This exhibition is built on a paradox, the riddle. It is this, the paradox in 2018 the United States is a country of 283 million people. And American Indians are perhaps 1 of that population. Most americans live in urban areas, parts of the country where they never actually see American Indians. And yet in american life, indian images, advertising, mascots, surround people every single day. The show is about exploring the strange contradiction of how prevalent American Indians are in american life, really from the earliest memories of americans throughout their life, and yet somehow it was never really noticed much, never seems important. The Territorial Team decided to call this phenomenon indians everywhere it is about normalizing whats actually a really weird phenomenon. We looked and we couldnt find any other country in which one ethnic group has been used for so many different purposes for such an extraordinarily long time into the present. We want to enlarge the discussion and look at the vastness of it, the uniqueness of it and the reasons for why it exists. We have over 300 objects and images of representations of American Indians before the country began up to the present. They cover every manner of advertising for every sort of product. And we have a handful of major objects that will get a significant amount of visitor attention, including a indian chief motorcycle from 1948. People who love motorcycles often revered the Indian Motorcycle as a special model. It was at the height of American Engineering craftsmanship and style. And whats interesting to us about the motorcycle is that the name of the brand was chosen to distinguish it from competition, particularly from the u. K. The company has gone through many changes through the years. Ownership has changed multiple times. Almost nothing exists from the early days when it started out as a bicycle factory. And so it went through all of these changes in ownership. The one thing that survives is indian. Mostately, it becomes the valuable thing about the product. You see how much they emphasize that and the options are all indian related. You dont choose Something Like that unless you feel it adds value, that sort of name. One of the things the exhibition is about is how indians add value to products, entertainment, and ultimately to the nation itself. Something people often look for was something about the local nfl team here in washington. We werent really sure how to present the objects, because we thought them to be a little boring. What we chose to do was in multiple places, really show how these mascots are in everyday life, rather than show them by themselves. Here we have a photograph of Robert Griffin the third, a sensational quarterback for the redskins. What we were interested in is to really appreciate why people support teams. Very few people say, which team has the coolest mascot or the best name . You usually support a team because youre in a region, because your family and friends support it. The teams are chosen by rich guys, and it is a determinative thing. We kind of wanted to respect that sports plays a huge role in civic life, bringing people together. Having that image of Robert Griffin the third with a young fan feels like a generous approach to this, while at the same time, the name is a dictionary defined slur. Most indians are certainly opposed to it. For me it is someone who lives in the Washington Area for a main representation on a daily basis. It is annoying. At the same time we are not about trashing people who support the team. We are interested in debate about this. For people who look for washington redskins, it is here. I think virtually everyone understands that if a new team came up, no one would choose such a name. Over time, it probably will change. It was part of our effort to be welcoming to people, including people who dont necessarily agree with us. Ive always thought the Chicago Blackhawks have one of the most attractive logos as far as aesthetics. There are hundreds of Public Schools and colleges and universities that have indian names. Again, what we think is interesting is there such a tiny number of other examples. People say, what about the notre dame irish, what about the Dallas Cowboys . In terms of entire ethnic groups, its like 1000 to one. We are looking at what makes this both socially acceptable and something you dont really need to think about. Up until the recent controversies about mascots, most people never thought about it, it just seemed right to call a Team Warriors or indians or apache. Thats really what we are trying to get at, really look at how pervasive it is and how really how really strange it is once you take a look at it. This is a photograph of michelle obama, with people wearing Chicago Blackhawks jerseys. Something just to show how this becomes normalized and ordinary. When we thought about how to show this in the exhibition, the decision we made, when possible to show the childrens apparel. Again, its about how people usually decide to support a team, usually because thats where they live. It tends to be a Unifying Force in many ways and it comes at a way that dehumanizes American Indians. This is something that happens to native american people. Rarely does it happen to other ethnic groups in the United States to this degree. There is not one opinion as far as American Indians on this phenomenon. Two examples that are really clear are the cleveland indians, which most people would say the image of the chief feels very stereotypical. I think most nonindian people would say that feels out of place. The team is now phasing that logo out. And washington redskins, being a dictionarydefined slur. Others arent clear, blackhawks, or the name indians, without a stereotypical name. One of the images we have here is this pendant, and this is a National Basketball association team. They used a head dress to promote a team in the early days. Now they are still called the warriors, but they made no reference to American Indians. I think those are interesting things to debate. Our point of view is how vast the phenomenon is. We decided to avoid being prescriptive and to say this one is ok, or Chicago Blackhawks, if you make this change its fine. We are really looking at the larger picture. I think every exhibition should have a photograph of Elvis Presley in it. That is just my point of view. In this case, we give an example of how many distinguished americans have found themselves wearing a headdress, Elvis Presley did a movie in which he played in native american character. Other people are here that were not actually in movies that werent playing in native american character, including Franklin Delano roosevelt, richard nixon, the famous union leader jimmy hoffa, cher. The reasons why people warhead dresses in these particular ways vary. Again how people would never think in this context would end up wearing a headdress. And through most of the countrys history would seem like something that just made sense. When we talk about these representations surrounding americans throughout their lives, one of the most important ways is through movies and television. We have a section in this exhibition which really shows almost 100 years of these images, from 1935 movies from the 1939 movie stagecoach all the way to the Unbreakable Kimmy Schmidt and other contemporary television comedies. And its a little bit like the celebrities that end up playing a indian or wearing a indian outfit, that situation comedies in the 1960s and 1970s had nothing to do with indians, they would routinely have some indian themed shows. Sometimes it was thanksgiving. Sometimes it was not. It could be the munsters. It could be seinfeld. It was interesting to us, because television was a more intimate form than film because its in your living room, its in your house. If you ask people about those shows, they may not remember. Often they say, oh yes, that brady bunch episode. I remember all about it. I always knew i wanted this in a show, but would probably decide against it, because kids today didnt grow up with this image. This is called the rca test pattern. In the early days it would be broadcast at the beginning of the broadcast day, at the end, and often throughout the day, when Television Still had limited amount of programming. Actually you see this image now in hipster tshirts, in video games. It has established a life of itself, even though it quit being used in Television Broadcast in the 1960s. What was interesting about it was in the late 1940s and 1950s when tv was new, its a completely different kind of light that didnt exist. Its this weird machine thats in your house. The engineers wanted something that could actually adjust the broadcast quality, the picture quality, so that explains all the lines and the numbers and everything. They also wanted the majority to a drawing to get that quality as well. Everyone knows an indian and a headdress. It also signifies americanness. Its for the american audience. I think theres something spooky and subversive about this strange kind of light from a brandnew form of technology. Its in your living room, its on early in the morning, late at night. I somehow feel there is something bizarre going on with the american consciousness, somehow getting into peoples heads in a way they dont fully understand even today. We have three galleries that look at these huge moments in American History. We will look at one now. 50 years after the American Revolution, the United States passed the indian removal act of 1830. This section is about the trail of tears, one of the results of the indian removal act. What we are really looking at here is how the indian removal act is the most significant law ever passed, more important than any other treaty or federal action. We look at why we believe that to be true. We look at it in this moment in which american democracy was on trial. At this time in 1830, the United States was the only Representative Democracy in the world. Revolutions had failed in europe. Despite all the horrific flaws in the United States in 1830, the enslavement of black people, women couldnt vote, indians being dispossessed. Even two years later, white men couldnt vote until they owned property. With all of these terrible flaws in the United States, it still was a beacon of hope around the world. It still was a country that took seriously its enlightening ideals. In 1830 this National Conversation that had been simmering for some time comes to a head, and the Jackson Administration proposes the indian removal act. What its about is trying to manage this problem, which there are Indian Nations inside the borders of the United States. This causes problems for the states, and it feels intolerable to a certain number of americans that there should be this selfdescribed Indian Nation within the United States. In 1830, the act proposes something that is really quite extraordinary. It really imagines a future in which the United States would exist without American Indians. It proposes an exchange of land so that indians inside the territorial borders of the United States would be west of the mississippi. This is one solution, igniting a national debate. And what we show in this section is how many points of view there were on this. American indians had a great deal of agency and influence. John ross, the cherokee leader was a National Political figure in the United States. He could marshal allies, both politicians and members of congress, but also civic groups. There were legislators opposed to what this act was talking about, which was a removal of American Indians. We knew that most americans today, if they knew the term trail of tears, they understand it was a moment of National Shame for the United States. There are few people that say that was their finest hour, lets do it again. We know people understand it was something the country regrets. What we were interested in doing is trying to explain how there was a Real National debate about this that people at the time, including people in congress, predicted that it would not go well. We wanted to show that it was a National Conversation that happened. In this section we show a range of points of view. We start with president jefferson, who understood that there was a contradiction in his mind about having these Indian Nations within the borders of the United States. He thought a lot about what the Different Solutions might be to that. Usually, with some form of removal dispossession that was being talked about. During the early decades of the 19th century, the cotton kingdom was coming into its own. It was clear cotton could be engineered into Economic Development in the deep south. Around 1830 when this is happening, indians in the south are pressured to remove themselves, and some of them do accept offers of removal in exchange for land and money. But this debate is a moment in which the country really has to think about what it stands for. We show points of view of president jefferson, john ross, the cherokee leader, and we talk about different civic organizations that were involved as well. Theordore frelinghyusen, who spoke really eloquently against the removal act, and again from the point of view as a betrayal of american principles. So i think president jackson in a way gets too much credit for the removal act. There were two choices behind this before he came into office. He was certainly the manager and executor of the policy. And he oversaw the passage of the indian removal act. It interesting it becomes synonymous with this one part of his administration, because for most of the decades since he left office he was much more known for other policies, such as the bank of the United States, being the first person who was in from virginia massachusetts to become president. It shows how history changes. At the same time, if you had to say who was the person most responsible, it was certainly president jackson. One thing thats a surprise to most visitors is how close the vote was in congress, that it passed with a margin, but it wasnt an overwhelming margin. I think its fair to say that after this debate, it really became National Policy in a genuine way. Even though the vote was split, once it was enacted into law it really does become the policy of the United States of america. One of the things that was set in place was a template for a kind of paternalistic approach towards American Indians. There was this argument that this is actually really good for American Indians. They are going to be much better off west of the mississippi. They are going to be just fine and they are being compensated. The humanitarian argument carried over in the sense of a century of policy following this that basically said the United States knew what was best for American Indians. This section is really about words and texts and meaning. It starts with reading the act, which visitors can do. It is not very long. It never directly references any particular indian tribe. It is almost like a real estate pitch. You know, lets come to a deal, if you want, exchange land. It does not directly suggest that if American Indians choose not to accept lands in the west, they can stand everything will be fine. Its extraordinarily misleading. Its also revealing in that it does state pretty clearly that the states in the south would grow in economic wealth and power, an explicit goal that this would help build this part of the United States, which is being held back by these internal nations. On the one hand its very clear what its saying. We are doing this for Economic Development reasons. It is extremely misleading in that it implies that this is voluntary, that it is an offer. It is misleading that it does not concede that it is really targeting Indian Nations in the south. After the indian removal act was passed in may of 1830, Indian Nations still fo