Starting in the 1960s with the group through to her efforts through the womens liberation and over several decades now her advocacy for the rights and recognition. The Freedom Prize for the lifetime achievement. [applause] roxannes latest work which we are here to talk about this evening examines the culture in the United States and looks hard at what roxanne describes as the racist roots. This view of the Second Amendment links it to the desire of citizens of a new nation to protect themselves from a tyrannical government while Roxanne Petraeus at a little differently. She portrays it as an instrument of White Nationalism, racial dominance and violent social control. She argues the support for the right to keep and bear arms was intended to facilitate the genocide of native americans and enable shareholders to control their human property. This past roxanne goes on to say he has evolved into the gun violence and in the more recent kinds of violence manifested in Mass Shootings at home in militarism abroad. This cultural analysis that ties the place of american law and society to the history of racial and class violence is obviously a provocative argument. But it does reflect americas inherently conflicted love and hate relationship. The review of Publishers Weekly said the argument, quote, will be disturbing and unfamiliar to most, but evidence is significant and should not be ignored. Please join me in welcoming roxanne dunbar. [applause] thank you for coming out on this cold night. Ive come from San Francisco where we think it is cooler than it gets to 50. So i have a lot of clothing on. Can you hear me . Okay. First, i want to acknowledge that we are here today on stolen land where we find ourselves in washington, d. C. Prior to invasion and occupation by the mercenaries, this was the home of the nation as a part of the vast territory of the algonquin speaking peoples made up of farmers, fishers and traitors who lived in town right here where washington is now which is the center of the thriving trade from all the nations in the interior. I thought i would read a little bit to you. It is a different kind of book then you have probably been familiar with. Its the same interpretation as have the scholars. Some commentators public, not these scholars, they do, they see look for reasons why they have such a strong appeal in the United States in comparison with other societies. But if you explore those reason. So that is the purpose of this book. But instead of dismissing the Second Amendment is antiquated and irrelevant or not meaning what it actually says, i argue that understanding the purpose of the amendment is the key to understanding the gun culture of the United States and possibly the key to a new consciousness about the lingering effects of colonialism and White Nationalism. The Second Amendment of the constitution is a second statement. For the security of a free state and the right of the people to keep and bear arms shall not be in print. The National Rifle association and its constituency argues that the amendment guarantees the right for every individual to bear arms flail gun control advocates maintain that the Second Amendment is about states continuing to have their own militias emphasizing the language of the well regulated and that this is manifest in the existing National Guard. There is a problem with that because the respective state militias will be authorized by the u. S. Constitution when the amendment was added. The constitution recognized the existing colonial state militias that formed before and during the war for independence and mandated to them the rules to play to execute the law of the union and to refill invasions for article one, section eight of the constitution. The president of the united pred states as a president of the United States is the commanderinchief of the state militia when called into the service of the United States. So, given that what we now call the National Guard with a state National Guard are descended from the state pushes which themselves will repurpose from the colonial militia convoy was the Second Amendment added a. Its not the right of the people but the collective. The right is about individual rights. It is not only what is in the constitution, the unequivocably the Second Amendment along with the other nine constituted the individual rights. So, i will read a bit from chapter one of which is a Historical Context of the Second Amendment. The angloamerican settlers violent break from britain in the 18th century paralleled their search and destroy annihilation of the mohawk shawnee and miami during which they slaughtered families without distinction of age or gender and expand the boundaries of the 13 colonies in the territories. The declaration of independence in 1776 symbolizes the beginning of the socalled indian war and westward movement. In other words, it began right here on the Atlantic Coast thats been continued across the continent for another century of unrelenting u. S. War of conque conquest. That was with the army and the range of militia using extreme violence against him just long competence with the goal of total domination. These forces were met with resistance and considerations identified with leaders of three littlof the Little Turtle and be jacket of the miami show me a line, joseph brown, the mohawk planner of the seneca as well as the great tecumseh and the shawnee led consideration in the valley. The genocide was complete the eastern half of the continent was ethnically cleansed of native nations by 1850 through the forced relocation to b the indian directory with mississippi. Succumb in oklahoma where i grew up which is indian for free, all of those names, the seneca, the shawnee, the old reservations, but they are not from here, they were forced to. 50 different native nations. The expansion of the war against the native americans of ossetia and Agricultural Society of the valley of the ohio river and the Great Lakes Region began before the declaration of independence and began with the french and indian war of 1754, 1763 which was the north american extension of the seven year war between france and britain and europe. Britains victory over france in 1763 lead to its dominion of world trade seapower and Colonial Holdings for the nearly two centuries. In the treaty of paris, france native canada and all claims east of the mississippi to britain. In the course of the war come angloamerican settlers intensified their use of counter insurgent violence which was picking glow subtle or delete dubbed as a savage war against Indigenous Peoples resistance to their incursions into the territories of the miami and the federation identified with the leadership in the Great Lakes Region spreading to the illinois and ohio countries. By the end of the war, significant members of the anglo settlers have taken Indigenous Lands beyond the call of these boundaries and land speculation with a road to riches for the fortunate few. Development of the first way of war. In them we find the same elements, and necessity, the uncontrollable momentum of extravagant violence in the quest for subjugation of indians that had defined the first way of war throughout the colonial period. The Second Amendment thus reflects this dependence on individual armed men, not just in terms of a right to bear arms, but almost a requirement to bear arms which was crucial to the integrity of the state and the conception of security achieved through a relationship between the state and the citizen. In 1783 the british withdrew from the war of independence to maintain and give up maintaining the sovereignty over the 13 colonies. It also gave up the territory in the ohio country. Not due to military defeat of the british but in order to redirect their resources to occupy south asia. Britains transfer was a nightmarish disaster for all Indigenous Peoples east of the mississippi and ultimately all of north america. They would be occupied by the United States. Britains withdraw in 1783 open a new chapter of racist violence and colonization of the comment. The creation of the United States constitution begin in 1785, but the document was not approved by all the states until 1791. Meanwhile, the interim Continental Congress cuts work on a plan for colonization over the mountain range. That was before it was even seized. The Land Ordinance of 1785 established a centralized system for surveying and distribute in land with seized native lands being auctioned off to the highest bidder. The northwest, referring to the ohio country, called the northwest ordinance of 1787 set forth a colonization procedure for annexation via military occupation, transforming into territorial status under federal control and finally statehood when white settlers outnumbered the native people or the mexican inhabitants. These were the first laws of the incipient republic, revealing the motive for those desiring independence. It was a blueprint for taking the north American Continent with lines of future settlement on maps in the northwest ordinance reaching all way to the pacific. The maps contained these Land Ordinances which laid out land and marketable plots and it was not new. There were the products of colonial elites including George Washington who is the leader of the virginia militia and took surveying teams illegally into the ohio country making him one of the most successful land speculators in the colony. Trump comes closest to George Washington in his career. There were all speculators, enslaving people providing the very basis of the economy of the first nation born as a capitalist state and by 1850 it was the wealthiest economy in the world next to the cotton kingdom. In 1801 president jefferson described the new settler state intentions as an empire for liberty. Taking land by force was non accidental or spontaneous work of a few rogue characters. The violent appropriation of land by white settlers was seen as an individual right in the Second Amendment, second only to freedom of speech. Male colonial settlers had long formed militias for the purpose of raiding and raising indigenous communities and seizing their lands and resources. The native communities fought back. Virginia, where we are, the first colony forbade any man to travel unless he was well armed. A few years later a new law required men to take arms with them to work and attend church or to be find. In 1658 the colony ordered every settler home to have a functioning firearm and later provided government loans for those who could not afford to buy a weapon. New england colonial governments made laws such as the 1632 requirement that each person have a functioning firearm plus 2 pounds of gunpowder and 10 pounds of bullets. Householders were fined for missing or defective arms and ammunition. No man was to appear at a Public Meeting on armed. These laws stayed on the books of the earliest colonies and were created in new colonies as they were founded. The Second Amendment ratified in 1791 enshrined these obligations as constitutional law. The continuing significance of that freedom to bear arms, specified in the bill of rights reveals the Cultural Roots of the United States that appeared even in the present as a sacred right. Several of the colonies that declared independence in 1776, massachusetts new hampshire, new jersey, pennsylvania, vermont and virginia had already adopted individual and write measures into their state constitutions. They declared themselves independent estates at first. Then they they created a federal system. They had already had this right to bear arms in the constitution. So, there was not even any discussion or argument about this being one of the amendments in the constitution. Settler militias and armed households were institutionalized for the destruction and control of peoples, communities and nations. With plantation and plantation of agriculture, by the late 1600s, they were also used as slave patrol, forming the basis of the u. S. Please culture after enslaving people was made illegal. That is the inseparable other half of the colonial reality that is implicit in the Second Amendment. The first enslaved africans to be shipped, britains first new colony of the eventual 13 colonies that became the United States took place in 1619. When 20 bonded african survived in virginia, most of the labor being used in the first decade of the colony was made up of british and other europeans that had injured themselves for varying lakes of time. African slavery was different. As howard points out, some historians think those first blacks in virginia were considered servants like the white indentured servants brought from europe, but the strong probability is that even if they were listed as servants, a more familiar category to the english, they were viewed as being different from white servants and treated differently and were slaves. This is a part of what had already been going on for more than a century in the Transatlantic Slave Trade of african bodies. Every scholars presumed that the british settlers were reluctant enslaved africans, that that seemed a serious notion. When they were promulgated by the vatican in the mid 15th century and they legalize the portuguese capture and enslavement of the people of west africa, the Transatlantic Slave Trade took off, first within european markets and then in 1492 to reach the caribbean and had been in effect for over a century when the virginia seaboard was taken from the english farmers. From the mid 15th century to the 20th century, most of the non european rural world was colonized under the doctrine of discovery. So this was a doctrine, a papal bull that actually gave half the world to the portuguese and have to the spanish and the other european powers got in the act and also declared the doctrine of discovery papal law even though they were protestant countries by then and it applied to them. It is still the law of the land in the United States that controls native people. It was included, it was decided in some charity decisions in the 1820s at the doctrine of discovery applied in the United States. The only barrier to introducing slavery in virginia and all the other colonies would have been economic, not ethical. The southern colonies emerged in territory that had once been one of the seven original birthplaces of agriculture in the world, tens of thousands of years before, developed by the muskogee and other indigenous Agricultural Society. Appropriated by european settlers, they have become economies based on enslaved labor and increasingly on breeding enslaved people for profit with the indigenous farmers forced to the peripheries. At the time of u. S. Independence, half the independence of South Carolina was made up of enslaved africans. With the other agribusiness colonies having large and slave populations as well. By the late 17th century, slave codes had been developed which included mandatory slave patrols drawn from the already existing militias that controlled indians. The wealthy slavers of the southern colonies, particularly those of virginia were most affected by the french and british proclamation prohibiting expansion since their wealth relied on accessing more and more land as they depleted the swells with intense mono Crop Production for the market. They defy the proclamation, taking survey teams and of course George Washington was a notoriously successfully slave or an land speculator in indian land. Washington and the other founders in the United States designed a governmental and economic structure to save the private interests of each and all of the primary actors, forming the government. It was white male property owners. Nearly all of them were slavers and land speculators with the brilliant Alexander Hamilton as the genius of finance. Like the indian killing militias that can change continued and intensified as a u. S. Appropriated more land, slave Patrols Group accordingly. The ethnic cleansing of native americans complete, flavors with their reserve of capital and enslaved labor transform the Mississippi Valley into the cotton kingdom that formed the basis for u. S. Capitalism and world trade. In the words of harvard historian walter johnson, the extension of slavery into the Mississippi Valley gave an institution that was in decline at the end of 18th century new light in the 19th. In 1800 there were around 100,000 slaves living within the boundaries of the present day state of mississippi and louisiana. By 1840 there were more than 250,000, more than double. In 1860, more than 750,000. Double again, tripled. The militaristic powerhouse of the United States, as it became by 1840 derived from real estate which included enslaved africans as well as appropriated land. The United States was founded as a capitalist state and an empire on conquered land in the form of slave. This was exceptional in the world and has remained exceptional. The capitalist firearms industry was among the First Successful modern corporations. Gun proliferation and gun violence today are among its legacy. I want to read you a poem that i include in this book by sherman lexi. Do all of you know who he is . He is a native and a wonderful poet and filmmaker, novelist so this is in his book that came out last year, called you dont have to say you love me. So, what will United States native american Genocide Memorial Museum contain, if ever built . What will it exhibit . It will be one room, a 50foot square with the same large photo filling the walls, ceiling and floor. There will be only one visitor allowed at any one time. There will be no furniture. That one visitor will have to stand or sit on the floor or lie on the floor if they feel tired. That visitor must remain in that room for one hour. There will be no music. The only soundtrack will be random gunshots from rifles used throughout american history, reverberation, what will that one photo be . It will be an indian baby shredded by a gatling gun, lying dead in body in snow. So, now to introduce some more contemporary statistics, i guess we call them i will finish with this and i hope we have a good conversation i think all of you know there are 300 million firearms in private hands outside the police, outside the Army Civilian in the United States and that is the population of the United States. So 74 of gun owners in the United States are male and 82 of the gunowners are white which means that 61 of all adults who own guns are white men. This group accounts for 31 of the total u. S. Population. The top reason u. S. Americans give for owning a gun is for protection. The question is, what are the majority of white men so afraid of . Does anyone believe that the centuries of racial and economic domination of the United States by white men have left no traces in our culture, views or institutions . Its not likely given the evidence to the contrary. The ongoing influence of this history is compounded by the lack of acknowledgment of the savage violence that continued into the 20th century and the legacy of african slavery through such practices as legal segregation, institutional racism, discrimination, police killings, and incarceration. There is another historical paradigm that contributes to the white u. S. Males affinity for firearms and that is namely the myth of the hunter. That is one of the chapters. Thank you. [applause] if you have a question, please make your way to the microphone. I have a question for you. Gun violence has been something that has concerned me more and more in the past ten years or so. What other countries or just in your scholarship in your studies, what other countries have you looked up and what would you suggest as far as the u. S. Looking to other countries for solutions to bring down the gun violence problem. Its a good question. European countries, people always wonder, one of the first questions you always get asked why are there so many guns in the United States. There are gun laws but say in switzerland where i spent a lot of time because i do some work at the un in geneva, im very familiar with the swiss weekend where they go for training for the swiss militia with a rifle over their shoulder, walking down their streets, there are gun stores but there are no laws. There is actually a law that requires each home to have a weapon because they dont really have an army. But theres almost no gun violence at all. Even in places where, you think of the swiss are like all white, theyre not. Especially geneva where the United Nations is, its a refugee center, theres people from all over the world. There is no gun violence. Its just so rare that its hardly a statistic so, this is why i think gun laws are rather dubious because, while i dont think they will happen in the United States until theres a big shift, even if they could i dont think they would be effective because the gun culture is so deep in this history the case of australians was brought up because its certainly true that australia, new zealand, canada, the other three british settlement colonies are the most violent, separation and eradication of people, no genocide worse than australia. Tasmania eliminated people by hunting. It was sport to go kill tasmanian indigenous people. So, they have the same history and they have this horrible mass killing. It was very much like the ones we see here quite regularly and there was such a shock in the whole country as the people, can we make a law banning, controlling weapons, everything having to be registered and that was really successful. It has held pretty well, from what ive read. It is one of the major arguments that regulation work, but in canada, im not sure if you saw the film bowling at columbine but he explore some of those things. He has a thirty second film cartoon in the beginning about pilgrims killing indians and its like he knows but he couldnt work it into the film and he just asked the question why he goes to canada any fines they have, not as many guns. Person that they have very few gun laws and have a lot more control there than the federal government and they have very little gun violence. They had that one horrible mass shooting which was directed toward women a few years ago but they dont have the gun culture. Ive been studying this for years and years, what you think is the main difference given the similarities. Anybody . Slavery, capitalism, every country and other capitalism came later and it dominates the world now and its linked with militarism. One thing those countries dont have, even canada thats in nato, they dont have military bases all over the world were even all over their own country. Endless wars are going on so what i say is the United States is an exceptional state. I think it is. It is not in that way that the city on the hill exceptional. Its exceptional, and i think one of the real problems in the constitution, its the whole origin story, the sacredness compact and i call it the cold of the covenant, that covenant with god, israel has that Apartheid Regime and south africa had the dutch reform covenant and i think we should really question, even liberals, they pay tribute to the nation of laws but slavery was legal, incarceration is legal. But to really hold holes, for some of us to think about forming constitutional rewritings, rewriting new constitutions, both countries in the world have multiple constitutions if they have constitutions at all. Britain has never had a constitution that they seem to get along fine without them for they have law and order and those who have them do not worship them. Theyre not covenants. Theyre not like stone. So i think we have to really start understanding that that to loosen that up because basically, the Second Amendment is one of the causes that perpetuates gun violence. It had its own momentum now, and this started, these mass killings started as well as the nra turning from a recreational gun club taken over by neonazi neonazis, i mean really, in 1976 there was a coup in the nra and White Nationalism was parallel with the Civil Rights Movement so i think the gun culture had been revived. Those who tried to see it, theres a book called cunning america, she has a lot of good statistics about the gun industry, she blames the industry and the nra for selling guns. Its sort of like blaming macys for consumer overspending or credit card debt. I dont know. In a capitalist society theres a lot of dysfunction around these things, for sure, but in order to argue that she has to argue that guns were not important before the gun industry came about with what she studies at winchester. It doesnt occur to her that the winchester was created to order by the army of the west to kill indians. Thats what winchester was created for. She doesnt mention that so these, leaving out what is the real history of the United States, theres no way we can understand or control gun culture. When i started writing this book was actually two years ago when the mother manual slaughter by young white nationalists and you hadnt seen yet because trump was not elected yet but charlottesville came and charleston, this young man, i really studied him. I tried to go to his trial but i never did get there. He was very interesting. He was only 20 years old or something but already fully, full of this White Nationalism and on his facebook page, he had flags from rhodesia, the government of rhodesia and no one knew, why does he have flags from rhodesia well, we should study White Nationalism a little bit more because it is an undercurrent and i come from rural oklahoma, i have members of my family who are white nationalists, not many, but relatives, cousins and things and some who do gun shows, and if youve ever gone to a gun show, the swastikas in the confederate flags and everything, it was kind of mean those of us who know about it know it was thriving all this time, but especially as a backlash to the John Birch Society and their minutemen, it was kind of the resurgence and then these mass killings began in 1965 and accelerated and accelerated and thats why i say it takes on, it has taken on a momentum of its own and in that timeframe, the proportion of guns has doubled in the United States. I know that we can blame the industry. I dont think we can blame the nra. Its not about money and the Democratic Party is hung up on us that its money. They have plenty of money to out money the nra. 300million a year they spend on lobbying. That is nothing compared to exxon. They spend billions. What they do is actually monitor everything that every congressperson is doing. They have volunteers and checkers in every nook and cranny of this country. Theyre unpaid. They do this because gun rights is their sacred thing. They are believers in it. They then swarmed that candidate or that person, you will not get reelected or you will get elected, and there almost always successful. Thats what theyre scared of and they know it they just dont to the grassroots organizing. Most of them are state, not federal. The federal government has little authority, only what crosses over state lines and thats being erased with the new law, those people have the right to come into our state with their right to open carry or close carry. If they have the license they can come in and maintain that it not be in a state that doesnt have open carry. Theres only few states left to dont have open carry now. I think all of the efforts going in to trying to think rationally about gun culture in the Second Amendment and obamas clueless statement that they cling to their guns and their religion, without any historical comprehension. This is why i felt compelled to write this book because it seems obvious if you know the history, but somehow we managed to worm out of, its not that its easily accessible or taught in schools, all the facts are there, none of these things are secret, not secret i archives are secret document, theyve all been known for a long time, the right here in the national archives, every document you could want fine but historians are having a big conference right now, about 10000 over at the marriott and theyre not all u. S. Historians, but those who do u. S. History, they know all these facts. I call them the keepers of the secrets. Do not secrets but they keep them secret by not putting these things together into a coherent understanding of what this country is about. We dont understand our own country. So every thing we do flops. It spins out because you not ever getting to the problem so that was a long answer to your question about whats different about the United States. I always give long answers. My question relates to sheriffs in the old west saying to people who are bringing guns into town, you can bring them anymore, we have to get them under control. Did that happen . Yes. Okay, why were people willing to give up their right to keep and bear arm and what was put much in uncontrolled society . The gun culture because of hollywood and the films and cowboy and indian, my dad was a cowboy when he was a teenager. The cowboy is someone who is working on a cattle ranch, dirty, filthy, hard work. Thats what a cowboy is. They have guns to kill rattlesnakes and they were very, very poor people, like billy the kid but theyve made them, i have a whole chapter on this, the all the books on john brown, they refer to them but they were confederate gorillas and their image was remade because they introduced the six shooters riding a horse fast, shooting people at random and their families were all slaveowners in misery and then they became bank rappers and train robbers. I was raised on these mythical creatures like robin hood and they were just psychopathic killers. The first westerns which were made in tulsa oklahoma, before hollywood even existed, with some of these gunslingers playing these roles, these became in printed into the western. Read richard book gunfighter nation. This is like a 900 page book and it goes into detail about this. They introduce this, actually the theaters and in some ways there is an imitation of art in the west. Why were people so willing to leave their guns. Because they werent gun nuts. They just needed it for work. Yes. Some of them were criminals, of course, criminals generally will carry a firearm but that doesnt mean the gun nuts. They carry guns to rob a bank. But i dont think the cowboys. Se, the sheriffs a part of that is like dragnet, just idolizing lawenforcement. That was also hollywood thing, but they obeyed for patriarchal reasons, protect the womenfolk and expressions like that. Its not something we can resurrect, the idea that there are places where you dont bring guns. Will remember that was an all white controlled nation at the time. Thank you so much. Im thinking about you, im thinking about robins work, Marcus Reddick or, peter and really putting together, i think whats so important in the conversation is how we can conceptualize a problem in the way that we use history to accurately conceptualize the social problems are having right now. For my question, its more of a pedagogical question because as a professor of history, and also at the same time i think its important, you come from and organizing background so the writing of history is about how we also develop a politics, how we actually transform society, but for young students, from 18 24, one of the ways in which we can actually develop this historical literacy especially given the conditions were experiencing. My students are challenged in a different way in terms of they are sort of at that first line of experiencing it in the dutch metro affects of coming from working poor communities and just understanding that history and in order for them to make those moves and anticipate what the next 5 10, 20 years will look like, especially giving this is Trumps Administration like the apex of wipes White Supremacy right now. Thank you. I dont know. In the last, my book from three years ago, and indigenous history at from the United States, surprisingly it really took off. It was for generally educated audience, but all my other books have been scholarly books or memoirs. Its pretty much the same theme only this delves into one part of it. I was really amazed at mostly really young people and student students, i just got invited to speak in so many places, and for three years ive been on the road without both and how relieved they seem to be. These were from all different backgrounds. They were the most mixed audiences i can imagine for a book that sounded kind of academic and i think they are seeking the truth. They sort of know they are being lied to or obfuscated. Things are not clear and its crazy making because there are so many problems looming all the time in the war and the income inequality, the incarceration and these things seem so intractable and i think its just refreshing, they have a clearer idea, it doesnt solve the problem how we proceed now, but i think you can be really frank with these young people today. You can really spell things out and even young immigrants who might, they come thinking, some of them, not many but some common desperation, most common desperation because they have to. But they come with ideals and some think they will get rich. They think everybody can get rich if they work hard in the United States and the whole oligarchy is run the by trust babies. They didnt work for their fortunes, some of these tax did but they came from privileged families so its a mythology. They find that out pretty quickly, but i think while they are students and while theyre learning, even in middle school, that book is coming out in a young young adult edition and the person who rewrote it, a native woman writes childrens literature and critique said about native people and her rewrite, i think its better than mine, its so good. It doesnt water anything down all. These young people have access to all the information or misinformation and while they are young they have a certain sense, when something ring true or not and certainly when it rang false. Kids are smart that way. You can fool them a lot and they can grow up into adult monsters, but they are open to the fact, we arent doing enough i think, those of us who do pedagogy, to say in the Public Schools you might get fired. I know in oklahoma the real heroes are the teachers and librarians, but there almost likes immersive. They do subversive things. They think of all kinds of creative ways to introduce material because if they adopted a book they wouldnt be allowed to, its so controlled. Texas school board decides all of the textbooks for the country. But they actually do. So if the material is there and its readable, so much academic stuff thats wonderful that comes out, i sort of translate, im not talking about robin or gerald, they are perfectly clear but a lot of the academic literature that comes out, it has to go through a stage of not watering down but taking any jargon out. I think we have less jargon as historians. Were very bad riders. I worked at being a better writer or they think they have to entertain. Most historians are not very humorous. Often they dont know themselves. They really dont know. Thats why i did the Indigenous Peoples history. They recommended it. They had published his book in 1980 and i kept getting him. [inaudible] it has never been in a mainstream history book before. I really loved that. Then they got to wounded knee while the whole civil war there were no indians there even though there are massacre and the army of the west without working the confederate and union armies fought together several times against the apaches, but he gets to 1890 in the massacre at wounded knee is no indian again until his contemporary chapter in the seizure of alcatraz in 1969. I said what happened to them. Were they incubating or sleeping through a long winter and he would say roxanne, youve got to write that book. Some historians say that to be nasty like i wrote my book, you write yours, but thats not how he was. He really meant it and i realized that when i started writing it. He was right. It was a hard book to write because if you convince people of the genocide, its kind of a relief. They say thats terrible but they dont have to deal with indians anymore mama but they are still here. Theres still a colonial system. Its still a good part of the land base that is legally theirs. Now they want to privatize it so i think the binary of blackandwhite that is so standard that if you put the native people in there, it changes everything. I think theres a really good book, why you cannot write United States history without indians. Its not just be nice and inclusive. Its that you cant understand anything about u. S. History unless you understand where all this came from. Hitting being honest in writing clearly and doing public things like gerald horne does and robin and their organizers too. Robin kelly is a great organizer. He is wonderful. Hes here right now. Youre a historian, come over. Any other questions . Thank you. [applause] copies are available at the checkout center. Please form a line to the right. Please fold up your chairs and lean them against something solid. Thank you. [inaudible conversations] booktv is covered many authors on the Second Amendment. It includes journalist emily muller and the parents of travon martin, Sabrina Fulton and tracy martin. If this is a topic that interests you, go to our website booktv. Org and in the search bar type in gun books. You will find a large number of materials available to watch online. Often the illusion of information is far more dangerous than ignorance. The way trust theorist will put this, he will say trust has two enemies, not one. The first is bad character. The second is poor information. The question i decided to ask myself in my research was how can the technology address these problems. Is technology making us smarter about who we trust or is it encouraging us to place our trust in the wrong people in the wrong places . Are we giving our trust away to the wrong things and is technology playing a role in that . Why do i think this is such an important question . Lets do a very quick exercise. You can see where this is going. I will give you a bill that will sound nice and loud in the church and you can use it for the person you think is the least trustworthy. So when i say the name you say boo. If you think Harvey Weinstein is the least trustworthy person say boo now. If you think President Trump is the least trust. Trustworthy person on this slide say boo now. If you think so feel the robot is the first robot that has citizenship, she has been made a citizen of saudi arabia. If you think sophia is the least trustworthy person on the slide, say boo now. Okay so the robot is more trustworthy than the president of the United States. Lets do this in reverse. I can clap. I would like you to clap for the company you think is the most trustworthy. If you think google is the most Trustworthy Company, clap now. [applause] facebook, who thanks facebook is the most Trustworthy Company on this slide . No one. Amazon. So i think amazon and google were, maybe amazon was slightly ahead, but its a rubbish exercise, but i made you do it because i thought one of you might say to me, trust them to do what. This is a really important point. It is something that i find very hard when i open up the newspapers or i listen to the media, the way we talk about trust is in these very general terms. Its very dangerous. their employees well so this is the first thing that i would like you to think about is when we are talking about trust to keep in mind in our own lives and institutions and leaders and individuals that trust is highly contextual. Do not get in the car with me because i am a terrible driver. You can watch this and other programs online on booktv. Org. Up next on booktv after words Republican NationalCommittee Spokesperson reports on the grassroots populist movement in the United States. Shes interviewed by the daily beast senior columnist matt lewis. This is a weekly Interview Program with relevant guest hosts interviewing top nonfiction authors about their