Transcripts For CSPAN3 Lectures In History Colonial Myths And Monuments 20240711

Remember what you put but many of you focused on what historians would call the American Revolutionary era rather than the colonial era writ large. People like george washington, Thomas Jefferson, alexander hamilton, issues like taxation without representation, other founders and historical highlights and the imperial crisis in the war all popped up. A few mentioned paces, historic james town, plymouth plantation. A few mentioned slavery. What i thought was interesting was because it was because of either the 1619 project and the summer black lives matter protests. There were a few omissions. No one mentioned individual women or m Indigenous People by name. No one mentioned anything west of the appalachian mountains, much less west of the rockies or the west coast. Technically speaking this course runs from before contact of europeans with Indigenous People in the 15th century to 1763, the end of the 7 years war, french and indian war in what is now the territory called the United States of america. So, this covers hundreds of years, millions of lives havgs of which were women, coming together of people from africa, mostly enslaved and not of their own volition, as well as multiple countries and empires in europe, england being but one of among these and not even the first to establish a permanent settlement as we discussed, as well as Indigenous People intermingling on what is now the United States of america but originally was all indian territory. From the atlantic to the pacific, including hawaii and alaska. And of course we dont cover the American Revolutionary era and i did that on purpose because it tends to suck all the air out of the room. I love the american revolution. I teach a class specifically on that. But it does tend to overshadow the rest of the colonial era if its included. And yet most of you, like most americans, i think, would ask to think on what colonial American History means to you, you thought about a few white men in the 13 colonies of the Atlantic Coast who signed the declaration of independence and fought the american revolution. This makes complete sense. Most of us, unless we take advanced history courses or do a lot of outside reading have a narrow conception of what colonial america is. We had a memorable example of one of your classmates showing a Halloween Costume that was laughable but typical of how americans picture the past. There were a lot of silences in how we remember it. I hope this course has changed that for you. Spoiler alert, one of the things were going to do next week is im going to ask you to answer the same question so we can compare and contrast where we began in our conception of colonial American History and where we are now near the end of the course. So, i think the relatively narrow conception most americans have of what colonial American History even is is one of the reasons why we spent our first few weeks defining what the course means. In other words we talked about what does colonial mean . What does american mean . And what is history . And well return to those discussions next week too. A lot of these are controversial. The word american. America encompasses north america, south america, people in latin america take issue, understandably, with u. S. Citizens refer to ourselves as american. We sort of coopted that phrase. And what does history mean . Whos in charge of fashioning it and whos interpretation of the past do we focus on . But in the meantime, todays lecture is going to be a chance to connect a lot of the dots of the last woks weve spent thee mt. Ically learning together from the salem witch trials to virginia in 1619 to gender and religion and war. To use our reading of the book silence in the past power and production of history which youre finishing up this week and next, to think about how the history and created, communicated and memorialized not just in Academic Circles but in the broader public. Two ways colonial American History are popularized are the subjects of todays lecture. That will be myths and monuments. Im going to start sharing my korean. All right. So, i began the so far so good, right . I began the course by introducing you to one of the most Critical Concepts that i hope student who is study history in college walk away from my courses with. And thats that history is not the same thing as the past. History is not just a recitation of facts, dates, et cetera that happened in the past. But peoples interpretation of those dates, of those facts. And sometimes of course people believe in history thats not even based on facts at all, hence the myth part of this lecture. But when it comes to the history of colonial america, i think how we define the terms about which were speaking is critically important. For example, whose past are we discussing, when does it begin, where is it situated . These sound like basic questions around a history course but theyre not. What encompasses colonial American History and how we define it has shifted over time. And how we interpret this past matters to the american present because it includes answers to the questions of what and who do we celebrate, who or what do we silence, and what people and places and events do we count as important in the past . Now, myths and monuments do a lot of this work. They do it in a variety of ways of course outside college courses. This is one of the reasons pedagogical incite here i asked you to look into historical interpretations of the colonial american past. So everything from the names on street signs to disney films to Halloween Costumes to Historic Sites like Colonial Williamsburg and of course monuments to people, which weve discussed and will continue to discuss today. And i think trio puts it really nicely in silencing the past, and i quote here. History has many hearts and academics are not the sole history teachers in the land. So, in other words, people get their history from a wide variety of places. Historys produced outside of universities as well as within them. And the history of how our understanding colonial history is constructed necessitates in particular i think that we consider history and historiography not just within but beyond the academy. People do get a bigger dose of colonial American History when they go to Colonial Williamsburg or plymouth plantation in many cases than they do in their choices of reading or some of their k12 history courses. So, history, especially popularly consumed history, often takes this material form. And one reason we need to study objects, artifacts and places, Historic Sites as well as art, what i would think of loosely grouped together as what scholars call material culture, is that its a really great way to understand the production and consumption of history. I think thats one of the reasons trio spends a great deal of time in his book talking about history thats not just in books, right, history thats found in statues, as an example. Of course debates around monuments of which weve seen the last few years but a lot in particular in summer, debates about monuments and public art, whether they should stand or fall, what should be erected in the first place. Of course debates about history which itself is a form of commemorating. What i want to talk about today is how the story wes dont tell, the stories we silence are just as important as the stories we tell and really when we silence stories its kind of like tearing down statues in a sense. So, when it comes to colonial america, historiography shapes not just how the past is interpreted but the parameters that we put around discussing that past as well. Whose past is it, when does it begin, where is it situated . This is complicated, but the celebrations of it rarely are. And i think trios quote here is a really great one, again from the book that you read, the section you read for this week. The myth making process does not operate evenly. Celebrations are created and this creation is part and parcel of the process of the historys production. So, in other words we make choices with monuments, with celebrations like columbus day, just as we make choices in terms of what to put in our history books. And these commemorations, these celebrations, are usually pretty sanitized in the sense that theyre usually pretty simplistic, right . Monuments tend to offer a very simplistic narrative, an easilyunderstood one, a pretty black and white one. We know from class and our discussions that history is hardly ever a matter of black and white. Its shades of gray. Its complicated is the answer to a lot of questions we pose about the colonial past. But think about monuments. How many are there that have things inscribed on their base, to both sides of the messy complicated past. So, how we choose to interpret the american colonial past matters to the american president and what and who we celebrate and what or who we silence we can see in the places and spaces around us. And i think, for example, just to take one of the things we wrestled with in the early weeks of the class, when do we begin colonial america is critically important. And its a simple question, but its so hard to answer. And yet the answer predetermines to a large extent how we view colonial america. We talked, for example, about whether we should begin our concept of colonial america before contact between european and Indigenous Peoples, whether concepts like prehistory to describe indigenous histories before european arrivals actually do a disservice to the richness of the indigenous past, the idea that we should look at the historical artifacts and structures left behind by mississippien mount cultures you see in the middle here as just as valid as written historys that european peoples tend to leave behind. And yet we refer to indigenous histories as prehistory in a lot of cases. And what happens after contact is history. If we start in 1776 with, you know, thinking about america, then that defines america as always around this nationstate of the United States of america, when in fact there are hundreds of years of history that come before that in which it was by no means predetermined that the United States of america would ever be a thing that came into being, right . Similarly, we discussed a lot about dates that are important as starting points traditionally in how we talk about colonial American History and what we should do with that. 1492, of course, the idea that columbus discovering is often the word used. That word does a disservice because its about contact and conquest. Its not about discovering something that was of course well known to the many people who lived there before columbus stumbled upon it. Or do we begin with 1607 with the First Permanent English Settlement . That ignores the fact that the english werent the first powers to establish settlement in the United States. Those were the spanish in florida. Or was it 1619, james town, the arrival of african who is became the first africans in an english permanent settlement or the establishment of the house or burgesss or 1690 with the pilgrims arrival in plymouth . In part one of the reasons i spent so much time discussing issues like when does colonial america, when does america begin, is that i think it helps us to determine what we discuss, who we celebrate and who we raise monuments to among other things. And getting to why these choices are important, i think theyre really important because as trio says, celebrations straddle the two sides of history. They oppose silence upon the events that they ignore and fill that silence with narratives of power about the event they celebrate. In other words, one reason i have you read trio in the first place is so we can discuss the man whose myth and monuments were going to begin with today, a man who, as you know, never stepped foot on the United States of america, but who nevertheless begins our surveys of its past. That is of course christopher columbus, who got a lot of attention this summer and has for a while due to the holiday celebrating him. Columbus day, which has gotten a great deal of push back for columbus and his reputation, right . So, theres columbus, the man. Theres columbus the myth. And a lot of monuments of course celebrate columbus the myth. But we can talk about columbus the man as we have in this course. And i think one of the reasons that columbus the myth has gotten pushback is because more and more people have become aware of why he deserves analysis and critique from his enslavement of Indigenous People from his first point of contact in the americas to the rape, disfiguring and killing of indian people done at his command in the name of the pursuit of profit, specifically gold in the caribbean. And yet hes celebrated and weve discussed this too as the sort of kick start of the chain of events that led to the establishment of european colonies in north and south america and the caribbean, without which, of course, the United States of america would not be here in its present iteration. One of the things thats a common response to critiques to the actions of people like columbus whose actions we condemn as deplorable in many ways is that he was a man of his time. We discussed this too. There were always people who stood against atrocities such as those ordered, participated in. Notably Indigenous People at the time. They did not approve of what he was doing but also other europeans at the time. We discussed the dominican friar, former enslaver himself who also participated in the 1513 invasion of cuba. But who came to have a change of heart in part as a priest and in part as someone who believed that the treatment of Indigenous People was wrong. And then who journeyed in florida and texas in the 1520s and 1530s with alongside him was enslaved african esteban, which is an interesting point of contention. Some historians have made with the 1619 project, which touts the first arrival of enslaved africans when in factest bab was there in florida a century before. Despite the fact that critics besieged his fellow spaniards to not enslave them and treat them better than columbus had done, for example. And yet despite pushback in his own time and since, we have so many reminders of columbus, not just in statues like these, what you see in fulfill at the left, which has not been defaced in part because men stood around it and protected it this summer so it wouldnt be defaced. Just showing you the strong emotions that people have for as well as against columbus. Statue of columbus in San Francisco in the middle, which has been splashed with red paint, which is often something protesters used to deface monuments that they of historical figures that they feel have blood on their hands. And then on the right a statue im going to spend a little bit more time talking about, statue of columbus in a park called bird park in richmond that was toppled this summer and put into a pond thats in the lake. So, lets talk a little bit about this statue of this monument of columbus in richmond because i think it gets us at how columbus is really just a starting point for our discussion of monuments and myths and their power in how we view colonial American History, especially scattered throughout our landscape. So, i mentioned that the stoo which you of columbus that was put in a pond in richmond is nay park called bird park. So, byrd park, not like a song bird. Byrd park named for a family in virginia, a colonist who grew quite property. And william byrd ii is one of the family to helped found the city of richmond. So, byrd park is named for him as a founder of the town of richmond. But this is something that i think is important to note because when the columbus statue was toppled this summer and put in the water in byrd park, a lot of the focus was on columbus and what columbus tells us about colonial American History. No one really talked about william byrd, for whom the park is named. I think its really important to bear in mind how rememorialize colonial america is just as powerfully found in the names of parks and streets as it is in things like a monument, like a statue. And in some ways these are more important because these are just as hard to topple. People are very attached to names of things. If we think about christopher columbus, we would have to rename among other things our capital city, washington, the district of columbia, which is something that comes out of columbus name. If you think about william byrd ii you have to question whether his name should grace the name of a park which people gather to enjoy themselves. William byrd ii, very wealthy, very air indict, had a fabulous library, wrote a number of books, including his secret diaries which he wrote in code. In his secret diaries he records his serial philandering. He was married twice but he continued to have multiple sexual affairs, many of which were rapes of enslaved womens, all of which he details in his diaries. He also had some terrible habits of interaction with enslaved people who he claimed as property. One enslaved man, for example, had a habit of wetting the bed at night. And as punishment once, william byrd ii made him drink his own urine after wetting the bed. Not an attractive figure. Sort of contrary. Sort of representing the worst of virginia colonial aristocracy, and yet his name is what this park is richmond, virginia, is named the park is named for him. So, when we think about monuments like that of columbus in byrd park that are toppled, i think we need to think about the wider connections. The name of byrd park itself sals important. What do we do with that . Where do we draw the line with our questionpjg of these myths and monuments because at a certain point things are so entangled its really difficult to separate them out. Columbus, for example, washington, d. C. , the district of columbia. Columbus is celebrated in the Capitol Rotunda. You see the capitol there at the top left. The Capitol Rotunda has eight epic paintings within it, these enormous paintings you can do and see, sort of a popular public tour of the capitol. Four of them commemorate things from the revolutionary era. They celebrate the revolution, the founding period. The other four are from the 19th century and theyre described by the u. S. Capitol historians as, quote, four scenes of Early Exploration in the United States. Now, these are interesting word choices because these depict things like this painting, which is the landing of columbus, completed, installed in 1847, commissioned by congress in 1836. They also include de sotos expedition, the mississippi. Mississippi valley. And the baptism of pocahontas, which well see in a moment. In other words, they depict scenes that arguably could be called not Early Exploration but scenes of dispossession, scenes of contact and conquest of Indigenous People from their lands. In the case of pocahontas, as well discuss, dispossessing her from her own culture in interesting ways interesting and ways that have been critiqued by scholars of indigenous history. U. S. Capitol rotunda. It means what is being celebrated in the u. S. Capital, what is being monumental eyes through the it means what is public art being monumental, eyes through public is not just art is not just the the founding period but founding period also what happened in the but what happened in the 19th century that gets 19th century wrapped up. In indian it is wrapped up in removal indian and in the concept removal of manifest and the manifest destiny of the United States fulfilling a god destiny given right to spread across the u. S. Continent from atlantic to the pacific. Really arguing that. Columbus and they are really arguing that disallow and other early columbus and other early explorers and people from explorers and european empires who come and people from conquer the land and its european empires who come and conquer the Indigenous Peoples are land and its Indigenous Peoples are something to be celebrated in really something to be American Culture. Celebrated in American Culture. These dont just stay in the and capital, these paintings. These dont just stay in the capital, these paintings. These these paintings also end up on paintings also and up on the the backs of 19th century currency, this, for example, backs of 19th century currency. This, this painting of the landing of for example, this painting columbus was used not just on a of the landing of columbus was used not just on a bank note issued in the bank note issued in the 18 seventies but also on to stamps in the 19th century. Similarly, if we look at one of the other of those four paintings from the 19th century in the u. S. Capital rotunda, we see the baptism of pocahontas by john gatsby chapman. This was completed in 1840, and like the columbus, it also appeared on the reverse of money issued in the 18 sixties and 18 seventies. It shows a ceremony in which pocahontas, the daughter of pow , is baptized and given the name rebecca in the Anglican Church of jamestown, which we have talked about. This ceremony took place in 1613 and 1614 in jamestown. James town was celebrated as the First Permanent English Settlement on the north american continent. This is something the u. S. Capital is celebrating. It is not the First Permanent european settlement. Pocahontas is often touted as being the earliest native convert to christianity and one of the permanent english colonies. This is seen as a success story, the idea that europeans are going to come over and convert Indigenous People to christianity, it is something at the heart of many imperial endeavors, english, spanish, french, as three notable ones weve discussed in the course. The idea that pocahontas should be celebrated for renouncing her cultural heritage, right . For becoming english, in many important ways, becoming a christian, is whats being celebrated in this painting. It is a form of cultural dispossession, i would argue, thats being celebrated. As we know, the real pocahontas versus the stylized one in the Capitol Rotunda are even worse, the disney princess, with which we are familiar, that you see on the top left, had a much more complicated history. She was probably more of what historians call a go between, the skilled interlocutor between english people, responsible for making connections, cultural connections, as well as important connections through her marriage to the english settler john rawl that cemented ties in important ways and in this critical early jamestown settlement. Yet, the Capitol Rotunda painting celebrates her christian conversion. You see the actual pocahontas looks quite different from the romanticized version in either the rotund or disney, its the only surviving known portrait of her. It shows her not looking disney at all, looking like a european or an english woman wearing lots of expensive finery including lace and feathers, like we do stand in as her exotic indian origins, the velvet was embossed, embroidered. It was super expensive, lace around her neck, as well as something we discussed will be most likely a hat made of beaver pelts. It is a very lucrative, trade beavers. One of the things thats interesting to point out about pocahontas and her persistent presents as a myth and a monument in our understanding, our collective understanding of the american colonial past, is that shes one of the very few women who even know or celebrate her name as an individual. As i mentioned, its totally understandable why. We mentioned the first week of class, and i think its not accidental that there is a connection between the number of monuments erected to women from any time period in america and how often women populate our common historical understandings, less than 10 of those figures in the hall, which are also in the u. S. Capital. Less than 10 of those are women and about 10 of all the outdoor monuments in america are women. Women have never been 10 of the population. There is a big gap between historical reality and what we are choosing to memorialize about the past in america. So one of the women who does have a number of monuments in america is a woman who became like a lot of these figures very popularly celebrated long after her death. In this case, she was popularized in the 19th century and particular. Around the same time in the 1860s and 1870s is when her monument started to pop up. Images of the baptism of pocahontas and the landing of columbus appeared on the back of u. S. Currency. All of these things are entangled and working together to push the same cultural narrative. The person pictured here in two of the monuments has a number of monuments erected to her, most of which in the 19th century. She is also the woman who is the earliest publicly funded monument of a woman in the United States. Thats her monument in New Hampshire, a closeup of which you see on the left. I think this is an interesting choice that tells us a lot about what americans were choosing to commemorate and celebrate about their colonial past in the 19th century, because Hannah Dustin is a colonial massachusetts protestant woman and mother was taken captive by indians from quebec during the King Williams war 1697. King williams war was one of a series of wars we discussed in this class. They are wars between Indigenous People and they pivoted around competing claims that french and english imperial interests had for north american territory and of course clashing interest among native peoples as well that intersected with all these. As we discussed, people are taken captive in these indian wars. Hannah dustin was one of these. She was taken captive along with her newborn daughter. Along the march to New Hampshire, the Indigenous People who captured her, killed her daughter who was only six days old by smashing her head against a tree, as Hannah Dustin recalls. While captive in New Hampshire, Hannah Dustin in a grizzly fashion returns the favor. She is taken captive not just with her infant daughter, but also with the woman who is helping to nurse or through her pregnancy. When they arrived in this island in New Hampshire where they were stopping with the people who had taken her captive, hannah along with the other woman with her and samuel, who was a teenage boy who had captured separately, the three of them decide to rise up in the night and free themselves. Thats understandable. But they do next is slightly less understandable. They decided to rise up and kill and scalp ten native americans, including two men, two women, and six children, and returned with the scalps as bounty. In fact, they not only returned with the scalps as proof of what they had done, but petitioned the massachusetts authorities, the legislature, to pay them for the scalps which they did. Not only is this moment celebrated at the time, the scalps of these indian men and women and children are rewarded with money by the massachusetts government, hannah is celebrated enough that she does have these statues erected of her, and this was defaced this summer, a reminder that women are complicit in these complicated pasts as well as men. The last thing i want to touch upon is the final look at how we turn bits of the landscape into monuments to colonial past. Here you see plymouth, rock which is something that was familiar to most if not all of you before the course. A number of you mentioned the pilgrims, mentioned plymouth specifically, mention puritans and new england when you think about colonial america. I think this is something worth diving into a little bit. You will start to see an emerging theme here in terms of monuments to the colonial past. Plymouth rock was not identified ortega as such or seen as important actually into the mid 18th century. Its not like in 1620 when the pilgrims landed in plymouth. They took out a chisel and carved the year into the rock. This was done later. It wasnt until the mid 18th century that a descendant of those pilgrims pointed to the rock as important because it was in danger of being obscured by some new construction. This is one of the moments where much after the fact, people decide to commemorate and celebrate this element of the past. One of the reasons Plymouth Rock is important in our national conception of who we were as a colonial people is because i think it speaks to something we like to celebrate about the past. The past is full of terrible, dreadful, often depressing things that happened, but its its because also a place where people as i think it speaks human beings strive to make their world better, make themselves better, and leave to something that beautiful things behind. We like to celebrate about the past. The past is full of terrible and dreadful and often depressing things that happened, but its also a place where people seem to strive to making the worlds better and themselves better and to lead, in some cases, beautiful things behind. I think one of the reasons people like discussing the programs pilgrims, attempts to dispossess Indigenous People of their lands, Armed Conflict and killing of Indigenous People, the spreading of disease, etc. The pilgrims also speak to something many people like to celebrate about america, which is as a place to seek freedom from religious persecution. So its very important, those two conceptions, and americans have about American Culture and american law. Theres a reason the freedom to protect practice religion is among the first rights listed in the bill of rights and the u. S. Constitution. I think in certain ways, plymouth raucous ways to celebrate that. These people who were persecuted for their protestant religious faith in europe were able to come and carve out a new place for themselves in this new england. We have also discussed the importance of the mayflower compact, right . This sort of tiny cede of people agreeing to come together to communally govern themselves. All of which of course does leave a lot out of the story as well. Thats again an oversimplification. So theres this element to Plymouth Rock that i believe appeals to people for that reason. Its also interesting to think about why we celebrate this particular part of American History, what we focus so much on it. Why do we focus so much of our collective attention when thinking about the colonial passed on these 13 colonies . In particular, i would argue new england and virginia get outsized attention. Why is this . Why do we focus so much on this . Because so much of american colonial history is unfolding. Obviously, most precisely with the best array of Indigenous People who were living and occupying the territory it during that time period, but also the diverse array of colonizers and settlers. We discussed how the french are up and down the mississippi river. The spanish are in what is now texas, florida and california. You have these groups of people, European American Indigenous People, as well as enslaved africans, coming together in these spaces. But why is it that we spend so much time on this tiny part . Ive shown you that tiny part of the territory there with the blowup of plymouth on the right. That is compared to the continental United States there. Why is it that we spend so much attention on this tiny element . I think its important, this is one reason why we use alan taylors american colonies as our textbook of sorts during this course. Because hes correctly, and i believe with a lot of explanatory power, he tries to situate american colonial history in the continental rather than just the east coast parameter. I think its important that, even if were talking about the history of religious freedom of peoples, peoples desire to pursue the freedom to practice religion as they wish, that much like the history of colonial america, its not just an east coast one but a continental one. We should also remember that the history of people in america struggling to practice their religious freedom is not just in english or european one. And to put this in context, im going to take us back, im going to stay with the puritans, but im going to take us back to the u. S. Capital, this time to statutory hall, and talk about the man on the right, whos one of the few colonial figures celebrated in statutory hall in the u. S. Capital. Pope a is shown holding some knotted ropes there. Those are integral to the story. I will ask tell you why it matters to this day. And 16 30, john winter up came to massachusetts to new england in the first wave of what has been called the great migration. We sort of wave of putin settlement. The pilgrim episode was a smaller flip, but under john win the rip, puritans have a large mass migration to new england. Spreading out throughout the land. And wintrhop is also famous for coming over to massachusetts in 16 30 and talking about their settling in america as being a city up on the hill for the world to marvel at. That is that rhetoric of a city on the hill is a sort of bit of American Mythology that his persisted. Often referenced by u. S. President s, Ronald Reagan was fond of it, for example. And yet, we learn about John Winthrop and the puritans. In 16 30, we did not learn as much about the man who was born around 16 30, whose to his right, who is popay. Just like we spend a lot more time massachusetts than we do in the american southwest. So popay, like winthrop and the puritans, wanted to practice his religion. He wanted to practice it in freedom. He was not allowed to practice it the way he wanted to buy the authorities, when power. Again, just like the pilgrims and the puritans. In this case, the authorities in power are the spanish catholics, who in 16 75 arrest him along with almost 50 other pueblo indians for practicing their traditional pueblo religion. In fact, they were charged by the spanish for witchcraft. A few of them were hanged, but the rest, including popay, were brought to santa fe and whipped publicly. So what you have here is a man who, by all accounts is very charismatic, whos transformed by this experience this public punishment. This persecution for his spiritual beliefs. And he conspires to start the public revolt. It becomes the most successful indian revolt in American History. The knots in those ropes are the very clever Communication System that they came up with two password about when the revolt should begin. By the time the ropes passed around with no knots, it did not quite happen that way because someone was apprehended. But nevertheless, despite the false start, it still was the most successful indian revolt in history. Popay and his indian allies managed to kick the spanish out of santa fe completely and occupied from 16 80 to 60 92. So, an important reminder that fight for religious freedom is not just among european settlers, theres an indigenous story here as well. To get back to Plymouth Rock, im going to leave with this idea, which is why do we study Plymouth Rock in our consumption of colonial america more than we do Something Like Newspaper Rock . There are many elements to the collection of rocks with these petrol gloves on them in arizona and new mexico. This is one in arizona called Newspaper Rock. Petra glimpse that were carved thousands of years ago by pueblo indians. Pueblo indians like popay, has ways to to leave traces of their family or clan symbols to offer spiritual interpretations and to keep a counter. Just like Plymouth Rock could be seen as all of these things, right . A way to leave a client symbol. A mark of the puritan. The puritan migration. Spiritual meaning certainly because this is a place where the pilgrims are memorialized for their settlement to pursue freedom from religious persecution in europe and calendar events, right . 16 20 is a year. So when im saying here is these rocks that are created by Indigenous People on the one hand and european settlers on the other performed very similar tasks in terms of being monuments upon the land that human beings are celebrating in what is now the United States of america. So why is it that we tend to focus almost exclusively on things like Plymouth Rock and it really good stories of those 13 simon colonies then we do stories like popays and monuments such as Newspaper Rock . Why dont we include both more often . What id like to suggest, as i end here, is that i think that america, which is has been dubbed vast early america by karen wolf, last early america is so much more interesting than see bourne 13 original colonies america. It encompasses those 13 colonies, certainly, but theres a lot more we can learn about the past. Why not have a vast history that mimics the vastness of early america itself . So im looking forward to some questions which we have time for, or comments. So since everyone has their video off and i cant really see your faces to call on you, why dont you just chime in if you have a question. If people step over one another, we will have to manage that. Comments or questions. This is sara. I was going to say i like your point about why we dont focus on certain things. Because i know Plymouth Rock is like, you go to massachusetts, like, this is where they go, like, look at the rock that weve got. So i think its interesting that we do not focus on other events. Like, i did not even know about the native american who did all of those wonderful acts, i did not even realize he was there. So i think people need to open up their eyes a little bit and expand a little more on what is true and what is not, maybe do their own research in that case. Nicely said. I love what you said about doing your own research. Thats the reason why i have you do, in addition to those historical interpretation analysis, i have you do the primary source interpretations. Right . Because i think that, again, since history is not the same thing is the past, your interpretation of history can legitimately be completely different than mine. Right . But you need to make up your own mind about that. To do that, you need to do the research and you need to look at the sources, at the primary sources. And i think one of the things that are interesting about our monuments is that they are not primary sources in the sense that they are somewhat construction of the past. Right . We can talk about them is primary sources, like i did today, but they are really someones construction, someones interpretation of the past. Which is one reason why i think it gets so contested so often. Right . Any other questions . I thought your comment about your discussion of william byrd very interesting. I found myself quite horrified a couple of weeks ago visiting Colonial Williamsburg. They had someone portraying landon carter, who was of course of the same sort of caliber and in the same elite group as william byrd, and who, in my opinion, did some equally deplorable things to his enslaved population. And i was quite surprised to see an interpreter portraying him at a living history site because that felt a little bit, it just felt, i mean, you know, and i dont know, i would be interested to hear your takes on that because i did not quite know what to say. Thats another excellent point to make, thank you. The thing is, if you dont know, to saras point, if you havent done a deep dive into the histories, how would you know . There is the simple story, which is wealthy virginia gentleman who in the case of william byrd collected lots of books and wrote a very informative history, although showing the racist bias of the time. Its a Natural History focused valuable source. But if you start getting into byrd in his personal life, things get messy and complicated. But as you point out, thats not something that the land in carter Colonial Williamsburg is not the landing carter who would keep children up at night. I think its a tough decision, and its come out most clearly. Some of it we dont talk about as much in this course because it doesnt really get important in the american story until after this course, but Thomas Jefferson is the perfect example. What do we do with Thomas Jefferson . The man who penned these during words of the declaration of independence will equality, well keeping people enslaved and in bondage, having a controversial then and controversial now relationship with his dead wifes half sister, who he also enslaved. The fact that you have landing carter, Thomas Jefferson, these men in some cases are the most horrifying thing about them is they are not unusual in a sense. This is, in some ways, a very american story. I think that is something to be wrestled with. I think there is a landing carter story that you could tell in Colonial Williamsburg, but i hope they are also making an effort to give you the flip side of that. I think thats the conundrum with places like byrd park. You just go and if you learn anything about it, you can do your own research on this and check it out on the internet. Its mentioned that its named after william byrd the second, one of the founders of richmond. He owned a lot of property on which it was established, the city. Nothing is mentioned about his really horrible mistreatment of enslaved people. Nothing is mentioned about his salaciousness. Nothing is mentioned about his property was dispossessed from Indigenous People in the first place. Theres so many complicated layers to this. One of the things that monuments, whether they take the form of names of parks or statues, like i said at the beginning, by their nature, they tend to simplify things much more than the past deserves to be. At least in the case of Plymouth Rock, there is the other story, the inspiring story about religious freedom that we love to think about for good reason. Its critically important in the american historical experience and narrative. But why not also, i think we have an obligation to also tell the other sides of those stories, that monuments dont often allow us the bandwidth to dive into in terms of the complexity. And im just glad im not in charge of running historical interpretation at a colonial site. I think it would be rife with a lot of tough decisions. Does anyone else have any comments or questions they would like to offer . I would just make a comment. We perpetrate myths in school, especially starting at the Elementary School, so where do we start to correct history . I think one of the problems, if you are an Elementary School teacher for example and you are teaching columbus in kindergarten, how do you tell kindergartners the real story of columbus . It would horrify them. It causes people to do stuff like splash red paint on statues, which is not appropriate for five and six yearolds. But we do about that . These are complicated questions in terms of how you approach them. But to start, in Elementary Schools, for example, why not make more of an effort to tell stories of popay alongside stories of puritans. You dont necessarily have to dive straight into the brutal ugliness of colonial rule in its most brutal ways to tell a straightforward story. Personally, i think thats one way to do it. I would be interested, and maybe we can take it up next week, to discuss how you all would do this, how and whether this course has changed how you would choose to talk about the history of thanksgiving with your family, for example. I think those are important questions, and how and why we choose to include history is vitally important, regardless of the level of education that we are talking. I think a lot of americans that emerged from our system of education, due to a variety of factors, dealing with curriculum standards, teaching, tests, to the accident of where you go to college, what classes you take, that we end up, thats why so many of us still think about history as it is presented through these historic learn to rotations, through sites, monuments, museums. And those places are doing some of the most cutting edge historical interpretation out there. Colonial williamsburg, for example, in addition to landon carter, who was a dubious choice, also his groundbreaking work on the history of enslavement in colonial america. I think personally, would i would say, include as much history as possible. Have Newspaper Rock alongside Plymouth Rock. Maybe have a statue talking to columbus just as they were in a dialog in the 15th and 16th century, in the case of the reaction to policies put in place by columbus in the conquest of the caribbean. I also hope this has given you more food for thought in terms of trouillots book and its larger context. He is talking about haiti, but the moral of the stories can be applied to our discussion of the colonial american past. Any final words before i and i end this q and a . This is the other sarah. I have a question on the floor paintings in the rotunda. I am just kind of wondering maybe how you think they should be handled. I am sure some people support removal while others prefer acknowledgment of the inaccuracy and the incorrect celebrations. I think its really important to acknowledge. Tourism is a really important form of education. And john vanderland, for example, is a great painter. These paintings are renowned for their skill and artistry and beauty. To your point, a lot of both the Confederate Monument controversy, a lot of those statues are artistic trash, essentially. They are hollow. They are made out of sort of cheap, cheap metal statues turned up mostly in the beginning of the 20th century. Its different to talk about things from an artistic standpoint, Something Like silent sam at chapel hill being toppled, versus the burning of a vanderbilt painting. When you talk about artistry, i think it does matter. Contemporary artists have taken to creating works of art that directly speak to the protest against paintings, including the landing of columbus. They are black artists, overwhelmingly. And i think that their work, which has been housed in museums and galleries, really is a fabulous way to both allow the original work of art to stay, but also speak to its limitations and its problems and the violence it does to the histories of indigenous and black people particularly. The landing of columbus has been the subject of exactly that kind of artistic pushback, which i think is really helpful. Sometimes people just dont know the histories of these complicated, complex historical artifacts, and people, and i think that the discussion and education is the first step to correcting that. So what you will about the 60 19 project, its got people to discussing america in ways that most of us would agree, have not been as widely done in previous years. So i think that art like that, in the rotunda if it is, if it the counter interpretation is presented properly, it could be a powerful pedagogical tool. But again not an easy question to answer right . I think with that, unless anyone has any parting words, im going to end this session, and say that im looking forward to hearing next week, when you all think about myths and monuments, and how your conception, of american colonial history has change throughout the course of this class. And i think each of you, has shown fantastic ways of wrestling with the complexities of the past. And i think that considering how we choose to memorialize and celebrate, colonial American History, which elements of it and why, i think its something i hope you dont stop thinking about. Thank you so much, and i will see you all next week. Coverture is a legal term giving Sole Authority of a woman to her father. Next coming up a conversation from the Massachusetts Historical Society about colonial marriages, and how its impact can still be seen today. Our guest tonight is Catherine Allgor previously previously she had b