Transcripts For CSPAN3 History Bookshelf Stephen Kinzer The

And now to interview him. He has also reported for nbc, and was abc, correspondent for the today show. He has received several awards. Or his work he is an Award Winning correspondent who has covered more than 50 countries on five continents. Yearsnt more than 20 working for the New York Times as a foreign correspondent. Jailed,een shot at, beaten by the police, and bombed from the air. We are pleased to provide sanctuary tonight. Fellow at brown university. They will discuss his new book, the true flag. That seemsject strikingly important. He focuses on the dawn of the 20th century. The debate involves two of the most influential minds of the time. William Randolph Hearst on one twain, and booker t. Washington, and Andrew Carnegie arguing. Onefully it will shed light the condition of america today. It is my pleasure to welcome him. [laughter] robin thank you. Thrilling to read. Here is an example of why. Highlight the moments i remember. I went through two highlighters. Hear that ourg to past history. It was also dispiriting in many ways. It was dispiriting to read what a joke Teddy Roosevelt was. He is buried in my family cemetery. We always joke about that. Lets get right to it. I dont think many people know about it. Youve got Teddy Roosevelt and Henry Cabot Lodge, Richard Kipling, william Randolph Hearst. Set the scene, late 1800s, what was going on in the world . Spain colonized cuba. What was going on . All my projects are efforts to uncover stories that were important in history, but have been forgotten. 1898 was a moment of great change in the United States. It was the year that we decided filling up north america wasnt enough and we would continue expanding and jump from being a continental empire to an overseas empire. So the story has been told many times, one with which i have stephen this familiar. Stephen this was not an automatic or easy decision. The United States was caught up in a Huge National debate over whether this was the right thing to do or not. All of the arguments that we made about whether to get into vietnam, central america, or the middle east all originally were made at this time. The United States signed a treaty that we took control of the spanish colonies and that had to be ratified by the senate. The entire riveted nation. The senate met for 32 days, every Major Political and intellectual figure took sides. We have forgotten this debate. In fact, the decision to to pursue this course, to begin pushing American Military Strategic Power around the world was very narrowly taken carried. It was carried by one more than the required two thirds and the Supreme Court had to rule on ,hether it was constitutional ruled it was ok by aas ok b 54 vote. One of the things i try to point out in the book is those of us that question this idea that the United States is the indispensable nation are not coming up with these ideas new. , the debate is over 100 years old. This in the history of the American Foreign policy is truly the mother of all the debates. The only difference is how senatorse they were, on both sides are so in ways you would never expect to hear senator speak today. Robin mark twain was a little of th off the stage at the beginning, but enters later. You have the expansionists talking about how it was the white mans burgeoning. You have Richard Kiplings poem to that effect. Mainlyountries were not people of color and savages, but when the antiimperialists argue about, theyalking said it wasnt. Stephen the argument is our country was founded against the foreign domination. The constitution begins with the we arewe the people dedicated to the principle that all legitimate government is from the consent of the governed. So how can we go and impose our will on others . I will quote one of the massachusetts senators on the antiimperialist side. He said you have no right at the canons mouth to impose on an unwilling people your declaration of independence, constitution, and notions of what is good. The other senator from massachusetts, Henry Cabot Lodge, had an answer that is the rhetoric we still hear. I do not believe that this nation was raised up for nothing. I have faith that it has a Great Mission in the world, emission of good, a mission of freedom. It takes is to George H W Bush to set the United States had to dominate the new world order because it was up to us to do the hard work of freedom. So the terms of this debate are all repetitive and they find the roots in their original conflict that shook the u. S. 1898 to 1900. Robin Richard Kipling in writing the white mans burden, herites yes, sorry writes, take up the white mans burden, send forth the best, serve your needs to wait in heavy harness. Speaking of the filipinos. Ais is what someone wrote in newspaper in response, and antiimperialist. We have taken up the white mans burden, but will you tell us how we may put it down. This is the way they discussed this in the newspapers, but take us through the chronology. There was war in cuba, even after the treaty. Stephen the cuban rebels were fighting to overthrow spanish rule. As that war reached peak, William Randall first began a campaign about atrocities in cuba, another trope we still go through. Americans are compassionate people. We hate the idea anybody is suffering anywhere and when they want to intervene or invade, they always cloak it in this humanitarian garb, so looking for people who have suffered and are tortured, so hearst gave us a steady diet of that, including graphic stories of people dying while reporters watched. It later turned out the reporters had never been in cuba. Hearst also played a huge role in whipping up american sentiment by falsely reporting that our worship in the havana harbor had been blown up by the spanish, and even published a diagram on the front page mine had beene attached. Navyars later, the convened a review committee to find out it was only an accident. Fervor,ped up into this the americans decided to send troops into cuba to overthrow the spanish. The cuban rebels were not so sure they wanted that. They feared what the americans would do once they were in cuba, a that u. S. Congress passed law promising that as soon as the spanish were overthrown in cuba, we would allow cuba to become fully independent. The cubans welcomed american troops. Teddy roosevelt had his famous day on san juan hill, which he decided qualified him for the and the honor, americans easily defeated the spanish in cuba. At the same time, the spanish fleet happen to be parked in the then an American Fleet was to destroy the spanish fleet, then we found ourselves in possession of the philippines, didnt know what to do with it, but suddenly president mckinley, after getting down on his knees and having a religious vision in the white house at night, said he had been told by god that it was his duty to take over the philippines and christianize the people there. Apparently he wasnt clear that they were Catholic Party after several centuries of spanish rule, but god at that time sounded Like Henry Cabot Lodge and Theodore Roosevelt. That became the crux of our debate. When we signed a treaty and forced the spanish to surrender these islands, the philippines, guam, cuba, and puerto rico. We paid 20 million for the philippines. Andrew connick he announced he wants to pay the u. S. Treasury 20 million to buy the philippines so he can set them free. Carnegie wrote this essay saying how can we hang the declaration of independence on the wall when we have made it illegal in the philippines to advocate filipino independence. So a huge war broke out in the philippines. Only the antiimperialists had expected this. Mckinley and roosevelt and the others believed the filipinos would simply accept this, so for the first time in our history, the United States wound up in a war in which we had to shoot down people who legitimate felt that they were fighting for their own independence. Hundreds of thousands of people were killed in that war but it we have largely forgotten it, but it was a huge moment in u. S. Asia relations that reflects to the present day, because some of you may have noticed the president of the philippines made a startling announcement he does not want to be friends with the United States anymore, but what was hardly reported is as he made this announcement at a press conference, he was holding a photograph of u. S. Marines standing over a pit full of dead filipino civilians more than 100 years ago. And that is the reason, he said, why we are still angry at the u. S. , so while we forget these interventions, they fester and burn in the minds, hearts, and souls of the people in those countries in the blowback reaches us. Robin when you think of teddy cuba,elts incursions in it is our most conical. He was so excited about killing someone. He was jolly. Some reporters had never been at war, it is almost comical. By the time we get to the philippines, it is heartbreaking. Burning villages, murdering civilians, performing water torture, waterboarding, something the spaniards had done. I love your quote from mark torture,ing, water torture . To do what . They wont tell you the truth. They will say whatever you want them to say. It was chilling to hear him saying that 100 years ago this is in my way, can you tell . They dont tell you the truth. Before we get to the end of the story, go back to Teddy Roosevelt wanting to kill the buffalo, kill someone in war, stay with roosevelt for a while. Stephen i do use Theodore Roosevelt and mark twain as the main figures in this conflict. Theevelt is the epitome of imperialist and expansionist, and mark twain is the antiimperialist. Roosevelt grew up in a sheltered environment and never went to a classroom until he got to harvard. He was fascinated by war, the always wanted to get himself in combat. He believe war was the only really Noble Pursuit for a man, and those who pursued peace were jellyfish who had no idea with the figur vigor of life was. His father had paid a substitute to fight in the civil war. He wanted to redeem the family honor. He was desperate to kill someone in the spanishamerican war, and finally managed to do it. Later on when he sent his sons off to world war i, he says i hope they come back missing a few legs and arms between them. So he was a person who had a fascination with war. Mark twain was exactly the opposite. He had traveled the world, had been in places where europeans were brutalizing local citizens from south africa to the South Pacific islands. A bittercame antiimperialist. This is my second biggest discovery in writing this book. The first was this debate ever happened. What a huge story we have never been told, but my second biggest discovery was figuring out mark twain was not the person i had been brought up to know. He wasnt just the gentle, wisecracking grandpa everybody loved. Was in antiimperialist. He wrote that that it was clearly insane and undoubtedly the worst president we have ever had. Roosevelt returned the compliment by saying he would like to scan mark twain alive. [laughter] robin i am at that page right now. Between said roosevelt was the most formable disaster that has befallen the country since the civil war. When roosevelt was talking to kipling about antiimperialists like mark twain, the racism is astonishing. He said, for instance, they think any group of pirates and headhunters need nothing but independence so they can be turned into a dark new england town meeting. It was completely dead and this dismissive. Mark twain was rapid about the expansionist. But we are missing one piece here about why there was the expansionist movement. It had to do with the fact that the u. S. Was so productive at the time. American workers were making so many things that they had run out of americans to sell them too. Roosevelt and Henry Cabot Lodge were clear, we need to take other countries so we can subdue them, set the lies them, then sell them things. Stephen absolutely. Research so i could understand what was being discussed at the time. One of the things that comes glut,was what was called so american manufacturers and farmers had completely mastered the techniques of mass production that they were producing far more than americans could consume, and this was producing trouble in america. Labor when we have strikes and they were shooting strikers in various parts of the country. We felt that there might be serious of people coming in the United States. The solution was to take foreign countries. You could not export to europe, and european colonies were protected. They existed to give exclusive trade to their mother countries. Take a wife,ould that would be a step to the philippines, and then we could take the philippines, but then it could be a springboard to the china market. Article article after speculating on what it can mean to american industry and American Workers if the chinese could be made to eat beef instead of vegetables and rice. Nailsbout kotten, metal to build their houses. How many nails could we export . Giant newr of these markets and the resources that would come out of them, as one senator came home with a negative gold from the philippines to show what we could get, were important factors enticing us into this new imperial career. Robin it starts to unravel in different ways. Not a bigonquers cuba accomplishment at that time. Stephen as i pointed out, we promise not to do that, then came this big question, we will not let cuba become independent because the rebels want to limit the amount of foreign goods, take over the giant plantations. We cant keep the promise we made, so we passed another law that said we will give you independence, but only if the u. S. Can veto everything you do. Others whoevelt and have this fight found out that many cubans are black, and they recoiled from that. Wait a second, we dont want black people to be part of the United States and spoiling white america. Stephen absolutely. When we read the stories about the valiant cuban rebels, everybody loved him. They were heroes. Then the soldiers got there and found these people mostly black, so they were assigned to do the ditch digging and carry the supplies to the american soldiers, and they did not react so well to that. We also have a lot of reports that the cubans did not seem grateful to us. Why werent they grateful for coming in and saving them . Not realizing they had been at war for years. That had not been in the american press. You can actually trace some of the photos of one black commander of the cuban rebels. When he was first pictured in the u. S. , he was pictured as he was, black, but as the war proceeded, he got lighter and lighter, so it is true the shock of learning that black people were involved in government in cuba, if we allowed cuban whypendence, was one reason we decided cuba cannot become independent. That, as oneiew senator said in his speech on the treaty of paris, the opposition tells us we ought not to govern the people without their consent. High answer, the rule of liberty , and all just government derives its authority from the consent of government applies only to those capable of selfgovernance. We govern our children without their consent. This is the same attitude we took towards people who are not white. That is the real under text. White people can govern themselves, dark people cannot, therefore we have to go in, even though they are not asking us, and president mckinley had to square this odd circle, how can americans justify this . ,e made that speech in boston the biggest banquet ever staged in history the United States, over 2000 people, and at that speech, mckinley had a great line, which you can hear again today. He said about the filipinos, did we neither consent to perform a great act for humanity . Aspiration ofvery their minds and hope that their heart. So here he is saying the people who most need to be dominated by the United States are the ones who are so backward that they dont even realize they need our help. Robin in inter booker t. Washington. He stepped to the podium and says what . The leadingwas africanamerican figure during that era, and he was focused on the struggle of colored people inside the United States, but as you see from reading africanamerican newspapers, they had a great interest in cuba and the philippines, and a great sympathy for the natives, much more than the mainstream american press. Booker t. Washington stood up at his speech when mckinley was giving an address in chicago and pointed out there was a cancer growing in american society, and that as long as we were oppressing people in other viewries, we would then with apathy the idea of doing that at home. It bears notee that the judge on the Supreme Court wrote the decision saying that it was constitutional to rule people in other lands and also voted for the decision in which the court certified segregation as legal. Robin roosevelt makes his way to secretary of the navy with the help of lodge. To theneuver their way vice presidency, roosevelts vice president. Mark twain is returning from overseas. He quickly realize whats going on. Taking onark twain roosevelt and president mckinley and others at banquets were sometimes roosevelt was in attendance. Describe that same. Stephen it is remarkable. Mark twain was really feisty. I now see him as a very serious thinker on great Award Winning<\/a> correspondent who has covered more than 50 countries on five continents. Yearsnt more than 20 working for the New York Times<\/a> as a foreign correspondent. Jailed,een shot at, beaten by the police, and bombed from the air. We are pleased to provide sanctuary tonight. Fellow at brown university. They will discuss his new book, the true flag. That seemsject strikingly important. He focuses on the dawn of the 20th century. The debate involves two of the most influential minds of the time. William Randolph Hearst<\/a> on one twain, and booker t. Washington, and Andrew Carnegie<\/a> arguing. Onefully it will shed light the condition of america today. It is my pleasure to welcome him. [laughter] robin thank you. Thrilling to read. Here is an example of why. Highlight the moments i remember. I went through two highlighters. Hear that ourg to past history. It was also dispiriting in many ways. It was dispiriting to read what a joke Teddy Roosevelt<\/a> was. He is buried in my family cemetery. We always joke about that. Lets get right to it. I dont think many people know about it. Youve got Teddy Roosevelt<\/a> and Henry Cabot Lodge<\/a>, Richard Kipling<\/a>, william Randolph Hearst<\/a>. Set the scene, late 1800s, what was going on in the world . Spain colonized cuba. What was going on . All my projects are efforts to uncover stories that were important in history, but have been forgotten. 1898 was a moment of great change in the United States<\/a>. It was the year that we decided filling up north america wasnt enough and we would continue expanding and jump from being a continental empire to an overseas empire. So the story has been told many times, one with which i have stephen this familiar. Stephen this was not an automatic or easy decision. The United States<\/a> was caught up in a Huge National<\/a> debate over whether this was the right thing to do or not. All of the arguments that we made about whether to get into vietnam, central america, or the middle east all originally were made at this time. The United States<\/a> signed a treaty that we took control of the spanish colonies and that had to be ratified by the senate. The entire riveted nation. The senate met for 32 days, every Major Political<\/a> and intellectual figure took sides. We have forgotten this debate. In fact, the decision to to pursue this course, to begin pushing American Military<\/a> Strategic Power<\/a> around the world was very narrowly taken carried. It was carried by one more than the required two thirds and the Supreme Court<\/a> had to rule on ,hether it was constitutional ruled it was ok by aas ok b 54 vote. One of the things i try to point out in the book is those of us that question this idea that the United States<\/a> is the indispensable nation are not coming up with these ideas new. , the debate is over 100 years old. This in the history of the American Foreign<\/a> policy is truly the mother of all the debates. The only difference is how senatorse they were, on both sides are so in ways you would never expect to hear senator speak today. Robin mark twain was a little of th off the stage at the beginning, but enters later. You have the expansionists talking about how it was the white mans burgeoning. You have Richard Kipling<\/a>s poem to that effect. Mainlyountries were not people of color and savages, but when the antiimperialists argue about, theyalking said it wasnt. Stephen the argument is our country was founded against the foreign domination. The constitution begins with the we arewe the people dedicated to the principle that all legitimate government is from the consent of the governed. So how can we go and impose our will on others . I will quote one of the massachusetts senators on the antiimperialist side. He said you have no right at the canons mouth to impose on an unwilling people your declaration of independence, constitution, and notions of what is good. The other senator from massachusetts, Henry Cabot Lodge<\/a>, had an answer that is the rhetoric we still hear. I do not believe that this nation was raised up for nothing. I have faith that it has a Great Mission<\/a> in the world, emission of good, a mission of freedom. It takes is to George H W Bush<\/a> to set the United States<\/a> had to dominate the new world order because it was up to us to do the hard work of freedom. So the terms of this debate are all repetitive and they find the roots in their original conflict that shook the u. S. 1898 to 1900. Robin Richard Kipling<\/a> in writing the white mans burden, herites yes, sorry writes, take up the white mans burden, send forth the best, serve your needs to wait in heavy harness. Speaking of the filipinos. Ais is what someone wrote in newspaper in response, and antiimperialist. We have taken up the white mans burden, but will you tell us how we may put it down. This is the way they discussed this in the newspapers, but take us through the chronology. There was war in cuba, even after the treaty. Stephen the cuban rebels were fighting to overthrow spanish rule. As that war reached peak, William Randall<\/a> first began a campaign about atrocities in cuba, another trope we still go through. Americans are compassionate people. We hate the idea anybody is suffering anywhere and when they want to intervene or invade, they always cloak it in this humanitarian garb, so looking for people who have suffered and are tortured, so hearst gave us a steady diet of that, including graphic stories of people dying while reporters watched. It later turned out the reporters had never been in cuba. Hearst also played a huge role in whipping up american sentiment by falsely reporting that our worship in the havana harbor had been blown up by the spanish, and even published a diagram on the front page mine had beene attached. Navyars later, the convened a review committee to find out it was only an accident. Fervor,ped up into this the americans decided to send troops into cuba to overthrow the spanish. The cuban rebels were not so sure they wanted that. They feared what the americans would do once they were in cuba, a that u. S. Congress passed law promising that as soon as the spanish were overthrown in cuba, we would allow cuba to become fully independent. The cubans welcomed american troops. Teddy roosevelt had his famous day on san juan hill, which he decided qualified him for the and the honor, americans easily defeated the spanish in cuba. At the same time, the spanish fleet happen to be parked in the then an American Fleet<\/a> was to destroy the spanish fleet, then we found ourselves in possession of the philippines, didnt know what to do with it, but suddenly president mckinley, after getting down on his knees and having a religious vision in the white house at night, said he had been told by god that it was his duty to take over the philippines and christianize the people there. Apparently he wasnt clear that they were Catholic Party<\/a> after several centuries of spanish rule, but god at that time sounded Like Henry Cabot Lodge<\/a> and Theodore Roosevelt<\/a>. That became the crux of our debate. When we signed a treaty and forced the spanish to surrender these islands, the philippines, guam, cuba, and puerto rico. We paid 20 million for the philippines. Andrew connick he announced he wants to pay the u. S. Treasury 20 million to buy the philippines so he can set them free. Carnegie wrote this essay saying how can we hang the declaration of independence on the wall when we have made it illegal in the philippines to advocate filipino independence. So a huge war broke out in the philippines. Only the antiimperialists had expected this. Mckinley and roosevelt and the others believed the filipinos would simply accept this, so for the first time in our history, the United States<\/a> wound up in a war in which we had to shoot down people who legitimate felt that they were fighting for their own independence. Hundreds of thousands of people were killed in that war but it we have largely forgotten it, but it was a huge moment in u. S. Asia relations that reflects to the present day, because some of you may have noticed the president of the philippines made a startling announcement he does not want to be friends with the United States<\/a> anymore, but what was hardly reported is as he made this announcement at a press conference, he was holding a photograph of u. S. Marines standing over a pit full of dead filipino civilians more than 100 years ago. And that is the reason, he said, why we are still angry at the u. S. , so while we forget these interventions, they fester and burn in the minds, hearts, and souls of the people in those countries in the blowback reaches us. Robin when you think of teddy cuba,elts incursions in it is our most conical. He was so excited about killing someone. He was jolly. Some reporters had never been at war, it is almost comical. By the time we get to the philippines, it is heartbreaking. Burning villages, murdering civilians, performing water torture, waterboarding, something the spaniards had done. I love your quote from mark torture,ing, water torture . To do what . They wont tell you the truth. They will say whatever you want them to say. It was chilling to hear him saying that 100 years ago this is in my way, can you tell . They dont tell you the truth. Before we get to the end of the story, go back to Teddy Roosevelt<\/a> wanting to kill the buffalo, kill someone in war, stay with roosevelt for a while. Stephen i do use Theodore Roosevelt<\/a> and mark twain as the main figures in this conflict. Theevelt is the epitome of imperialist and expansionist, and mark twain is the antiimperialist. Roosevelt grew up in a sheltered environment and never went to a classroom until he got to harvard. He was fascinated by war, the always wanted to get himself in combat. He believe war was the only really Noble Pursuit<\/a> for a man, and those who pursued peace were jellyfish who had no idea with the figur vigor of life was. His father had paid a substitute to fight in the civil war. He wanted to redeem the family honor. He was desperate to kill someone in the spanishamerican war, and finally managed to do it. Later on when he sent his sons off to world war i, he says i hope they come back missing a few legs and arms between them. So he was a person who had a fascination with war. Mark twain was exactly the opposite. He had traveled the world, had been in places where europeans were brutalizing local citizens from south africa to the South Pacific<\/a> islands. A bittercame antiimperialist. This is my second biggest discovery in writing this book. The first was this debate ever happened. What a huge story we have never been told, but my second biggest discovery was figuring out mark twain was not the person i had been brought up to know. He wasnt just the gentle, wisecracking grandpa everybody loved. Was in antiimperialist. He wrote that that it was clearly insane and undoubtedly the worst president we have ever had. Roosevelt returned the compliment by saying he would like to scan mark twain alive. [laughter] robin i am at that page right now. Between said roosevelt was the most formable disaster that has befallen the country since the civil war. When roosevelt was talking to kipling about antiimperialists like mark twain, the racism is astonishing. He said, for instance, they think any group of pirates and headhunters need nothing but independence so they can be turned into a dark new england town meeting. It was completely dead and this dismissive. Mark twain was rapid about the expansionist. But we are missing one piece here about why there was the expansionist movement. It had to do with the fact that the u. S. Was so productive at the time. American workers were making so many things that they had run out of americans to sell them too. Roosevelt and Henry Cabot Lodge<\/a> were clear, we need to take other countries so we can subdue them, set the lies them, then sell them things. Stephen absolutely. Research so i could understand what was being discussed at the time. One of the things that comes glut,was what was called so american manufacturers and farmers had completely mastered the techniques of mass production that they were producing far more than americans could consume, and this was producing trouble in america. Labor when we have strikes and they were shooting strikers in various parts of the country. We felt that there might be serious of people coming in the United States<\/a>. The solution was to take foreign countries. You could not export to europe, and european colonies were protected. They existed to give exclusive trade to their mother countries. Take a wife,ould that would be a step to the philippines, and then we could take the philippines, but then it could be a springboard to the china market. Article article after speculating on what it can mean to american industry and American Workers<\/a> if the chinese could be made to eat beef instead of vegetables and rice. Nailsbout kotten, metal to build their houses. How many nails could we export . Giant newr of these markets and the resources that would come out of them, as one senator came home with a negative gold from the philippines to show what we could get, were important factors enticing us into this new imperial career. Robin it starts to unravel in different ways. Not a bigonquers cuba accomplishment at that time. Stephen as i pointed out, we promise not to do that, then came this big question, we will not let cuba become independent because the rebels want to limit the amount of foreign goods, take over the giant plantations. We cant keep the promise we made, so we passed another law that said we will give you independence, but only if the u. S. Can veto everything you do. Others whoevelt and have this fight found out that many cubans are black, and they recoiled from that. Wait a second, we dont want black people to be part of the United States<\/a> and spoiling white america. Stephen absolutely. When we read the stories about the valiant cuban rebels, everybody loved him. They were heroes. Then the soldiers got there and found these people mostly black, so they were assigned to do the ditch digging and carry the supplies to the american soldiers, and they did not react so well to that. We also have a lot of reports that the cubans did not seem grateful to us. Why werent they grateful for coming in and saving them . Not realizing they had been at war for years. That had not been in the american press. You can actually trace some of the photos of one black commander of the cuban rebels. When he was first pictured in the u. S. , he was pictured as he was, black, but as the war proceeded, he got lighter and lighter, so it is true the shock of learning that black people were involved in government in cuba, if we allowed cuban whypendence, was one reason we decided cuba cannot become independent. That, as oneiew senator said in his speech on the treaty of paris, the opposition tells us we ought not to govern the people without their consent. High answer, the rule of liberty , and all just government derives its authority from the consent of government applies only to those capable of selfgovernance. We govern our children without their consent. This is the same attitude we took towards people who are not white. That is the real under text. White people can govern themselves, dark people cannot, therefore we have to go in, even though they are not asking us, and president mckinley had to square this odd circle, how can americans justify this . ,e made that speech in boston the biggest banquet ever staged in history the United States<\/a>, over 2000 people, and at that speech, mckinley had a great line, which you can hear again today. He said about the filipinos, did we neither consent to perform a great act for humanity . Aspiration ofvery their minds and hope that their heart. So here he is saying the people who most need to be dominated by the United States<\/a> are the ones who are so backward that they dont even realize they need our help. Robin in inter booker t. Washington. He stepped to the podium and says what . The leadingwas africanamerican figure during that era, and he was focused on the struggle of colored people inside the United States<\/a>, but as you see from reading africanamerican newspapers, they had a great interest in cuba and the philippines, and a great sympathy for the natives, much more than the mainstream american press. Booker t. Washington stood up at his speech when mckinley was giving an address in chicago and pointed out there was a cancer growing in american society, and that as long as we were oppressing people in other viewries, we would then with apathy the idea of doing that at home. It bears notee that the judge on the Supreme Court<\/a> wrote the decision saying that it was constitutional to rule people in other lands and also voted for the decision in which the court certified segregation as legal. Robin roosevelt makes his way to secretary of the navy with the help of lodge. To theneuver their way vice presidency, roosevelts vice president. Mark twain is returning from overseas. He quickly realize whats going on. Taking onark twain roosevelt and president mckinley and others at banquets were sometimes roosevelt was in attendance. Describe that same. Stephen it is remarkable. Mark twain was really feisty. I now see him as a very serious thinker on great Global Political<\/a> issues, not just a gentle humorist. He did give a speech in which he addressed Theodore Roosevelt<\/a> directly, in which Winston Churchill<\/a> was present, and he admonished Winston Churchill<\/a>. He said thank you for pointing out that the United States<\/a> and britain are brothers. I would admit that what we are doing in the philippines is like what you are doing in south sin. A, so we are kin in ,e later published some pieces one which reads like an obituary for the United States<\/a> at the congress does decide to go ahead on this imperial path. I think you could write this today. It was impossible to save the great republic. She was rotten to the heart. Lust of conquest had long ago done her in full. The government was in the hands of the rich and their hangers on. Theyused the machine as chose. There was no principle but commercialism, no patriotism but of the pocket. He is lamenting the situation 100 years ago. It sounds like we have not come too far. [laughter] robin here is a bit of mark realizes that roosevelt is in the room with him, speaking at another banquet , toastmaster at a dinner, and he points out, roosevelt, and he says he didnt have anything personal against me, except i was opposed to the political war. He said i was a traitor and did not fight in the philippines. That doesnt prove a man is a traitor. It would be a different question if life was in danger, existence at state, then we would all come forward and stand by the flag and stop thinking about whether the nation was right or wrong, but when there is no question the nation is in danger, but only some little wart way off, it may be a question of politics, then the nation is divided. ,m trying to picture that room the squirming in the seat as he said that the roosevelt. Stephen people were very speechly with his first when he came back from europe, in which he said weve sent our soldiers out to do a banned its work under a polluted flag, and the good citizens in the audience were unhappy about that. They said were sending them out under another flag, not a polluted flag. Mark twain sat and smiled and did not reply. The intensity of the reaction that he drew with something of which he was very aware and only intensified his desire to sharpen his rhetorical knife. Robin what is happening in america as the score in the philippines started to go badly . You have one of the characters saying more of been killed in the philippines than six revolutions. Stephen the war in the philippines did not turn out the way america thought it would. Excuse me if you are comparing this to anything else, we thought they would bring us flowers and it would be over in a few weeks. We would just get rid of the bad would in the locals flower and love us and be grateful. The opposite happened. A fullscale rebellion broke out in the philippines, and at this time, opposition to the war and st project was led by an organization that was wellknown, the antiimperialist league. All these people like carnegie, jane addams, booker t. , very active leaders in the antiimperialist league. The leak was promoting opposition to the war by sending out leaflets produced in boston by lobbying, by organizing public meetings, several of which were held here. The philippines war gripped america because it was so new for us. We had never fought a foreign guerrilla war, nor had we been in the position of having to do terrible things. This is our first torture scandal, the water cure, later to be known by another name that guantanamo bay. It was the beginning of the loss of innocence for the United States<\/a>. The philippine war led americans to realize that that world is out there and if we are going to go out and project our power, we have to do bad things like other countries do. Wet is a realization i think are still grappling with. The american soul is divided. We are in peerless, but also isolationist. We want to guide the world, but want every country to guide ourlf, and that has divided soul, something you see coming out of this original debate of 1898. You can take it back further to 1630 with John Winthrop<\/a>. What did he mean when he said, we shall be as a city upon a hill in the eyes of all people upon us . Did he mean we should go out in the world and redeem it and make it better . Or no, we should create a Virtual Society<\/a> at home and see if it could become a model to others. We still have not decided that and that shapes our approach to the world to this day. Stephen robin i want to put a capper on this story. President mckinley is assassinated, roosevelt becomes president , and americans how many troops, 80,000 . Almost 100,000 american troops are there, more and more people are becoming aware it is not going well at all, then after the war, it almost feels as if roosevelt wants to draw attention away from the failures there by scapegoating the military who carried the war out. Stephen there was an investigation after roosevelt was president into torture and other abuses in the philippine. , a greatot lodge supporter of the war, maneuvered to become the chairman of that investigating committee, making sure it would never find out anything negative. Was a other hand, there great sense in the United States<\/a> that this had not gone well. President roosevelt did something i think people had not expected. He was the most rapid of nation grabbers. Once he was in power without anyone like mckinley to restrain him, any nation on which the United States<\/a> had ever cast and eye she didnt do that. All of this was in the air. He didnt. He began to realize the sorrows of empire and the troubles it brings. Verycome into office excited about the idea of using American Military<\/a> power to work our will in the world, but as they sit in office, they see the ill effects of those interventions, not only the target country, but the u. S. Itself. They cool off quite a bit. That is a logical process. One could only wish they would learn the lesson before they get in and not have to take years in power before they cooled off. Robin robin to give your example of what americans heard there was one major, anthony wallace, question during this investigation as to what happened. We know what happened. It was carried out by the expansionists. This major said he was in a reprisal campaign and general smith gave him extermination orders. Smith toldrisoners, him. The more you kill and burn, the more you please me. I want all persons killed capable of bearing arms. The major aspirin age guideline. The general said 10 years. Are those designated as being able to bear arms . Yes. The major said he was ordered and his men complied, massacring the surveillance. How did that hit home . Stephen i think it was a loss of innocence for americans. We begin to think we have entered into this new career and these are the things we have to do. On the other hand, the antiimperialists also had success, even though they did not have the ultimate success. It was their work that led roosevelt to realize slowly that Many Americans<\/a> are turning against this enterprise, so i realizingshock of what americans had had to do in the philippines helped assure that this last aversive annexation, the first burst of annexation would be the last. Now we continue to intervene in countries and other ways, but we did not seize them as colonies the way we did with the philippines, puerto rico, and guam, of the antiimperialist always ended up losing the great battles, but were still a major force in american politics. You can trace them upright through liberal democrats like conservativern and republicans like ron paul, all advocating the same view. One difference, and this is depressing when you think about what is happening. I write about, 18981900, the american elite, the prominent figures in america were deeply divided over whether it is a good idea for the u. S. To project its coercive power around the world or a bad idea. And you dont see that division. In washington, it is all monochromatic. The idea that u. S. Is the indispensable nation and we have to be involved in every conflict in the world where we are present. There is peace and security. Where we are absent, there is darkness and everyone lives in chains. This view is shared widely in washington. American influence is always benign. Everybody is waiting for our help. We can make situations better. This view is shared by democrats and republicans. You dont find so much difference between the view of john mccain and hillary clinton, for example, on these issues. Liberals and conservatives pretty much share these assumptions. Everything tank in washington shares them. The media is also beating these drums. One thing we have laws from the period of more than 100 years ago is this great debate among our leading figures. Leading all our political intellectual figures tend to be on the side that believes america really is the indispensable nation, and if we are not involved everywhere in the world, the world will go crazy. We are the only force standing between the world in chaos, so that is a widely shared view now, in this view i mentioned right atyou have no the canons mouth to do this, it is not widely shared, and actually it is from that perspective that i took the title of my book. This is the big discovery of my book, that this debate happened, and the second mark twain. The third interesting discovery was a guy i had never heard of, who was one of the most fascinating immigrants in the United States<\/a> during the 19th century, came from germany where he fought in the 1848 revolution, became a civil war general, became a u. S. Senator, secretary of the interior from a very popular, famous figure who would have been known to all americans in the latter part of the 19th century. So my book, the true flag, takes that title from a line that he delivered at a speech at the university of chicago let us raise high the flag of the country, not as an emblem of reckless adventure and greedy professionstrayed and broken pledges, criminal aggression and arbitrary rule over subject population, but behold the true flag, the flag of George Washington<\/a> and abraham lincoln, the flag of the government of, for, and by the people, the flag of National State<\/a> held sacred and of National Honor<\/a> unsullied, the flag of human rights and a good example to all nations, the flag of true civilization, peace, and goodwill to all men. That is the view that is rarely expressed in the corridors of power in the United States<\/a>, and part of the purpose of my book richnessover the of that dialogue as a basis for our argument today. Robin how interesting those words were spoken by an immigrant. Stephen kinzer. Stephen kinzer. [no audio] robin ive loved [applause] robin i love this book so much. I know we want to get some questions and. We have cspan here. Rock it. Y, lets lets do something crazy here. [laughter] robin if you have questions for stephen kinzer, feel free to ask him. Aboutt is your feeling Theodore Roosevelt<\/a>s role in the building of the panama canal . Stephen Teddy Roosevelt<\/a>s role in the building of the canal . Well, Theodore Roosevelt<\/a> was fascinated by sea power, and the idea of a canal through panama had been around for centuries. Roosevelt came in and it was knocking be any more delay. The canal was supposed to be built across nicaragua. There was a great lobbying campaign. It was quickly moved to panama for very complicated and mostly corrupt reasons. Panama was then a province of columbia, not an independent country. Roosevelt was dealing with columbia, but he was not getting the deal he wanted. He decided as he wrote to his secretary of state, we have two alternatives, either go back to nicaragua, or to stop dealing with the homicidal corruption bogota and formant rebellion in the territory. That is what he did. Toarranged with panamanians claim their province independent of columbia, then sent American Naval<\/a> ships to blockade panama so the Colombian Navy<\/a> could not show up there and crush the rebellion. We immediately recognize the new government, and surprised, their first act was to grant his control over big stripped of their country. So afterward, Theodore Roosevelt<\/a> was nervous that he was going to be accused of what he had actually done, essentially breaking a nation in half. At a cabinet meeting, he turned to his attorney general and said , do they have any case against me . Can they accuse me of anything . The attorney general said, mr. President , let us not allow such a great back to be tainted a act be tainted by any shadow of reality. [laughter] a lot of histories i have read recently, the thing that strikes me the most is the purpose of writing the book is not so much to tell the history, but to tell us something about today, and to give a couple of , a recent book called black earth about the holocaust is as much about today in the future environmental disasters andt the 1930s and 1940s, the book about the afghan wars, same thing. Arent you in that esteemed group . Or do you just enjoy bringing up secure fax back to life . Do ring obscure fax back to life, but i think they are fascinating. Just because they are obscure does not mean they are not interesting. On how have reflected certain episodes become considered very big and important and get chapters in history books, and others get one line as a footnote. Why does this happen . To a certain degree when it comes to our interventions abroad, we highlight the few that come out well. For example, there is never an end to the world war ii story, books, movies. Did it shape the modern world . Yes. That it also has an appeal because world war ii shows us the way we want to think that we are. We went into countries, countries brutally ruled by evil tyrants, helped to defeat them and left democracy behind, so we love that story, but in many other stories we dont come out so well. These are countries that are relatively stable, democratic, and we leave them in war and tyranny. That is not who we think we are, but rather than confront the reality of what that implies and what it means for our policies, we would rather forget those episodes ever happened, so to your question, do i write only about history or for today . I think the episode im writing about is a Huge National<\/a> debate that erected over whether we should and that erupted over whether we should become a global course of power or not is hugely relevant today. It has never been resolved. So im trying to point out this argument is really as one senator put it, the greatest question that has ever been presented to the american people. I think you could argue that it was even a bigger question than slavery, because slavery only applied to what was going to happen inside the United States<\/a>. This decision has shattering impact for people all over the world, so i have tried to speak to today in two ways. First of all, the story itself will lead people to realize certain arguments made to been that are still very powerful in our discourse, on both sides, today, and the other thing i have done is i added a chapter at the end of the book to bring us up to the modern age, so the story ends around 1902, but what happened to the debate . Did it just in . No. It actually preceded up to the modernday, so the last chapter takes us through the president s since Teddy Roosevelt<\/a> and shows how the pendulum has swung back and forth between the more interventionist and less interventionist. Steppingdent who one the most antiimperialist in American History<\/a> is one you would not expect. I will let you find out who it isnt you already decided to buy the book. [laughter] still im thinking it is a gut wrenching conversation. Look at syria. People said we have to go in and help, and this is intervention as opposed to expansionism, but why are we helping . Stephen absolutely right. People are suffering there. Shouldnt we go in . There is more suffering, there is more reason to go in. Isdont ask ourselves, what the prospect that going in will make the situation better . That is a much deeper and more difficult question to answer. We just assumed that where we are things will get better, but if you asked the people of libya , iraq, or other countries, they will tell you otherwise, and that should inform the decisionmaking. We have another voice in the wilderness speaking out against the american exceptionalism point of view. You mentioned the city on a hill earlier. He likes to point out it is not an unconditional statement. In his sermon, what he wrote was is, we have made a covenant with god. If we live up to that covenant, we shall be like a city on the hill, but if we do not, our name will be cursed by future generations. Was that perspective still around in the late 19 century or had that long been forgotten . Stephen absolutely. I think that piece of the John Winthrop<\/a> message was still there. It is not an accident that many of the leaders of the antiimperialist movement were clergy. Others were abolitionist. They considered the antiimperialist movement to be the logical next step from abolitionism. If you believed it was wrong to own another human being and make them work without his consent, then it would be wrong to hold full nations of people and make them feel that way. Admirer. Great you point out that sense shows up in George Washington<\/a>s great farewell address. He lists all the things he hopes we wont do, all of which we have done. [laughter] stephen he says he realizes americans will not listen to us, then he got one principle that frompes would prevent us such a course, give to mankind the magnanimous and example of a anple always guided by exalted justice and benevolence. Can it be that providence has not connected the felicity of a nation with its virtue . It islecting reflecting on quotes like that that let me to come here tonight wearing my George Washington<\/a> socks. [laughter] robin for those who might not professor at is a boston university, served in the military, and was against the war in iraq. He was against the war in iraq before his own son was killed there, so he is quite a figure. I was wondering if you could say why these events begin to happen when they did. What was the role of American Manufacturing<\/a> capability, and i am interested when it was mentioned that Andrew Carnegie<\/a> was an antiinterventionist coming given that he was a huge titan of industry. Thank you. Stephen why do these events begin happening when they did . A confluence of factors was at work. There had been pressure from manufacturers to find new businessbut also the elite was worried about going to war. They were worried about instability, so that wasnt the real pressure. You had pressure from people Like Henry Cabot Lodge<\/a> who truly believed that european power was taking all the good parts of the world, and the United States<\/a> had to become involved in this competition. We cames if in his mind Conscientious Objectors<\/a> and retire from the world and be safe within our own country. This was something that was fundamentally alien to the natures of people like roosevelt and Henry Cabot Lodge<\/a>. Like Many Americans<\/a>, they were compulsive activists. They wanted to be out there making changes. They could not bear the idea of history taking its own course. They do reflect america in that sense. Americans dont like to understand things. We like to do things. And the compulsive activism of this group of people was a factor. Megaphone thate william Randolph Hearst<\/a> provided , the nation would not have been whipped up into this fervor of what we now call fake news, but this happened in vietnam. We went to war in part based on an incident we know never happen. The same thing happened in iraq with weapons. Andrew carnegie was a fascinating figure. I love this line that he writes , tires theus article republic so soon of its mission. He was an immigrant, also, and a great believer that european powers had been brought down by their overweening ambition. The is what brought down hungarian empire, the russian empire, and the ottoman empire, all the way back to around, so what you are looking for in a successful country, as carnegie would see it, is one that was satisfied within its own borders and did not try to subject other people, so he believes he was watching the beginning of the knew it andca as he wanted it to be. Dont forget at this time that carnegie was entering into the latter phase of his life. He became a great philanthropist. He started founding things like the International Court<\/a> of justice in the hague. He was involved in other International Peace<\/a> projects, so this was the beginning of a new stage of his career. He had a great affection for mark twain. When mark twain published one of his bitter enunciation seven peerless him, carnegie wrote to him and of imperialism, carnegie wrote to him and said he wanted to pay the intime peerless leak and make us a pamphlet and send it out. He said this is a better gospel of st. Marks the night read in the bible. [laughter] robin the Carnegie Endowment<\/a> at that point. It is a good thing this fervor abated, because they had their eye on canada, and hawaii. Stephen absolutely. I sometimes wonder, at canada success, and the trouble the had. Has suppose we won the war of 1812, we would have kicked the british out of north america altogether, and the canada and the u. S. Had been one country. What if we had lost the civil war, then it would just be new england, the northern states, and canada. That would be a different country from the one we have now, so the results of these conflicts do have an effect. Robin any more questions . There you go. Another thing that expansions would say to the antiimperialist, how can we take someone elses country from them . The expansionist with say we took this country from the native americans. What is the difference . Go ahead. Governor johnts davis along with secretary of the navy, and he and roosevelt had a testy relationship. Roosevelt was his undersecretary. Can you Say Something<\/a> about that conflict . One was an imperialist, one was not. Happened, to what extent did roosevelt set us on a collision course with japan . Stephen ahh, very interesting. Governor ofn massachusetts and was secretary of the navy was theodores roosevelt Theodore Roosevelt<\/a> became assistant secretary. Roosevelt was not good at being assistant anything. He was so dynamic. He was a compulsive activists, even his physical behavior, not just his political policy. One day, when secretary long was feeling ill, he had a series of body aches. He had an electric massage machine. He was testing the new machine. During that day Theodore Roosevelt<\/a> arrived at the office and he was alone. He called his best friend and said, start sending telegrams. Sure enough he authorized unlimited new seamen. Ordered all american ships ready to sail, then he ordered the pacific fleet, which was in china towards the philippines. He wired admiral dewey. The next days secretary came in and wrote in his diary, i find that the error roosevelt has created more of a ruckus in the explosion of the main created. He nor president mckinley retracted any of those orders. That set america on this path. Even from that position, he was very influential. Today, and assistant secretary of the navy is not a big job, but is a huge job because the navy is our connection to the rest of the world. Bookis not a topic for the , but it is the subject of this guytacular book by the same who wrote flags of our fathers. That was about his father dying on eu at jima. A jima. Radley iwo allradley wrote that asians were barbarians, the japanese were not. There were the arians of asia and should be allowed to rule asia and have an asian monroe doctrine. He sent the secretary of war over there on a secret mission in which he had his daughter and congressman to negotiate a secret treaty with the japanese. They had to be secret because the u. S. Congress is supposed to ratify treaties. They never ratified this one. It would never be public. The first thing the japanese did after being told by roosevelt that they are the conqueror, they conquered korea. Beensaid, we just have conquered by japan. Please help. Since youwrote back, are now under japanese occupation, any complaints you have should be directed to tokyo. He set up on the path that led us to japanese militarism, and ultimately the attacks of pearl harbor and the episode of you jima. Jima iwo do we have one more question . Yes, one more. Im not sure this is a question. Before he started speaking, i nation, which the is now 152 years old, towards a new Foreign Policy<\/a>. The first article by patrick lawrence, whom i dont know, is called from from destiny to purpose. Destiny is high and purpose on the earth, mostly as a country we have preferred destiny. He is arguing against exceptionalism, which as what i think is the most important argument to have. Wondering, and this is kind of a stupid question, our new socalled president talks about america first, which sounds as if he is against intervention. Is there any connection . I think that our new president reflects our divided national soul. He is antiintervention and intervention. In our National Collective<\/a> consciousness, these two impulses come out in different proportions according to different situations. I have no more idea than any of you as to what direction we will be going in and our Foreign Policy<\/a>. I find the fact that there is a moderate hammock in washington over the direction of our Foreign Policy<\/a> quite encouraging. I wish there would be more panic. I do have some fear. I am all for changing the direction of American Foreign<\/a> policy, including profound ways, but this is a delicate process. You cannot do it with a tweet. World the promise he is very delicate. You take one thing out and everything begins to shake. These changes in American Foreign<\/a> policy i delegate delicate. The more radical they are the more carefully they have to beef. Through. I find some of the messages coming out of washington encouraging the messengers are very disconcerting. There is no hearings to the policy we are hearing. Example, lets not be caught up in our stereotypes about russia. Really upif russia is against our interests . Why not apply the same policy to other countries . To not look fresh relationships with cuba, iran, israel or saudi arabia . I dont see that kind of coherence. That this book talks about is still shaking washington. I will conclude with this one story. Authors tend to like their books to come out in the autumn. The fall list in publishing language. Fallant your book on the list because most books are bought as christmas gifts. That is said to be the best time. My book did not make it onto the fall list, but the publisher told me, dont worry, i think this is a book that does not need to be on the fall list because there is going to be a new president , and this book might turn out to be more relevant than you think. And that certainly turned out to be the case. Thank you all. [applause] the book is being signed in the front hall. Thank you. 2027488920 history announcer history bookshelf features the bestknown American History<\/a> writers of the past decade talking about their books. Weekly seriesur every saturday at 4 00 p. M. Eastern on American History<\/a> tv on cspan3. Tv,his is American History<\/a> covering history, cspan style, with lectures, interviews and discussions. With authors, historians and teachers. Can, everyll we weekend only on cspan3. Sunday at 9 00 p. M. Eastern on afterwards. Chief White House Correspondent<\/a> Jonathan Karl<\/a> provides a behindthescenes look at the Trump Administration<\/a> in his brook book front row at the trump show. He is interviewed by the former White House Press<\/a> secretary in the clinton administration. Jonathan enemy of the people is a phrase that i spend time in the book about the origins of it. It is a very ugly phrase. It has been used by stalin, hitlers, used during the french revolution. Basically, the justification was, the people that were targeted by the law under which they were found guilty and beheaded. The actual law uses that phrase, enemy of the people. Watch afterwards with Jonathan Karl<\/a>, sunday at nine 00 p. M. Eastern on book tv on cspan2. One of the key world war ii battles of 1944 took place in eastern British India<\/a> when forces under japanese general maraguchi launched an offensive from their stronghold in burma. World war ii scholar hero explores this turning point of the burma campaign. A japanese defeat largely at the head of british and indian forces. This was part of the national","publisher":{"@type":"Organization","name":"archive.org","logo":{"@type":"ImageObject","width":"800","height":"600","url":"\/\/ia802905.us.archive.org\/20\/items\/CSPAN3_20200404_200000_History_Bookshelf_Stephen_Kinzer_The_True_Flag\/CSPAN3_20200404_200000_History_Bookshelf_Stephen_Kinzer_The_True_Flag.thumbs\/CSPAN3_20200404_200000_History_Bookshelf_Stephen_Kinzer_The_True_Flag_000001.jpg"}},"autauthor":{"@type":"Organization"},"author":{"sameAs":"archive.org","name":"archive.org"}}],"coverageEndTime":"20240716T12:35:10+00:00"}