Annette Gordon-Reed on What She Calls “The American Dilemma” | Amanpour and Company

Walter Isaacson sits down with Pulitzer Prize-winning historian and renowned legal scholar Annette Gordon-Reed, who argues looking at history’s great leaders is the best way to understand divisions over race, gender and partisanship- what she calls “the American dilemma.”
Originally aired on December 11, 2018.
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Subscribe to the Amanpour and Company. channel here: bit.ly/2EMIkTJ
For more from Amanpour and Company, including full episodes, click here: to.pbs.org/2NBFpjf
Like Amanpour and Company on Facebook: bit.ly/2HNx3EF
Follow Amanpour and Company on Twitter: bit.ly/2HLpjTI
Watch Amanpour and Company weekdays on PBS (check local listings).
Amanpour and Company features wide-ranging, in-depth conversations with global thought leaders and cultural influencers on the issues and trends impacting the world each day, from politics, business and technology to arts, science and sports. Christiane Amanpour leads the conversation on global and domestic news from London with contributions by prominent journalists Walter Isaacson, Michel Martin, Alicia Menendez and Hari Sreenivasan from the Tisch WNET Studios at Lincoln Center in New York City.
#amanpourpbs

[@annettewilson1996]

During this pandemic, I’ve spent time reviewing KZbin videos on our past presidents. Most of the videos were from cspan. I came to Andrew Jackson and that’s where I came across Annette Gordon Reed. I can’t get enough of her. I want to know more. She’s teaching me our great history and I have a much better understanding of why our country is where it’s at today. Thank you. Annette Wilson

[@christenasmalls6118]

I always enjoy listening to historians who get it right. We have never been blood and soil but americans.

[@tiaturnbullchampionscoachi9587]

I was glad to hear your explanation of " blood and soil." When I heard it, it stood out but I did not understand what exactly it meant so I am glad that he asked. It was good to hear how it relates to America. That we have always been a country of ideals when other countries may be more about blood and soil. To hear you say it is validating so that when in discussion I can stand firm to say it is meant to be that here, in this place, we live by ideals. To take it for granted that in this place, this is how we treat each other, according to ideals of equality and inherent birth right as human beings. I am well aware that there are people here who have and still act as if ( always for the sake of themselves) they are entitled to be worthy of more than whoever they mentally deem as less than. But to clearly say that the intention here is to work toward living in the mission statement that all peoples are created equal and even though at the time of the writing of those words the country was not walking its talk that we can continue the journey toward moral integrity knowing that is the stated intention of the founding of this country. That is who we are as we learn to walk our own talk. That I don't have to debate about what presently is but I can stand firm in the intention with any individual and locate the content of their character by asking " Ideally regarding the equality of all people, if you could design it any way you want, how would you love to have all people live? What outcomes in living being demonstrated right now in your present circumstance would want to see for everybody? Their character will show through in their answer. If someone says " Id love to own a slave." Or " I just want to be rich and have servants." Or "I dont care" Or " It wasn't my fault." Or, just let me get on with my own life, this has nothing to do with me." Or "Those people over there are wrong." Or, I want to live in a place where even if you investigated you could not tell that there are any groups of people that are living in any ways; economically, institutionally, in relationship, friendship, ownership or any way as if one group is or has less than another." Or "I want to live in a place where the laws of the land and the peoples following them defacto where based on the veil of ignorance so no human beings are treated in inhumane ways because someone who was entitled to a higher position had no empathy for those they had positional power over. A place where people saw themselves in others and acted accordingly. As if this was happening to themself. Character shows in the answer to " What is it that you would want ideally?"

[@josephdankyang8503]

You're awesome!

[@makisov]

Ain't no "mistress" when it comes to a power differential that is Slave and Owner. The questions are leading to make it sound "not so bad"

[@ishualcharron]

Exactly

[@politereminder6284]

I like hearing her speak.

[@corytaylor2286]

So Jefferson kept his promise...loved this woman who manged his household and they sired children together and he supported and loved his family including his child?

[@autoklashkinov]

the young girl who would later grow up to become a woman who was never legally freed. Jefferson was as much of a monster as Josef Fritzel but at least Josef Fritzel went to prison for his crimes

[@ishualcharron]

This is not by any means if the imagination, a love story. She was enslaved by this man. Can you love another human being that own? I think not

[@ForbiddenFruitToS]

try selecting North American on an application ... its never an option but USA is but what is USA a business corporation of countries that went to war on America