>> it is often known as new amsterdam but more than the beginnings of new york was of a child of territory running from the hudson river down to the state of delaware including pennsylvania, new jersey and most of new york. >> host: when was founded? when did the europeans find it? >> began in the 1620 use as a colony founded by the dutch. until the 1660s when it was conquered by the english. this series of wars and then the dutch recaptured for about when your 1673 then returned by treaty to the english.

>> host: what were the goals when the dutch first came to north america? what was the reason? >> hudson the famous discoverer of the area was looking for the northwest passage working for the east india company. he sailed up the hudson which went pretty far but not all the way to the pacific than discovered people had nice furs and merchants in amsterdam interested in the first so the cullinet began as a fur trading post. so what became the dutch westin day co.'s it was an empire that came from the caribbean and parts of

brazil and africa and end in north america. >> host: the commercial reason was not religious? >> it was commercial yes. but up with the dutch imperialism to attack and take territory away from the spanish empire and the portuguese. peter cyber sen himself so last governor of new another land began fighting for the dutch in brazil then went to the caribbean dutch i went then only came up to another land it shows the connection even though another land was not on the frontier but part

of the larger imperial effort. >> host: was he villages? did he care? >> yes. many people involved ifs at the higher local of the dutch india company a although it was a trading company, with the military objective dutch fighting from the spanish having the claim to the empire but also the roman catholic power many dutch were protestant. and then the founders of the dutch company were pretty strict cal finest and list eisenson was a part of that.

>> host: where is the religious liberty? what he are we missing? >> i undertook the start -- the study of american and religious diversity something that we have so many different religions but not one single official religion like england or france or spain. there was an aspect of that and makes american society very different than the european society. with american religious freedom whine of the points referred to from this toleration and diversity is the dutch colony of another

land. the directors, the broader dutch system who and never force people to conform to a single religion like the english church did causing the puritans to go to new england. what i have ben led to believe fed is i would see the beginning of the distinctly way of diversity but i did not find anything like that. i found very little connection between the dutch and colonial americans do afterwards. it is slightly that there is

little connection with dutch tolerance and american religious liberty. >> host: when it comes to the dutch to their right in rules about religion? >> yes. the details of the constitution that brought in the dutch provinces together and was there constitution through the 17 90's provided with liberty of conscience and the religious belief. could not do what was considered normal a home but

with that religion has bet rejected from the beginning. they did have the official church called the public church this was the key that was distinctive it did not force people to belong to the dutch reformed church however there is a big difference when they allow you to see in public and private only one church could be visible or associated with the state and higher level of office

even though subordinate to the state only the dutch reformed church even the they could not force people if you want to get ahead chances of our you may join in the church. >> >> what is interesting is now another land when i found is significant for american history is a slightly different dutch story that sits between the famous dume england storey through the chesapeake colonies. and all of those places

important but minor you have a belief of a single church and enforcement of a single religion. merrill lynch was an exception because of the catholic ruling class but within new england to belong to one the single church and people who could not fit with the system would have to flee. a number of people came to another land where it was much more congenial and a prosperous place to be an rhode island. >> host: what do teach here? >> colonial american

history, native american history very important for the experience as whole and american religious history. >> how do research 300 year old religious history? >> where did you start? >> with the research of the people have done and we are relying and on scholarship that has come before us than you go back to their original sources and with another lender real lucky there is an organization called the new netherlands institute that has collected and it transcribed the crucial sources to the history. for my book with the dutch

context ahead to go back to the archives of amsterdam which has religious archives relevant and then old books and the scraps of evidence documents in the new england archives. it is not like a modern u.s. history but he have to find things and pieced together evidence from small scraps that i find interesting. >> what is the take away and people should remember and

learned? >> two things. the first is there is the dutch contribution. it is more in direct and what we're used to. it is significant they were here doing with a redoing and did not force. he could have lucerne's and quicker sam baptista and jews to become important later on. it of force them to convert but did not allow them to express their religion of any way. i want people to appreciate halla worked all that had

they retained control of this area we would have had some religious diversity the new amsterdam probably would not have devolved budget of much more reform to protestant part of the world with ed diverse york that we have. and my second book is about religious toleration in new york after the english takeover from the dutch that and is the crucial part of the story.

how they managed diversity important role is they were here for most of the 17th century coming from a social political environment are those who were in virginia that makes a difference in the history of new york and the mid-atlantic. without that new jersey york pa. delaware would-be impossible so the fact the dutch word here made the difference. >> talking with professor evan haefeli new netherlands.

this is the ltv at columbia university. [applause] >> a few thank-you to add a first for hosting this thank-you for not only being the media's sponsor but the first radio station to air the scholar circle which has been fun and interesting to host.

also c-span one of my favorite media in the world. i hope this is just the beginning. also i am so grateful you are here on a thursday night. los angeles you could have bet 1 million places. you're here. it is filling because these are important matters. [applause] a couple of of personal notes about the book questions about my own heritage and their families

were victims but it baffled me why the government would target everyday people. the family was not elite are educated. why would they be targeted for annihilation? that was coupled with other questions that led me down the path of mass media d remember the 1990's with the emergence of the new talk radio up until then it was public affairs than very emotional polarize saying

mass media i had gone home to see my parents in oklahoma. might father was very upset. i could hardly talk to him. almost like i have lost my father. we could not talk about politics. he turned on the radio and it was one of the stations with a host that likes to blame one side frezing and call them names i said you mind if we turn that down and he said want to hear the news. i realized because mass media tried to be neutral

and objective. merritt is talk if you can even we objective but at least the was the ever. but people thought they were being objective in neutral so he believed everything he was hearing and we could not have a conversation. i got my dad back we can now talk about will sides of the media and media framing. and feathered is that i had been working in the public service sector in the

legislature trying to pass public policy i thought was in the public interest. it was so hard because most to not understand what we we're doing. a fellow commissioner was with me through part of this. i thought there is not enough information and out there with every day media. why such a provocative title? what i came to realize three search is mass media can be used for good and not so good constructive and

destructive. half of the book is the more destructive parts and how it has been used with genocide, wars, but the rest is dedicated for more positive saying this. things that we tend to think are more positive. one of the people i interviewed was a professor there. he had a quote there realize it was encapsulate being that a bullet can kill a man with the adrs can kill thousands.

that is part of kill the messenger. with the particular paradigm said with these destructive ideas. wearing is the pao were routed? information and ideas. they are so powerful i call them dna for society. do know the dna tells of how to find shin in a system? it is decoding the

information. to participate in our society as a result. that is not go so well for society it could turn on itself information turns into ideas with the concept of framing anybody here this? the idea behind it is there is vast amount of data and it does not make sense this disorganized. you could not go to bosnia

to understand what happened by walking around. when organized and that way it has the story that it tells it is a frame. some people talk about the picture frame. i can focus on of this part. a woman and a man and what a good looking room. if i look over there, no comment. [laughter] that is part of the concept.

the no-space end zone. in experiments that captures this better than i could tell the communications scholars took the kkk rally and took two different newspaper articles. 1m is they gave it to one group and took another article framing it as the issue of free-speech this kkk but we stand for free speech. same organization we know the background, a two different reactions.

to despite their opinion of people who saw the public safety frame not so much. so together that is the essence of a frame. some information in some out and that angle tells the story. all frames when disseminated goes to a wider audience. alltel a particular story but an almost tells the exact same story only with characters change.

good guy and a bad guy. always a political problem. always said argument the good guy belongs the bad guy was the evader. the argument of the good guy was good for society and claimed the other was so ailing society. sometimes it is worse than that. one example is rwanda because the most clear picture we can get to how it is so effective. one radius station would disseminate these messages

all societies have conflict but how do get to a brother to kill a brother or a husband to kill a life or doctors to kill patients or students to kill teachers? it is not unique to rwanda but bosnia. best men at each other's weddings. i meant to turn on my time. i did not. i meant to what happens with genocidal in for

rick -- situation? there is always a crisis. it could be resolved it doesn't always mean you turn on the other. often and there is the vicious leader. in nazi germany and weeders are nothing without followers. it those did with the story. in rwanda there was a crisis situation the incident where the plane was shot down bet

and radio station that had been around, but the real station that had political commentary then it would is more vicious targeting for annihilation blaming them for all of the problems. pt them as the invader and is soiling the land and the worst part if you don't kill them first, they will kill you. win them message comes through the radius station in rwanda, one message. not countered by other

media. people got these assiduous over and over and they started to believe them that the neighbor was coming after them. they thought if they did not kill they would be killed more rivera democracy would fall apart. a grand cause is that everybody can get behind, it is often saving humanity

because they've ruined it with the international jewish conspiracy. people got scared. in rwanda 800,000 brutally killed saying is that would make them feel the pain for the longest period of time. it is not human. but unfortunately it is not unique. we saw things where they intentionally put saying it -- people into concentration camps they would torture them it was

such an intense hatred. how does this happen? we get to these messages but don't we reject them? it happens with concentrated media and not countered arco's and a society develops with these psychological phenomenon. list the pole here have heard of group think? everybody agrees but one person knows it is wrong go silent. they told everybody say it

was 6 inches but the one per cent new it was not but said it because everybody else said that. what is the phenomenon? why do we start to doubt ourselves and our own morality? it is a human phenomenon to conform to our surroundings. not everybody does. even in rwanda certainly if in bosnia there are dissenters. they would defy and risk

their lives. my own family if not for their turkish neighbors probably would not to have made it. and is probably true. for the vast majority we add of mob behavior and groups think and intergroup relations. at a ball game and the bad guy gets the point* and everybody gets upset to that is like the intergroup emotion. but then they have the automatic behavioral component.

anchor has a need to resolve and hatred has agreed to destroy the other. these emotions takeover when this story is told. this is not the only story. has a anybody here purred of burundi? is sounds like happy ending 1/2 to more new head of time because politics are constantly changing. but two ethnic groups groups, essentially the two

groups. the religion is the same. the languages the same. across the board there is no difference between the two but to they were engaged in the same fratricidal killings they would be to them to it similar to the other side. but something changed. it did not go down the genocidal pass. fayyad the malignant leadership, crisis situation even mass media developing hate for the other. what was the difference?

they did not have the hour "kill the messenger." they had competing frames but then ngos got involved. some from the u.s. and some from europe to say they will try a media at experiment. this included every news story to be reported on one from each camp together. to not only agree on the information but on the frame. said now they find themselves trying to figure

out what was really going on. then they realize each side were people. there lourdes dehumanized. called cockroaches, fleas, then they started their radio program. they started to have conversations about the role of bystanders and those doing the other side. if one person rescued another and a would-be

considered a traitor marked for death. pretty common in the word time -- were to of situations. but then they started to talk about what a heroic act how he made. the murrah they talked about it the more the traders started to sound like a hero and then confessed to rescue someone from the other side and then became more commonplace. then the leaders of the factions were ascending and the communique.

ahead of this operation would read them and say this is not true. comeback with something that is true. even in western media if it's a congressman as such and such.sman as such and such. they would say it's a congressman as such and such. they would say comeback with something productive and constructive. it started to change how people were thinking. i do not know where i am. [laughter] and other really important point* was the radio society

who had protagonist that run not identified there is some physical differences allegedly the colonial settlers had suggested but we don't know if they really were that different. but the drama and it went through as a result it started to develop a compassion for the others. this is a few of the relevance of the mass media that took something from the brink of genocide next door it was the genocide bringing it to a peace agreement in

d.c. there is a lot of violence unfortunately but to where we saw peacemaking generated partly through mass media up. we have seen major transformations one is south africa. it was apartheid very brutal two is of black south african with said divided media so the language never

knew any other story other than what the state told them. nelson mandela was a token terrorist but the english and africa big rich media plateful a complete the different story and the wrongness of the apartheid society. they could not solve that alone. too much lopsided power but digital list would take it to the next level until business got involved government, sanctions, and did not -- economic sanctions until decades

later we see a transformation in south africa. what if nobody challenged the apartheid structure and never told the story of the man at the 10 to death in his jail cell? . .

what a and sometimes it doesn't quite get that extreme him that there are things that are occurring so the united states, for example, is the very polarized right now. the media has become very polarized and people are going into what we call ech chambers where they only listen and watch and read some media and hear the same story over and over again and other people watch and listen and read this other media. that's not 100% true by the way. some people are crossing over but there is a large enough section of society there are doing that. where the most important issues facing us right now is the issue of climate change. this week we heard something like 97% of the greenland ice sheet is nelson to become

melting. we have seen drought across the country. massive drought. food prices are shooting and expecting ocean levels to rise quite a bit exceeding the coast line. extreme weather getting worse and no policy and action. what is going on in the policy realm? why aren't policy makers doing something? why aren't people getting out of their suvs? mabey climate change isn't really happening. well, to some people it's not really happening because scientists are scam artists and if you listen and read and watch purchase of other media, this is repeated over and over and over again. the scientists are scanning you.

dozens and dozens of news articles. it's not so people will wonder understand the issue of climate change it's that the eight with scientists and they don't believe in science any more. if we take our phase out of science completely, we might be in more trouble. so this is something that is right here, right now. it's upon the entire planet and its something that the media are confusing the issue on and we are hearing this reported most of the traditional media are giving the he said she said. such and such scientist said we have had the ten hottest years. but substantive scientists who by the ways and a research scientist but i'm not going to tell you that says there is no

such thing as climate change. this is a problem and the worst part is the vilification where it takes faith out of science. i think i will close this by saying a few things. one is that there are several media factors more misinformation. if you don't understand, if people can't read come here, comprehend, they cannot act in a responsible way and in a space society need to be able to know and act in a responsible way that you can't do anything about things you don't know so there's information. another one is the agenda was setting what people think about is what they hear and read and learn from some form of media. it's changing with social media. we will talk about that quickly. it brings certain things to the

forefront and there is only so much you can have in the forefront and removes the other things to the back and then there's the training effect that i talk about and the cultural affect. this is 1i just want to emphasize a little bit. but or cultural effects? what are the things the we care about that are right? what are the things that are just? what are the things that are acceptable down to the clothes we wear? well, some of that is perpetrated through mass media. there is a social law that gets established and political scientists have found the social laws are more powerful than state police. so, we sped to get here been really break the state law but people don't violate the social all very well.

so, when was the last time you saw a man wearing a pink skirt? unacceptable. and what would happen if he did that? that's a social law and you just can't violate them. i have a chapter in here about changing the very important social law itch the female genital coming in senegal which in ten years to completely, almost, it's never completely eradicated almost completely eradicate it because they couldn't do it for thousands of years because a was a powerful social wall no one would talk to liberal much less marry a young woman had she not been with the cold cut. but through a special election campaign of mass media the got people to understand what was going on with the customer and also with the cost was, people's

health and well-being and space choice. so now with new media, the internet has it changing? for good and bad. for good and for that is the key to keeping effect. for many years traditional mass media told us what to think about on how to think about it not that be all the data, but it gave us this news and this frame and it was all we got. the good news about that was it was usually fact checked, and there wasn't usually right with misinformation. the bad news is the kept out a lot of stuff maybe we wanted to know about. that's changing. now that the key thing is going both ways people are taking

things and making a big issue out of it and it's spreading all over the world the traditional mass media are taking it further. we saw this with the arab spurring some people were blogging and, they were posting it. al jazeera had been in there for many years capturing some of the changes going on but then it becomes this exchange between them. the other part is there are certain parts of the world we just can't get much information out of bed with the social media we are getting it. i don't know if you saw the documentary about the burmese delude journalist capturing all of the oppression that he and others were facing on his video and applauding it on to the internet and then made a movie out of that and iran when doug

green revolution was attempted and there were beatings people captured and included it on the internet, so there is an open window here because of the internet and the social media but then you've got the other side which is the misinformation that's getting on their own, and it's not getting vetted a perfectible data or the framing and some of it can be deficience come of it use getting sent around that what happened? we saw this in the u.s. and other places. how are we going to deal with all of this? the other thing i am hoping will occur more is the result of the new media from the cross border collaboration so people can actually learn from each other

when they can't afford to fly over there or there would be other restrictions about going to learn other cultures and what is occurring and exchanging information. that would be quite a beautiful thing and i think it is starting to happen with some of the blogs we are hoping to see more of this. so, in closing i want to say that when we have great potential to have our media both our social media and mass media star to to stand for the things we care about it and stop being a divider and be more of a uniter. the us verses of them that we are fed since very early to in the movies, in sports, in the

war, they're just efrain. it's really all of us. they're really is no them. if we can start to parse out the frame and start to understand what is going on and build more of this media that we would like to see, more of it supports the growth of human potential, peaceful societies, protections of human rights and we can do that in several ways on that i'm advocating for his the institutional media competing with the internet, funding and in the future newspapers are full and closer down. the institutions like the educational institutions start to work together and build the media that this fact checked and has scholarly material that help people to understand political

phenomenon more. other novels emerging from other countries are things like cooperatives so they run it and not an executive telling them what to do so they can be based on journalistic principles based on what we see and places where both sides have to check the frames and i have great hope that we can build this so people stay vigilant in and commit it. the bottom line is we are all part of the media now. all of our trigger and facebook and blogs and internet, how do like that? i like it.

collectively and you never know who is reading these things and getting them, so the things that for word what we would like to do in the world, yet we correct the tractable misinformation and we share what we know to be true and see it change gradually as it builds the more the traditional media get a hold of it, and we share the other way around, too. thank you so much. we will take a question or two. [applause] >> i will just take one. [laughter] >> dr.? >> i have a question you mentioned earlier that there was

a sort of floating of the frame but the one frame who becomes a dominant frame. how much do you think that is individual or an individual person that is often in something like that actually helps in that process of splitting the frame on to the other. >> the rolph leaders. >> how do they really? >> i think they matter a lot. there's different -- told the messenger to the idea was to kill the paradigm that is destructive, and sometimes often the paradigm is destructive and is led by a malignant narcissistic leader, and was in rwanda. it wasn't a free media, it was a media operated by a political ideological group privately-held.

it wasn't a government so we can't say government media data coming and in some cases government media can actually do things. the bbc is mostly gray, not so great in the northern ireland case, but in a lot of other ways when it flips, and i didn't mean to imply it did flip, it didn't let, it gradually went there and was the same thing in nazi germany. the flat in rwanda is when the plane went down all the blame landed on the people for taking the plane down and then it just became increasingly hateful in these messages. and usually it's gradual. nazi germany was very gradual. take these rights away, in salt the jews, take more rights away, call them all full names.

isolate them into this corner into these ghettos and just play it by saying they are destroying humanity and part of their international conspiracy. start killing them and maybe don't even tell anybody. a lot of what was going on in the nazi germany press is then they were just creating this positive rall are now hitler and turning the country around and hiding what they were doing even though even while they were saying these things. does that answer your question? so leadership does matter if i got your question right. i didn't talk at this at all but in the war of yugoslavia part of the war was about seizing the mass media so the forces were

going and grabbing television stations and transmitters and putting their messages in their again telling the journalists while they were added by the way is an awful thing. but that was again to control the message and that would be a flip. one minute you've got journalism, ethical journalism and malignant leader controlling the message and did journalists. >> [inaudible] are they to feature the deniers

were there people who don't believe they landed on the moon. where is that line? >> that's a really important question. there was a line in my book where i say we don't question gravity any more. i mean it's established, we have gravity. certain things are factual. i don't think that that is a perspective, and the opinion that tries to counter the effect will be established law or rule or fact such as the armenian genocide or the holocaust, such as climate change. if there is a legitimate finding that could challenge a fact did i see the right?

it was a new finding. does everybody know what i'm talking about? it is a subatomic particle that scientists have been searching for years and years and years and they finally established most the established it exists. if there is evidence that's one thing. if there is no evidence, then should this be disseminated? this was the problem of climate change. the scientific community and that the peer review journals 100% agreement that what is happening is the planet is warming and it is as a result of human activity.

the scientists i shouldn't put it in quotes because they are scientists but most of them are working for think tanks that served the fossil fuel industry and the coal industry and such. the journalists were portraying them against scientists that they were not doing climate research. it should they be given equal amount? no. shibley holocaust denier be given equal ground? no. that's established. should be argued that there is not gravity? does that answer your question? i don't see anything wrong with, you know, for entertainment purposes to be able to explore something to some degree and i don't think that misinformation as a good thing.

>> joyce, fellow commissioner. >> he mentioned early on about the transition and the polarization of the news media from more fact based news to the two sides and i am sure in the book you mention this but i'm just wondering is there any particular factor, major factor that you think contributed to that transition? any policy change, anything that happened because a was a stark change. >> there were policy changes going on during the nineties. some people take the fairness doctrine because it gives two sides to everything. if there was one of the things that changed. if there were other changes. a part of that often dealt with consolidation of industry and its law that governor the

consolidation and the mergers changed so you could have more consolidation and mergers. one single entity owning a lot of mass media some of it was also the way that we treated the public airwaves. but then in the emergence of cable so there were several things going on at the same time and i think you're in the u.s. it is a different situation than what we see internationally. a lot of it is power. internationally we saw these malignant leaders using the mass media to get control and kill others. here in the u.s., we see corporate companies trying to make as much money as the can by feeding us the lowest common denominator which is often emotional.

the leader the great company the news corporation's, the same one that is on there in the three dozen news segments but called scientists scam artists. yet rupert murdoch himself, the ceo brags about how much he's doing a climate change. how do you explain that? that is in the book. how do you explain that? makes money a publicly traded company. i don't think there is anything wrong with people making money, but there's got to be some kind of balancing with the public good. "the new york times" does a pretty good job with that. the iraq war if we don't talk about them not fact checking as a result of that and generally

speaking "the new york times" has a mission which is to provide public service and they are for profit. can you do that? i guess it can be done. i went off your question. >> we will take one last question if there is one. >> what were your trusted sources for information? >> the first thing i did is i went into the peer reviewed literature and the reason is that most people know that here review process is what academics used when you submit research you do without journeyman institution and it goes to a body that fact and once it passes if they all agree in this process that you are seeing

something that is a contribution and is not hogwash, then it can get published. that is where i started with the process and by the way there are flaws in every system gindin the process, too put at least it's substantive in terms of trusted as a foundation. some of the chapters and bosnia was one in particular they were competing journals. there were two different narratives about what really happened in bosnia, so i got on the plan and i went there and i talked to people all around the different sides and i talked to judges and prosecutors professors and settled in that the side that had the most journals were the ones most people interviewed agreed with. in other words, without going

too much into the chapter most people agree on what happened in bosnia in terms of the professions and the academics and the researchers. there were a handful of different but there were people in the perspective and that is why i went back but i found that the majority of people the story was more aligned with the bosnian intellectuals and people on the streets agreed with. so, and that's basically what i did it started before the review and if there was a conflict of a problem -- in bosnia iceboat to judges, prosecutors, defense lawyers, people on the streets, students that lived through it, parents that lived through it, and it was a task but that was

the tough one to resolve. the rest of them i would say was a solid understanding about what had actually happened in the conflict and in the academic community. does that answer your question? okay. [applause] >> kunar, as important as the project has become to my life, i can scarcely remember the first time i learned about this risk to the future presidents, 79. but what i do remember is reading about it in a book, and

was treated with the typical one or two sentences you would hear about the congressional race, and i thought to myself way to bury the lead. all of a sudden we are in this race between the two future presidents james madison, james monroe the most important issues we talked about as a country with their we should have the bill of rights, what kind of union we should have and then all of a sudden you are in the next page and i said we to vary the lead. i read everything i could about this election and when i found no one had ever written anything about it before, i decided i was going to tell the story. it was in the inauguration of church washington what many people don't know is when he took the oath of office, two of the 13 states or outside of the union. north carolina and rhode island didn't write the constitution because of their concerns missing the bill of rights. a guaranteed fundamental liberty.

this was common throughout the continent. james monroe was one and the opposed the constitution. many of them came at it from different angles and some genuinely believe you couldn't have a union that covered these different and diverse states the believed they were perhaps regional confederacy's but they didn't think that any government could ever be suitable to this entire continent. james monroe represented the majority of antifederalism and that his objective to the constitution was centered around missing a bill of rights while washington took the oath of office, two states new york and virginia were agitating for a new constitutional convention and in the words of james madison and george washington they were terrified at this prospect and they believed it was infantry note by the enemy of the new government and the constitution was done away with and that our union with the fractured never to come together