>> Michael Martys: Like to introduce Gal Beckerman from the New York Times Book Review and he will introduce our presentation today. [ Applause ] >> Gal Beckerman: Thank you and I guess let's get started. Let me introduce the two of you. Short introductions. If there's something in particular that you want me to-- that you want to elevate about yourself after I give these then you can jump in, but David Treuer is the author of "The Heartbeat of Wounded Knee". He's the author of novels as well as non-fiction and teaches literature and creative writing at the University of Southern California. And next to him is Colin Calloway. The book that we're talking about today is "The Indian World of George Washington". He's a Professor of Native American studies at Dartmouth College, and his book, "The Indian World of George Washington" was a finalist for the National Book Award in 2018. So let's just jump right into it. I have questions for each of you but I think there will be overlapping themes between the two books and between your, both of your work. David let me start with you. >> David Treuer: Okay. >> Gal Beckerman: So I want to start by talking about "Bury My Heart at Wounded Knee" which I understand was a, kind of a inspiration of sorts of you doing this book. It's a book that you write about kind of capturing a lot of hopelessness and poverty and squalor. Those are words actually in the book about the world that it's describing, the Native American world it's describing. In your book, self consciously, is a sort of corrective. So-- >> David Treuer: Yeah. >> Gal Beckerman: so talk a little bit about that. >> David Treuer: Yeah so I read Dee Brown's book "Bury My Heart at Wounded Knee" in 1990 when I was 20 years old. It was-- it happened to be on the hundredth anniversary of the Massacre at Wounded Knee. And Dee Brown's book was-- I mean Dee Brown was a really sympathetic, really vigorous champion, you know, of and for native people. And yet his book perpetuated a pretty accepted way of viewing native people and native history and native communities. He writes in the introduction to that book, my book starts in 1850 and I end in 1890 and I mostly cover the Plains Wars, a time of unparalleled greed and blah blah blah blah blah, and I end in 1890 at the Massacre at Wounded Knee where the culture and civilization of the American Indian was destroyed. Full stop. I'm a 20 year old kid who just got to college from Leech Lake Reservation where-- >> Gal Beckerman: Right. >> David Treuer: you know my mother's Ojibwe, I'm Ojibwe from Leech Lake Reservation. My father's not. And I just left my community which has its problems but it's not defined by only poverty and hopelessness and squalor. >> Gal Beckerman: Right. >> David Treuer: It's not defined-- you know our culture and civilizations are alive and fairly-- doing fairly well. And that story hadn't been told. The story of Native American life had not been told. Stories of Native American death, well we've heard those. And so I felt like there was a book missing. And Toni Morrison said that if there's a book you really want to read and it doesn't exist, it's up to you to write it. >> Gal Beckerman: Right. >> David Treuer: And so that stayed with me and stayed with me and I-- it felt imperative. It felt critical. Because now I have children of my own. It felt critical to provide something for them for myself and for the entire world that looked at the ways in which native folk have been making our own history, not just-- history is not just a litany of abuse. History is not just a list of things which we have somehow survived. But it's something we've made. And I felt like we needed that. >> Gal Beckerman: Right. And so that that wouldn't be the last word as well it sounds like. >> David Treuer: Right. So I like-- Dee Brown ends his book in 1890 and I begin mine in 1890-- >> Gal Beckerman: Right. >> David Treuer: and I bring the stories of native lives up to the present with the opposite thesis that 1890 wasn't the end, it was just a low point-- >> Gal Beckerman: Right. >> David Treuer: from which we've been emerging. >> Gal Beckerman: Right. So Colin, let's jump back 200 years and your book is about George Washington and his Indian world but I'm very-- you emerge with a quite nuanced picture of Washington on the issue of Native Americans. And it's not entirely the kind of bleak picture that I would have imagined. I mean partly it is, but there's this other kind of element. >> Colin G. Calloway: Right. Right. >> Gal Beckerman: So talk a little bit about kind of the realism and the even moral kind of elements of the way that Washington thought about Native Americans. >> Colin G. Calloway: Yeah. So actually a chilling moment here, David said he read "Bury My Heart at Wounded Knee" in 1990 and I realized I read it in 1970. [laughter] >> David Treuer: I'm just a kid. >> Colin G. Calloway: Thanks for that, David. >> David Treuer: You're welcome. >> Colin G. Calloway: But actually it reminds me that that shadow of that kind of history looms large backwards. And one of the reasons for doing this book about George Washington's time was I think it's-- those attitudes have shaped how we think about the earlier history, right? That Indians were defeated, they were dispossessed. Their story was over by 1890. So it was never going to-- there was never any real power and presence there in 1790 because we know how the story played out. It was very different. And I wanted to get that omnipresence and that power back into the picture. And Washington of course is the vehicle to do that and he became, for me, a much more interesting person than I'd expected and perhaps many of us think. I mean on the one level as a historian of Native American, for me he's the town destroyer. He's somebody who advocates and implements policies of cultural erosion. And there's a lot of bad stuff to lay at the feet of George Washington. And yet, having read so much of his correspondence with Henry Knox and other people, I can't say that that's all there is to it. He spends too much time and ink and energy worrying about what he would call the Indian problem. It's not the Indian problem, it's his problem and it's the United States' problem. And that is two things going on here. One, we're going to take Indian land, no question. The nation is predicated on the acquisition of Indian land. That is how the nation was going to be built. So that's never an issue for Washington. The issue is how do we do that and still look good, right? How do we do that and still maintain our honor as the new nation on the block, the democracy? We need to look good to the nations of the world. We need to look good to our own citizens. We need to look good to posterity. And he agonizes over that and of course he never reconciles that. But he wrestles with that in a way that some later presidents I think do not. >> Gal Beckerman: Is it just a question of looking good or was there a kind of element to the way Washington actually saw the native population that gave them-- that imbued them with a certain amount of rights or? I mean you have a, there's a letter that you quote from Henry Knox the Secretary of War in which he says Indians possess the natural rights of man. >> Colin G. Calloway: Yeah. >> Gal Beckerman: Which I was shocked to read because I wouldn't have imagined that that's the way they would have been thinking about those populations. >> Colin G. Calloway: Yeah. >> Gal Beckerman: I mean we're so, you know, now we're conditioned to understand that there was only a certain-- only white men were really who they were talking about when they talked about natural rights of men. So that was a kind of a shocking phrase to kind of see. >> Colin G. Calloway: Yeah. And I think one, one of the big questions for the United States at the end of the revolution when it's won its independence and it's won from the British all of this land which was not British land, is what will be the place of Indian people in this new republic? And I think for Washington, being able to carve out a place for Indian people is an important goal. But it comes with very clear provisions. And as his thinking and his Indian policy develops, there will be a place for Indian people in the new republic to the extent that Indian people live like Americans. >> Gal Beckerman: So a certain assimilation that would allow them-- >> Colin G. Calloway: Assimilation. And of course it's tied in to the larger goal of expansion because living like Americans, becoming civilized in Washington's mind and in the mind of Americans at that time, means following a sedentary way of life and practicing American style agriculture. Now, Indian people have been farming east of the Mississippi for hundreds of years but the wrong people are doing the farming. Women are farming. And in Washington's view, the men have to do the farming. And if the men do the farming and they spend their lives behind a plow, they need less land than they do if they're hunting. And that land will become less valuable to them as American settlers press on it. So we can help you. We can take that land off your hand and give it to deserving American farmers. So he's shaping a policy and a set of principles that should work hand in hand. And in his rosy glassed moments, Washington sees this as a possibly almost a natural process. That Indian people will give up their land as they make the transition to American way of life. And-- and that will be a good exchange, right? We will get their land and they will get the benefits of American civilization. And I think that's something that the founding fathers' generation wrestles with. In 1830 Congress answers that question, what will be the place of Indian people in the United States with the Indian Removal Act of 1830 where the answer is there will be no place-- >> Gal Beckerman: Right. Right. >> Colin G. Calloway: for Indian people in the United States. >> Gal Beckerman: Yeah. David, I'm curious as somebody who's-- you know there's a big chunk of your book in the beginning where you also do kind of a history-- >> David Treuer: Yeah. >> Gal Beckerman: leading up to that 1890 moment and kind of when you hear about the conversations that the founders were having, you know, how does that change your understanding of kind of the place of natives-- Native Americans in American history? >> David Treuer: Well I should say, yeah there's, my book starts in 1890 but then I realized I had to do a little back story. And so, I said well I should go back a little further because people need to know why 1890 looked like 1890. And so then I did a little more back story. [Inaudible] well no I should go further back and I ended up going back to 20000 B.C. [laughter] >> Gal Beckerman: Why stop there? >> David Treuer: As one does. My editor was very alarmed. [laughter] But I had a guide to help me through those-- that wilderness. And it was in fact Colin's work which I relied on so heavily to do the early parts, the early history parts of the book. So I just want to thank you in public for your work because it was hugely helpful-- >> Colin G. Calloway: Not 20000 B.C. [laughter] >> David Treuer: Not 20000 B.C. but a large part of it I was at sea and you provided so much direction so I really want to thank you for that. How do my feelings about sort of the founding fathers change? I don't-- I mean it's mixed. On one hand you know you have Mount Rushmore and everyone on there has killed Indians. So it's hard for me to dig it, you know? You have Jefferson writing Adams and he's like, you know, for my yeoman farmer, for my agrarian ideals to really work, we need land. And to do that we need to get it from Indians. And the best way to do that? Let's just sell them stuff and put them in debt. These are some secret memos he's writing I think to Adams. Let's get them in debt. Let's get them beholden to us and then to satisfy those debts well they'll just trade their land for what we need and they can go further west. So you have our founding fathers looking for ways to sort of disenfranchise-- I mean very consciously so-- native people. On one hand. And on the other, you know the early history shows us, and Colin's work shows us, and other people's work shows us, that native people weren't simply-- the question wasn't simply how are native people going to resist or defy or survive the American experiment, but that the American experiment ended up shifting and changing in relation to native people. And native people ended up shifting and changing in relation to America. And that all of us have kind of ended up growing up together. We have-- native people have shaped this country. Fundamentally determined its shape. And I said this on C-Span, which is weird to say, just a few minutes ago [laughter] but for example we're used to thinking of that the first real test of state's rights versus federal power as being over the question of slavery but that is simply not true. The first test of state's rights versus federal power was negotiated in relation to native people in the American southeast over the question of the Indian Removal Act. That was the first test. Who matters most? What matters most? States? The federal government? Tribes? And so that's just one example of many that sort of native people have been at the center of America's questions about how it will become itself-- >> Gal Beckerman: Yeah. >> David Treuer: since the beginning. You know and as Colin points out and as you pointed out in your question, there has been a kind of civil war going on since the beginning. And it's been a war about sort of how does America reconcile its stated ideals with its lived practices? >> Gal Beckerman: Right. >> David Treuer: That was the case from early days and it's been the case at Standing Rock in 2016-- >> Gal Beckerman: Right. >> David Treuer: where you have people trying to stop energy partners from building a pipeline through sacred lands to the people of Standing Rock. And the larger question is, what matters more? Private Enterprise? Who has more power and who should you be listening to more and who matters more? Corporations or the common good? That's the war we see at Standing Rock. It's not Indians versus Whites. It's corporations versus the common good. But it's native people who are forcing that conversation-- >> Gal Beckerman: Right. Right. Right. >> David Treuer: into the public sphere. >> Gal Beckerman: Right. It reminds me a little bit the, you know, The Times' 1619 Project and this-- >> David Treuer: Right. >> Gal Beckerman: idea of kind of America forming in relation to, you know, how it treated African Americans and how it treated-- you can't, once, you can't remove that element from understanding how America becomes America. >> David Treuer: Right. You want to understand this country you have to understand that it was, you know, built using black labor using Indian land. >> Gal Beckerman: Right. Right. >> David Treuer: Absolutely. >> Gal Beckerman: Right. >> David Treuer: That's how the country was built. You can't ignore one part of that [inaudible]. >> Gal Beckerman: Right. David, you say that we Indians often get ourselves wrong and I'm just curious to kind of dig a little more into that. >> David Treuer: Yeah. >> Gal Beckerman: Is it buying the narrative that, you know-- >> David Treuer: Sure. >> Gal Beckerman: "Bury My Heart" narrative that, for yourself or? >> David Treuer: I mean you hear these stories over and over and over again whether you're native or not. And the stories-- America is shaped by narrative, among other things, right? And so native people, like me growing up on my reservation, well there was a lot of difficulty where I'm from. A lot of struggle. It becomes the only thing you can see after a while. And so sure, like for me growing up, I couldn't help but agree that sort of our lives, sort of our, you know, our autonomous lives had ended at some point in the past and what we had wasn't life, it was just perpetual suffering. And that reservations are places of pain and history is only that which we have somehow endured without really living. That's how I felt growing up. There's nothing good here. This is where good ideas go to die. I'm like I've got to get out of here. And I left. Within months I'm like oh man I miss this place. I miss my family. I miss my tribe. I miss my religion. I miss the landscape. I miss-- I miss sort of all, sort of the texture of what had been my native life growing up. And I wasn't missing suffering, right, that's not what I was missing. I was missing so much more than that. But I didn't have a narrative for that. So writing my book wasn't a matter of presenting an alternative history to Dee Brown's, I had to come up with an alternative narrative. >> Gal Beckerman: Right. >> David Treuer: Not a narrative of loss, but a narrative of surplus. Not a narrative of suffering but a narrative of energy and life. I needed it because I was sick of having the same discussion in public with non-native people. Like yes, I'm native. Like no, it doesn't suck. [laughter] Because we go kind of crazy, right? Because you hear one of two things when you talk to people who aren't native. People like, oh you're native, that's so beautiful. And you're like you have no idea how hard it is, how dare you say it's pretty? [laughter] How dare you-- how dare you want what we have? You don't-- it's hard what we have. Our lives are difficult. And then you hear someone-- someone will meet you and they're, oh you're native, that's so difficult. You're like, no it's not. It was beautiful, man. [laughter] And so we go a little insane. And I say I want something that captures all of it. And to do that I had to-- my book is history. It's reportage. But it's also memoir because I had to take a little journey inside too. >> Gal Beckerman: Yeah. Colin, can you talk to us a little bit about the Proclamation of 1763? Because I found that sort of revelation, you know, when I was looking at your book. And actually also kind of the argument that you make using the Proclamation of 1763 about why the Revolutionary War might have happened reminded me also of the 1619 Project which, you know, one of the controversial elements in the way that they told, they kind of retold the story, was that the Revolutionary War happened so that the colonists could-- so that Americans could preserve slavery which they were worried that the British might take away from them. And so similarly you're, you're kind of making-- there is a thesis in the book that, at least one of the reasons, I don't know how central you place it, that the war was fought was that so the colonists could have access to lands that the British were keeping kind of out of bounds. So could you just describe a little-- because it's a radical kind of rethinking of the Revolutionary War in the way that the 1619 folks have done, you know, kind of moving it away from the realm of kind of ideological revolutionary ideas and more towards a kind of materialist understanding of kind of why they needed to push back. >> Colin G. Calloway: Yeah. So I'm not sure it's that radial a rethinking of the revolution because the revolution-- the American Revolution was a war for freedom. But that included the freedom to get Indian land. Right? And Indian people know that. They understand that. That's why most of them side with the British. Not partic- because they particularly like the British but because they know that for Americans this will be open season. And what had happened was that at the end of the Seven Years War or the French and Indian War, the French had been defeated. The Briti-- part of the reason why that had happened was that Indian people had made, in the Ohio Valley, had made peace with the British and gave them the green light to advance and take over French fortresses because, yet again, French power in the interior depended not so much upon French troops and French gunfire as it did upon Indian allies. Without remove, the French were done. But at the end of that war, the British then forgot the promises they had made to the Indians which resulted in a war which is often called Pontiac's War. I actually call it the first American revolution because the Indians in 1763 in the Ohio Valley Great Lakes do what the Americans do 12 year later, and that is they take on the largest empire in the world. And they give it a bloody nose. To prevent that kind of thing happening again, the British issue the Royal Proclamation of 1763. And what that does is basically say everything from the Atlantic to the Mississippi is British territory. But west of the Appalachian Mountains is Indian country. It's reserved Indian territory. That's not a permanent situation but what it was saying is only the king's agents, the duly appointed king's agents, can make deals with Indians-- the representatives of their tribes-- for a formal transfer of Indian lands. What we cannot have, because it will produce endless conflict and bloodshed, is settlers and independent companies and everybody just going over there, cheating the Indians out of their land, etcetera. So what they did was run an imaginary line basically down the Appalachian Mountains, said east of this is British settlement, west of it is Indian country, right? Now, that did not restrict frontier settlers, right? Scotch Irish pioneers for instance from going across the line and settling in Indian land, right? The Brits would try and chase them off, they'd come back. But that's not why-- and I've said this many times before but I can't resist saying it in this country. They were going to build a wall but they couldn't get the Indians to pay for it. [ Laughter and applause ] But, now I've said here I can't ever say it again because [inaudible] but the people who it really affected were the people who for almost 20 years or more had been speculating in Indian lands west of the Appalachian Mountains. And those people were people like George Washington, Benjamin Franklin, Thomas Jefferson, Patrick Henry, the Lee family of Virginia. Many of the elite who become the most radical, the most pronounced voices for revolution because those people, in the case of George Washington, he had fought in the French and Indian War thinking of himself as a British subject. That was frustrating in many cases when he couldn't get a royal commission. But he still saw himself as part of that empire. And I think when the Royal Proclamation happens in 1763, what that means for people like Washington is that old French Indian alliance that had prevented them moving west selling their land and making a killing has been replaced by a British Indian alliance. Right? And so the empire for which they fought are now thwarting their ambitions because there's not only a cloud over their title, but the buying and selling of Indian land is now to be done by the central government. And Washington reels against that. Now, 20 plus years later when he's president, congress passes a measure to do much the same kind of thing because it's the perennial problem of how the central government controls the frontier. But this is a huge part of that road to revolution. And both-- there's two elements to it. The one we already know about which the Brits tax the colonists, right? Well one of the reasons the Brits tax the colonists is that after Pontiac's War they realize they're going to have to leave an army in North America-- 10,000 men-- that's going to cost a bundle. And British tax payers are taxed to the hilt at the end of this first world war. So some bright spot comes up with the idea well let's tax the colonies, right? We all know of that. That's a standard part of our narrative of the coming of the revolution. But I think that the proclamation and that closure of access to Indian land is equally important. And when the revolution's fought, one of the things that's being fought for is to remove that king's tyrannical attempt to stifle the buying and selling of Indian land. >> Gal Beckerman: I wanted actually you both to address this next question to kind of, you know, muse on the notion of sovereignty because you-- the word comes up in both of your works. I'm just going to read little quotes from both. And it's kind of-- the optimism I feel that kind of I can emerge from both of your books with is wrapped up in this idea of sovereignty. So David, you write that to believe in sovereignty, to move through the world imbued with the dignity of that reality is to resolve one of the major contradictions of modern Indian life. It is to find a way to be Indian and modern simultaneously. And Colin you write, you know, about the efforts to extinguish Native Americans, that their sovereignty was never extinguished. And so maybe David, starting with you-- >> David Treuer: Sure. >> Gal Beckerman: if you can kind of deepen our understanding of what does sovereignty mean in the context of Native American lives in America? >> David Treuer: I mean sovereignty is at the basis of our understanding of tribal nations. You know we understand ourselves to belong to-- and this is a legal designation, right?-- being Native is not just a racial or cultural designation in the United States, it's a legal designation. The basis of that is sovereignty. You know that we have our own sovereign Indian nations with our own laws, our own laws, our own-- often-- our own courts, our own constitutions, you know? And to remember that, right, is really important. So many people misunderstand the native legal situation as one of social welfare. That we have reservations as form-- as prisons. In those prisons we are given healthcare. And this is how people think of it, given. We're given healthcare. We're given schools. And people think we're given casinos. None of these things were given, okay? You know? This is not-- these are not pity payments for poor treatment we've received over some centuries. As sovereign nations we have our own systems. And to remember that, that our treaty rights are rights that we've reserved, rights that we've always possessed. To remember that. To remember that's-- that how we live is not just, you know, at the behest or because of the sort of the kind feelings of this or that liberal administration, but these are the rights we've always possessed prior to the coming of the Europeans to this country, affects how you act. It affects how you see yourself. It affects how you move through the world. It's important. >> Gal Beckerman: Okay. Colin do you have any? >> Colin G. Calloway: Yeah and I think one of the neat things about working with George Washington, getting back to this sort of ambivalent picture that I present of him and have of him is his own ambivalence because you can quote him on other-- sorry, if people say well are you saying that George Washington advocated genocide? I say no. The word he used was extirpate. It means much the same thing. And sometimes people will say well you're talking about sovereign Indian nations. What do you mean by that? Is that something you're making up? I said no I'm not. George Washington regarded Indian nations as sovereign Indian nations because the constitution says that treaties with foreign powers will be ratified with a two third vote of the senate. George Washington made it clear to the senate that that provision, those provisions, applied to Indian nations as well. And the treaties that David mentioned are fundamental because treaties by definition are agreements between sovereign nations. They are not treaties in which the United States gives Indians things. They are often treaties in which Indians give up land in return for pledges, right, that are still on the books as it were. So for me as a historian I think that point that David made about Indian people being political entities is huge. And that when we look back to say the 18th or the 19th century we should see not Indians simply reacting en mass against European invasion, but see multiple Indian nations, right? Somebody made the point yesterday about feeling his life was not lived on the margins, it was central. And I think that's true for Indian nations. And so I often think we should look at Indian nations on the map of North America-- hundreds of them-- and see them as hubs that are at the center of a wheel with spokes going out, right? They are nations with their own foreign policies which entail dealing with other Indian nations, other European powers, and the United States. And that's the complicated political map that is North America in 1600, 1700, and even still in 1800. And I would actually suggest that even today. >> Gal Beckerman: Yeah. >> Colin G. Calloway: If we take David's point, right? This is still a political map in which there's not one nation, there's not 50 states, but there are 573 federally recognized tribes. That's a very complicated picture-- >> Gal Beckerman: Yeah. >> Colin G. Calloway: Right? Which is full of complications but it could also be full of possibilities. >> David Treuer: There's so much, like the early history and colonial history and prior to that in North America is so interesting and there's a really good book-- I think it's a great book-- called "Masters of Empire" which talks about Ojibwa, Odawa, Potawatomi, like occupation of Sault Sainte Marie, Michigan and the Great Lakes. And he makes, the author makes this amazing point that it was foreign policy of this tribal empire to empower the French if the British were strong and then break those promises and empower the British if the French got too strong because they knew very well that if you kept European powers wrong footed all the time, the Indians would always win. And this was the lay of the land for many centuries in North America. To the extent that sort of my tribe, Ojibwa, was part of this empire, this tribal empire, we would send delegations out to Iroquois country many hundreds of miles away by canoe and say hey guys, what do you think about the British? Do you think they're getting too powerful? Would you attack them perhaps? You know, would you help us all? And then there'd be all these alliances between tribes which were oftentimes at loggerheads because my tribe and the Iroquoian tribes were often at war too. And this balance of power that native tribes were able to execute as a kind of foreign policy agenda was only really truly upset when America won the American Revolution. >> Gal Beckerman: Yeah. >> David Treuer: And then after the War of 1812 and all of that sort of. And then just sort of North America took the shape it had and America was then the single power and there was no one to keep wrong footed any longer. >> Gal Beckerman: Right. >> David Treuer: It's kind of cool stuff. >> Gal Beckerman: Yeah. >> David Treuer: It's really cool stuff. You should read this stuff, you know? [laughter] It's so cool because it goes, runs completely against the ways we're used to thinking of-- >> Gal Beckerman: Right. >> David Treuer: you know America's founding but also of how tribes worked in North America and how we related to the British and the French and all of that [inaudible]-- >> Gal Beckerman: It shows a savvy kind of foreign policy [inaudible]-- >> David Treuer: Yes. We are political actors. >> Gal Beckerman: Well this, so this connects to my last question then I'm going to open it up. It seems, as works of history, what connects both of your books is this desire to kind of return agency or to bring agency into Native Americans in history. And so I'm curious kind of looking forward, like the work to be done, kind of where you see possibilities for the future, for future work kind of in this same, in the same territory. >> David Treuer: I mean my work? Or just work? >> Gal Beckerman: [Laughs] I mean for you or for other historians. I mean it's-- the point being that, you know, exactly as you're enthused right now about this notion of understanding kind of how, understanding them as actors, you know, and not just as being acted upon. You know there-- are there parts of the history or certain kind of episodes that, or, that need to be looked at with a new lens? >> David Treuer: But there's so many qualified amazing people doing it. I mean Colin's doing it already. >> Gal Beckerman: Yeah. >> David Treuer: In a book called "The Other Slavery" someone's talking about slavery in native populations which started before the slavery of Africans and lasted longer-- >> Gal Beckerman: Yeah. >> David Treuer: and is ongoing today in the Americas. And this book, "Masters of Empire", Colin's work, there's so much being done, what more is there to be done? I don't know, like everything, right? [laughs] Everything. >> Gal Beckerman: Colin, do you have any thoughts about that? >> Colin G. Calloway: Yeah because-- >> Gal Beckerman: Yeah. >> Colin G. Calloway: sometimes people like me-- not British people, people who are working in Native American history-- [laughter] actually if you think it's weird that a British guy is doing Native American history, the guy who wrote "Masters of Empire", Michael McDonnell, was born in Wales-- even though he had a Celtic Scots name-- born in Wales, grew up in Ontario, and now lives and teaches in Australia. >> Gal Beckerman: That's right. Right. >> Colin G. Calloway: This is global stuff, right, that we're doing here. But I think people who work in Native American history are often accused of trying to take America's well-worn historical narrative which is something that many people hold dearly, and turn it on its head. And I think what doing the Washington book taught me or opened my eyes to was that I wasn't trying to turn it on its head, that even the historical narrative that we have about the United States doesn't make sense without Indians. >> David Treuer: Right. >> Colin G. Calloway: Right? There's lots of things simply don't happen if Indian people are not there. If Indian power is not there. And so if that's the canvas and we're looking at hundreds of different nations, the possibilities for exploring and digging deeper to either tweaking or refining or filling out fundamental aspects of the American story are endless. And that doesn't mean we're being unpatriotic or trying to turn it on its head. But as Ralph Waldo Emerson said, "great nations deserve great history". Or he said something and I said something like that. [laughter] That's the phrase that comes to mind. And President Obama said much the same when he was opening the African American Museum. This is not-- this is not heresy to question history-- >> Gal Beckerman: Yeah. >> Colin G. Calloway: but this is actually the true democracy-- >> David Treuer: Right. >> Colin G. Calloway: to incorporate all of the actors and all of the players and all of those experiences. >> David Treuer: I mean there's-- just to build on that, I mean there's a tendency to pay attention to native stories and to native lives and native history as a kind of liberal social act. As a kind of community service, right? Well you know, we took all this land. The least I could do is read this book. [laughter] You know? Watch this show. I mean, it's the least I can do. I'll just pay attention a little bit. But the fact is, as Colin points out, that you cannot understand American history unless you think about Native American history. You simply can't. You know and even in a contemporary setting, people have been asking me since I've been on book tour, don't you think the election of Sharice Davids is good news for Indian people in North America? I said I think it's good news for Kansas. [laughter] Because a lot of Americans in this day and age of the wealth gap in our time of growing inequality are increasingly suffering from lack of education to healthcare, lack of education to-- lack of access to healthcare, lack of access to education, lack of access to capital and to credit. Many Americans are finding themselves in the position that Native Americans have been in for many centuries. And so her election, the election of Sharice Davids, Kansas, is not just good news for native people. As a Native American woman, who better to help middle Americans who are finding themselves in the position that we've been in and that she's been in for a very long time, right? So you want to know where you're headed. You want to know what's happening to you. Well you have to understand American Indian history because folks, your lives are starting to look a lot like our lives. [laughter] And in some ways that's good, but in some ways that's not so healthy. Pay attention. >> Gal Beckerman: Well I want to give a chance for questions. So I cannot see but are there-- oh look, people are coming to the-- there's microphones on both sides. Yeah, it looks like we have somebody here. >> Audience member 1: My name is Peter Beck and first I'd like to thank "The New York Times" for bringing David's book to my attention. I think it's one of the most important books that I've ever read. >> David Treuer: Wow. Thank you. >> Audience member 1: And, well I-- for example I was very conflicted about how I should think about casinos and you disabused me of any guilt I should feel about that. [laughter] But one of the core messages I took from your book was that Native Americans discovered that the ultimate weapon was not a gun, it was the law. And as you mentioned briefly. And learning to use American Law and the treaties that have been signed. And so I was wondering if you could comment-- I was really intrigued when the Cherokee Nation announced recently that they were going to advocate for their member of congress that was promised to them way back when. And two thoughts occurred to me. What took them so long to, and this doesn't seem like the most opportune moment to be asking 1600 Pennsylvania or Capitol Hill for anything. So how do you see this playing out? And thank you again for the work you're doing. >> David Treuer: Thank you so much. It may not be opportune but it's certainly necessary in this day and age. I used to think of Washington D.C. as where people gathered together, you know, to help the rest of the country. [laughter] I was born here, give me a break. You know? [laughter] And it doesn't quite feel that way anymore but the Dakota who lived in Minnesota who were suffering horribly in the mid 19th century decided it was a very good time to attack in 1862 when America was in shambles-- it was a good time to have some Indian wars because America was involved in its own civil war and they, sensing a moment of weakness, people rose up. Maybe this is also that moment of weakness and civil war. It's a really good time to rise up. [Laughs] But thank you so much for noticing that and for your question. Thank you. >> Colin G. Calloway: If I could just piggyback onto that, that notion of sending representatives to congress. Take a look at the Treaty at Fort Pitt in 1778. That year the newly independent, declared its independence United States, makes its first two international treaties. One is with France and the other is with the Delaware Indian Nation. And in that treaty with the Delaware there is a provision that when the war is over, the Delawares can head an Indian state with representation in congress. Now of course that never happened but I think it's a reminder to us that the United States in making that was not doing that out of the goodness of its heart but the power dynamics of the time, right? The United States knew it needed a Delaware Alliance and Indian power was very real. And so that idea of an Indian state and that idea of representation in congress goes way back. >> Gal Beckerman: Let's take a question from this side over here. >> Audience member 2: Hi, thank you both for bringing this conversation to this history track. I really appreciate it and actually my question is directly flowing from what you were just speaking about about the move for Cherokee Nation representation. Do you see, how do you see that as paving the way for additional treat- existing treaty rights to potentially be reclaimed or enforced? Do you see that as paving the way as-- for other treaty rights to be recognized that haven't been? >> David Treuer: I don't know if I see it paving the way but it is one part of, you know, myriad ongoing efforts to remind the government of its promises which isn't just a moral reminder, it's a legal one. Treaties are the supreme law of the land. They need to be honored and they need to be kept active. And that has been sort of the hard work of many, many, many native people who've become either tribal leaders or have come to work in the law. So I couldn't say how it's going to help or hinder or affect those ongoing efforts but there but there are many, many ongoing efforts all over the place. You know just speaking at a personal level, I mean my dad moved here-- my mom and dad moved here to D.C. before I was born. My dad was working for the Bureau of Indian Affairs and he ended up working for ATW and OEO. My mom was, had been a nurse but was no longer and she was raising my brother and I. And my father asked her, he said look, Peggy, he said, you're stagnating. You need to do something. What do you want to do? If you could do anything, what would you do? She goes oh that's stupid, I don't want to say. He's like no just, it's just you and me. We're just talking here. What do you want to do if you could do anything? We're just chatting. And she goes well, you know, we don't have any lawyers and we always lose in court. And we need lawyers. He's like well why don't you do that? He was that kind of guy, well just do it. And so while raising my brother and me and then subsequently my twin younger siblings, she went to law school here at Catholic University, who admitted her provisionally because she did not have a college degree, and she went on to become the first American Indian judge in the country. [ Applause ] So she recognized-- I mean out of her experience as a young girl of having their like, their game stolen by the game warden, their entire rice harvest confiscated because they were told they were ricing out of season and off the reservation when neither thing was true. But they had no power, right? So fighting for Indian rights, fighting you know for treaty rights is crucial and ongoing. And I'm glad the Cherokees are doing that. Along with all the other native folk who are fighting in the courts. >> Gal Beckerman: Let's take-- we have time for one more question. >> Audience member 3: Yes I'd like to ask a question about, you know, the early republic that George Washington was of course the first president. And considering he was so ambivalent about Native Americans and what to do, you know, in terms of working with them, did he kind of tend to delegate that to the Secretary of State, to ambassadors, to the congress? Because as we know about George Washington, he doesn't always seek conflict when he already knew the British could at any time come back in and try to, you know, remove us basically. Did he think of it in terms of there was a diplomatic solution in terms of working with the Native Americans or was it all going to be eventually just a conflict and we were going to have to do obviously what happened, you know? Thank you. >> Colin G. Calloway: Yeah, thank you. Well it varies, right? And he, does he delegate? Well he spends a lot of time working with Henry Knox who's his Secretary of War and who is the person primarily responsible for Indian affairs at that time because Indian affairs was lodged in the War Department which may give us some idea of how they were thinking about it. It was then later moved to, you know, Department of the Interior, which is where it still is, which is a strange place. Not the Department of State. But does he think of a military solution? Does he think of a diplomatic solution? Both. Because the philosophy or the policy that I think Washington developed is that we will follow the British model and deal honorably with Indian people as we take their land. So the way to do that is make treaties with them where we give them a fair and honest price for their land. They will make those treaties, give up land, and then follow the American way of life and there will be a place for them. So that's all well and good but then what happens when Indians say, thanks but no thanks? Then Washington's language and tone changes. Then those Indians become recalcitrant savages who must be extirpated. And that requires being crushed in a hunt, right? And he'd done that during the revolution by sending American armies into Iroquois country, burning 40 Iroquois towns, destroying crops, orchards, and tried to do that again. Well when he tried to do it again in 1791 sending the American army into what is now northwest Ohio, the Northwest Indian Confederacy destroyed the American army. >> David Treuer: That's true. >> Colin G. Calloway: They didn't just defeat it, they destroyed it. So as of November 4th, 1791, the United States had no army. >> David Treuer: That's right. >> Colin G. Calloway: Right? This is a republic that's essentially-- this is two years after constitution. Jefferson says when the word reaches Philadelphia, nobody talked about anything else because it looks as if the whole thing's going to fall down, right? And who's heard about that battle? Thousands of books about Custer-- >> David Treuer: Yeah. >> Colin G. Calloway: and the Battle at Little Bighorn, but the destruction of the only army that the United States had at the hands of Indians in Ohio in 1791, what does Washington do? Now diplomacy seems like an [inaudible]-- >> David Treuer: Really [inaudible] good idea. [laughter] >> Colin G. Calloway: So if you were in Philadelphia in 1791, 1792, 1793, you couldn't step out to buy a sandwich without falling, bumping into an Indian delegation because Washington was inviting Indian delegates to Philadelphia to talk about peace and friendship and all of that kind of stuff. But essentially also to buy time for the American army to be rebuilt. And to prevent more Indians from joining that western confederacy. And three years later a new American army, which is remodeled-- and again this is a product of defeat by Indians-- reverses that verdict. But depending upon the circumstances, he's willing to go either way. And there are certain Indian people that he sees as deserving the benefit of his civilized, patient program, and then there are others who will always be, in his words, hostile. Indian people also shift their policies and maneuver according to shifting circumstances. >> Audience member 3: Thank you. >> Gal Beckerman: Well I want to thank both of you so much for this-- >> David Treuer: Thank you. >> Colin G. Calloway: Thank you. >> Gal Beckerman: fascinating [inaudible]. [ Applause ]