I thought we should express it very matteroffactly. So the book which is called the book of jezebel is not a book thats on the site. Its an encyclopedia of the world according to the of the site. I would say that there is a lot of disillusionment within the entries of that book but i think that the books dna is really the site and its funny to look back. Its been seven years since the site is launched and i think the expression of anger and what we communicated, there are still many reasons to feel frustrated and exasperated and mad but there are also more reasons to feel celebratory afield with regards to gender politics in the United States than there were seven years ago. So i dont feel as disillusioned as i did when i started that site but there will always be there. Its in my dna to be mad. In thinking about it and preparing for today what and i has been talking about, sort of the energy that disillusionment creates or can create it strikes me that is in some ways the lifeblood of what we do as writers, people who are cultural critics. And i wonder if for sandeep that disillusionment seems to be that disillusionment of the american doctor is the through line. If you read in demon camp you hear jen write about something she referred to in the discussion of the language around the war. In the book she refers to a nation of a sterile war. The possibility that there is an allusion, that the nation is not real and in fact the disillusionment is what creates and generates the books. So anna anticipated my second question but i would like to offer jen and sandeep chance to speak to that. How is disillusionment of this kind you have felt than seen and written about how has that in fact if you can turn it on its head inspired you whether its anger is anna talked about how do you produce work out of these issues . Well, i think something that ms said really resonated with me which is just paraphrasing, i dont know what hetero normative means. In reference to the book it meant its only focused on malefemale malefemale relationship and no acknowledgment of relationships. Okay. Is disillusionment such a bad thing . And i mentioned that she has been disillusioned for much of her adult life. I certainly have gone through periods of disillusionment but you know when is disillusionment bad, counterproductive . Its counterproductive when it leads to passive that he or anger that cant be focused. It doesnt lead to action. Disillusionment for a lot of us sort of connotes disgruntlement, unhappiness and depression. But you know, disillusionment also means to be pollutionfree, you know, to shed ones fantasies about the way the worldtheya doctor this concept of my doctor. That doctor was there for you and knew everything about you and would advocate for you and t delusion that the American Medical System can create that kind of relationship, but it cant. It doesnt anymore. So when you show that allusion, you are more apt to take action and create some kind of reform. So you know a lot of physicians have disillusionment today but they are also taking action. They realize the system is very deceased and they are looking to reform the system to increase the amount of time they can spend with patients and increase humanism within the doctor patient relationship but there are a lot of things. So i think disillusionment, and im not sure if i have answered the question but for me at least its a central part of why i write because there is a problem and i want everyone to shed their illusions about their misconceptions about american medicine so we can reform the system and we will reform it if people remain illusion about it. So the book is really in the end a manifesto for reform. You cant get that energy and less there are some disappoint disappointed disappointment in the current system. Going at off on what sandeep said it is an active disillusionment and you should not approach writing through concrete theories necessarily about the world already in your head but rather how to question and wonder and be approaching moments of bewilderment and trying to figure things out. Having the world breakdown in the process of writing a saying, questioning the world and i think what happens is that you will approach these moments of clarity where you feel like you have really figured things out and then you could come across a different moment whether you are reporting or researching or thinking about an idea. The idea you solidify in your writing that breaks down. I think we should be comfortable with showing our thoughts having these ups and downs or process thinking on the page. I think its really good for readers to show them that struggle and show how you can think about a problem complex and in the end maybe not come to a conclusion about anything and maybe think about it too much like a Consistent Movement between illusion and disillusion you really dont know when you are moving from one allusion religion to another and you are really not sure. So i think its a constant need to approach the world with questions and curiosity. That is how i like to think about writing, being very comfortable with the state of not knowing. So that i think can be scary to some people but if you accept that bewilderment for me that gives me my ideas for writing. Just a thought on that point, is there something about the modes of writing that you into the world through in the way that most of us know you threw jezebel in the blog world and you were also named one of the top 140 at one point. The point is jenice talking about revealing to our readers that sort of up and down, that breakdown of one allusion to another. There something about having to write on a daily basis or having a regular update. Well i didnt write every day. I oversaw people who were doing that. I dont know that id could have done that job. I was very good at my job but i always marveled at the fact that they could write with the speed and accuracy envoys for seven hours straight every single day. But i think within the writing of the writers i edited i think that you saw, im not sure this is answering a question, i think you saw grappling with questions. There were instances within certain writers or eight certain writer that i think was good and honest. The idea that everyone that i oversaw was supposed to agree on everything would have been a lie. It made things more coherent for certain readers but i kind of like the messier stuff. I think the one thing or one way that disillusionment can be somewhat risky is if you get completely mired in it and dont question the disillusionment itself, that you dont attempt to have the objectivity to see how things move and change and shape shift. For example as i said a couple of minutes ago there are times when of the a lot of things animated may be frustrated or disillusioned. When i feel those things were in since the status of women in the United States and elsewhere and people of color. I also have the ability to see how things have changed over time and not just within the past five years or the past 10 years or 20 years or before i was born. It does give me a sense of optimism about the future and the solutions i feel at any given moment in the present. But again im not sure im answering your question. With regard to the writing of a piece every day, its not something that every that labor did. I dont write every day now although i should be. I write emails but that doesnt cap. Actually when i write something for publication i will pretend i am writing an email to a friend explaining the idea because thats much easier to get started that way. I do think its very important to constantly question oneself and ones conclusions and the only way to do that is to have, to cultivate certain sense of curiosity. I think some people are born with it. I think i am lucky that i was born with a certain amount of curiosity but that doesnt mean i can be complacent or become calcified in my ideas about certain things. Always an attempt to break through my preconceptions about the world especially when im writing stuff. I often surprise myself and conclusions when i began writing a piece which is i think the best feeling in the world. Sandy not long ago discussing articles at the time where it might be necessary to lie, he took up, you wrote about moral virtues which means a little bit of what goes on when anna is writing a piece from many of us are writing a piece and having to confront more about this or more about this and they tensions we deal with. In this case you were discussing patient autonomy verses a doctors obligation to do his best for his patient. He intimated a patient who had previously been treated. He later thank you thank you. The world and their work and doesnt present us with choices when writing a piece in a different direction. All of us in the typical one for me to be here rather than at a climate march. This question is for all of you. Can you say anything specific about how each of you in your work as writers critics and teachers have had to balance one moral issue over another and how transparently do you do this in your work . What strategies do you use to show that you are trying to work out this moral problem as positioning yourself as a moral authority . What happens when you make a mistake . Any of you. I think something that jen said resonated with me which is sometimes you think about something and its complex and at the end of the it all you dont necessarily come to a conclusi conclusion, a neat way of reordering your concepts. I think thats especially true in medicine and the other thing that i want to say before a deal directly with your question is disillusionment is engendered by periods of change and there are amazing changes a foot in american medicine but also in gender politics, sexual politics. Im not really an expert in those things but i do read the paper and i know a lot of changes are happening today that we wouldnt have expected five or 10 years ago. So thats healthy. Those sorts of changes made to help the disillusionment that i think can be a spark for change. As far as moral virtues and medicine is just rife with competing Ethical Imperatives so theres an imperative to listen to your patient and respect your patients autonomy. Theres also the imperative to do the best you can for your patient so there are other imperatives that are equally important that we dont pay as much attention to. Like social justice, population health. How do we deliver good care but responsibly Steward Resources which is i think very important. So autonomy and paternalism or i should say autonomy and benevolence are in conflict. A patient doesnt want to do something that you know is going to be helpful to them in the long run and they dont want to do it because they just dont know as much as you do. About this particular problem. They know about themselves and they know whats important to them so that is where you have a deficit in your knowledge. You have maybe less personal knowledge of the situation but you have more categorical knowledge so how do you balance that so the specific piece you were mentioning is a patient who came to the hospital and said i never want to have a breathing tube. I dont know, i wasnt there but he probably said i dont want to be a vegetable. My grandfather died on a ventilator. Theres no way i want that. And probably an overworked overworked intern heard that and said okay fine, check off the box, dnr. But its not as simple as as that. Things could be a lot more complex so in this particular case i was pretty certain that he just didnt understand what he was signing off on. Most people if you asked them will say i dont want to have a breathing tube. I may die on a breathing tube but i dont mind a breathing tube if its going to save my life in the shortrun in the breathing tube can come out. That was the situation and knowing how doctors are and knowing how rushed we are, theres no doubt in my mind that the quality of the conversation that this guy had with whoever it was was probably not of good quality. When he started bleeding into his lungs and was literally drowning in his own blood i had to make a choice to watch this guy literally drowned in his own blood, die, a 50 something guy were to say you know what, i dont think this is what he wanted. So i made the decision to intubate him and this is not i didnt do it lightly. I was very aware of the risks in doing it. The patient was very upset. He could die with a breathing breathing tube and that would be a perfect thing that i didnt think he was going to. Theres always a chance and then a suit, not listening to my patient and patient autonomy is the preeminent and we are talking about change. 30 years ago, 40 years ago patient autonomy was not the preeminent ethic and american medicine. Now it is. Back then doctors wanted to do the right thing for their patience and sometimes they would overrule their patients. But now we talk to our patients so the piece was about trying to balance the need to do the right thing. I advocated for what i called soft paternalism. Hard paternalism is what i told my son yesterday. Why do you have to do at . Because i said so. Im your dad, too bad. Soft paternalism is i want you to rethink this. You are making a bad choice and lets talk about this another time. Soft paternalism is something you do when someone has a tumor and says i dont want to have surgery and you know a lump that to me could cure her breast cancer. Its to meet the height of irresponsibility for a doctor to say she doesnt want it, so just leave it alone. And doctors do that. So anyway i integrated this guy and at the end he was on a breathing tube for almost two weeks and it was touch and go but at the end of it i went to him and i said, i was the one who decided to put a breathing tube in. Im sorry but you would have died if i didnt. He said ive been through a lot. I said i know. And he said that thank you. So it was sort of in the narrative. I ended up looking like a hero and you now so obviously im going to write about it. [laughter] but it could have gone the other way. Any other heroic stories are not heroic stories about a moral choice . In the writing and in the reporting you have to decide which way to go. I think ill answer this question in terms of craft. If you are trying to embed a moral in your writing thats probably not going to work as well as the situation giving rise to moral thinking leaving the reader with a moral decision and the weight of the question if you can. I guess the question i was interested in as i worked on my book had to do with how you represent someone elses suffering and how do i write about someone as a civilian writing about a soldier but past experience . That was the effort of the book to back, hideaway imagined all of us that have no experience in combat. We are constantly being bombarded by the news and how do we engage more softly and honestly in this world . One of the things i did as a reporter was i became the character that tried basically as i mentioned earlier he went through this process of deliverance which is a euphemism for exorcism. I ended up immersing myself in this thing going through the process as well because i thought as a reporter that was the only way to honestly write about him. It was sort of the a strange decision to exist in this world exclusively as he did and it was a constant battle between thinking about sitting back and witnessing the scene are getting into it in writing about it which is an honest depiction. But for me that was the effort in the book. Then i was also making myself vulnerable. By making myself vulnerable and humiliating myself in the book i was sort of talking about he sort of scared me to death with his stories and the situations they think allowed me to give his world the opportunity to exist fully as i wanted to. I think having myself break down as a character and showing my vulnerability in question allowed me to represent something i felt that otherwise could be, feel to distance their faraway. This is a tough question and i dont dont know if i have a good answer for it. I feel like when im writing which is really not that often anymore, that the most important thing is for me to be truthful and i think the thing that gets me the most upset in life are people who are not truthful, whether thats people that i know personally or other writers or people in the media were people in social media. I read that too. Thats in part because theres a lot of performance involves and i think its untruthful ultimately and i dont like being a witness to it or things that im participating in. So thats really what i try to do is to be truthful but sometimes being truthful can hurt somebody else and i think its hard for me to balance when its important to be truthful and when its important to eyewitness a fudge things but omit. The most recent example of this is i was doing a magazine piece about an athlete in this piece is not out yet so im not going to get into too much detail but the athletes mother said something to me on the record that was questionable with regards to her feelings about native americans in the town that she lived in. The story is not about native americans. The story is not about the town that she lived in but she made some cracks that she mightve thought was funny that i was thinking i could just ring if i publish that and the story isnt even about that. I really struggled because it did Say Something about her character and it did reflect or does reflect a kind of inconsistency or incoherence because five minutes before she had been talking about the struggle that her family membe members, her mother is caucasian and her daughter is biracial, but it shows that are dadar faced as a person of color. Five minutes later she is making these generalizations. I had to decide what it be truthful to include that stuff but its not really the point of the story and i really grappled with whether i should keep it or amend it or how important was going to be. And if i it in the piece that it might briefly caused a firestorm and effect this womans life in a very negative way. I felt she was innocent so i decided not to put it in although i talked about it endlessly to people that i know and my editor. I was like can you believe this . I didnt know if it was going to serve the story in and and might distract from the larger story which is not about the woman. Its about her daughter and its about her daughters success and the success you will have in the future and the hard work she put in to get to where she is. I dont know that her mothers commentary about the social services enjoyed by native americans in changzhou or canada are important ultimately. But that was really tough and im not really certain that what i consider to be the truth is the truth. Thats a good thing i think but i have to constantly remind myself of that. How do you get to that in your writing . The simplest way is to say well i dont think i do this literally but when i write on the one hand this on the other hand this. Its a question of substance. Hopefully in a more artful way that i just quoted. I think a lot of writers, and i envy them, express a Certain Authority that i dont always trust. I trust the authority of lets say it doctor writing about medicine. I dont necessarily trust the authority of a writer who is spouting off an opinion on something that they thought all of 15 seconds about and i think theres a lot of published stuff that fits into that category and fortunately. Now im kind of rambling but i hope i answered your question about what motivates me when im writing and also when im editing people. I think we talked about that question in a couple of different ways because i know they are probably aspiring writers here, to understand that. On the one hand we have to do with these moral questions in the world and as we have written about these things but then there are these craft questions too that it happens internally that jen is talking about, more questions about how to insert yourself into a story or remove yourself so that comes out in the writing itself but then anna talks about the behindthescenes stuff that to me is a reminder that those kinds of moral questions can be worked out behind closed doors. You know by working out with an editor you have really done the hard work, the hard messy stuff. We only have about four minutes left. Can i get one question from the audience anyone . If you would like to ask a question its important you speak into the microphone please. Hi. My name is owed joanne and i just wondered for dr. Jauhar is one thing that your colleagues shared diagnosis but to encompass it out in a book i wonder how it affected your daytoday relationships amongst yourselves . Well i worried about that but i think overall people have been very understanding. I actually went to a big north northshore allied to a function last night and ran into a bunch of people. All the names were changed but you know doctors know that the system is totally messed up. So thats one thing. That sort of engenders understanding and then also no one likes a whistleblower. But someone asked me in an interview i think on fox or something, are you a whistleblower . I said well you know i dont think so because a whistleblower points a finger at other people and says what they messed up but a lot of the book is about me struggling with my own choices for several years dealing with my own strange personal life and professional life. In that sense people dont mind if you blame yourself. They just dont want to be blamed so in that sense the book is mostly about me blaming myself. So to answer your question it and not back. I would like to have an opportunity to have more questions than im sorry we dont have much time. Any last thoughts on the panel anything you hope to be able to say when he came in today . One thing i thought a bit about is the idea that disillusionment is communicated more broadly now because of how interconnected we are with the internet which i think is a good thing. I think you can see social movements coalesce and build. Maybe they flame out quickly but there is perhaps more of a sense of community are feeling connected to other people because the shared interest in shared disillusionment that people can find each other via technology. Sometimes they find that stuff to be very tiring. Theres an outrage fatigue that i get that im a witness to. Theres a lot of outrage and i dont always take it in but i do think that its an aggregate. Its a good thing. For example the New York Times piece that was roundly criticized from the other day about the creator of shonda rhymes and at times critics construction of this piece that shonda rhymes was an angry black woman. It was a big mess. 20 years ago she had written a piece there may have been a couple of letters to the editor but i dont know if there would have been a broader understanding about what was problematic about the way people were not edited. But because of social media and the internet, i think we all come to greater understanding with better literacy how to think about things and how to be disillusioned and maybe how to express disillusionment. I have to close it down. I think everyone for coming. It makes me think the panel should look at called american disillusionment with an exclamation point. Thank you everyone for coming. Please remember the authors all three will be downstairs signing their books outside of the building where you can also purchase them. They will sign it for you if you purchase it. Thanks very much. [applause] [inaudible conversations] [inaudible conversations] next several authors talk about Nelson Mandela and the history of south africa. This is from the ninth annual brooklyn book festival. [inaudible conversations] good afternoon. Its hiding in at the brooklyn literary festival. Its high noon here at the Brooklyn Law School and today we are opening with a discussion of Nelson Mandela who we will talk more about in a minute and also to engage your ideas and thoughts about one of the people who is referred to certainly is one of the greatest men of his age and of his time. My name is danny schecter. Im known as the news dissector. Im an author of a book madiba a to z. As a filmmaker and made six films with Nelson Mandela including a sound that was showcased his visit to brooklyn in 1990 when he came out of jfk into brooklyn that was then boys and girls high to an incredible reception from the streets from every kid in town en masse welcome of the kind he was not prepared for. I have been following this story for many years and i will tell you a bit more about that. First of all before we begin the program i would like to let you know that books by authors in this program can be purchased by books on call nyc downstairs just outside the entrance to the building. Immediately following this Program Authors will be signing at that location as well. You are in for a treat today because we have with you some people who have spent a great deal of time writing about and living the story. Its not just a story that people wrote about academically but its a story that engage their lives at times and its a story that changed everybody who came close to it i think it would be safe to say. Change, their sense of possibilities, their sense of humanity, their sense of the way in which people can struggle for justice and at least for a time prevail. I want to say that everybody achieved everything they fought for but certainly achieve so much more than they expected when they started it. It took a really long time. The agency itself marked its 100th anniversary, the oldest Liberation Movement in north africa. The fact that this actually even happened was still something that people told me about including joe slovo. We have an author of the driver fee of joe slovo and who said i have to pinch myself to believe this is happening. We still have to talk about mandela known as the grandfather of his nation but also somebody who anybody who interacted with him and this is whats remarkable, anyone who interacted with him was so touched by it because they brought such expectations that they looked up at him with such awe and at the same time to the surprise of many people who met him he remembered you. He actually remembered you. I was at an event at rockefell rockefeller, the radio city rainbow room and he was coming to new york. He walked into the room that was security on top of security laced with security, cops, feds and anything you can imagine waiting for him. We were in our media area to try to film this event and mandela walked into the room, looked around, saw me came over to me and said to me do you remember me . [laughter] which you know i said well i think so. [laughter] kind of amazing but it was something a lot of people later testified to. We only have 15 minutes to talk about a life that one on for 95 years and to speak in a way thats continuing to this mome moment. Nelson mandela they said after cocacola was the best name brand in the world. So he was known by everyone, loved by almost everyone and at least later when it became fashionable to love him at one point he was of course detested, feared as a terrorist and worse and actually turned in a part of the history that doesnt get much play in the New York Times or anywhere else by the cia who was tracking his movements and turned him over to the South African Police which brings the Current Issue of surveillance that way are all concerned about very much into focus. The year was 1962, not today. So this is a long story and the story with lots of ups and downs but also a story of triumph that we really need to study and examine and understand not only you know for what it meant to south africa but what it meant to us. I think thats part of what we will be exploring today, is why did this man from the rural backwaters in the rural area of south africa have the effect that he had on americans and people all over the world who were not only touched but driven and inspired by his example. That hasnt ended with his death which came about last december and we should remember came about because originally he contracted pneumonia in prison. So he was a casualty of apartheid even as he was a victor over apartheid and that was quite incredible. We have an amazing panel here today and im going to get right to it. I wanted to start with are visiting, not now visiting but living in new york South African who is sean jacobs. Hes on the faculty of the new school. He is a native of cape town south africa and is a ph. D. Is in politics from the university of london and emmy in Political Science from Northwestern University and a doctorate from the college of hard knocks in his struggle in south africa. Hes writing a book on the intersection of mass media, globalization and liberal democracy and post apartheid south africa. Sean, you have written not just about mandela but about how mandela was regarded and idealized and mythologized by the American Media including the recent movie the long walk to freedom for which i worked and i would just say as a parting little shot the last courtroom i was in was a courtroom that was built by the movie to resemble every detail the courthouse in which the trial took place and of which he was convicted and sent to prison for life. Thats the story in itself told in the movie. Anyway sean by the way id want to quickly introduce a little competition and the masses here, the midget masses. Allen weidner to us here who wrote a brilliant biography and ruth first and joe slovo to a mandelas testified that mandela did not do this alone and mandela was part of the movement and was never claiming credit as the liberator of africa and who might to my immediate left a woman that i have worked with and learned so much from, the legendary if you will charlayne huntergault who grew up i learned in her biography. Give her a hand. [applause] i didnt know this. She was born in new west south carolina, new west south carolina. She was one of the students that desegregated the university of georgia from which she graduated in 1963. She has been a journalist among journalists and a heroin and a she wrote in the Civil Rights Movement in america were also at a point in her life decided to do what very few american journalists who are interested in south africa story did, she moved to south africa and moved to live there and work there for npr and cnn. As someone who is probably one of the most knowledgeable journalists about south africa and in her article in the new yorker about mandela a piece of introduction here because we are going to move rapidly, she told them you know i was supposed to interview you but my son was graduating from school in atlanta and i really had to go there so i couldnt. I had to postpone the interview and he said very good. He said i would have done that too. He said you know you can always interview me but you cant always be at your sons graduation. So he was the father of his nation but he was also a father among fathers. Sean please take it from there. Good morning. Sorry, good afternoon. I thought what i would do is tell a personal story quickly to get a sense of how i experienced Nelson Mandelas legacy. So i think its important for me, when i was born Nelson Mandela was imprisoned for five years for sentence for treason and a gun to prison in 1962 until 1964 started serving a prison sentence. If you are a South African of my generation thats important for people to recognize my early, not being an adult but comingofage if you want, mandela for me was someone experienced by his absence and not by his physical presence, not in the media. We barely saw mandela. So the early political was not the anc but another movement and one of the leaders of the movement. It was more trotskyite, of workingclass background, schoolteachers and the local activists they were mostly coming from that movement and they rejected mandela and disliked him for being more moderate. It sounds at because he was wanted for treason along with other people even though he wasnt as radical wasnt seen as radical as these other leaders. Interesting thing is by the early 1980s and this is during during the period but that i just talked about. By the early 1980s the anc made a combat inside south africa primarily because the african government instituted a number of reforms to split the black population and the response was a movement in south africa called the United Democratic front. That movement basically took on the iconographic, the ideas, the documentation of the anc the communist party that have been very popular in the 1950s of the document became a freedom charter which was an inclusive document by thinking about the future of south africa. It was not a specific but social democratic and leftwing in Nelson Mandela became a figurehead. Suddenly i was in high school and you see the return on street corners free mandela written on the walls and so i have told the story before but i find it remarkable that this is how i saw mandela. When i was in high school in 1985 there was a state of emergency and i remember a friend of mine brought a photograph school in the 1950s. He said it was mandela and slovo and he said this guy is mandela. You have to remember it sounds strange but thats how the state and as we talk and black nationalist but they were separatists. In fact they were the ones who were opposing the separatist projects of the state. To fastforward mandela comes out of prison and for a moment like all South Africans there was a cathartic experience yet its important to recognize that while mandela walking out of prison is seen as the symbolic and the South African state, people forget this is the late 1980s and recognize the project and it began slowly releasing other Major Political people like ahmed catawba and thabo mbeki. These people came out a year before mandela. What we are experiencing the outside world was with a major moment, which it was was preceded by other releases. I want to make two other quick points and then i will pause and rejoin the conversation again. One is when he came out of prison that moment also be realized he didnt belong to south africa anymore. So yes, he was at the head of a movement that was identified as being particularly South African and of course his people know the South African struggle became a global struggle since the late 1970s and throughout the 1980s with the struggles in the u. S. We werent werent aware of that so when he comes out of prison we see all this media coming to south africa. Theres a famous interview with ted koppel where everybody is surprised by his manner. Anyway at that point we also lose mandela in a way to the world. There are many different kinds of ways that people latch on to mandela and read their features into it and their hopes into it. So did we with the negotiations he was conducting the South African state but beyond that he would be writing to a nationalist group. He would be writing to a social democratic and liberal script and writing very differently. I think the two other points i want to make is in make is inasmuch as he is considered the father of the South African nation i think its fascinating and this was a deliberate strategy on the part of the a and c particularly from the 1970s. I think the a and c realized by the late 1970s that if we were going to win in Public Opinion that merely recounting the thousands of people that were being displaced, removed, murdered or releasing all Political Prisoners they had to hone in on one person in Nelson Mandela until that point was a major liaison but he wasnt the president at the time. There are other that some people know about that could make claim to that title but finally i think how mandela operates in south africa or outside of south africa is two levels. He offers a level of inspiration and be good to south africa very young people and there are people who are disaffected or disillusioned who see mandela something that they have lost and the a and c lost the vision of Nelson Mandela and they would like that vision to be returned and to be retained. They find inspiration in what mandela has done like squatter movements. And the forum of the former anc leader that broke away from the anc they see mandela as an inspiration. On the other its in the way that people look at the shortcomings of the new south africa. They see mandela and this is where mandela has old mixed legacy in south africa. Some people see him in those negotiations that he conducted with the apartheid government that he may have given away too much to the people around him. Not just him but the whole crew around him slovo and others that they may have way too much in the agreements made and the agreements that they made with the apartheid government in terms of retaining civil servi service, not dealing with the question of policy and land reform, not deracialized in communities in some form or engineering or the way that affirmative action is not being implemented in south africa so at all these levels people do have their questions about mandela. This doesnt mean that he doesnt retain a largerthanlife image. We have to be disciplined. We have very little time and we want to involve audience questions. Charlayne huntergault. Im glad to be following sean because he raised so many points not all of which i would like to respond to because i think most of them are things that i would have said myself. I went to south africa the first time in 1985 and at that point the regime had in fact begun secret negotiations with mandela and he always like to say he was a loyal member of the anc. I asked him in the first interview he gave after being released from prison did he see himself becoming president of south africa one day . Said im a loyal member of the anc and all that depends what he had started those negotiations on his own and nobody in the anc new. When they announced the release of mandela the anc and everybody else in the world was very surprised. Although they have suspected that sooner or later this was going to happen i went to south africa for the first time in 1985 when there was beginning to be there wasnt a great consciousness about south africa or mandela or anything else and 85 in the media was not particularly focused on south africa. So i went for the news hour and 85 and did a fivepart series when he had been transferred from Robben Island because those negotiations had quietly begun at that time. Someone told me that mandela had taken up gardening and by went to a certain hill i could probably get a glimpse of him out watering his plans. I did this with two of my White South African colleagues and as we passed the prison i happen to look over and i guess i saw this black person in the car with two white guys and thought saw something suspicious. They followed us and the driver, i said they are following us. He said dont worry i will lose them. He put the pedal to the metal lost them temporarily, i got out of the car and i see the garden but i dont see men diva. Finally they told me after i strained my eyes brightened no how long the security costs are going to catch up with the sooner or later. That was my First Contact in the second was when i get this call from my producer who said turn on the television. I didnt ask any questions questions because there was a sense of urgency in her voice. There was a clerk announcing the release of Nelson Mandela. Without even thinking i said start packing and get us to take it. In those days you had to go through london because of sanctions to get to south africa. Two minutes later my producer calls and says, know the news . I said yes, jackie is packing. He say what you let me talk to jim first meaning jim lehrer. Jim says hes not that enthusiastic about you going to south africa. He will only approve it if you could guarantee an interview with mandela. It was probably one of the most historic moments that anyone would ever experience. And so then it became what he had been unable to be for more than 27 years he was in prison. And he was on the run for many years and neither of his family, because he had two of them, one by his first wife who he was divorced from and to others. He had not been a father to his