Charles Postel's guest appearances

Charles Postel

New Books in History

New Books in American Studies

The Historians

In Deep with Angie Coiro: Interviews

New Books Network

Reviving Growth Keynesianism

In Conversation: An OUP Podcast

Donald Trump

Elizabeth Cobbs

Adam Hochschild

Clayton Nall

Fred Ross

Herbert H. Lehman

Laszlo Borhi

Michael Cotey Morgan

Daniel Sharfstein

Ryan Hanley

Paul Beston

Aaron Carico

Iain MacGregor

Arthur Ashe

Antony G. Hopkins

OwlTail

Show #257 | Guest: Charles Postel | Show Summary: Charles Postel's new book, Equality: An American Dilemma, 1866-1896, compares and analyses today's wealth and power disparities in light of their origins in the Gilded Age of a century ago.  Charles Postel, Professor of History at San Francisco State Univerity, is also the author of The Populist Vision.

Show #257 | Guest: Charles Postel | Show Summary: Charles Postel's new book, <a href="https://us.macmillan.com/books/9781429946926" rel="nofollow" target="_blank">Equality: An American Dilemma, 1866-1896</a>, compares and analyses today's wealth and power disparities in light of their origins in the Gilded Age of a century ago. <a href="https://history.sfsu.edu/people/faculty/charles-postel" rel="nofollow" target="_blank">Charles Postel</a>, Professor of History at San Francisco State Univerity, is also the author of <a href="http://www.amazon.com/The-Populist-Vision-Charles-Postel/dp/0195384717" rel="nofollow" target="_blank">The Populist Vision</a>.

Charles Postel: Inequality, An American Dilemma

Ever wonder where the term “populist” came from? It came from “Populism,” a nineteenth/early twentieth-century American political movement. Of course the Populists weren’t really the “Populists,” they were the “People’s Party.” But even that isn’t a very good description. It would be better to call them the “Farmers’ Party,” because most of them were farmers. Most, but not all. A lot of them were urban types, and particularly union members. All this and more I learned from Charles Postel and his award-winning book The Populist Vision (Oxford, 2007). The Populists have a bad name (as does Populism, for that matter). It seems that historians erroneously branded them “backward-looking” because most of them were, well, farmers, and farmers are always “backward-looking” don’t you know. Charles does a terrific job of correcting this libel. The Populists were the farthest thing from “backward-looking.” By almost any contemporary measure, they were forward-looking. They favored market rationalization, labor organization, welfare, education, and even the emancipation of women. They also hated the Gold Standard, which is progressive in my book. There were some warts–the Populists generally favored racial segregation, which they viewed as progressive (so did a lot of other folks at the time). But they look pretty good in hindsight. Maybe we need a new People’s Party?Please become a fan of “New Books in History” on Facebook if you haven’t already. Learn more about your ad choices. Visit megaphone.fm/adchoicesSupport our show by becoming a premium member! https://newbooksnetwork.supportingcast.fm/history

Ever wonder where the term “populist” came from? It came from “Populism,” a nineteenth/early twentieth-century American political movement. Of course the Populists weren’t really the “Populists,” they were the “People’s Party.” But even that isn’t a very good description. It would be better to call them the “Farmers’ Party,” because most of them were farmers. Most, but not all. A lot of them were urban types, and particularly union members. All this and more I learned from <a href="http://www.csus.edu/hist/faculty/postel.html" rel="nofollow" target="_blank">Charles Postel</a> and his award-winning book <a href="http://www.amazon.com/dp/0195384717/?tag=newbooinhis-20" rel="nofollow" target="_blank">The Populist Vision</a> (Oxford, 2007). The Populists have a bad name (as does Populism, for that matter). It seems that historians erroneously branded them “backward-looking” because most of them were, well, farmers, and farmers are always “backward-looking” don’t you know. Charles does a terrific job of correcting this libel. The Populists were the farthest thing from “backward-looking.” By almost any contemporary measure, they were forward-looking. They favored market rationalization, labor organization, welfare, education, and even the emancipation of women. They also hated the Gold Standard, which is progressive in my book. There were some warts–the Populists generally favored racial segregation, which they viewed as progressive (so did a lot of other folks at the time). But they look pretty good in hindsight. Maybe we need a new People’s Party? Please become a fan of “New Books in History” on <a href="http://www.facebook.com/profile.php?id=1361072270#/pages/New-Books-In-History/23393718791?ref=ts" rel="nofollow" target="_blank">Facebook</a> if you haven’t already. Learn more about your ad choices. Visit <a href="https://megaphone.fm/adchoices" rel="nofollow" target="_blank">megaphone.fm/adchoices</a>Support our show by becoming a premium member! <a href="https://newbooksnetwork.supportingcast.fm/history" rel="nofollow" target="_blank">https://newbooksnetwork.supportingcast.fm/history</a>

Charles Postel, “The Populist Vision” (Oxford UP, 2007)

Ever wonder where the term “populist” came from? It came from “Populism,” a nineteenth/early twentieth-century American political movement. Of course the Populists weren’t really the “Populists,” they were the “People’s Party.” But even that isn’t a very good description. It would be better to call them the “Farmers’ Party,” because most of them were farmers. Most, but not all. A lot of them were urban types, and particularly union members. All this and more I learned from Charles Postel and his award-winning book The Populist Vision (Oxford, 2007). The Populists have a bad name (as does Populism, for that matter). It seems that historians erroneously branded them “backward-looking” because most of them were, well, farmers, and farmers are always “backward-looking” don’t you know. Charles does a terrific job of correcting this libel. The Populists were the farthest thing from “backward-looking.” By almost any contemporary measure, they were forward-looking. They favored market rationalization, labor organization, welfare, education, and even the emancipation of women. They also hated the Gold Standard, which is progressive in my book. There were some warts–the Populists generally favored racial segregation, which they viewed as progressive (so did a lot of other folks at the time). But they look pretty good in hindsight. Maybe we need a new People’s Party?Please become a fan of “New Books in History” on Facebook if you haven’t already. Learn more about your ad choices. Visit megaphone.fm/adchoicesSupport our show by becoming a premium member! https://newbooksnetwork.supportingcast.fm/american-studies

Ever wonder where the term “populist” came from? It came from “Populism,” a nineteenth/early twentieth-century American political movement. Of course the Populists weren’t really the “Populists,” they were the “People’s Party.” But even that isn’t a very good description. It would be better to call them the “Farmers’ Party,” because most of them were farmers. Most, but not all. A lot of them were urban types, and particularly union members. All this and more I learned from <a href="http://www.csus.edu/hist/faculty/postel.html" rel="nofollow" target="_blank">Charles Postel</a> and his award-winning book <a href="http://www.amazon.com/dp/0195384717/?tag=newbooinhis-20" rel="nofollow" target="_blank">The Populist Vision</a> (Oxford, 2007). The Populists have a bad name (as does Populism, for that matter). It seems that historians erroneously branded them “backward-looking” because most of them were, well, farmers, and farmers are always “backward-looking” don’t you know. Charles does a terrific job of correcting this libel. The Populists were the farthest thing from “backward-looking.” By almost any contemporary measure, they were forward-looking. They favored market rationalization, labor organization, welfare, education, and even the emancipation of women. They also hated the Gold Standard, which is progressive in my book. There were some warts–the Populists generally favored racial segregation, which they viewed as progressive (so did a lot of other folks at the time). But they look pretty good in hindsight. Maybe we need a new People’s Party? Please become a fan of “New Books in History” on <a href="http://www.facebook.com/profile.php?id=1361072270#/pages/New-Books-In-History/23393718791?ref=ts" rel="nofollow" target="_blank">Facebook</a> if you haven’t already. Learn more about your ad choices. Visit <a href="https://megaphone.fm/adchoices" rel="nofollow" target="_blank">megaphone.fm/adchoices</a>Support our show by becoming a premium member! <a href="https://newbooksnetwork.supportingcast.fm/american-studies" rel="nofollow" target="_blank">https://newbooksnetwork.supportingcast.fm/american-studies</a>