go to cuba. >> we have been talking with l lily prellezo and jose, the mog true store --

>> so they were not hostile to

united states. thousands of indians were not killed during that period. there was very little warfare. the problem began with the discovery of gold. the first thing to discover was a black hills were not as they hoped in wyoming, they were in the south dakota right in the sioux reservation. it a problem. the solution was to extinguish their title. that forced them onto agencies and to various other efforts to compel them to surrender that territory. when crazy horse was attacked by crook and custer, or when he came into conflict with them, they were in his territory contrary to the stipulations of the 1868 treaty.

and nobody who paid normal attention to the laws would've said that committed any kind of a warlike act or justify this action. even the united states government doesn't try to say that anymore. they just say they're going to take the black hills, and they did. so that wasn't really a question. when custer attacked the indian camp on the little bighorn river, they really had very little choice. the way attacks would take place, soldiers come up out of nowhere, usually at dawn, ride into camp and shoot every indian figure. so you either respond or you don't. it would be unreasonable to expect him to simply not do anything under those extremely provocative situations, circumstances. but afterwards, you know, he saw the handwriting on the wall.

he resisted a little while, a few months. he basically wanted to live in a place where there were no white people. the place where they were, this huge territory south of yellowstone between the missouri and big horn mountains down to the north platte, the buffalo were all killed until the indians were taken off the reservation and then it didn't take long. so i would say that red cloud made peace in 1868, and crazy horse didn't. he didn't sign that treaty. he didn't accept the rations from the government. nor was he compelled to under the treaty. he just took a different road as long as he could. >> i'm sure you've seen some reenactments. i know that white people have

done customers last and a few times and it's been in the movies a lot. but i also understand there's some indian reenactments now. did you see them and could you sort of compare the version? >> i have not seen the indian reenactments. that's a new thing. pine ridge, they do do it out at the little bighorn and have been doing it for many years. there's a large community of custer buffs who are fascinated by this, by this spectacle of this war. it must've been one of the most astonishing things to witness, thousands of people on horseback riding hell-bent come in the excitement of that has been ever since and they try to reestablish reenactments. i would say that the indians are

sometimes now getting to the a little, they are unreliable in the way they think about these things. unpredictable in the way they think about it. in recent years there's been a group of indians who have tended to exaggerate the number of indians who were killed at little bighorn. now they're saying maybe 500 indians killed at little bighorn. well, it's not too. a guy named richard did a very careful study of the question, and the true number represents more accurately the kind of unfolding as the battle went through. about 30 or 40 indians were killed. that's a big deal for those people, of course, and their families. but they killed 260. it's a remarkably one-sided military encounter, but for some

reason indian staff have begun to think no, there must of been a lot more, and they seek permission to go onto the battlefield to erect piles of stones were their great grandfather was killed, things like that. it's unreliable. >> i know this is completely way off. my grandmother is full-blooded? -- >> pardon me speak with my grandmother is full-blooded. >> everyone in the united states is part indian. >> i can prove it. [laughter] i've been up to the hometown in canada where my grandmother was born. and it was between 15 and 20 million american indians. i buried it -- at wounded knee.

will the president of the united states ever apologized, like the germans have to the jews, and et cetera, will he ever apologize for the genocide of the american indian, over 500 indians? and don't tell me it's not a genocide because i don't want to listen to it. >> i won't tell you that. but i don't think, i don't think that's likely to happen. >> why not? >> the circumstances are so different in each case, but none of the way you describe it, what you would like to sort. said -- [inaudible] >> and have apologized to the buffalo either but they are sorry about it. >> you would want me to be called a full-blooded because maybe if i had been --

[inaudible] >> he had a bunch of people with them who were in a fighting mood, but they all did what he did. they all came in and he gave up. what that meant at the time was -- >> i think that battle was -- [inaudible] >> sandy creek was one of the biggest before the other one. that was one of your real big battles, sandy creek. >> i wouldn't call that a battle. i would call that a massacre for sure. >> massacre, what's new? had wanted me. they went out and had gaveling guns and they get scared. one indian started screaming in the air. >> the two examples you cited i

think you deserve apologies. >> there's all kinds of money to different people, but you don't see given to american indians. i rest my case. >> let's have one more. >> in your research to you, what was the most startling or most surprising or memorable realization in making this book a? >> there were so many things that came as a surprise to me and a revelation, but one of the biggest i would say by far was the complexity that i found in lakota religion. the richness of it, which is of the poetry astonishing. there were a lot of

anthropologists who went out there and very carefully recorded in the last years of 19th century and the first years of the 20th what those people thought, how they believed those things. a collector of to music spent a lot of time at standing rock and other reservations, and elderly men came to her and would talk to her at great length. one of them told her one time, we come to you as from the dead. and after we're told you what we know, we will return to the debt. no one will know these things anymore. they had a very, very deep connection to the way they visualize the world. and it's interesting, this new religion is alive and well. its practice, taken seriously

understood in kind of deep and serious way. and i tried to talk it all of it in that section that i read. it's sort of like reading about physics. when you actually get into it. it's like, the way they see the interconnectedness of things is like the gravitational field that holds all objects in the universe and the matrix power. the more you read it the more interesting it becomes. i have been asked, what about those them to peace, what about the storms, do you believe that? i don't answer that question right away. because it's too quickly to miss what's interesting. okay, thank you very much. [applause]

>> will about this book, visit thekillingofcrazyhorse.com. >> we are here at the national press club book fair often not talking with veteran newsman jack fuller about his new book "what is happening to news." tell us what is happening to news. >> what's happening to news is that the audience is changing fundamentally. that's as much as anything else, reshaping the way we are getting our news here. >> in what way? >> well, there are obvious ways. the attention span is short, but there are deeper, deeper ways, too. not the least of which is that the information environment we live in today actually, because of the way our brains are

designed, built, causes us to be much more drawn to emotional presentations of information then we were in quieter times. and naturally meant that -- manifested itself in the way people are trying to commend it with us, with a lot more intensity and often anger and passion and so forth then 15 years ago or 20 years ago, anyone would've thought was appropriate. >> what are some examples of this phenomenon that you have in the book? >> just the commentators on cable news, for example. that's just one example. it's probably the most prominent example. you can even see it in the rhetoric of written news, particularly commentary, which is extremely intense. you certainly, you see it in the

internet world and the kinds of things that attract attention, are often not the sort of neutral, disinterested reports of this or that. but, in fact, our rants about someone or why is that? you know, why are intelligent people being drawn to that information. that's what i actually try to answer in the book. >> what do you see as the ultimate outcome for the news industry of the current attention span that the audience has? >> well, i think for young journalists it's a little bit scary, but and exhilarating time. and the reason is that it's not enough for them to just do a little better than the masters of the craft of the generation preceding you.

they have to completely redo the craft. that's exciting. it's also scary because nobody has template for how it's to be done. i actually have confidence that as journalists begin to really understand what's happening out there to the audience they are trying to speak to, and begin using their creativity to get a way to speak to them, that we will see a renaissance. it will be different. they will be a different kind of journalism. it will look different. some of the all old practitioners of my generation will smith and say this is not right and so forth, but the important thing is that journalism is a verified, journalism that puts the message first that is, decides what is important to say f