William Tyler
The Indigenous Inhabitants of the Americas

William Tyler - The Indigenous Inhabitants of the Americas

- Thanks very much indeed, and welcome everyone who’s joined us this evening. And thank you, those of you who came through our course on the Habsburgs and Austria. I enjoyed doing it, and I hope many of you enjoyed listening. Now, over the next week or so, one of the themes we’ve locked down is going to be freedom. And I shall be exploring two historical studies of freedom this Monday and next Monday. Then I’m taking a fortnight’s break, whether it’s a dessert break or not, it’s not for me to say, but when I return for my break, I shall begin to tell the story of Russia from the time of the first tsars up to Putin. So that is very relevant of course at moment, but today it’s freedom, and its opposite, the loss of freedom. And the historical case study I’ve chosen for today is a story of the clash between European settlers in what has become today’s United States and the indigenous people already living across the whole continent of America. Now, I chose this study specifically not because I know many Americans are listening, and I apologise to Canadians, and I’ll say in a moment why I’m not talking about Canada and I apologise to Australians and anyone else who feels I should be talking about their country, but I chose to talk about what becomes a United States because unlike most other colonial and imperial Europeans, those English who first arrived in New England were themselves fleeing from what they saw as an oppressive state. That is to say early 17th century Stuart England. And they wanted to start again in what they called a virgin land, New England. And they sought and gained freedom. They wanted freedom of religion and freedom of politics. That’s what they sought and that’s what they obtained.

In most other European colonial situations, the Europeans came mainly and/or overwhelmingly for economic reasons, and that we all know in the story of European empires, they weren’t in the main going to seek freedom. Now, the story of Australia and the European British treatment of the Aboriginal people of Australia is I think the nearest parallel to the treatment of the indigenous tribes in North America, although if I say North America, that includes Canada. And in my estimation, Canada’s case is again distinguishable from the American case. It’s not the same. And that’s another complex story. And in an hour I can’t balance aboriginal Australians, Canadian, Canadian first peoples, and American indigenous tribes. So I’ve kept with America simply because, as I say, the English who first came in the 17th century sought freedom from the oppressive government at home. The Puritans who came never viewed the indigenous people they immediately encountered on arrival as their equal. At worst, they regarded them as savages, that was the 17th century word which was used, whose views counted for nothing at all. They never thought to ask. And at best, they saw the savages as ripe for conversion to Christianity. And you might say, well, that’s a perfectly valid, objectionable in our eyes, but a perfectly valid position in the 17th century. What is interesting is that view continued into the 18th century and the Age of Enlightenment both in Europe and America.

And Thomas Jefferson, Jefferson is so interesting in all of this, Jefferson with his slaves and his black mistress and so on. This is a wonderful book called, “America, Empire of Liberty” by David Reynolds. It’s on my blog. It’s on my list. I think this is a brilliant history of America. And in it, he has a great deal to say about indigenous peoples, but it’s a book about history of America in general. And Reynolds writes, “Unlike many frontiersmen who believe that the savages were incorrigible, Jefferson hoped they could be civilised and brought into the American way of life. He cherished the Enlightenment ideal of the noble savage, believing the Indian,” and this is Jefferson’s words, “to be in body and mind equal to the white man and judging the proofs of genius given by the Indians of North America place them on a level with whites in the same uncultivated state. Conurbation, in fact,” says Reynolds, “was the name of the game. Jefferson wanted to convert the Indian warriors from nomadic hunters into industrial farmers, thereby freeing their women folk for spinning and weaving instead of working the fields.” So the Enlightenment goes some way to addressing the views of the 17th century Puritans, but the 18th century Enlightenment is not a happy place. It’s still one based upon white supremacy. There is, of course, a distinct whiff more than a whiff of hypocrisy, coming from these godly men and women, the Puritans who landed in New England. How did they justify their view? Well, they justified the exploitation of this new environment, new to them, the new environment of new peoples and new lands.

They justified it with a verse from the Bible. And of course, it’s the Bible that was the centre of their lives. I’m using a book called, again, it’s on my blog, “An Indigenous Peoples’ History of the United States” by Roxanne Dunbar-Ortiz. And it’s, well, I think it’s a fantastic book. And you must make your own judgement . And I wanted to just give a little bit from the book, if I may, at this point. And Roxanne writes this. “The Christian Bible has a line in it that the Puritans seem to shape how they went into that wilderness that they found in New England. And it comes from Genesis, chapter 13, verse 15 in the King James Bible, which in English, which of course they brought with them. And the verse from Genesis reads in the King James Bible, ‘For all the land which thou seest, to thee will I give it, and to thy seed forever.’” And the Puritans believed that they were God’s appointed, and therefore that verse applied to them. And so in this virgin land, they could take and they could civilise the land and civilise the savages. That was the basis on which they were operating. That was their intellectual basis, if you like. And I’ve got a further little piece, quotation back. And this one goes like this. This is from an American historian who writes, “They did not settle a virgin land. They invaded and displaced a resident population. This is so simple a fact that it seems self-evident.” Well, it seems self-evident to us, but it was not self-evident to them, and I don’t think it was really self-evident to Thomas Jefferson either. But Roxanne Dunbar-Ortiz says this, she reminds us that actually, without the help of these savages, those early Puritans couldn’t have survived in this new wilderness at all. They simply would have died off. And of course we know at places like Roanoke Island, they did die off.

This is, to us, it seems incredible that they survived because of the help they were given by tribal peoples, but they still regarded them as savages. And they still believed that God had given them this land. After all, the savages did not accept a Christian God. So presumably a Christian God wouldn’t have given them that. Now, as I say today, we are aware of what we would describe as the hypocrisy of the Puritans, as we reassess European and indeed American empires. What I find interesting, however, is that in much earlier times, there were people who shared the views that the majority of us share in the 21st century. And I wanted to read a piece from the book that I used just now, David Reynolds’ book, “America, Empire of Liberty.” And it’s an interesting piece that he gives us to read. And he says this. Talking about the time of the American Revolution. “For the Indians, the Revolution was but another round in a dogged rearguard action to retain their lands and safeguard their way of life.” In other words, remove the colonial British, and you’re left with the American. Well, of course, they were the same people. They’re not likely to change their attitudes, are they? It stands to reason, just because one day they’re British and the next day they’re American. They have the same attitudes towards the indigenous people. And Reynolds says, “In 1783, the British government negotiated away the Western lands without consulting their inhabitants.” Now, this is the Treaty of Paris, which ends the Revolutionary War, as we call it in Britain, the War of American Independence. And we simply didn’t, we simply said, “The whole of the land is yours” to the Americans. I mean, nothing else we could do.

But some people in the British parliament thought we should do better for the indigenous people. Lord Walsingham in Parliament asked the question, “Why not stipulate for the return of the indigenous peoples and the peaceful possession of their native lands? Humanity interest policy requiring. He said, "The most solemn assurances have been given to these unhappy people from the crown, that they should be forever protected.” And he argued that these treaties ought to have been binding on our honour. They weren’t binding on British honour and they weren’t going to be binding on American honour either. They entered into treaties, many of them really not understanding what was going on, giving their lands away. They’re moved and resettled. They’re pushed ever further west out of the way of civilised society, you understand. But in 1783, a member of the British House of Lords said, “Hang on, this is not,” what were the words? “This is not required. What is required is humanity, interest, and policy.” Humanity. And that’s a very different concept to the one that’s going to be employed in what is now the United States in 1783, right through to the 19th century, right the way through. And he said, well, 1783, go forward 100 years, near enough, 1873. And a famous American, military man, General Sherman. Okay, well, surely by that time, we’ve gone through the American Revolutionary War. We’ve gone through the Enlightenment period. We’re now in the last quarter, pretty well, of the 19th century, so surely views are being at least watered down.

You would have thought so, but it’s not true. Now, I’m using America. Americans listening, don’t think this is only something that Americans did. The British are doing the same in Australia. The Germans are going to be doing it in South West Africa. The story is a terrible story of European and American imperialism. General Sherman said this about indigenous Americans. “We must act with vindictive earnestness against the Sioux, even even to their extermination, men, women and children. During an assault, the soldiers cannot pause to distinguish between male and female or even discriminate as to age.” Well, we’ve been horrified all over again with Putin’s troops acting in exactly the same way in the Ukraine. But this is American troops acting in that way in 1873 against fellow Americans. They don’t recognise them as such, of course. They’re still, in the eyes of people like Sherman, savages. So killing men, women, and children matters not. The Sioux can be exterminated. That’s the word he uses, like you would use of exterminating rats. Now, we have clearly moved on enormously in the last 150 years. Whilst the Americans in the 18th, the last part of the 18th century after independence and into the 19th century, knew about the phrase Empire of Liberty, the phrase that Jefferson wrote into the Constitution of America. It’s a fantastic phrase.

All of those, the Constitution, and all the documents around American independence are beautiful documents, beautifully written. An Empire of Liberty. But it wasn’t an Empire of Liberty if you were an indigenous American. And of course, it wasn’t, not my subject this evening, but it clearly wasn’t for black Americans either, even after the end of the Civil War and the abolition of slavery, the Empire of Liberty. It seems to me that Jefferson was perhaps of his time, but we might describe him today as hypocritical, but he was of his time. On the other hand, Jefferson was brilliant in the use of words and in a higher concepts, too. And the phrase Empire of Liberty must mean something in the 21st century, not only to American democracy, but to Western European democracy as well. We should be talking more about liberty, or to use the old English word, freedom. Just, there’s very little, people write academic essays distinguishing between freedom and liberty. I think, frankly, it’s not worth the effort. Freedom is an Anglo-Saxon word. And so we tend to use freedom in Britain. Liberty was a normal French word introduced into the English language in 1066 and used by the Americans because it was a word around at the time in the 18th century, of course. And the French use it with “Liberté, Égalité, and Fraternité.” So it means one and the same thing. An empire of freedom and Empire of Liberty. That is what the West is now talking about in the light of the Russian-Ukrainian war. So did these indigenous peoples, these tribal peoples in what became the United States, simply not resist?

Did they just simply sit back and accept the fact that they became third-rate citizens and were pushed, were not even citizens, of course? There isn’t full citizenship granted in America to indigenous peoples until the 20th century in 1924. 1924. That’s less than 100 years ago. Less than 100 years ago. 100 years ago, indigenous Americans did not have full citizenship. So is it surprising that they resisted all the way through? No, it isn’t. The United States Bureau of the Census reported in 1894, that’s four years after the massacre at Wounded Knee. They reported in 1894, “The Indian wars under the government of the United States have been more than 40 in number.” More than 40 in number. And he’s not talking about pre-independence colonial America. He says, or the report says, “Under the government of the United States, had been more than 40 in number. They have cost the lives of about 19,000 white men, women and children, including those killed in individual combats. And the lives of about 30,000 Indians.” They’re still using that terminology. “The actual number of killed and wounded Indians must be very much higher than the given. 50 percent additional would be a safe estimate.” One of the worst episodes of all was distributing blankets to tribes and the blankets were infected with serious disease, which they knew about, and it was a way of killing off Native Americans.

So when it says, “Indians must be very much higher than the given, 50 percent additional,” you can add a lot more to the 50 percent additional that the census in 1894 chose. Now, I want to do two things now. First of all, I want to tell you about one particular resistance to white America in the early 19th century. And the second is I want to tell you a story from, in mediaeval European terms, from the 11th century to the 15th century, to give us a different perspective in terms of indigenous peoples in the States. I’m going to take you to the 1830s and to the Cherokee. Now, the Cherokee had taken on board that the 13 English colonies had fought a war for independence and freedom from Britain and had succeeded in seceding from Britain and establishing the United States. And they applied the same logic to their position, believing themselves, which was true, to be subservient and having lost their freedom to the United States. In the 1830s, this is 30 years before the Southern states of the Confederacy seceded from the Union. In the 1830s, a Cherokee tribe attempted to secede from the United States and establish their own nation. Now, they were led by a man called John Ross, whose father was a Scottish trader and whose mother was a Cherokee. So he’s got a foot in both worlds and therefore is ideal, person to negotiate on behalf of the Cherokee with the government in Washington. He lived in what was then called Ross’s Landing and is now the city of Chattanooga. Now, David Reynolds writes in a number, he writes beautifully of this, but he writes this to begin with.

I wanted to read. “Ross became a natural negotiator,” as I said, “for his people in Washington, encouraging them to stand up for their rights while assimilating to American ways. The Cherokees adopted many features of American politics, including a two-house legislature and a judicial system. And on the Fourth of July, 1827, they formally declared their independence from the United States, adopting a constitution modelled on that of the founding fathers.” Now, that’s a story that many people outside America will not have heard. And there may be some in America who haven’t heard it. It goes on. If I may, if I may go on. “The Cherokee independence was outrageous to the people of Georgia. The Indians would constitute a state within a state, an imperium in imperio, they said in that, a state within a state, a little empire within the greater American empire. To make matters worse, to make matters worse, in 1828, gold was discovered on Cherokee land. That December, Georgia state legislature passed a law affirming that all the Cherokees came under its jurisdiction. Since the Cherokees claim their sovereignty under treaties negotiated with the federal government, the clash of state versus nation had to be decided in Washington.” Well, to put much money on the Cherokees winning the argument in Washington, well, of course not. “On a personal level, President Jackson,” says Reynolds, “was capable of great kindness to the Indians.” Yes, that’s true. “He was having none. Nothing to do with Cherokee secession.” As Reynolds says, “The rights of Georgia as a state took precedence over the treaties signed between the Indians and the federal government.”

Same as the treaty signed between Indians and the British government, they’re worthless pieces of paper, as far as America is concerned. And the Cherokees were removed west of the Mississippi. The federal government used soldiers to gather up all the Cherokee people and take them to the west. They had inadequate supplies, and 4000 Cherokees died in what became known as the Trail of Tears, a trail that other tribes are subsequently to follow in the 19th century. 17,000 Cherokees were removed from their home, together with 2000 enslaved black Americans. The Cherokees had 2000 black slaves move with them. History is never what you want it to be. So in the woke age in which we live, you might want the Cherokees to be absolutely blameless and the federal government absolutely guilty. And here in the 1830s, we have the Cherokee holding thousands of black slaves. Nothing is ever, ever, in history, how you would like it to be. It’s untidy and nasty. And it makes the whole question far more complex. But I wanted to finish with a quotation from, not a quotation, a comment from Reynolds. Now, if you’ve listened to nothing so far this evening, listen to this bit, particularly if you’re American. “Had the Cherokee succeeded and left the United States and form their own country, had the Cherokee succeeded, the consequences could have been momentous.

The United States might have developed into a much looser structure, almost a confederation, with a clear message that union did not mean uniformity.” In other words, the secession of the southern states 30 years later might well have succeeded. But that did not happen, of course. The fate of the Indians in the 1830s prefigured that of the southern confederacy three decades later. The Americans listening tonight must ask themselves, is that debate finished and over? I don’t mean about the Cherokee or the southern states particularly. I mean, is the question of a federal uniform United States secure? Or will there be, as it has been in California, moves again towards secession? And in order to hold American democracy together, maybe America has to, now there’s something to consider, rewrite its constitution. To have a confederation rather than a federation. In a confederation, the states become more important than the federal government. That would be a massive change. But are we absolutely certain that what we see as America today is what America will look like in a hundred years? I pose the question. I’m not answering it. I just find the question intriguing. Now at this point in my story, I want to mention what the Americans will know, but which some people outside of America may not know. There were examples of very organised indigenous societies long before Europeans ever put on the continent. And the one most often quoted are the Iroquois and the Iroquois League. And some maintain that some elements of the Iroquois government were absorbed into that of the United States. Be that as it may, I want to take them back to about 1050, the sort of time of the Battle of Hastings in England in 1066. And then a civilization grew up along the banks of the Mississippi. The so-called Mound people, M-O-U-N-D, Mound people.

So called because they built numerous mounds, very large mounds, for a variety of different purposes. And they had a great city called Cahokia. There’s a book about Cahokia on my reading list. Cahokia today is part of greater St. Louis. Cahokia at its height, in what is the European Middle Ages, had a population of 20,000. It was larger at times than London, and it flourished until 1400. We think it collapsed because of incoming peoples from the south. And it broke up into various tribes who kept the story alive as oral tales right through into the 19th century. The author of the book “Cahokia,” Timothy Pauketat, writes this. And I want to share two things. First of all, this. “Explaining America’s history is contingent on understanding its complex indigenous history. And that in turn depends on understanding pre-Columbian America’s experiment in civilization. A unique blend of church and state, locals and immigrants, male and female narratives, and foreign ideas of local traditions that gave it an expansionist quality archaeologists are striving to understand.” We think the Cahokia civilization had moved up from Central and South America, the Aztecs, Incas, and so on. We think that’s the way that it came. And it disappeared in the 15th century. The mounds existed, because they still exist today. I’m sure some of you who are American have visited the site of Cahokia. I’d love to do that. It’s meant to be absolutely staggeringly interesting. But, in the book, “On the History of the City.” We read, “In the 1800s, 19th century, most Americans knew that the ancient earth mounds being destroyed.” They were being destroyed as St. Louis was being built. They’d not all be destroyed by any means. “The ancient earth and mounds being destroyed were the works of human hands.

But surprisingly few suspected that they’d been built by American Indians. Some believe that a lost race of civilised non-Indian mound builders had constructed these impressive tumuli. These mysterious mound builders, 19th century Americans thought, must have been wiped out by later war-like American Indians. Or perhaps they migrated to Mexico to the civilizations of the Aztec and Maya.” No, absolutely not. How interesting that in the 19th century, white Americans could not conceive that there had been such a huge, great civilization to rival anything in Europe at the time there on the banks of the Mississippi. It says stop on my sheet of paper that’s thrown on the floor. It means pause, because I now want to move to what I think is the biggest divide between the European arrivals and the tribal indigenous people. The biggest divide is their conception of land. The same applies to the Australian Aboriginals and the same applies to the First Nations in Canada. How you view land. Dunbar-Ortiz writes very clearly in the opening page of her book, the following, “Everything in American history is about the land. Who oversaw it and planted crops on it, fished its waters, maintained its wildlife, who invaded and stole it, how it became a commodity, real estate, broken into pieces to be bought and sold.” She goes on to say the following. “To this day, the indigenous peoples, for them, the land and its resources are home and exist for the common good of the people who share it. Particular places might hold spiritual or religious significance, but any indigenous nation, such as a place mentioned in an origin story, or where ancestors are buried. Such areas are considered sacred and the people treat them with reverence. Europeans had no such connections to North American land.

To them, the land was a commodity to be acquired and sold for the benefit of individuals.” And then she adds this, “With utter disregard for the indigenous ways of thinking about the land, both sacred and non-sacred, the colonisers view all the land and resources they saw as things to own and to exploit.” To own and to exploit. “They believe that their God told them it was theirs for the taking,” we’re back to Genesis, “even if that meant blood would be spilled.” The settlers called it Virgin land. They called it Freeland. And that they did to encourage new immigrants, new immigrants to come and to travel ever further westwards across the continent. And one final thing from her book. “This idea came to be called by Americans manifest destiny, the belief that English speaking Americans were destined to spread their presence and their ideals across the entire continent. Manifest destiny was the banner under which the homelands of indigenous people would be taken.” It’s no different, manifest destiny, from the verse from Genesis that the Puritans spoke about. Is this a justification for moving westwards and taking lands, the ever expanding frontier that is central to American history. In 1852, a government report on the Indians of Southern California, a federal government report, 1852, on the Indians of Southern California, explained quote, the quote from the report, “Many Californians believe destiny had awarded Californians to the Americans of the valley, and that if the Indians interfered with progress, they should be pushed aside.” 1852.

Not much different than the attitude of the Pilgrim Fathers, all those centuries before manifest destiny. And again, let me make clear this is not, I hope everyone knows me well enough now, this isn’t anti-American. This is an anti-European statement about colonies and empires. It just is seems to me to be a specific case in America, where both the Puritan believed in freedom and free land and virgin land and subsequently the Americans did as well, they’re the same people who are pushing westwards. David Reynolds gives an example of how manifest destiny, what it meant in practise, and he gives an example, just a short example from the state of Oklahoma. And he writes this, “On the 22nd of April, 1889, an estimated 50,000 people flooded out across a million acres of free land.” These are white immigrants to America. 50,000 people. You have to think in terms of a sporting occasion to get 50,000 people in your head. 50,000 people flooded out across a million acres of free land. “Except,” says Reynolds, “Oklahoma wasn’t truly free. Oklahoma’s name comes from two Indian words meaning red people, because back in the 1830s, the area had been set aside as reservations for Indian tribes, evicted from their lands, east of the Mississippi.” Exactly what had happened to the Cherokee in the 1830s. This is 1889. “But the inexorable march of America’s Empire of Liberty could not be stopped. With settlers, ranchers, and railroads, all eyeing these unassigned lands, the federal government evicted the Indians yet again, setting up the land rush of 1889.” Doesn’t matter whatever agreement you have with native indigenous tribal people, you can tear it up in Washington, as they tore it up in London prior to independence. They don’t care, you see. And we can always push them off, shove them somewhere else. Things begin to improve by I suppose the middle of the 20th century. My God, it’s taking time. As I said, they gain full citizenship in 1924.

But we know from other studies, or black Americans, how having a vote does not necessarily mean you can cast your vote. One American historian has put efforts by states and municipalities to disenfranchise Native Americans are ongoing, such that there have been 74 cases brought by on behalf of Native Americans since 1965. These in the most part have proved to be successful in upholding the rights of Native Americans as citizens in the United States, and the right to vote. If you were, if this was a live audience, I’d ask the Americans, can you name the three states that have been brought before the courts on this issue. They’re states with large reservations, Oklahoma, Arizona, New Mexico. Prejudices take a long time to shift across a people, a nation. Prejudices, reinforced by a view of yourselves as different from others take even longer. Manifest destiny. The frontier concept. The Empire of Liberty. When it did American history as a child, we did not touch on indigenous Americans, indeed we did not touch on black Americans. We did discuss the Civil War but it was almost in isolation, some military thing. We’ve come a long way. We have. In 1968, indigenous Americans living in cities founded in Minneapolis the American Indian Movement. And they sought to address issues like poverty and discrimination, which indigenous Americans were meeting in the cities, no different than black Americans. And this was a result of the 1956 legislation, Indian Relocation Act. This was pushing indigenous Americans out of reserves into cities, and to be frank, in 1956 it looked a good and positive thing to do to give opportunities for work, to take them out of poverty.

But in fact, they landed up in the poverty in the cities, an environment that was alien. Since 1968, the American Indian Movement, AIM, has led protests identifying particular interests and issues that they have. It’s monitored police activities. Well, there we are, think about black Americans. It’s coordinated employment programmes in cities and back on the rural reservations. It’s also pushed for education reform. And it’s linked with indigenous peoples outside of the United States. But perhaps, perhaps one of the most important things it’s done is cultural renewal. Is cultural renewal. In the very short history series, published by Oxford University Press, Perdue and Green write this, right at the end of the book. “Cultural sovereignty. Now cultural sovereignty means that you keep your own culture. The sovereignty is in your culture. Cultural sovereignty is possible now, because since the 1970s, native people have expanded their exercise of tribal sovereignty, and they have gained a degree of economic autonomy. As long as Indian tribes were powerless, non-Indians could use native images for their own purposes.” Non-Indians could use native images for their own purposes. So in the States, for example, there’s been controversy around using indigenous American symbols for schools and tea mascots. And in 2020, the Washington Redskins had to retire their name and their logo. And that spilled over into Britain, where a rugby team in the South West Britain in Devon, the Exeter Chiefs had to deal with a campaign to get rid of the name Chiefs. It was an Indian chief, because an Indian chief with a headdress and so on was their logo. But so far, they’ve resisted getting rid of it, simply because in Britain, without indigenous Americans living here, it doesn’t have the same thrust as if it was something to do with black British people. But in America, it does have a resonance.

Now, I’ve written on my blog long before, and I’ve said before to you, where within a community, a group of people living within that community feel harmed by something like that, insulted by it. It’s not for the majority of the community, in my view, not to recognise that. So in my home city of Bristol, when they toppled the slavers statue of Edward Colston, I approved of that, because it was an insult to many black Bristolians, and there’s lots of black Bristolians. Now, when I was a child, there were virtually no black Bristolians, we were all white. The situation has changed. In America, I can see why that should be offensive. And I would be with those demanding its removal, not on the grounds of anything other than it’s offensive to those people that it portrays who are part and integral to American life today. In the same way that I wouldn’t insult my neighbour in any way, because we’re neighbours. But I can also see why Exeter Rugby Club in Britain resist it, because it doesn’t have the same resonance. Now, it was raised by historians, interesting enough, historian of the indigenous peoples in North America. What I can’t find out is whether he was American or British. I think he was British, but I don’t I’m not sure about that. Let me read on. “In the last quarter of the 20th century, however, Indian people empowered themselves through political activism and economic development. We can see the result of these efforts in literature, the arts, popular culture, and education. At the beginning of the 21st century, Indian people speak for themselves. And the Americans were put in right, if I’m wrong, but there is now an American senator who is an indigenous American. Things are changing. And of course, here in Britain and in the States, there’s a lot of interest in the views of indigenous people around the world, Amazon, for example, but also particularly in North America and Canada.

The views of indigenous people in terms of the environment. We’ve already seen that indigenous people’s view of land was different than European. So was their view of the environment. And we’re now trying to, as we’re threatened by the collapse of our environment globally, we’re looking to see how we might steward it better. And we look at how indigenous peoples steward it and what their motivations were, which were and are important. But David Reynolds points out this, and it is an important thing to me, I think it’s very important. "Of course, however, we should not romanticise Native Americans as proto-greens, in contrast with the ecologically destructive Europeans. However, many of the more settled tribes did have a keen sense of their dependence on the natural order, which was expressed in their animist religion and in folk myths handed down to the present day. The earth is alive. All things of value come out of the earth, runs one such indigenous story. And yet here we are disturbing the earth, occupying and planting on it all through our lives. Well, the earth can get annoyed because we disturb it. We go back and forth, the market on it, and we get drunk on it. But we don’t give the earth any beer. That is the reason that she forsakes us and doesn’t want to produce.” So make sure you give the earth in your garden some beer. As I pointed out that the Cherokee had black slaves with them when they went on the Trail of Tears, so we must be reminded that the indigenous peoples of the world aren’t gods when it comes to the questions of the environment. After all, the Americans, indigenous people, gave us so many crops that they had agriculturally grown. And there were far fewer of them than there are Americans today. Well, that’s obvious. So as I said before, nothing is ever clear cut in this.

What message do we get from it? Well, my message we get from it, is that, in any country in the world, America, Canada, Britain, Australia, Israel, wherever, we have a duty, do we not, to treat everyone equally, provided they abide by the laws of the land, and provided the laws of the land to give them that equality that they seek. And freedom is the freedom to act only within the law, not freedom to act outside the law. A very interesting American historian, Charles Sanford, in 1961, wrote a book called, “The Quest for Paradise: Europe and the American Moral Imagination.” Now, think about this, this is not a simple quote. It’s only one sentence, but it’s complex. “The Indians presented a reverse image of European civilization, which helped America establish a national identity that was neither savage nor civilised.” The Indians presented a reverse image of European civilization, which helped America establish a national identity that was neither savage nor civilised. Think about the attack on the Capitol Building. We would like in the West to think of ourselves as civilised people. But there are limits to how civilised we are, not just in America, but across the West. The focus is easier in America, because that’s why I took this story. Do you remember what Gandhi is reported to have answered when he was asked the question, what he thought about Western civilization? Sometimes it’s said what he thought about America. I don’t think that’s true. It’s what he thought about, what, Mr. Gandhi, do you think about Western civilization? To which Gandhi answered, “I think it would be a good idea.” I’m going to stop there. I think we’re nearly through to half past, and that’s a good place to stop. I’m sure I’ve got lots of Americans who want to come on and say, “You’re wrong. It isn’t like this. You’re wrong, you’re wrong, you’re wrong.” So I hope we’re going to have some interesting questions.

Q&A and Comments:

Q: No, could I elucidate differences between, clan, tribe, and nation?

A: Well, you’ve done it. It’s a gradation. And you can break down a nation into tribe and into clan if it’s large enough. Sorry, I didn’t, that sounded a bit dismissive, Guido, but that’s that’s the answer.

Oh, someone’s looking forward to the Russian series. Well, that yes. Now, what I’m doing next. And what I’m doing next Monday is freedom. And I’m talking about freedom, unfreedom and freedom in terms of the three Baltic states of Estonia, Latvia, Lithuania. And I’m talking about them from the 1917 Russian Revolution until 2022 when they’re petrified that the Russians may wish to take the three Baltic states, or Putin wishes to take them back.

Oh, Thelma, that’s nice. You’re from Philadelphia. Yeah, we all know Philadelphia is place in America’s story. And I’m very interested in this topic. Mexico is part of North America.

Yeah. I love the course on the hat. Michael has put, oh, Michael, Michael corresponds with it.

“The goal of converting the savages,” someone comments, “in Canada, continues shamefully into the 20th century. Yeah, we’ve had all that horrendous story of Catholic institutions in Canada. As I say, this is not solely an American story. It is not simply a Canada-American story. It’s not even simply a British imperial story. It’s an imperial colonial story of Spanish, the Portuguese, the Belgians. Look at the Belgians in the Congo, the French, the Portuguese, everybody, Italians, Germans. This is about the West. And we are only now beginning, we’re only now beginning to talk objectively about European and American empires.

Q: Oh, what is the derivation of the word America?

A: Don’t ask me, Jack, because I’m a Bristolian. It’s named after a Bristolian. But that’s another story. It’s a long, long story, is that. And my version is not one that you would like. But it said, yet somebody said to me, go this book, yes, well, you’re not a Bristolian.

There’s evidence on a document of the 16th century. Sorry, of the 15th century that it comes from a Bristol sailor. That’s a long story. Oh, well done. And thank you, Anita, for answering Talia’s question.

"The Indigenous People’s History of the United States,” By Roxanne Dunbar-Ortiz. I think it’s a brilliant book, particularly for those of us who perhaps don’t know so much as others of us know. Yes, the quotation from Genesis is exactly, Peter. You’re absolutely right. As used by Jews. Remember that Puritan evangelical Christians have this concept as in Judaism, that they are a chosen people. The people who went from England to the New World believe themselves chosen. It’s why none of them could ever go back, because otherwise God had failed, because God couldn’t fail. And so they had to stick it out, however awful it was, because to go back wasn’t they had failed, it was God failed. So God was never going to fail. And they will just simply tough it out.

Yes, what became New York was New Amsterdam. Yes, New York named after James Duke of York, later James II. And of course, South Africa was very Dutch until the British moved in and we all know what happened there.

Yes, absolutely. Alan, you’re all making the point of how wide an issue this is. Alan writes, “Architects of apartheid in South Africa were also guided by the Bible.” Absolutely true.

Susan writes, “Not much better today, Wounded Knee hardly solved the issue.”

Q: What is the animal of mine?

A: Yeah, this one. It’s a giraffe. It’s a giraffe. Can I move him in the picture? He’s a giraffe. I’ve had the grandchildren, or one of the grandchildren here today, so things got moved around a bit.

Oh, Arlene. Oh, dear, I majored in history. Oh, dear. In one of the best colleges in the US. Oh, dear, I’m in trouble now. Sadly, until about 20 years ago, long after I graduated, I had little knowledge of what was done to Native Americans. I was aware of what happened to slaves and immigrants. The entire situation is shameful. Well, yes, but it’s also shameful in, I was educated up to the age of 13 in the city of Bristol, which was the heart of the slave trade. We were never taught about the slave trade. Never.

Ethel, “Ken Burns’ new documentary on Ben Franklin starts on PBS in Buffalo, New York.” And Jackie replies, “We have PBS here in the UK on free view. So hopefully it will air here soon.” Yes, it’s, I often look at stuff on PBS. That’s here.

Oh, Judith. That’s important. “I believe the story of the infected blankets is being disproved, at least in the prairies, says a professor in Saskatchewan. But the government was inert when it came to inoculating the tribes against smallpox.” Thanks for that.

Rose, “Tragically, Canada was culpable in indigenous atrocities. And of course, the Catholic Church was part of this disgrace.” That’s why the Canada story is different, because of Catholicism, because of Quebec and Québécois. That changes the story in Canada. The tribes are trying to recover from the shocking. So the other thing that’s very different in Canada are the Inuit in the north, and the way that Canada has dealt with that in recent years, which is.

Q: Will the Pope assist the indigenous people after his verbal apology?

A: I doubt it.

Q: What is the book starting with America?

A: “America, Empire of Liberty” David Reynolds. Oh, when somebody’s put that, thank you. You’re absolutely right. “America, Empire of Liberty” by David Reynolds. I think that is, personally, I think it’s an excellent, an excellent book.

Q: Well, how did the Cherokee come to have slaves like everyone else? They bought them. Did they buy them?

A: They bought them in slave auctions, straightforwardly. The Cherokee were very integrated, very early. In fact, the Cherokee had citizenship in America, not in 1924, but in 1812. They were quite different. They were seen as civilised and civilised men. They could buy slaves. No, they were slaves. They weren’t living in peace with honour. No, they certainly weren’t. They were slaves.

Q: Oh, how many white slaves?

A: Well, that’s a different issue. It’s not right to use the term, Joe. I think white slaves, they had white prisoners, many of whom accepted life amongst the indigenous people. And there’s well documented cases of that. One has to say that some white women, how do I put this gently? Rather fancy the indigenous American men, but we won’t go through that. I’m only allowed to talk about such things in England after nine o'clock at night, which we call the watershed, when we can talk about things like that on the television. So it’s not nine o'clock yet, so I can’t.

Confederation in Canada has been ill adapted to the challenges of the 21st century. Yeah, you see, this is the problem, Harriet, with democracy. I’m aware that there’s a lot of concern in Canada about how their democracy is working. There’s a lot of concern in Britain about how our democracy is working. There’s a lot of concern in the states about how their democracy is working. We are at a crossroads and it may be that Confederation isn’t an answer. But if Confederation is an answer and Federation is not an answer, then we are moving towards a balkanization in Canada and America. balkanization, breaking up into smaller parts.

Q: If one regards, and this is absolutely correct use of language, if we regard America as an empire, then at some point all empires implode. Is America going to be different than all others?

A: To use the word empire for Canada is a bit more tricky because it was within the British Empire. But you could make an argument that it also could break apart. Now I’m not saying it will, but I’m saying that logically that could happen.

Martin, Martin, hello. Is that a wish that say you should have been allowed to continue something? Oh, Mona, he’s answering Mona. What did the South have succeeded to secede? And Martin says, “Is that a wish at slavery?” Should I not get involved in that?

In the 1960s, a section of the civil rights movement wanted a separate state. Yeah, well, how did the mounds physically fit into the lives of the mound people? I think the true answer is we don’t actually know. Mainly they were used for, well, my son read archaeology at university, and he said, “When archaeologists don’t know an answer, they always say ‘for ritualistic purposes.’” And if you read American archaeologists about the mound people, it is for ritualistic purposes. But I think they also use them for markets and so on. We simply don’t know.

Sheila, I can think of one other group that actually fled Europe to escape religious persecution, French and Flemish Huguenots, after the revocation of the Edict of Nantes in 1688, not only fled here, but some went to the Dutch colony in the Cape of Good Hope. There’s parts of the Afrikaner people, they were part of colonisation, land expropriation, the development of the apartheid system in South Africa. Brilliant, Sheila. That’s absolutely, you’re absolutely correct. And it was not an example that crossed my mind as I was preparing this. You’re absolutely right. French and Flemish Huguenots went to South Africa and were absorbed by the Boers into the Afrikaner culture.

Q: Hans says, “Where did the enslaved Africans come from and who brought them?”

A: I think you’re asking about the Cherokee. Well, there’s no difference between the Cherokee and a white slave owner. They were brought from Africa, they were put on sale, and they bought them there. Jonathan says, all that would be a wonderful if you were doing an essay for me, I think I’d borrow Jonathan’s comment. “Andrew Jackson was the epitome of presidential racism and genuine cruelty.” Comment. That’s that’s going on about Hugo.

Q: Don’t you think that manifest destiny is Putin’s deeply held opinion, just a little late, like the Germans and Italians and African colonisation?

A: No, I don’t. Manifest destiny in America is really the same Puritan view that this is a land that God has given. And this is a land that must multiply, that it must be made profitable. And that’s all very biblical. And the savages must be converted to Christianity. And as Jefferson said, must be put to work in a civilised, i.e., European way. What Putin is about is recreating an empire, an empire which Russia has lost and which he wants to recover. It’s as though America was invading the Philippines or Britain was invading Kenya. It’s about an empire. The fact that the Russian empire is a contiguous empire, that is to say, unlike the British, which is all the dots around the world, the Russian empire is simply one continuous landmass. The American empire, remember, is different. You can describe America as an empire in terms of the Empire of Liberty, that is the USA as we know it. But in terms of the 19th century, I’ve already mentioned the Philippines. You can mention all sorts of other places as well that the Americans went, at least China, for example. But the Russian is nevertheless an empire in the traditional European sense.

Q: Can you see what contribution existing, made to civilization? That’s Austin. “Can you see what contribution existing indigenous tribes existing there made to civilization?”

A: Well, the whole environmental question is embraced forever by the indigenous peoples if we’re talking about America. And that is a lesson other people are learning. I don’t know whether I can quickly put my hand on a book. Yes, I can. Would you just excuse me while I lean across to my library opposite. This is a book written by a lady who is American, but she’s indigenous American. The book is called “Gathering Moss: A Natural and Cultural History of Mosses.” Now, in this book, I think this, I don’t understand the science of the book at all. But in this book, “Gathering Moss,” it’s a book about moss. But in it, she talks about things in a very indigenous American way, is the only way I can express it. I found the book absolutely fascinating, “A Natural and Cultural History of Mosses.” But I’m weird about the books I read. “Gathering Moss” by Robin Wall Kimmerer. K-I-M-M-E-R-E-R. Now, this was printed in Britain, but she’s American. It was originally published in America. She’s written other books. And there may be an American who’s read her books. Robin Wall Kimmerer, “Gathering Moss.” That really answers the question that I was asked.

Q: How far do you think Hollywood, Western celebrate the genocide?

A: Well, they certainly did when I was a child. I don’t think you can make Westerns now like they did when I was a child, where all the Indians get shot and little boys like me cheered. You couldn’t do that.

Sherry says, “I do wonder how the breach between Americans can be solved. I find myself wondering what I have in common with Trump supporters. The answer is very little and the gap grows every day. I’m well past the point of trying to understand their views. We see the world through different lenses.” There is a problem. There’s a problem in America, but it’s a problem that the rest of us have in the Western world as well. It’s a crisis in democracy, as I talked about to some of you last week. There aren’t any easy answers. I don’t know what the answer is. I think one possible answer in America, and not one that I would favour, would be a breaking up of the of the union. I cannot begin to see how civil war, where some people have talked about coming to America. I think that’s nonsensical. I don’t think ever that would happen, but I can see, I can see breakaways, and we’re seeing that here in Britain with Scotland. We’re not going to go to war with Scotland, but I can see Scotland breaking away. We’re not going to go to war in North Ireland, but I can see North Ireland joining the Republic of Ireland. I can see all of that happening probably within my lifetime in Britain. Americans must answer that question for themselves.

Indigenous Taiwanese, Jeff, that’s brilliant, because the Taiwanese were overtaken by the Han Chinese. You’re right. And so they views are never held. We talk about Taiwan’s Chinese as though they’re Taiwanese. They’re not. They’re ethnically different. They’re not the Han Chinese. The Han Chinese came, as you rightly say, Jeff, with Chiang Kai-shek at the end of the Chinese Civil War in 1949. Gosh, I wish we could all meet, because you’ve got such wonderful things to add in. Oh, ah, okay. In 1970-71, I was on an archaeological dig at Cahokia. I think I pronounced it correctly. I tried. I looked it up on an American pronunciation site. At Cahokia Mound State Park in east St. Louis. It’s a very nice museum there now, which is well worth visiting. Oh, don’t make it worse for me. I would love to go. I would love to go. From Stuart, “The Indians Won” by Martin Cruz-Smith. I have not read that book, but I’ve read other books by Martin Cruz-Smith.

• [Judi] William?

• Yes? I’ve got to stop. I know.

• [Judi] I’d love you to carry on, but I don’t think we’ll be able to get through all these questions. There are so many. I can definitely send you a copy of all the questions tomorrow if you wanted to have a go through them. But do you want to take maybe one or two more and then that’s?

• I’ll take one or two more. Let’s see. Oh, sorry. I’ve got to, it’s gone back to the beginning again. I’ve got to come down a bit. I’ve got to come down pretty fast.

Oh, please repeat the third state with litigation other than New Mexico and Arizona. Oklahoma. Oklahoma. It was answered for you as well. Par for the course in America today making elections impossible for people of colour.

Q: Well, did they pay a part in the American Civil War?

A: No. They interestingly played a part in lots of wars between the French and the British, and remember the contribution that Native Americans made in World War II when they were used, when they used their own languages to communicate messages which the Germans were totally unable to break.

Q: How many estimated indigenous people in America?

A: I think it’s, I’d have to double check. I think the figure is 15 million.

Murna says, “I’m a Canadian expat in Arizona. Also, I think today American kids are not taught very much history at all.” That is exactly the same as the position in Britain. The teaching of history is, it’s not good. We need to teach history. We need to teach about our democracy and where it came from. I assign the land of your sojourning to you and your offspring to come over the land of Canaan. Well, that’s not the verse that the Puritans used from the English Bible or from Genesis, where it does not mention the land of Canaan. And anyhow, they would simply say the land of Canaan is North America. That’s what God is giving them. You have to remember if you’re Jewish that really evangelical Protestants are very committed to the idea of themselves as a select people, as God’s chosen. This is the phrase they use and they are very into the Old Testament, as Christians call it, the Talmud rather than the New Testament.

Oh, I didn’t know that Betty. Marlon Brando won the Academy Award. He refused to accept it in protest to the way indigenous tribes were treated at Wounded Knee. I did not know that. He goes up in my estimation.

“The programme ‘Outlander’ is now dealing with the American Revolution,” says Wilma. I know I can’t face watching that programme. It jangled me.

You know, Michael, let’s end with a criticism. You have neglected to mention many tribes in the United States, Canada, and nomadic people, which depended almost entirely for existence on the buffalo. Unfortunately, the slaughter of buffalo herds in the western part of the North American continent destroyed their way of life. Buffalo hunters killed millions of buffalo in the United States and Canada. The indigenous people are unable or unwilling to find new ways. Absolutely 100% right. I just didn’t have time to talk about the buffalo hunting and the appalling tragedy it did to the environment and the fact that buffalo now are being carefully reintroduced. In fact, there’s a move in Britain, at the moment taking place in the south east of Britain and Kent, to reintroduce European bison, same family as American buffalo, American bison, European bison. The only problem is, they may never have been in Britain in the first place, but that doesn’t stop we wilders bringing them in.

Cultural appropriation. Oh, dear. No, I can’t do that in a, I’m sorry, Harriet. That’s more than I can do in half a minute. The concept of cultural appropriation is such a difficult one.

Oh, dear. Yes, there’s indigenous people, were they moved when oil was discovered? There’s a row going on presently, I understand, in the States in Arkansas over that very issue.

Susan, “I’m an American, but sad to say from our founding, based on misogyny and racism, among other things, we white people have exhibited unimaginable hubris, brutality, and hypocrisy to all non-white.” It’s nothing to do with you being American. That came from Britain who was there. It’s kept. Remember that the British started scalping before independence. Native Americans, they got a bounty for killing quote unquote “savages.” Then it was discovered it was easier not to bring the bodies back, but just to bring the scalps back. And we had done scalping in Ireland, and scalping went from us to the indigenous Americans. I always find that extraordinary.

Let me finish with Betty who’s teaching me something, and then I’ll finish with this comment. “What can one say about the finding of so many bodies of indigenous children buried at the residential schools? These schools were run by the Catholic and Protestant Church, a shameful black mark on us Canadians, and do you know about the scoop where indigenous children were stolen out of their homes and adopted out to white families to such unhappy and tragic results?” No, I did not know about the school. That’s appalling. Well, we’ve not solve any problems. We may hopefully be a little better informed. And if we are a little better informed, maybe that can help us make our voices heard in wherever community we are for sensible, moderate, proper views to prevail. But we live in extremely difficult times and we must at all costs, avoid extremes. I feel, the older I get, the more concerned I am about the world that my grandchildren will inherit. And I guess many of you feel exactly the same, wherever you live. I’m going to stop there. Judi, that’s an appropriate point to start.

• [Judi] Thank you so much, William. And thank you to everybody who joined us, and we will see you all next week.