Transcripts For CSPAN3 Andrew Denson Monuments To Absence 20221012

Glad that youve joined us today for our special program. We are joined by dr. Andrew denson western Carolina University. The theme of this years Georgia History festival is about the importance of place in georgia, and were going to be really focusing today on the experience of the cherokee people in Georgia History. What happened to them and the way that georgians have remembered their history and their experience particularly with removal coming forward all the way up into the present. I want to welcome dr. Denton to our program andrew welcome and thanks so much for being here with us. Thanks, dan. Its a really good to talk with you all. Let me give andrew a quick introduction as i mentioned. Hes a professor of history at western Carolina University where he teaches courses on native american and United States history. He participates in their Cherokee Studies Program as you might expect he is the author of this book published by the university of North Carolina, press its called monuments to absence cherokee removal and the contest over southern memories. I mentioned published by the university of North Carolina, press in 2017. So andrew as i mentioned the theme and ill give the official title here of the Georgia History festival for 2021 and 22 is from marshes to mountains. Georgias changing landscape geography history and community really talking about the importance of place and the way the land has helped Shape Community and people over time. So lets start by talking about the cherokee if you will introduce our audience to whos the cherokee people or fit them into if you can a Georgia History and tell us about what happened. Sure. Well the center of the cherokee homeland traditional cherokee homeland is in president western, North Carolina. So not too far for from where i am today and really where where i work here in coloring North Carolina is really the very close to the heart of jugly. Jolieghi way to the ancient the traditional cherokee homeland. But that homeland extended into areas that are you know that now include parts of northern georgia and in fact areas that are now been northern georgia became particularly important in the after the American Revolution and individly part of the 19th century. Theres theres a during the American Revolution. Theres a bit of a i guess youd say a bit of a geographical shift as cherokees lost land in whats now about country of like, South Carolina and parts of North Carolina see a little bit of a shift with the center of things moving. I mean still centered, you know here in in the mountains but northern georgia becomes or whats now northern georgia comes quite significant economically and politically particularly when the Turkey National capital is located is placed in neoshota and your present day calhoun, so at land that is kind of claimed by georgia within a state borders in the early 19th century. Includes large tracks of cherokee territory and then of course probably the most famous way in which the Cherokee Nation enters into Georgia History is in the removal era, georgia. The state of georgia the government of georgia is the actor that does the most to create a political crisis for the cherokees in the late 1820s and 1830s that eventually results in the force migration of cherokees. Most cherokees not all cherokees, but most cherokees to the west to indian territory land that is is in the present continue within the state of oklahoma. So the Cherokee Nation in early, Georgia History operates almost as like a antagonist. I guess you would say to the State Government of georgia the state of georgia vigorously pursues the dispossession of the Cherokee Nationists as well as of course the muskogee nation the creek nation, so the presence of the Cherokee Nations very very important in early, georgia politics and removal is a central pursuing the removal of native peoples including the cherokees as a central goal of early, georgia. So because were talking about the importance of place how long roughly had the cherokee people been living in west what is now western North Carolina and northern georgia. Was this an ancestral homeland that went back centuries thousands of years. Do we know . Oh, yeah. Yeah. Absolutely. Absolutely. I mean as far as cherokees are concerned, this is i mean, this is the homeland right . You know the only homeland the ancient homeland the the continuing homeland, so as i say the center of things tends to be more in kind of western of, North Carolina. But in terms of what cherokees historically and today identify as as their homeland, i mean this this is this is it both northern Georgia Western part of president western North Carolina parts of the up country of, South Carolina. Southeastern, tennessee this is this is where creation happens as far as like the oral tradition is concerned. This is from time and memorial if you want to use the the western term, so so this is this is it this is the center of things. So is it safe to assume then and not to romanticize any of this, but this isnt that north Georgia Western North Carolina have been ancestral homeland of the cherokee for centuries millennia millennia, and so its safe to assume that there are cherokee berry rooms remains still in those areas if you were walking on the appalachian trail for instance. Are you very likely in a place where the cherokee would have been for millennia . Yes or um, you know turkey settlements most settlements of nonnatives in like early history of North Carolina or georgia. I mean tended to be clustered in, you know, valleys and places where you do agriculture, but you know if youre talking about like that black and trail or some of the high piece some of your sort of looking down upon places that have been inhabited for yeah for millennia. Just speaking about the place where i work coloring, North Carolina. Im in colorway we know from archeology on campus has really unbroken history of human habitation that goes back thousands of years. It was a cherokee town before it was a nonnative settlement, but then before its its even the town that ends up being identified as colorly. Its its a valley that turkey ancestors have lived in for you know as far back as as Human History goes. So yeah, these are ancient places. I mean northern Georgia Western i mean and really all all american places are ancient places. Theyre all someones ancestral homeland someones ancient homeland. Describe briefly than if you will the the kind of life they lived in these places before contact with a european imperial powers. Sure, so if youre talking about the i mean what historys called the contact era so theyre the early part of sort of the moment of the beginning of colonization cherokee people like many southeastern people something that would have been living in agricultural villages. I mean sort of farmers. I mean, i know many of many of the most popular images of native americans and American Culture kind of identify native americans as being like nomadic or not rooted in the landscape, but pretty much everybody here in is agricultural. The corn farmers although they also use a very wide variety of wild and and cultivated plants that were talking about agricultural towns. Um, its on the most important towns are also have at their center sacred earthworks. So mounds mounds that support Council Houses at the center which are religious and political and social centers of towns surrounding those areas you have houses made of wood and while end up and then agricultural field stretching along the creeks and the river bottoms. And so youre talking about a very a farming People Fairly sedentary people people that that use wide range of other resources, i guess whos saying the landscape, but but who are very much since were talking about place very much rooted in these specific valleys these River Valleys so like that tuckaseegee, where where i work the the little tennessee, so this is a world thats defined by these River Valleys and by these town organizations these agricultural town centers. But what role did the cherokee play in the American Revolutionists as american colonial settlement began to create westward, which of course i dont think but i dont think correct me but by the middle of the 18th century wasnt quite the problem that it would be in the early part of the 19th in terms of western american settlement, but they did have like most native tribes a key role in the American Revolution or i believe yes. Yes. So like most of the large native american nations in the interior of the eastern part of north america the cherokees who participate in the American Revolution do so on the side of the british there not doing this out of any particular like love for the british other cherokees had been military and economic allies of british colonies coming out of like, South Carolina virginia for for relatively long period of time but cherokees those who do participate in the revolution do so because theyre trying to use the alliance with Great Britain to push back against nonnative settlement. So this is used as i mean, its a its a gamble, but its used as an opportunity to push back against encroaching settlement and settlement in places like western, North Carolina or the upstate of South Carolina. This works out very badly. I guess you would say for for cherokee communities in response to cherokee attacks on frontier settlements in 1776, North Carolina, virginia, south, carolina, georgia. Send militia invasions into the Cherokee Country really really focused on sort of southeastern, tennessee and western North Carolina. And those those invasions those militia forces proceed to essentially destroy everything. They can find there there isnt much in the way of fighting. This is about the cherokee population large parts of the cherokee population being put to light and turned into essentially. Trees and so this is a desperately horrible experience the revolution this in this part of the world and its some of the language that you see around, you know coming out of like colonial leaders. Coming out of patriot leaders and the people involved in these militia invasions. I mean, its its pretty much genocidal languish and were talking about a need to drive cherokees from the frontier in order to as they see it eliminate a threat in the backcountry during this this crisis with Great Britain. So the revolution is is just a horrendously traumatic experience for many cherokee communities and it goes on the fighting thats tied to the revolution in the Cherokee Country as in other parts of native america, it goes on even longer than you know, the fighting between the colonies and Great Britain. Yeah the revolution the revolutionary war as far as the United States is concerned ends in 1783, but there are cherokees and other native peoples who are continuing to fight essentially a war thats rooted in the revolution. Well into the the 1790s and so its this long period of warfare that takes a a terrible toll on cherokee communities and other native American Communities. I mean the revolution is something of a tragedy for many native groups who participate not because not because of any of the issues we usually think about with in connection with the revolution they participate because theyre hoping to use this alliance with Great Britain as a way of protecting their own autonomy their own freedom and their own their own land. So you have this sometimes tell students. You have a set of native american struggles for liberty and freedom taking place in the backcountry, but these are being fought against the people. We usually associate with with, you know, sort of the struggle for american freedom. Yeah any idea how many people were talking about and not just in in north georgia, but in the eastern of the western part of North Carolina near where you are do historians have any rough guesses as the size of the population youre describing yes, i mean at the at the time of trying to think if i can remember the numbers that summer removal at the time removal in the 1830s youre talking about. Well, the 20,000 people or 50 50 to 20,000 people still in the cherokee territory. Thats thats a rebound from for the revolutionary era so the cherokee population kind of time restores is restored after the after kind of a low point in the revolution. So so yeah, i mean thats sort of the numbers are talking about specifically for cherokees. Um, so the cherokee are allowed with the british during the revolution, they continue to struggle against the americans of georgians as they move west in the years after the revolution so describe what happens because take them up to removal because by the time of removal in the american popular imagination the cherokee were a very different kind of people then what we traditionally think of and certainly what we have seen portrayed in Popular Culture as to what American Indians look like what they were doing what their society is like the cherokee were very different. Um, yeah, so the most famous image of cherokees in the early 19th century. Is this this idea of like pov civilized tribe quoteunquote which you know as a label thats applied by nonnatives to cherokee people and what that what that is with the sort of captures is the extent to which not just a charities but many native americans find themselves dealing with the United States. In the wake of the revolution begin to make adjustments essentially in an effort to find a future in which native nations can coexist with this new United States this very vigorously expansive United States United States that keeps coming back to them demanding more and more land and putting more and more pressure on them. And so in the early part of the late 18th early 19th century the United States encourages. Cultural social and economic changes in its in its relationships with with native americans cherokees have a reputation historically as being more receptive to those changes. I think in some ways thats thats a server romantic image as well as some of the other images that circulate in American Culture. So cherokees tend to for political purposes tend to play up the idea that they have. Adopted elements of your American Culture and society and economics in response to these these policies are encouraging those changes, but thats clearly an attempt to mollify the United States and to make the case that the United States can leave the Cherokee Nation alone and so in the public rhetoric you often get cherokee leaders in the early part of the 19th century say, oh, well, you know weve um, yeah, weve adopted yourself of agriculture and you know, weve left about you know, what theyll say is like weve left behind the hunt right . Were no longer following the hunting economy. You know, were farmers. Of course. They had always been farmers were farmers now, were becoming christians you get this plane to that that image of the civilized tribe a lot of things are changing, but its much more of a like selective adaptation and thats thats true. Not just a cherokee people but native groups all through the interior and the important thing to emphasize is that, you know cherokees could adopt elements of like your american in particular economic practices and has the most popular adaptation i guess do that without pursuing what none it is often think is happening, which is some form of assimilation or some form of a culturation which you tend to see in the Cherokee Nation and other places as sort of selective adaptation of specialty economic practices. Beyond that during this time you see cherokee officials. In some cases welcoming nonindian missionaries to come into cherokee territory instead of schools. This isnt again an effort to abandon cherokee ways, but its an effort to make sure that some people in the turkey nation are able to speak english or able to operate successfully and market a economy. Its its about adaptation to the presence of the United States with generally with i think the the hope that by adjusting to the United States and by by at least trying to convince the United States that native people are going along with some of its policy agenda that this will help them to hold on to what they have or hold on to their land. Hold on to their political autonomy, you know remain in here in the cherokee homeland, but yeah, things are changing. The economy is changing especially. You have more turkey people who are foon in english as the early 19th century goes on some social changes and then politically probably the most profound change politically you see the Cherokee Nation cherokee leaders forming a Central Government the political traditional political structure of the cherokee people is fairly decentralized. So towns towns tended to be more or less autonomous different talents different areas of the Cherokee Nation could act together but towns tended to be able to follow their own, you know their own policies basically and guide their own affairs in the early part of the 19th century in response to the United States basically as a way to try to prevent further loss of land and ultimately to prevent force deportation to prevent removal. You see cherokees creating a Central Government and this is the government that ends up briefly being taking new achota as its capital. And but in creating that government theyre attempting to create a political voice that will be able to hold the United States and states like georgia at bay. So this is an adjustment and and theres a sense among a lot of historians. I think that while that government is being created into it showed up. At the same time you still have a lot of really traditional political practices taking place. You know in more traditional communities as you dont want to emphasize too much this this sense of change. Its really about adjustment and adjustment with the goal of holding on to land protecting purechae autonomy. Okay were the cherokee participating in slavery . During this period you described yes, so during the part of the 19th century on late 18th early 19th century you do see some cherokee families adopting the model of slavery that is already prevalent within you know, the new United States and there forms of slavery there is captive slavery, you know the enslaving of native american captives as part of war that that has much deeper history as a history that goes back, you know before. European contact but in terms of the institution of slavery that we generally think of in terms of southern history. Yes, you do see channel slavery, you know africanamerican slaves in the Cherokee Nation in the early part of the 19th century. So is there any discussion or even negotiation during all this time leading up to the period that we now think of as removal . Was there any discussion between georgia authorities us authorities and cherokee officials over becoming american citizens . Was that ever on the table was ever a possibility . So that is generally i mean in a sense. Yes, so theres theres kind of an expectation that sooner or later native americans are going to kind of blend into the broader American Population. Thats a thats a an aspect of the broader expectation that your americans always bring in the United States always brings in the 19th century to native people, which is that theyre going to go away in one way or another either through displacement or through some form of assimilation. So that early those early policies that encouraged cultural and social and economic change. They they generally have this assumption that sooner or later sometime in the future. Youre going to see the name of population. Just kind of being absorbed or sort of dwindling and eventually whoevers left will become part of the party United States. But coupled with that, of course, is that this theyre really nice century in the United States where it sounds like theres Public Acceptance of nonwhites as citizens, right . So you had this like dual image where the the deeply seated racism of American Society is that odds with this assumption of assimilation and so the idea of native americans becoming not citizable like equal citizens. I mean thats thats sort of a remote possibility at best in practical terms. But as as a policy you do see this this expectation that that that might happen. So its a its a strange situation. Its held out as a possibility but as a practical thing its its not its not really a promise that the United States can fill and that the idea the idea that theyre going to become white is not ever really on the tape. Its it is and it isnt so it is in the in the sense of like youll see intellectuals or policymakers saying that yes sooner or later. Their destiny is to you know, people come part of the Great Republic but in practical terms, i mean youre talking about a society that is that deeply fears nonwhites of all kinds and that doesnt offer in any sort of like practical way quality. And so its its there but not as a as a as a promise that the United States can fulfill one. Sort of side issue to that question in some of the the really treaties in the 19th century with the United States. There is this what one is trying is called like an experiment with citizenship. So in the trees that cherokee signed in 1817 and 18 19, theres this offer that heads of household that individual cherokees receive. Individual Land Holdings. So individual lands, i could sort of choose family lands and part of this is a promise that they will, you know, essentially become state citizens so become citizens of North Carolina or for wherever. And so theres this experiment in citizenship in those treaties, but what happens in practical terms, is that the United States promises us to cherokee people in those treaties, but the states in which they find themselves living as as lands are sold. They dont accept that and so here in North Carolina, for example, there are these individual Land Holdings to cherokees claim all through like there where im now today including cleaning part of our campus, but almost immediately the state of North Carolina and then land speculators including many of the people who are like the founders of White Communities out here set out to strip those lands from from cherokees. And so that that captures to me this sense that in a intellectual senseio. The United States could promise someday equal citizenship but in practical terms nobody is offering that right in practical terms, and its very very clear. I think i think to native americans that theyre not going to be accepted even if they want to become part of the United States, which are a lot of reasons why you wouldnt in the early 19th century, even if they want to become part of the United States. Thats not a quality isnt something thats going to be offered by the us. So in many ways then its its sort of like the African American experience after emancipation and as we go up to the jim crow period no matter how much education no happen no matter how much industrial training no matter how much theyre able to sort of become what white americans think they should be they are not accepted and are not going to be so take us through removal because we want to do get to the to the memory part of this year, but despite having lived here for millennia this being their homeland a place central to their identity, um georgians and the United States president and federal government decided they needed to be removed. This happened basically in the late 1830s. Is that correct . Yeah, although removal as an idea goes back further than that. So Thomas Jefferson and 1803 talks about the possibility of forcing or convincing. I guess. Its probably how he put it native to migrate to the you purchased louisiana territory as almost like as like a byproduct of louisiana purchase. So the idea is pretty old by the 1820s 1830s. What happens in the 1830s is that it becomes the kind of central goal of American Indian policy and thats thats tied to you know, Andrew Jacksons election jackson had was a long time removal advocate when hes elected. He makes and other jacksonian democrats make removal as an official policy one of their primary goals of jacksons first term so its an old idea that then becomes the central focus of American Indian policy and the late 1820s and into the 1830s. And so what the removal policy does is it creates a set of mechanisms for actually curing out that deportation as far as georgia is concerned this has to do with georgias the boundaries that were established after the American Revolution which when you look at at the map if you if you look at what looks like in 1790 1800 most of the land that the state of georgia or a lot of the land of the state of georgia claims as georgia is in fact crete territory and cherokee territory what this does then is it creates this incredible drive really to to possess those lands. This is also encouraged by some of the economic changes of the period of the rise of cotton kingdom. The what historians called the market revolution the economic boom in the early 19th century. And so you have this just incredible pressure for many decades coming from georgia and other states as well aimed at as they would see it completing the territory that was promised. I guess he would say to the state and this puts them on a collision course with you know, the creek nation with the Cherokee Nation because these are also lands that are guaranteed by treaties with the United States you have a political demand by states like georgia that this land should sooner or later become part of the state of georgia should be taken away from native nations, but then you also have a promise like repeated promises from the United States that this land is cherokee land or creekland muskogee land and you have an obligation in those trees on the part of the United States to help crease and cherokees defend those lands. So what happens in the removal era is never after the removal policy you end up with . A president ial administration in jackson and to some extent a congress that is willing basically to ignore those treaty promises and to allow states like georgia to create conditions of just absolute crisis for native peoples in the hope that native peoples. Will then, you know native leaders will then give up and agree to accept removal. So its this this sort of triangular politics the very least triangular probably a few other dimensions in there, but you know the Cherokee Nation the United States and then State Governments. Its oftentimes State Governments that are pushing the hardest with the United States acting then as the power thats going to step in negotiate removal treaties and accomplish the deportation of native americans. One of the things that youve done in your work that is so interesting is after this period that were talking about native americans are removed for most all intents and purposes at least here in georgia. I know theres a pretty strong band of eastern the eastern band the cherokee still in western, North Carolina, but here in georgia, and i know so white swarm over this this territory we see the spread of African American slavery into this comes part of the cotton kingdom and in some ways becomes an important part of the history of 19th century, georgia, but then one of the really interesting things about it is that georgians also eventually began to embrace the idea of remembering and telling the story of what happened to the cherokee and its always portrayed as a tragedy. Its always portrayed as youve pointed out as something to do with injustice and inequality. Theres something thats just fundamentally unfair about this and and as you said it georgians really from the early part of the 20th century began to craft and narrative about this changed in many ways over the course the 20th century my question to you is this why what is it about native American History . That white georgians have been able to sort of embrace it claim it as their own and want to tell this story as one of injustice in a way that certainly has not been the case when it comes to slavery or jim crow or even civil rights. What is it about the native story . Well, i think what happens in a lot of native american historical commemoration by nonnative communities by settler communities for lack of a better term whats happening a lot of it is that southern communities commemorate native history. I see this sort of a way of reading themselves in places. I mean it kind of comes back to that question of the importance of place so by commemorating a cherokee history northern georgia, for example what theyre doing is rooting themselves placing themselves more firmly in this landscape. In a former indigenous homeland, so i find the commemoration of things back in history just sort of the use of native american historical images in nonnative culture at least in part as a way of Like Reckoning with with american places with with turning those places into homes for settler communities and theyre able to do this in part and way that that doesnt spark controversy because precisely because theres this assumption that native americans are gone for his course arent gone. I mean, theyre cherokee people and turkey descendants and george all through this time. Theres the eastern band and turkey communities here in western, North Carolina, but a lot of the culture starts with this assumption that native americans are gone as far as racist concerned in the south. Thats this by racial landscape, right . Its a black white landscape as opposed to something more complex. Because you have this assumption of native american disappearance, its its permissible for settler communities to commemorate and an even sort of you know quasi apologize for Something Like removal and in doing so these are these are rituals that help i think set their communities to become more at home these former indigenous homelands. And so one of the most surprising things in my research was just to see the extent to which like removal commemoration didnt spark controversy even during periods of time when states like georgia were actually battling against like the black freedom stroking right . I mean in the era of massive resistance, the state of georgia is perfectly willing to commemorate removal at a place like the new atrocious data Historic Site and even frame that as as the state does and the early 1960s as a kind of apology for the the crimes of previous georgia governments some of the people some of the georgia politicians who support those commemorations are some of the people are who are at the forefront of the massive resistance movement. So people like marvin griffin, right . And thats permissible i think because theres this assumption that there isnt like a native american politics in georgia in the 1960s. Theres an assumption that native American History in georgia has ended in the 1830s, right . It ended with removal and so that event is safe in a way that many other possible historical topics and Georgia History are not and yeah, so its a really interesting kind of dichotomy some of the same institutions and individuals who actively exclude African American history from public history from the public sphere are very willing to embrace certain stories about the native american past even stories that would seem to place previous generations of georgia political leaders in a very negative light. So two two part follow up to that base of home what you just said. Is it is it possible to argue . I may not be that during the 60s. Its safer to see a native American Population that no longer lives here is almost being white because of the biracial politics going on with the civil rights movement. Do you see natives now becoming almost at least in the terms of white people the way they view natives their romanticizing their past whatever theyre doing, but somehow are they seeing them as more white than nonwhite. Is that why its safer in some ways. Thats a good question. In terms of like the georgia commemorations, theres theres probably a little bit of that and so far as they really play up. This civilized tribe image. And and that has even though that that image is basically tied to cherokee resistance to states like georgia and to the United States. Its an image that obviously is when its was used by nonindians. Its its very complementary image towards towards the us and towards your American Culture. So theres a theres an element of that i think of those, georgia commemorations. And clearly whats going on when nonnative communities commemorate. Like the Cherokee Nation of the cherokee struggle against removal, theyre clearly identifying with cherokees in that case not identifying. Theyre not presenting themselves as the people who directly benefit it from the deportation native americans right there. Saying that oh, its its like a shame that that happened back in the 19th century and the commemoration forms a kind of apology or a recognition of that but there isnt this its very clear that theyre identifying with. The cherokee says people who loved these places in the way that White Communities now love those places. And so there there theres kind of possessiveness there. Theres like a taking a possession of native American History and transformation into Georgia Heritage Southern Community heritage. See, i mean, i think theres very clearly an attempt to identify with. A group of people who previous generations of georgia leaders and ordinary, georgia citizens had worked very very hard to just possess and destroy. You talk and you just mentioned that one of the reasons why youre able to embrace the narrative of commemoration is because natives are no longer here. They see them as gone. Now. How does and or does . Um the question of reparations ever enter into this here and and is that because it doesnt seem to at least if it does correct me and explain to our audience where it does because what we about most the time. Very contentious controversial subject of reparations is does the United States now owe some kind of reparation to the descendants of former slaves and what you hear people usually white people say there are no slaves anymore. I never owned any slaves there arent and no ones been enslaved for under 50 years. Were not going to talk about reparations, but there are obviously descendants cherokee people who lost their land living still right here in georgia living in western, North Carolina. Is there any conversation afoot over reparations and if there is does that change the way that white people want to commemorate or even think about this subject that theyve tended to romanticize . So thats really interesting question in the commemorations themselves. There isnt really discussion. I mean like early part of the 20th century middle part of the 20th century or even i think in a lot of ways in the present there isnt this formal. Discussion of reparations the commemoration in a sense the commemoration itself becomes the reparation right which which is important right because a lot of this commemoration that recognizes historical misdeeds. I guess youd say on the part of like the state of georgia the United States, but it doesnt really require that much of southern communities in the present. But the other part of like the question of reparations is that in a really really important sense. Theres already and for a long time has already been a structure within american law for addressing the sort of historic disregard of things like treaties native americans can pursue what you might call reparations compensation recompense for violations hold old treaties both the Cherokee Nation and the eastern band and thoroughly middle part in the 19th century successfully pursued recompense for violations of their treaties so in this like nation to nation sense this relationship this political relationship between friendly recognized native american nations and the United States. Theres already a structured there in place because of the treaty relationship for something that in a like a different conversation a different context would look like reparations. The other thing i would say is that reparations or so responsibility in the present would logically take the form of. Nonnative governments and nonnative communities supporting the work of tribal sovereignty in the present and one of the things you do see in more recent commemorations that have been sponsored by or participated in by native nations is an assistance that any sort of discussion of say removal and the early 19th century should be a company by first and insistence that those nations are still present those nations survive. They rebuild their theyve they continue to exist not just as communities about as part of the Political Landscape of the United States, but then to also put in emphasis on native american sovereignty and the present, so thats thats not always easy to get into these discussions of heritage, but i think that sort of the form one of the forms in which talking about like responsibility in the present tied to these these historical memories. Thats one of the forms that should take. One of the things weve got to get a good many get a lot of ground to cover and the short time we have left, but theres a couple of things that you touch on and im sort of flying ahead here. We tend to think of and i found this fascinating tend to think of when we talk about when when white georgians have commemorated this subject of removal of the cherokee they have tended to talk about it as an aberration as a tragedy as something that is almost set apart because its so unfair unequal as you described that i want to read quote. From your book where you said contemporary commemoration . Of the trail of tears tends to define indian removal as a tragic era an active injustice that violated american principles of freedom and equality that premise is certainly reasonable. However, defining removal as a mistake minimizes the significance of native american dispossession to the history of the United States you basically go on to say if i can paraphrase you without dispossession not just in georgia, but everywhere theyre never would have been a United States. This wasnt a mistake. It was foundational to the creation of the United States. Yeah, and so its its really both of those things. Right . Its both a violation of american principles of quality and justice, but also yeah part of the foundation of the United States has as a territorial entity, right . And so we americans tend to think of the United States as being founded on on the sim light principles that show up in like the declaration of independence. And thats true of course, but its also a physical thing and its its a homeland that is made out of other peoples homelands. Its its a territory thats made out of other peoples territories and you know you can only forget the second part of that if you as americans often do if you define the continent as like a wilderness or empty or as eos as this sort of open land thats just simply available for europeans as they show up and and those two things are not those two definitions of Something Like removal. They cant they cant really be reconciled. They can only be held in tension, right . Its both a violation of american principles, but then also part of the foundation of the country. And so yeah the Political Landscape of the united of the United States the United States has a territory would have to look very different if things like removal didnt take place. One of the things that we often hear about today that i guess is is not necessarily about commemoration, but certainly one of the ways in which um mainstream American Culture has brought. Native culture if you want to call it that really symbolism into our the mainstream is through the use of symbols in sports, right . We see it in the names of universities in terms of professional athletes the Cleveland Indians have recently changed their name going into next season as the Cleveland Guardians right here in georgia, of course, our own Atlanta Braves came into a really bright spotlight a couple of weeks ago winning the world series, but once again the tomahawk shop came into if you if you can talk briefly. Not only the use of how that started what it means for americans to do that. What about the tomahawk shot . One of the questions we got from the public coming into this discussion that you and i are having right now is what how do you decide is it should we ask the cherokee what they think or the creek or the seminole what they think about that . And is that does that still enter to be quite does it matter . Is it good . Is it bad . What about opportunity big question in a short amount of time . Oh, you know answer the question whether like one should ask i mean the answer that is definitely yes, but i mean youre gonna see like adversity of opinions right american mascots and native communities as you would any place else sure. I think its really whether whether you are in favor or opposed to mascots . I think at the very least its really important to acknowledge that. Those images come out of very old patterns of racial stereotyping of native americans that you know go back, you know, very very deep in American History and that our fundamentally tied to colonialism, right . I mean in terms of the atlanta baseball team, i mean they brought that name with them when they moved in the 1960s to to atlanta as if i remember my baseball history correctly, and im guessing that the yeah when when the team was back in the north that name was probably first adopted like in the early 20th century. This is a time when theyre all so theyre all sorts of just romantic images of native american circulating through the culture many of which are rooted in some of the same assumptions. Weve already talked about that native americans for our disappearing that theyre gone and the availability availability of those images to sports teams or universities is fundamentally rooted in in colonialism. Its rooted in a culture that emerges out of the historical experience of dispossession and deportation and assimilation policies and all the rest. So whether youre okay with those mascots or not, i think just as a as a point of history you have to start by acknowledging where they come from and they come from colonialism and a lot of the a lot of the activities that sort of follow from the adoption of those mascots reflect again, very old patterns of like nonnative americans playing indian as as the phrase goes, you know sort of putting on feathers putting on face paint gosh, you know you talked about the tomahawk chop and the music thats used for that sort of thing comes right out of feeling like nine million bad westerns from the early 20th century that in which you know, the native american characters were played by like like anthony quinn. Theres the taps into these like long traditions of you know racial stereotyping and you cant really separate them. I dont think you can argue that you can 2021 that that, you know, maybe that doesnt matter or it shouldnt matter or that we live in a different world. Now you can argue back and forth about whether those mascots are acceptable now, but i think its pretty indisputable about where those those images come from. They come from these romantic racial stereotypes that are circulating and throughout the 19th century and especially in the late 19th early 20th century. And while were talking about it, you know, im im white male your white male. Were talking about native American History. Do you get any pushback from the native American Community near where you live about questioning your authority on this subject or is that not an issue . Are you accepted as a specialist in the history of something that youre not . Yeah. Yeah, i mean, i think its its always an issue. I mean, its always an issue for for me, you know as an academic universities and academic structures arent isolated from the political and racial history of the United States any more than other institution baseball teams or whatever else are and so in a very real way i mean my position is, you know, its a reflective but i mean the term like privilege is is becoming a bit of a cliche now, but its an expression of privilege, right . I had as a middle class man. I had opportunities that you know traditionally have been denied to to native americans and so my ability to become someone who has supposedly is is like you an expert in this history that reflects, you know, colonialism as much as you know, the Atlanta Braves mascot does and it is it is an issue. I remember when i first arrived in western North Carolina being asked to teach turkey history classes, and i thought you know Academic Knowledge to do that, but i find myself in these, you know in a Cherokee Place this ancient Cherokee Place a place where some of my students, you know, their ancestors had lived for thousands of years and yeah, i mean a classroom in which supposedly me, you know, supposedly i you know this newcomer, you know, this this white dude from from chicago originally. Im the one who youre supposedly you know, is is the expert . And one of the things you know teaching in this place has taught me is that you know cherokee people dont need me to tell them their history what their history is right and and it would be utterly arrogant for me to do that. And that has thats affected how i teach its affected how i you know, do my scholarship if you think about most what weve talked about here. In terms of like my own writing and research. Its cherokee history i suppose but its its a history of how native american images and native american memories, i guess who say have circulated within a broader American Culture and thats thats a deliberate choice on my part. I mean what i can contribute i think is you know in some ways your critique of various representations of colonialism. I cannot and and never claim to speak for cherokee history in this this kind of monolithic way and as i say, i mean cherokee people dont need me to tell them what their history is in the Church People know the knowledge the knowledge is there the other thing i would add is. Part of how our institution western carolina has kind of responded these partly to the colonial history of Higher Education has been as much as possible to orient our native american studies programming and our initiatives toward a series of Strategic Partnerships with the eastern band focused on things like cherokee language native american health. And so what we really define what were doing in color as is sort of honoring a set of i mean ideally honoree a set of obligations between the university and in a sense the state of North Carolina because were a state school set of obligations between the university which occupies this ancient Cherokee Place and then you know, the eastern band as a sovereign native american nation. And so yeah, its i mean, its always an issue. It should be an issue and it shouldnt necessarily be comfortable. It shouldnt be comfortable for me to act. As if im you know, i simply speak for. Turkey history because i dont and you claim to real quick. What do you think based upon your study of this subject as a public and academic historian what is proper way for us to commemorate . And remember thats a big question this event and these people in georgia and American History. Im pretty sure i dont give an answer to that in the book, but i know, i think. What the most interesting . Work going on today. Is rooted again in a set of partnerships between native nations never went away and broader commemorative communities. I guess he would say whether whether those are our white dominated or or National Institutions are state institutions. So, i mean, i think the most important thing is for in this day and age for native nations for native communities to be the authors or at least, you know, significant authors of this sort of work and not have it be simply something that that southern communities undertake because in that setting no matter how good the heritage work is it becomes about about the needs of nonnative communities as opposed to to native communities. So the most important thing is its a power dynamic. I guess just making sure that it is. Native American Communities that that are directing these sorts of commemorations that theyre significant Collaboration Partnership and and that the power dynamic within public history shifts towards native nations and a way from going away from seller institutions. Andrew denson is a professor of history at western Carolina University and kullaway, North Carolina. Hes the author of numerous books and articles on native history including this one monuments to absence published by the university of North Carolina, press in 2017. And winner of the georgia historical societys bell award for the best book in Georgia History 2018 andrew. Thanks so much for joining us. We really appreciate you bringing some light into a big big subject. Thank you very much. Its good talking with you. If you want to know more about the Georgia History festival check out Georgia History festival dot org and Georgia History. Com for everything about the georgia historical soc