the ground? then they started marking them as places to dump garbage. a lot of these problems with these initial garbage dumps is nobody thought hard about what was going to happen when you put a lot of garbage in them. they were not lined. initially. to prevent toxic things from leaking out. early on in the history of the epa, in 1982, the epa did a study of public water systems supplied by groundwater. 45% were contaminated by chemicals. a lot of this stuff had seeped out of solid waste dumps.
ever wonder what is in garbage dumps? i'm going to give you a list of a few things. there. that is going to add up to 100%. give me a guess. throw some percentages out there. what is the biggest thing in u.s. landfills? >> plastic. prof. isenberg: one vote for plastic. what else do you think? >> food and yard waste. prof. isenberg: food and yard waste. >> other stuff. prof. isenberg: other stuff. other stuff is 15%. >> disposable diapers. prof. isenberg: disposable diapers. why? >> there is a lot of them. they are bulky. you look at the amount --
there's a lot of trash going out. prof. isenberg: you have changed diapers in your life? it is people who change diapers who say, don't forget about the disposable diapers. what percentage would you put on the diapers? 25 or 30. other thoughts? >> metal. because?nberg: >> what else are we going to do with it? prof. isenberg: recycle it. i did not hear anybody say paper. paper is the biggest thing in u.s. landfills by volume. the easiest thing to recycle. what do i have, six things on there. the lowest thing, what is contributing the least?
metal? sorry, guys. it is disposable diapers, 2%. classic about 18%. about 80%. paper is 40%. food and yard waste, other stuff. why does everyone think it is diapers? that is interesting. why do people think diapers make up so much of u.s. landfills? part of it is, if you have ever changed a diaper, you are like, this has got to be it. yeah. >> [indiscernible] prof. isenberg: not a a disposable one. that is the whole point. >> with the exception of other stuff, everything else on that list is something we have a solution to. you can recycle paper. prof. isenberg: there is a solution to diapers, as well. people used to use cloth diapers. at the beginning of the decade
of environmentalism in 1970, most babies are wearing cloth diapers. disposable diapers shoot up during the decade of environmentalism. there are a lot of reasons for this. one of the big reasons is that women start going to work. children who are still in diapers start going to daycare centers. often times, there was no rule of about this, but the understanding was that if you are sending your kids to daycare, they are in disposable diapers. so i am not saying this about you guys, but the general feeling that a lot of what is in landfills is composed of disposable diapers, there is a gender thing about how this is not the way things should be and used to be, there is a proper role for women at home, they should be taking care of this. at any rate, one of the things that interests me is during this environmental decade, people are taking to this product which is about convenience and is more expensive to use and less
environmentally sensible. so half of what is in u.s. landfills is paper. that is the shocking thing. recycling certainly helps. the 1980's was the height of garbage production in the united states. recycling had not really started in a big way yet. in the 1980's, americans through a 150 million tons of garbage a year. i remember as a college student in the 1980's, coming home, opened to my eyes this, i told my parents they need to separate paper, glass, aluminum, they looked at me like i was insane. they were educated and liberally minded, but this never occurred to people at that time. so recycling has had an effect. that is the case. today, americans produce 100 million tons of garbage per year. that is good. that is extraordinary.
one of the things pressing on people to be more sensible is a changing economy. a lot of this is the oil embargo, the oil crisis that happened in 1973 and 1974. in 1973, arab countries met in kuwait and decided to raise the price of oil from three dollars a barrel to five dollars a barrel. what they wanted to do was punish the united states for supporting israel in the 1973 arab-israeli war. and in december, they met in tehran and raised the price to over $11 per barrel. middle eastern oil-producing countries raised their income from oil to about $4 billion in 1970 to $60 billion in 1974. for western europe and the united states, 1972, it had cost them $20 billion to import.
in 1974, it cost $100 billion. ng inflation rates in the united states. they shot up above 10%. and at the same time that they were raising the price of oil these countries that are , participating in this were u.s.cutting exports to the , that is the embargo part. by the summer of 1974, 20% of american gas stations had no fuel to sell. at remaining stations, drivers had long lines, there was rationing. what a lot of states and municipalities did was different days of the week depending on your license plate, you can only fill up on one of those days. truckers were frustrated by this. there was a brief and violent strike by truckers in december 1973. so it is no accident recycling began in a significant way in
the 1970's. fuel costs raised the prices of everything, and industries that relied on fuel look for ways to cut costs. recycled aluminum cost 5% of what virgin aluminum costs. all of a sudden, when fuel becomes a big consideration, they start looking for recycling. and fuel efficiency in automobiles starts to change. it got up to an average of about 16 miles per gallon. that by today's standards and that seems incredibly wasteful, but it was an improvement at the time. so, in the 1970's, think back to iron eyes cody and using this noble savage imagery to sell environmentalism. in the 1970's, there is this idea we will continue to consume, but we will do it in this environmentally sensitive way. so there is an increasing claim
by corporations that their products are environmentally sensible. in 1986, only 1% of consumer products on the market made an environmental claim. that was up to 4% in 1989, 10% by the mid-1990's. but in household products, 25% of products claim to be good for the environment. it is hard to tell whether these products are in fact good. you would know this if you go to any supermarket and go down the aisle, there is the organic, there is the safe for the environment things, there is small print on the labels. it is hard to judge if that is the case. and there are certain things that were fraudulent in this respect. the me show you another brief, secondvertisement -- 30 ad that makes a similar use of a kind of native american claim to environmental sensitivity to
advance a product that has nothing to do with the environment. we knew there would be a glitch. all right. i was going to show you a 1976 ad for canola oil, which had a woman claiming to be an indian speaking in a kind of grave tone maut "when we called it ize" and we lived here before people came. i am going to have to refer you to youtube since embedding it in the powerpoint didn't work. let me sum this up. consumer driven environmentalism has some limits. it helps with recycling, but it has also been used to sell products that have nothing to do with recycling. what is the answer? you have to go back to what i said at the beginning of the
lecture, or toward the beginning. pollution is made up of resources that are poorly or briefly used. we need to use natural resources more efficiently so not to produce so much trash. the packaging industry produces 40% of all plastic waste. think of what is in landfills. 40% is paper, 18% is plastic. this is all recyclable. unneededown on products you can reuse and , recycle what some people have said, you can reduce garbage production by 10%, something like 50% of consumer waste. it takes technology, careful handling and regulation. it can be done without reducing the standard of living in the least. questions? for your landfill statistics. the numbers that came off, the math in landfills -- a
relatively a portion of that is from before recycling became popular. how well those numbers represented what is going in now compared to what is already in there? prof. isenberg: you are still pushing for the diapers. >> i am still pushing for the diapers. prof. isenberg: most of it is still paper as far as i know. yeah. >> in the 1970's, countries raised the price of oil because we supported israel? prof. isenberg: mm-hmm. that was the jump in oil prices that happened in 1973, 1974. if very quickly moved into these countries realizing they had been underselling this product to western europe and the united states for a long time, and they could profit much more if they raised the price.
and the price of oil jumped up again around the time of the iranian revolution and it shot up over $30 per barrel in 1979. there is another year of double-digit inflation at the end of the 1970's. there were a lot of factors. it was not just the arab-israeli war. it was just the initial impetus. it quickly morphed into other things. yeah. >> regarding the clean air act and lives saved versus lives lost, what has been the impact of more and more landfills compared to the amount of people that died from the burning solid waste? prof. isenberg: you are better off with that garbage in a landfill, absolutely. absolutely. that being said, the big impact of the clean air act has been to
reduce particulates and to reduce sulfur. one of the things about the clean air act is it pushed coal production to some extent from appalachia to the west. the eastern coal is high in sulfur. coal that is found in the western united states is low sulfur, and the clean air act basically tells coal-fired power plants or industries that use coal, either you had to use low sulfur coal or install expensive scrubbers. there was a real shift to low sulfur coal coming out of the american west. something like 90% of coal that is coming out of the american west, coming out of federally owned land in the american west, comes from the powder river basin on the wyoming-montana
border. it is all done with strip mining. there is a huge amount of coal is produced there. one of the recent numbers i have seen, if you added up the coal in the powder river basin produces, if it were its own country and you added up all that coal and is being burned around 200 electricity plants around the united states, and you made it its own country, it would be the sixth largest contributor to global warming in the world. so again, one of the side effects of the clean air act, and it is unbalanced, but there are unintended consequences. it pushed coal production to another part of the united states, then you have to deal with that problem. yes. >> you mentioned how polar bear cubs don't live as long now, but but the -- but the polar bear population in general is going
up. you mentioned the arctic sea ice is melting, but antarctica is expanding. why does global warming seem to cause contradictory effects? prof. isenberg: what i said was that fewer cubs make it to age 12. i don't know about the antarctic. i can tell you about the arctic where the sea ice is melting. there are times at which in the summer particularly the ice caps are not there, you can sail through. it is a problem for the polar bears because they sort of have to live on the ice floes to hunt the seals. that is why more of them are disappearing or more don't make it to that age. whether the overall population has gone up, that is an interesting thing. i don't know, you will have to
tell me. yes. >> the difference between global warming and climate change. prof. isenberg: climate change is maybe technically the more accurate term because what we are seeing is not just average temperature going up but also more volatility in the system. so technically that is perhaps the more accurate term to call it. the big underlying problem is temperature is going up. average level temperatures are going up. but within that, there is a lot of complexity. it is going up faster in some places and not in others. >> you mentioned native americans were kind of manipulated and portrayed as ecological saints. i was wondering if that started with the environmental movement or did it have roots earlier?
prof. isenberg: it definitely has roots earlier. that goes back, that goes back to our oldest national myths of squanto and pocahontas, noble savage myths about good native americans who did what they could to help the colonists come in. it got sort of repurposed to say something about the environment. ok, good. thank you very much. i will see you next week. [captions copyright national cable satellite corp. 2017] [captioning performed by the national captioning institute, which is responsible for its caption content and accuracy. visit ncicap.org] join us every saturday evening at 8:00 p.m. and midnight eastern as we join students in college classrooms elections -- to hear lectures on topics ranging from the american revolution to 9/11. lectures in history are
available as podcasts. visit our website or download them from itunes. on "afterwords," suzy hansen on her travels "notes on aer book, foreign country." she is interviewed by the foreign policy interrupted co-founder. >> there's the question of are we exceptional, but there's also the question of why had i never thought this was a form of propaganda? why had a never thought the question of where this was coming from, and what was the job it was doing for individual americans? the one thing i was realizing, it took a long time to realize, is the very language we use when we talk about foreign countries, had been determined for us along time ago. we tended to look, especially
muslim countries and countries in the ease, as -- in the east, as with a catching up with us or behind us? that prevent you from being able to see the country on its own terms. ords" on "afterw c-span two's book tv. >> this your, c-span is touring cities across the country, exploring american history. next, a look at our recent visit to concord, new hampshire. you are watching american history tv all weekend, every weekend on c-span3. >> 15 seconds. t minus 10. >> we were in the grand stands there and we were located directly behind christa's parents. >> and lift off. lift off. after the launch, everyone was cheering and e