Hello, everyone and thank you so much for joining us this afternoon. My name is Benjamin Quinn and on behalf of Harvard Book Store im so excited to welcome you to todays event, geraldo cadava, discussing his book, in conversation with java applets. Todays event is part of the bookstore friday form sees which takes place on a friday afternoon during as we to highlight our books in in a wie range of fields. We remain digital for the time being, we have a full schedule of our virtual events. Next friday october 2 half in law school joins us for discussion of his latest book, too much information, understanding and you dont want to know. For todays event we will conclude with some time for your questions but its like to ask the speaker something locate the q a button wherever it is on your display. We will get there many as time allows. Ecoto the top section i will shortly be posting a link to our website where you can purchase your copy of the book. Its all we have a copy of the book over
U. S. Political history. From purdue university, this is about an hour and a half. Hi, ill be guiding our conversation this afternoon. Our panel today is entitled making the case for latino political history. A theme that is arguably central to the idea of remaking american political history. This is not to say that no one has ever thought of or written about latinos in politics and history. In fact, the conversation to come follows in the footsteps of many major works and scholars. But instead, this is about rethinking about what political historians Pay Attention to. In an earlier panel this morning, an essential question was asked about the segregation of american political history in which there is a real barrier to what organizations and individuals are labeled as political or diplomatic actors. In a similar vein, this panel seeks to shift the conversation toward a discourse that cease latinos as central rather than peripheral to the development of modern american democracy. Forge
Called remaking political history. Its an hour and a half. Hi. My name is Jaime Sanchez jr. Our panel is making the case for latino political history. A theme that is central to the idea of remaking american political history. This is not to say no one has ever thought of or written about latinos in politics in history. The conversation follows in the foot steps of many major works and scholars. But instead it is about rethinking about what political historians Pay Attention to. In an earlier panel this morning, leah asked a question about the segregation of the american political history in which there was a barrier to what organizations and individuals are labeled as political or diplomatic actors. In a similar vein, this panel seeks to shift to seeing latinos as central to the development of modern american democracy. Forged in the fire of 19th century warfare, boosted by constant mass migration throughout the 20th, latinos have been part and parcel of modern americas social fabric.
Exportdriven growth to domestic demanddriven growth, and we should be grateful for that. Were concerned about chinese expansionism as were concerned about russian expansionism. New elements, perhaps, on the scene and how and in what way we deal with them. Its critical, in my view, that with major countries that are part of what now is a multipolar set of directions, if i can put it that way, from the major countries of the world, that we seek several things. That we seek to find those win wins which can buttress a relationship and make sure that there are on both sides Real Investments in that relationship rather than major competition. For leadership. And thats significant. Much of those relationships relates to personal relationships between leaders. When it sours, things dont go well. When the relationships get defined by negatives, as our relationship with russia has been defined, i think unfortunately on both sides from time to time, it takes on a kind of version in diplomacy of a
Slow and steady pull out at the time. That enter ocular test forced people to be more clear about things. I give a lot of credit to steve hadley for running a very that wasprocess inclusive of peoples views but got to frame up a distinct set of decisions. One of the things we love to do in washington is a model things together. Take a little bit of this and a little bit of that and muddle them together. Everybody walks out thinking their position prevailed. Quite frankly, you saw a bit of that in the Bush Administration where people walked out thinking their position had revealed and therefore there was not a clear vision and direction. Examplesork, a lot of that has encouraged that creative ambiguity among their advisors. Bill clinton is famous for that stop for that. Of examples a lot in american politics of it. It does not mesh with the award. It can be very dangerous in a wartime. If you did take away something specific from watching that surge decision in terms of your own persona