The exhibition is called americans and it is built on a paradox, the riddle. The paradox is this in 2018 the United States is a country of 283 million people. And indians are perhaps 1 of that population. Most americans live in urban or suburban areas and parts of the country where they never actually see American Indians. And yet American Daily life, indian images, advertising, mascots, surround people every single day. So this show is about exploring the strange contradiction of how prevalent American Indians are in American Life, really from the earliest memories of americans throughout their life, and yet somehow it was never really noticed much, never seems important. The Curatorial Team decided to call this phenomenon indians everywhere. Its normalizing whats actually a very weird phenomenon. We looked and we couldnt find any other country in which one ethnic group has been used for so many different purposes for such an extraordinarily long time into the present. We want to enlarge the discussion beyong sterotypes and Cultural Appropriation and look at the vastness of it, the uniqueness of it, and explored the reasons for why it exists. We have over 300 objects and images of representation for American Indians before the country began up to the present, and they cover every manner of advertising for every sort of product. And we have a handful of major objects that will get a significant amount of visitor attention, including a motorcycle from 1948. People who love motorcycles often revered the Indian Motorcycle as a special model. It was at the height of American Engineering craftsmanship and style. And whats interesting to us about the motorcycle is that the name of the brand was chosen to distinguish it from competition, particularly from the u. K. The companys gone through many changes through the years. It still exists. Ownership has changed multiple times. Almost nothing exists from the early days when it started out as a bicycle factory and becomes a motorcycle brand. And so it went through all of these changes in ownership. The one thing that survives is indian. That becomes the more valuable thing about the product is the name indian. You see here how much they emphasize that and the options are all indianrelated. Again, you dont choose Something Like that unless you feel it adds value, that sort of name, that sort of advertising strategy. One of the things the exhibition is about is how indians add value to products, entertainment, and ultimately to the nation itself. Something people often look for was something about the local nfl team here in washington. We werent really sure how to present the objects, because we thought them to be a little boring. What we chose to do was in multiple places, really show how these mascots are in everyday life, rather than show them by themselves are you here we have a photograph of Robert Griffin the third, a sensational quarterback for the redskins. What we were interested in is to really appreciate why people support teams. Very people you pull very few people say we say come a which team has the best name echo you usually support a team because youre in a region, because your family and friends support it. The teams are chosen by rich guys, and it isnt a determinative thing. We want to respect that sport play a huge role in civic life, brings people together. Having that image of Robert Griffin iii with a young fan feels like a generous approach to this, while at the same time it is a dictionarydefined slur. Most indians are certainly opposed to it. For me it as someone who lives in the washington area, to see that as the main representation of indians on a daily basis. At the same time we are not about trashing people who support the team. Were interested in dialogue and debate about this. For people who look for washington redskins, it is here. I think everyone understands of a team came up no one would choose such a name and it seems clear eventually the name would change. It was part of our effort to be welcoming to people, including people who dont necessarily agree with us. Ive always thought the Chicago Blackhawks had one of the most attractive logos as far as aesthetics. The professional sports teams are what we thing of, but again, what we think is interesting is there are such a tiny number of other examples. People say, what about the notre dame irish, what about the Dallas Cowboys . In terms of an entire ethnic group, its like 1000 to one. We are looking what makes this both socially acceptable and something you dont really need to think about. Most people never thought about it, it just seemed right to call a Team Warriors or indians or apache. It wasnt even an issue. Thats really what we are trying to get at, really look at how pervasive it is and how strange it is once you take a look at it. This photograph is of Michelle Obama when she was first lady with people wearing Chicago Blackhawks jerseys. Something just to show how this becomes normalized and ordinary. When we thought about how to show this in the exhibition, one decision we made was when possible to show Childrens Clothing and apparel. Its about how people usually decide to support a team, usually because thats where they live, and it tends to be a Unifying Force in many ways, and and it comes in a way that dehumanizes American Indians. Again, this is something that happens to native american people, and rarely does it happen to other ethnic groups in the United States to this degree. There is not one opinion as far as American Indians on this phenomenon. Two examples that are clear are the cleveland indians, which most people would say the image, the chief feels very stereotypical, from another age. Some might disagree but i think most nonindian people would say that feels out of place. The team is now phasing that logo out. Washington redskins, being again, a dictionarydefined slur, others arent so clear. The blackhawks or the name indians without a stereotypical name. They used a headdress to promote a team in the early days. Now they are still called the warriors, but they make no reference to American Indians. So i think those are interesting things to debate. But our point of view is, again, how vast the phenomenon is. We decided to avoid being prescriptive and saying this one is ok, or Chicago Blackhawks, if you make this change its fine. They are really looking at the larger picture. I think every exhibition should have a photograph of Elvis Presley in it. In this case, its an example of how many distinguished americans have found themselves wearing a headdress. Elvis presley did a movie in which he played a native american character. Others werent playing in native american character, including Franklin Delano roosevelt, richard nixon, the famous union leader jimmy hoffa, cher. The reasons why people wore headdresses in these particular ways vary. We were interested in showing again how people would never think in this context would end up wearing a headdress. Indians are the wallpaper of American Life and through most of the countrys history would seem like something that just made sense. So when we talk about these representations surrounding americans throughout their lives, one of the most important ways is through movies and television. So we have a section of this exhibition, which shows really almost 100 years of these images, going away from john fords 1939 movies stagecoach all the way to the Unbreakable Kimmy Schmidt and other contemporary television comedies. And its a little bit like the celebrities who play an indian wearing a headdress or like chaka khan in an indian outfit, that situation comedies in the 60s and 70s had nothing to do with indians. They would routinely have indianthemed shows. It could be the munsters. It could be seinfeld. It was interesting to us, because television is in many ways a more intimate form than film because its in your living room, its in your house. And youre actually watching indians in American Life on tv in your living room. So again, if you ask people were there indians those tv shows, they may not remember. Often they see the gallery and say, oh yes, that brady bunch episode. I remember all about it. I always knew i wanted this in a show, but thought we would probably decide against it, because kids today didnt grow up with this image. This is called the rca test pattern and in the early days of television it would be broadcast at the beginning of the broadcast day, at the end, and often throughout the day, when Television Still had limited amount of programming. But actually you see this image now in hipster tshirts, in video games. Its established a life of itself even though it stopped being used in broadcast in the 1960s. What was interesting about it was in the late 40s and 50s when tv was new, its a completely different kind of light that didnt previous exist. Its light from a cathode ray tube. Its this weird machine thats in your house. The engineers wanted something that could actually adjust the broadcast quality, the picture quality, so that explains the lines and the numbers and everything. They also wanted a drawing to get that quality and it just makes sense to use an indian in a headdress. Everyone knows an indian and a headdress. It also signifies americanness. I think theres something spooky and subversive about this brand new form of light. Its in your living room. Its on early in the morning, late at night. I somehow feel there is something bizarre going on with the american consciousness where this is somehow getting into peoples heads in a way they dont fully understand even today. Off of this main hall, we have three galleries that look at these huge moments in American History. Well look at one now. 50 years after the American Revolution, the United States passed the indian removal act of 1830. This section of the exhibition is about teh trail of tears. What we are really looking at here is how the indian removal act is the most significant law ever passed, more important than any other single treaty or federal action. We look at why we believe that to be true, and we also look at it in this moment in which in a sense american democracy was on trial. In 1830, the United States was the only Representative Democracy in the world. Revolutions had failed in europe and despite all the horrific flaws in the United States in 1830, the enslavement of black people, women couldnt vote, of course, indians being dispossessed. Even two years later, even white men couldnt vote unless they owned property. With all these terrible flaws in the United States, it still was a beacon of hope around the world. It still was a country that took seriously its enlightening ideals. In 1830 this National Conversation that had been simmering for some time comes to a head and the Jackson Administration proposes the indian removal act. And really what its about is trying to manage this problem, which are there are indian nations inside the borders of the United States. It limits their development it feels intolerable to a certain number of americans that there should be this selfdescribed indian nations within the United States. In 1830, the act, modest in length and language, proposes something that is really quite extraordinary. It really imagines a future in which the United States would exist without American Indians. It proposes an exchange of lands so that indians inside the territorial borders of the United States would move west of the mississippi. So this is one solution, and it ignites a very Intense National debate. And what we show in this section is how many points of view there were on this. And that in fact American Indians had a great deal of agency and influence in the conversation. John ross, the cherokee leader was a National Political figure in the United States. He was pretty well known and could marshall allies, both politicians and members of congress, but also civic groups. There were also legislators very opposed to what this act was talking about, which was a removal of American Indians. So we knew that most americans today, if they know the term trail of tears, they understand it as a moment of National Shame for the United States. There are few people who say it was our finest hour, so we know people understand it was something the country regrets. But what we were interested in doing is trying to explain how there was a Real National debate about this, that people at the time, including people in congress, predicted this it would not go well and the country would regret it. We wanted to show that it was a National Conversation that happened. So in this section we showed a range of points of view. We actually start with president jefferson, who was a leader understood that there was a contradiction in his mind about having these indian nations within the borders of the United States, and he thought a lot about what the Different Solutions might be to that. Usually, with some form of removal dispossession that was being talked about. During these early decades of the 19th century, the cotton team was just coming into its own. It was clear that cotton could be an engine of Economic Development in the deep south. When this was happening, indians are under intesne pressure to remove themselves, and some of them do accept offers of removal in exchange for land and money. But this debate is a moment in which the country really has to think about what it stands for. So we show points of view of president jefferson, of john ross, the cherokee leader, and we talk about different civic organizations that were involved as well. And a particular member of congress, who spoke really eloquently against the indian removal act, and again from the point of view as a betrayal of american principles. So i think president jackson in a way gets too much credit for the removal. There were two choices behind this before he came into office. He was certainly the manager and executor of the policy. And he oversaw the passage of the indian removal act. It interesting hes become synonymous with this one part of his administration, because for most of the decades since he left office, he was much more known for other policies, such as the bank of the United States, being the first person who wasnt from virginia or massachusetts to become president. It shows how history changes. At the same time, jackson is a person, if you had to say who was the person most responsible, it was certainly president jackson. One thing thats a surprise to most visitors is how close a vote was in congress and it passed with a margin, but it wasnt an overwhelming margin. I think its fair to say that after this debate, it really became National Policy in a genuine way. That even though the vote was split, once it was enacted into law, then it really does become the policy of the United States of america, and one of the things that was set in place was a template for a kind of paternalistic approach towards American Indians. This was interesting humanitarian argument that says this is really good for American Indians. They are going to be much better off west of the mississippi. They are going to be just fine and they are being compensated. That humanitarian argument carried over in the sense of a century policies following this, that basically said the United States knew what was best for American Indians. So this section is really about words and texts and their meanings. Its startling to actually read the act, which visitors can do. Its not very long, 200 words. It never particularly references any particular indian tribe. Its almost like a real estate pitch. You know, lets exchange lets come to a deal, exchange lands. It doesnt directly suggest that if American Indians choose not to accept lands in the west, they can stand everything will be fine. So its extraordinarily misleading. Its also revealing in that it does state pretty clearly that the states in the south would grow in economic wealth and power, an explicit goal that this would help build this part of the United States, which is being held back, in the view of the act, by these internal nations within the United States. Its very clear what its saying, that we are doing this for Economic Development reasons, and its extremely misleading in that it implies that this is voluntary, that it is an offer. And it is misleading in that its not indicating its targeting indian nations in the south. After the indian removal act was passed in may of 1830, indian nations still fought against it. They still marshaled public opinion. They filed suits in the United StatesSupreme Court to prevent it. And, you know, kept fighting throughout the 1830s. Some indian nations did go ahead with removal. It is room its important or member conditions indians were under attack. A lot of indians understood where this was all going. And its become understood in american imagination. One of the things we wanted to accomplish in this exhibition was to show that this is a large national, even global event. Its not really about the cherokee, is about the five civilized tribes that transformed national borders, transformed to national economies. It was also a massive project for the United States to carry out. President jackson had to personally sign every plan for the United States. He spent one miserable december signing thousands of them by hand. They passed a law that said some details could sign the deed. It gives you an idea of how small the federal government was. In tis section, which we call the machinery of removal, we focused on how a project it was, and how successful it was in one of its goals, to create economic wealth in the United States. And a catastrophe, to imagine it could do that and that this would be a good thing for American Indians. Of course it was a disastrous failure. One of the things few people understand is that removal from the passage of the act until the final removal treaties were amended and changed and the final things made out, it actually spend it actually extended nine president ial administrations. President jackson wasnt actually the president during the final jury of the trail of tears. Again, it became a huge National Policy. It was epic in scope. It involved half of the states of the union in removal routes, involved west of the mississippi. It was expensive. Some scholars estimate it would be Something Like 100 million total. It was something that not only affected the south but created economic wealth in new england. Cotton was an important commodity on the planet. We are looking at how massive a project this was. Orchestrated by a bad president , and the National Policy carried it out. It was epic, it was brutal, it was visionary. By the end of the decade, the wealthiest americans in the country has the explosion was the removal, the removal of the last. To have itself be a region. We focus on the kingdom a lot. Its important to find out that the fine to point out that the five civilized tribes were considered slave states. Most indians in those nations didnt own slaves. They were, by law, slave states. They reinstated slavery when they went into indian territory, and they fought with confederacy. One of the goals if the museum is to show indians as fully human, as capable of all the good and evil and with any other kinds of people do. We have an image of the house and a native leader who had hundreds of enslaved persons, and his mansion was based on one by napoleon and france. So its complicated and this is something the museum is taking on to show the complexity of some of this history. The cotton kingdomss success of building it came at an extraordinarily high cost. The disposition of native americans. Even that wealth, even accessibility on the country. That enslaved labor results in the civil war. , the worst war in American History. The end result of this is something that the country is still coming to terms with. There is an argument to say that indian removal was the most significant event between the American Revolution and the civil war. So when American Indians arrived in indian territory its a different landscape, a different environment, different situation. I think people from the 1830s would be really surprised if they understood in the 21stcentury these same indian nations reconstitutes themselves formally and legally and are still in pretty good shape in the unites states. They still have a sovereign status. It was in oklahoma i was in oklahoma and you see Television Commercials in the major channels. The chickasaw nation and choctaw nation, these are nations that have actual genuine power today. And have recovered in a way that would be shocking to people from the 1830s. That certainly is an element to the story that they really want to be understood. They not only survived but they prospered in this new place. The trail of tears is a really famous event. Pretty much almost all americans know that phrase, the trail of tears. I think everyone knows something was bad that was done to indians, and we know Andrew Jackson was part of that story. What we found is that it tends to be seen as a shameful moment in history but a small event. We hope to show how it was a much larger event. We operated from what people already think and people already know. So at the concluding section of the exhibit we look at trail of tears in National Memory over time. Whats interesting is the trail of tears, indian removal, was never forgotten by American Indians. But in National Memory it faded away pretty quickly. And when you look at what historians wrote in the late 19th century, into the first half of the 20th century, its rarely in textbooks as a major event involving indians, and its often completely omitted from discussions of the Jackson Administration. There are many, t many books written that barely touched upon it or ignored it altogether. Now is the first thing people think of when they think of president jackson. People are really familiar with that phrase. So in our last section we show how that didnt just happen by accident. There was actually this cadre of young indian women in early at the in the early 20th century that launched a campaign that started to catch on. There was a cherokee woman who dressed plains clothing, even though cherokees didnt wear that, to talk to people about indian removal. The phrase trail of tears caught on. It was not until the 1950s that it started appearing a lot and not until the 60s and 70s that it became wellknown. So were always fascinated about how American History changes over time. How we understand events today is different than how people understood it at other times even though the facts of what happened dont actually change. Toda we see that the Largest National park is the trail of tears national trail. We see native americans walking and riding through that. You see motorcycle clubs, you see all kinds of people enjoying that. And you see its now something thats understood, it is a major event in American History. What we hope this exhibition will do is enlarge that understanding of it, that really was an epic chapter that was about national borders, global economies and setting forward policies about indians that had effect long after the the actual removal. This billboard behind me, we chose that because we wanted to sort of suggest something provocative that has visitors kind of question what they may already think they know about it. And again to say this was a moment of Huge National significance that affected the entire country and not just an unfortunate policy carried out by a single president. You can watch this and other american artifacts programs by visiting our website, cspan. Org history