the transcendent issue. so we continue to push that issue from the bottom up. >> greg dorsey baltimore maryland, the so the question is inspired by the acronym committee for a unified independent party. so my question is as we try to define the future of the independent movement and i would like an opinion on from everybody, including you, jackie are we to think of it as defining a new third party that will have policy a platform? ..

>> speaking just for myself, not for the movement. i think becoming a party was the single worst idea we could possibly do. [applause] i don't want any organization controlling my way of thinking. none. nor do i want the other candidates to be controlled by it. i want the voters to have a right to listen to me in the 20 other people besides me and make a decision as to who they would like to have. but i would like all the voters to be involved and not process. i think they're acting as the independent movement could do. clearly it could be helpful in changing the structure in the architecture so more people can

participate. it can help in education. more independent candidates running as a terrific thing. my guess is early on in the system what the candidates will do is they may not win but they can change the debate. somebody mentioned teddy roosevelt earlier that day. teddy roosevelt lost the election but clearly changed the election much like rush limbaugh did when he ran against bill clinton. having an independent candidate running for president talking about the importance of allowing all people the right to vote in the right to vote in the rates of outcomes from the voters may be as the catalyst that begins to help move to change forward. helping independent candidates is a good idea. endorsing independent candidates is a terrible mistake. we are trying to give more people a choice and asked me if the function function of what we should be doing as an organization.

[applause] >> one minor correction. it was ross perot in 1992. i think that we need to have a flowering of association. this is the role of people and things connected. a lot of connections of people as independents. it is okay to be connected to people. it could be rigidly boxed in sort of democrat republican that's it. but if we cannot the ballot that actually allows associations to be shown, connections to be shown and you can call it an association but it's not rigid and it might be a new one a couple years from now.

they make people feel connect it. there's a whole conversation to be had. washington state have a certain number of carrots yours where you can say you are connected. you can say your association. people are creative about that. but whatever they feel connected to come a whole series of people might feel connected in a certain way. if we move that direction and allow more choices on the ballot where we have systems to accommodate and we can have a politics that brings more people in. go ahead. the committee for a unified independent party which is the founding member for pronunciation in 1994 in the context of the creation of the national reform party which grew

off in 1992 and the reform party came together basically at the left-center right coalition of independents who are working to form a national party but to use it to leverage against standard behavior of political party. we had a beautiful experimental. from 1995 to 1999. during that time i brought americans together across the political spectrum and looks to bring other independent parties into a relationship with that to build a broad unified independent party. one of the things that happen after five years of existence was that the major parties came in in different ways and essentially wrecked the reform party. one of the things we learned from that experience is literally the form of organization that is a party

gravitates in a particular direction that ends up deflating and depressing the very cause that brings people into independent politics in the first place. i'm extremely sympathetic to paul's position on this. after 2000 we made a shift away from party building to organizing independent voters into associations that could leverage political power that can engage with the political establishment by without turning ourselves into a political party because we found culturally and politically it made us too vulnerable to do that. we are creating new forms of expressing political power in this movement. there actually is a unity between form and substance here. so that is why we been very, very cautious. we don't want to create anything

premature, pre-decided are prepackaged. this is a movement that has to have forms that give expression to that. [applause] >> i would echo. i think you can start with the party because the whole idea is opening a process and in order to change the process you have to be able to bring people into the process. i think the top two two and things like that open the process so people who feel they can't participate can participate in as paul said earlier, once you get one person taking one step and collectively taking one step, the structures that support that will begin to naturally develop. for your questions.

yes. >> my name is alicia garay. i'm a bronx community college student. my question is where does development sit in your reform? without development we do not have a democracy. if you do not fit development into democracy without it we cannot change the law. without changing the laws, we cannot change the culture we live in. >> yeah. >> i think something friday said earlier speaks directly to that. no reform leads to a hands-free democracy. that goes to the development issue. in my mind development is the absolute key issue and part of political reform is can you get the party's grip off the process

for a moment, for a second? can you create space for development? that is not a guarantee. there's lots of environments for development where things don't develop, but it's an opportunity to create new coalitions, new conversations. once you enact the top two once you enact political reform, that it's, that is when the challenge starts. not before. when the system closed down, the opportunities for development are nil. that is when we have to get to work and create the new conversations that do not lead to development, but our development. it's a very crucial question. [applause] >> hi, rebecca feldman from new jersey. i want to thank you for doing this, for inviting me. i learned so much today. i'm so inspired. i have a practical question

because political reform is popular with the american people. he is so not with the surveys you done in the 2008 election. to connect the people when they're listening, going to the polls for the belmont stakes to have initiative and referendum, better to pursue it in a presidential year, an off year. do we know yet what that pivot point is? is it about turnout in getting the right audience? can you tell us something about timing? >> i think it might be different. we should all thank rebecca against new jersey secretary of state. [applause] obviously playing a huge role at the relates to -- we actually filed in the primary which is counterintuitive and against the advice of political consultants in california and had it not

been for dan howell running at the time saying keep it on the primary ballot, trust us i know we wouldn't have passed it because the consultants were thinking this is a partisan primary. independent voters don't normally turn out. but we had done the polling to know with a lower turnout always have to do is communicate with the lesser number of nonaffiliated voters and we could do it while the parties are sleeping because the institutional money wasn't going to come around until the general election. we said keep it on the ballot. the parties don't ever talk to because it doesn't matter and increase voter turnout by almost 450,000 night election which was just enough for the margin of jury. [applause] >> it is going to vary state-by-state. we in arizona can put ours on the primary election day. that is one topic.

but we do know in an off election year where we elect our governor is opposed to president, turnout drops out by 20% to 25%. we do know that is disproportionately young people, independents and minorities. we statistically could show that. those are also grocery tend to do better with an open primary in arizona. i don't know what exists in arizona is right for every state. i think what chad provided and what his dad provided another is provided with the ability to be strategic to look at and think about it i can get them to a wind number. at the end of the day what do you when and what do you lose. at least the people we talk about the fact that by these policies. if we lose, we have done

nothing. we may be moved the ball a little bit. you have to think that whether you are on a primary election or general election. what are you going to do to win because if you lose that it won't be enough to really create the change that we want. >> i would only add one of those good remarks which is studied your yes vote and factor that in because it may be different in different places. and then take some time to build support for it. like rushing can be seductive, that is usually dangerous. >> thank you all. >> hi, my name is katie burnham is katie byrne and i'm a freshman at university of north carolina grinned borough. in regard to jackie's earlier comments in progressive pain neck and the independent party

reestablishing humanity within a very politicized right, with the clear and trans community i wonder how exactly is that going to happen without a specific set of partisan things. and regards listen you could think of the acts being put in place but only after she killed herself. how is this going to help me as a career person -- how many more people have to die before real change is going to happen? the democratic party is failing people beyond the very agreeable point of gay marriage and we are very much left out of a lot of political movement. >> i might just have a comment from arizona standpoint on that. in arizona one session ago we

had a bill that got out of her legislature that bad that you couldn't do anything to stop the business from being able to discriminate against someone from being gay. i can about promise you that would've lost the voters. it would have been successful. why the disconnect? a majority of the legislature is elected by 4% of the people who vote in their primary and they are captives to them. they can't speak to the general electorate because they can't get reelected if they do. they have to speak to the base and when you combine that with the caucus where they become afraid moderate republicans become more afraid it becomes very harsh on minority groups. my answer is that the ideas you have they are good ideas. they are things that are important.

things that motivate the public like the martin luther king movement did when i was able to reach a broader audience. the most risk when you're in an isolated room at the group of people who don't put your interest as a priority. >> i would add one thing to that, which is i think bringing the american people to gather around democracy around taking control of our political process and inserting the ownership of our government our country our political culture the way we want to organize ourselves as a society means we can break out at a certain kind of atomization are sometimes referred to as identity-based politics for every group is looking at a situation based simply on an identity that they have given and allows people to come

together and learn from each other. my issue with respect to the questions you are raising is that i want all of america to understand by virtue of knowing and being close to and working alongside with i want all of america to understand the issues the community is dealing with. right now we have a situation that doesn't allow that to happen. unless there is a tragedy where headlines are made that is the only time we can break through. we can't allow that to happen. we have to have a political system and political process to be who they are and work together to be a better america for everyone. to me one of the things that is the most exciting and i have been a political act based since i was three is that we can do

that. we can break out at issue orientation, identity politics and say hey, we are going to come together as a country. and we are going to make sure justice is done for everyone but everyone has the right to live the way they want to live that everyone is protected to live the life they want to live and we are going to build this country in such a way so everyone can fulfill their individual and creative potential. that is what this movement is about. [applause] that is why i think the democracy issue is your issue. i really do. >> just a point here. two more speakers came to the podium -- to the line even though it's planning to close it, i will let you speak but you will have literally 30 seconds for closing comments. >> jason alston, i love the discussion we are having and

particularly given the folks up here it is a little heavy on the kind of electoral tactical fashion like should we do talk to or should we do this one or that one. i would love if the panel could speak to how you understand to the necessity of building a movement for independent political reform particularly in light of the title and how we make it popular with the american people. i meant doing us a long time. we are involved in the first campaign in 2004. it was a wonky discussion so only through a lot of trial and error and a lot of hard work to build the right coalitions that spoke to enough groups and once we passed it we weren't done. only 25% of voters independent view they could participate. our group went out and ordinary citizens met with all the voters

we could get to in order to change the way the voter education materials were. i would love it if you could speak to how you understand building a movement to make these pics basically worthwhile. >> i might just give a quick comment on that. the nice thing about loading the movement is almost daily they do things inside their parties that are disenfranchising voters, pushing them to the outside making them give up on the system. our danger is the public tends to be giving up. they are starting to believe in fact we can make this any better. we have to give them hope. what we have to do is get them to believe we can make things better. that is why i am here. that is why most people in the room are here.

[applause] >> this is not a direct answer but one of the things that goes around in my head is one of the lessons i've been active and building together is you don't need to do something. people can do something and you can see what happens in the something else. after the police murder of new york, bitterly jamal is in partnership with the n.y.p.d. she and fred newman said what is something we can do that is really different that might take us down the road that is not simply protesting? if we can teach americans that they can do something new together, that goes a long way

towards getting us out off all of the dead ends that we are in. [applause] >> than me take this opportunity right now to say that i think what i was saying earlier that i really see this issue as a social justice issue that we have a system that excludes people from meaningfully participating in an election where they can make their own choice. i say if there is not going to be any justice, there can be no peace. [cheers and applause] >> to thumbnails, which is we have seen voting pass at the ballots and 13, 14 15 cities. a lot of them is a very small number of people that found

resonance. sarasota, florida, basically like three people pushed it. they got 70% of the vote. there are different places that are passed it that way. fair ball, minnesota is an independent group are they passing in minneapolis and st. paul. they also created an organization on the ground as they did it and kept it in the whole issue that comes up about defending your system was he when it or make it work and not directly support them but help them understand the system. that kind of movement welding is harder, but he sustained in a way that is very likely to expand in that state. the two ways of saying that if this is winnable staff. you have to be smart. you can't win everywhere. you pick your moments, but to really sustain this and turn this into something lasting has

got to get bigger and there's a lot of people here who might help do that. [applause] >> my name is neil grimaldi. i'm a lower new york, also a candidate for president as independent. i've been fighting for over 10 years the democratic party and the control of the judiciary and fighting to get insurgent candidates on the ballot. it is very difficult because in some cases it is corruption. for example, in queens county the lawyer you are fighting against, the judges are on the bench. i had a real unfortunate situation going into united states federal court and fighting to get a candidate on the ballot, mr. wills who is now a councilman and finding out after the case the judge had actually been appointed by the other side. now i have a case in the united

states court of appeals to try to outlaw it in new york state board of elections. the new york state board of elections is the most corrupt institution i've ever seen. you're only allowed to have four directors of the most prejudiced people. you can only be on the board if you represent the republican or democratic party and they decide who will be on the ballot or who's not going to be on the ballot in tech all cases. how can you have the biggest party group of independence and they have no representation on the situation. i just say i really applaud your movement and your efforts. i do think that you can't get legislation passed unless you have candidates, now i agree your organization, will with the great ms. kathy stewart, you don't have to be part of that structure.

he made a decision. you've had the experience. but there also is the need for an independent party for a person can get legislation passed and hopefully change the situation and that is what i'm running on. thank you for the opportunity to be here. one last comment. i ran for mayor last year. one last comment. i ran for mayor. here i am a reverend. i wrote two books, bibles. a former assistant da and i got excluded from being in the debate. how can you have such terrible corruption in the system and allow it to go on? that is all my point. thank you very much. [applause] >> my name is kevin l. johnson. i decided i was an independent in 1992 when ross perot was running. anyway a large march like i was

talking about, miss jackie, if we can organize a lot of people in the warm weather is coming up, i mean at least 100000, and we say we've got to get out to the streets. the other thing is how many people are familiar with the coast-to-coast am radio show. i'm a fan of that show. that is a good show for jackie to go one. jesse ventura has been on there. it's got at least 10 million listeners, all smart people. they talk about a lot of the behind-the-scenes things like this. it perfect show. can we help jackie get on the coast-to-coast a.m.? george norrie is the host during the week. maybe we can all work on that. [applause] >> all right. let's get our panelists another round of applause. [cheers and applause]

thank you so much. i am going to close this out now. thank you so much for being here and for participating in these conversations. some of what we pursued and opened up and talked about today are some of the most important discussions going on in the country today. we want to continue them outside of the theater and i will come out there and say hello to everyone. let's keep our conversation going let's keep our movement building going. let's keep our leadership growing and growing. thank you so much. goodnight. [cheers and applause]

[applause] >> next, author and activist ayaan hirsi ali talks about the militant group isis islam and the west. her latest book is "heretic: why islam needs a reformation now." the national press club hosted this one-hour event. >> i want to start by acknowledging the former president of the american enterprise institute and do so many things that he has done he brought me to america. thank you. [applause] when i was last year about four and a half years ago and this was here i was invited to come and speak to you on the proposition islam is a religion

of tolerance. i don't know how far back your memory extends. the you're going to forgive me for enjoying this moment that i back then to the position that islam was not a religion of tolerance. it was not a religion of peace. of course in october 25 of 2010 the day i was here i acknowledged that there is millions and millions of muslims who are peaceloving and who are tolerant. but i was confident that islam unreformed as a creed was

neither peaceful nor tolerant. in 2010 i published a book "nomad." there is one chapter in their riot knowledge that okay, i was born into islam and through an evolution, and intellectual journey i was able to shed religion. not just islam. in my youthful enthusiasm, i thought if you get liberated you will join me in my atheism. in 2010 i was disappointed that

ex-muslims, that i interacted with and encountered were not willing to join me in my atheism. i thought well, what the heck. if you want another religion, it might be possible. i was kind of thinking the way americans think there is a problem. there must be a solution. and if the problem was i want to believe in a god, in 2010 i there are so many. there is a benign god a christian god. back then i was promoting the idea that you are peaceloving and tolerant muslim and you want to be religious, why not confide in christianity. i had a very naïve letter to the posed saying why don't you

capture the hearts and minds of all of the millions of people who are spiritual. unfortunately today i have to admit to you that the pope did not follow my advice. there is no catholic program that wants to capture the hearts and minds of muslims. if it is they are, i don't know about it. they have not involves me in it. it is five years ago -- nearly five years ago and i've come to the conclusion as we all grow and as we all evolve that you don't shed a religion that easily. it's not like taking off her shirt and wear it another shirt. people are touched by religions. and i'm here to say i have

matured and i have learned and i have come across more and more muslims who instead as converting to something else instead of deserting their religion, would actually like to reformat. and that brings me back to the statement. is islam a religion of peace and tolerance? in 2010 it was a matter of debate. it was still open for debate. and i've got questions from this audience and we went back and forth. i remember saying okay why don't you go ahead and research at? but today i feel that there is a

change. there is a shift in opinion towards my side and i don't want to claim that triumph. it is not if you change your mind, if you have come to accept the position that it's not peace or tolerance it is not because i have persuaded you. it is because events may have persuaded you. i just want to run through a list of events, just to highlight them. the arab spring. some people want to think of it as the air of winter. i honestly think that is open for debate because i think of it as a spring. something happened there that is not what many of you expected.

it was that sort of a triumphant, liberal democracy along the lines of the constitution. it was in a french revolution. but what happened is what happened to me in 2002 which is you simply start asking questions. this person, this entity, this institution that is claiming absolute authority, who the heck is this? who the heck are they? some countries succeed in doing that. and countries did not. the central question, the big question in the heads of those people demonstrating what i am not going to allow myself to submit to something that i don't want to submit to. and if you are an egyptian and you say mr. mubarak, who are you?

why do you want absolute authority over me? you are simply going to have the same question if you're a wife to a has-been, why should i obey you and can dish and only? if you're a teacher and a student, that relationship why do you have the last word? may i ask some questions? this takes you to the next level because in an islamic context everybody is going to say that is what god wants you to do. that's what the prophet mohammed instructed and it's only a matter of time before you say welcome. maybe i don't agree with the prophet mohammed. so the arab spring even though it's now dismissed as the winter because we have false expectations, but if we had this, you are going to still see it as a spring.

it's a remarkable development. the second point coming from the arab spring are the egypt. there is enough evidence in tunisia that there is a substantial body of population who when they were presented with an agenda for political change based on sharia law, one based on secular law we've seen the struggle and we are going to continue see that in tunisia a majority of two nations come at least a meaningful majority of tunisian made their choice to go with a secular government. it's fragile. it's not yet dare but it is something that we need to know. in my view i think if we can do

anything, we need to help tunisia survived. but we also saw the election in egypt. in the first instance people supported and subscribed to a government based on sharia law divine law. it was one year old when again many egyptians inspired to make that change. they still had the energy, made a choice between two very bad options. sharia law that came about through the ballot box versus the secular military law and a

meaningful number of egyptians but they secular law. then we saw the civil wars. iraq syria lebanon or if you want to be more accurate sectarian wars a proxy war between the sunnis saudi arabia and shia iraq. in 2010, it was a completely different context. we had not seen boca or rom. do you remember the hash tag bring back our girls? the capture of mali was sent to google in 2010 that the links below qaeda would take over a country as large as mali.

and yes together with the government of france and the u.s., al qaeda was kicked out and some measure of order is restored. islamic extremism made the point. and of course, this is what keeps us all awake, the proclamation of the caliphate by a man named abu bishara al bhandari. if you want to save and religion of peace on the side or that side, but there is no caliphate. an interest promise to the caliphate is the obama administration's pledge to do you create, destroy, the gates of that particular caliphate and even more shocking and

disturbing the stream of volunteers, individual volunteers from 18 something countries from alberta ari including many women and disturbing, including the citizen from the liberal west from france, from britain. in 2010, when we were discussing and debating the islam religion of peace and tolerance, i would say go ahead and do your research. but today, with all of these events unfolding before your very eyes, i don't think a day goes by without a headline about what is done in the name of islam that is even more shocking. the latest good friday was in kenya. i grew up in kenya.

the man who masterminded that atrocity was a refugee in kenya. she went to the university. he grew up income for. at least if you live in kenya you would be envious of his position. he went to saudi arabia and got radicalized and today that is what he does for a living masterminded terrorist actions in kenya the country that welcomed him. you will only appreciate this if you are somali. living in a country of perpetual civil war the first place you go to in hope of a better future is not really the u.s.a. or the west. it is kenya. there are thousands if not millions of somalis who are

enjoying something better than what they would've had a home. it is to me personally not only a deep shock on what happened but a source of shame and embarrassment that our neighbor has given eyes refuge in this way. i would like somalis wherever they are to stand up in a specific manner. i don't want to hold you up. you understand i still hold the position that islam is not a religion of peace. not yet. and that is the evolution in my own thinking. of course, we all know that millions are desperate for peace and tolerance. i thought that in 2010. i still think that. my encouragement for muslims to

join christianity, i don't think that's going to work. so the question is bad what needs to happen? i know if you operate in the world of policy, policy advisor, and you have a list of measures and this will be options of south and chased through the gates of sunday. i get that. just do it efficiently. do it fast. of course we understand there's an economic equation. there might be something through diplomacy. there's a creek creek and ideology at that one fifth of

humanity there is something within islam inherent in islam that inspires, insights and mobilizes millions of people to engage what calls violent extremism. so then what is the answer? if you come to my position for an half years later, it is not a religion of peace. what happens? what do you do? i struggled with this for a long time and i thought instead of

accepting their three sets of muslims or several sets of muslims. of course you can have as many sets of muslims as you would like. we are one fifth of humanity, but i will settle for three. the first that i describe as the maximus once. when the mohammed prophet was going from door to door telling the arabs please give up all of your gods and unite under one god. and in those days he was preaching charity and change. humanity. he was preaching peace. maybe that is where the islamist piste thing comes from. the mac of muslims. and they are muslims. and i think that is the majority of muslims do when they reflect on their religion, want to follow the prophet mohammed and the quran in the mac.

and then there is a second set. from mecca to medina. in medina the status changes. he becomes a warlord, a politician legislator, leader. there's a lot to admire about him during that period, but in 2015 if you want to apply mohammed's model guidance, then you are going to end up with something called the islamic state or al qaeda or boka haram or all the anomalies but that's actually inherit. then we'll have a small group of people individuals today. i see them now who are saying there is something from within our own group share. the example of the prophet

mohammed provides too much inspiration to too many bad people and what can we do about it and they are struggling to bring about a change. and here's the interesting thing. if we move the debate two okay islam needs something. maybe not in exodus, the something mouse. a great religion they are going through what is it that needs to change. when you turn on the television inspired and hardened by the words of the current president of the judge and you know how we came to power.

and also higher, that higher the thousands of the new york university's most prestigious he looks at the clerics and tell them we need a revolution and religion. what does he mean? what does he want? i don't know. i just know that the very fact he is doing that is new and incredibly brave and i have five amendments that i think the outsider leadership can make. i don't think any change is going to calm but hey let's give them the benefit of the doubt. i think i know what mr. sec is looking for. it is five amendments. muslims, those of us born into islam need to change our attitude towards the quran.

the document must be read in its context except it is the work of human hands, may be divinely inspired, but the work of human hands and mohammed as a moral guide after mecca is really problematic. and i am being pc. number two a second amendment i would like to make in islam growing up as a young muslim girl woman child we invest far more in life after death than life after death and there we need a change in priority. number three sharia law. do i need to describe out when it's applied it manifests itself under the kingdom of saudi

arabia, islamic republic of iran in his worst manifestation, the islamic state founded by bird ari. a last concept and if you want to understand the worst manifestation of what that looks like i would like you to visit the images of the afghan a woman who is accused of burning the quran. she did not earn the quran. she was accused. a man came up and let share. and then of course holy war. that should be the place for holy peace. if these five amendments are made and given the time we have i can't doubt into every one of

them, but i do get into them within the book. we will have a separation of religion from politics and islam. i think we in the last. that is the last question. what can we in the west do to help this process of transformation if anything? we have to fight with those individuals and those groups who are trying to bring out that kind of change. this is my 5 cents commitment to it. and now i welcome your questions. [applause] >> thank you so much. so reforming major world religion in such a fundamental way as you describe seems to be

a huge undertaking. do you view yourself as someone who is planting change for things that will happen decades down the road, centuries down the road where do you think there is some reformation some that can take hold and have been much more quickly. >> first of all of course it is going to take decades. this is a process that could take very long. i won't be around when that happens. i wish i were. i won't be around when it happens. do i see any hope? yes. i would give you a few examples that have caught the attention of the press. if you are living within saudi arabia, grow up in saudi arabia you must have had harsh icuf scarry who tweets about the prophet. because of technology, he is able to share with not only

saudi is that anyone who can read and write and have access to the internet with his doubtfire. that is evolutionary. the internet is to islam what the printing press was to the christian reformation. number two, there is an urban elite that in tunisia today your source of income was because of tourism museums. you have a vested interest immediate and dire and all across what you see in the middle east is an urban elite that is muslim in varying degrees but invested and not having sharia law applies

because they sharia law is applied there out of a job. they can put red on the table. very important to note that. there was an urban elite during the reformation that had an interest in performing the church. finally i see states, that these despotic states that before the era of spring found refuge on the suppression are now coming to understand that they half to take islamic extremists had on. i have mentioned the egyptian president, but the government's uae, the government of saudi arabia declared the muslim brotherhood as an entity -- if you know anything about the

muslim brotherhood they want sharia law but they want to get it by peaceful means. and then there are groups who don't want it by peaceful means. these governments, the king of jordan they also threatened by islamic extremism. so the time is right. that time is right to say may be now is when a muslim reformation will take hold. most importantly of all they are individuals who are literally risking their lives. all of these combined again the wonderful opportunity that we should not miss. >> is there an individual out there whose voice could rise above that their voices and be heard to move forward or is

there somebody that needs to emerge down the road that can make that happen? the other part of the question is what can americans do or non-muslims do to advance this cause? >> you know, because we live in a world of order we think some individual is going to calm. i think if that is the line of thinking you may be disappointed. maybe some charismatic individual loci is up and have all muslims subscribe to a new islam hopefully with these five amendments. but i really think in the world we live in it is not going to happen like that. i also want to say the nature of islam, there is no hierarchy. it is flat. all men are equal before god.

you can see that as an advantage you can also see it as a disadvantage because the way the islamic thing is done you have a choice only between obeying the leader the imam the mullah or the cleric were complete anarchy. in the modern world and after having seen grassroots movements i personally think it is better to invest in something more grassroots. this is all new. it is very young. and that is what the west can do. ..

that's a beginning. and from there you ask the question, if it is imperfect then what? what do we need to do? then bring them together and then hopefully take it from there. many of them are very, very advanced and not all of them are ex-muslims. in fact most of them are ex-muslims. some of them are clerics. some are in government. for me i would say what we can do and we have a vested interest in that, is to say let's empower this group of people and go about it way we went about the soviet union. we're dealing here with a

ideology many ways religious not a problem a new to america and b not a problem that we can't defeat. it is that we choose not to do it. >> you made reference to isis and they'd that's a threat that needs to be dealt with, quickly, efficiently. what do you think of the u.s. approach on isis and the obama administration has said no boots on the ground. they want to deal in the way they're addressing now without committing u.s. troops? is that the right approach? >> wow. i think our approach to the middle east today and i i want to use the most politically correct word i can come up with now it is incoherent. let me just give you an example of that incoherence.

we're fighting isis alongside iran. saudi arabia, and the other sunni governments are our allies. they're waging proxy war in iraq, in syria in yemen and we have we're sporting both of them but we're also opposing them. we're having nuclear negotiations with iran. iran is out there saying death unto america, death to israel. it's not it's not that i our policies and our approach to the middle east right now is incoherent and the middle east is in a crisis. what was called the islamic civilization is in a crisis. unfortunately millions of

muslims find themselves in the grip of islamic extremeism. i think we need to take a step back. we need to review our relationship with the middle east. we need to take this in a more coherent way. i don't think i can influence that. but whatever we do, whatever the next presidential candidate does, whatever the next administration does whatever congress does, you will have a number of policies on the table that americans are comfortable with. they will be military, there will be economic. they will be diplomatic. what we're most uncomfortable with, with when it comes to islamic extremism we're dealing with ideology. and i still think that we have not made any effort to invest in persuading this myriads of people that, a vision to,

organize society around sharia law, is the wrong way to go. and that we have an alternative. if you look at what the islamic extremists are saying about america, in their writings, and to the muslim people, whether they're here or whether they're elsewhere, it's stereotypes like, america is greedy. america just wants to take your oil. america is supporting despots to feed their consumerism. what we don't tell, or don't highlight. and i wish we would, is what america really is about. in covering isis, and you look at the number of people that

islamic state beheaded or killed, we saw the journalists. it was easy for the leaders of isis to tell the muslim world these guys are spies, so they deserve to be beheaded. but there was a young woman from arizona, who went there, probably against the advice of her parents, to help the people of syria and they killed her. that is something that is an aspect of america i would like to advertise to the rest of the world. to see how many american volunteers are there across the world, selflessly trying to help people in turmoil? how much money do we spend? you know a lot of americans will think that would be boasting this and that but that is america. that is, something about america that local people know. and that is the story that we don't tell them.

when we have a confrontation within america about the situation of the gay the blacks female emancipation, all of that, in an open society people will take only one side of the story and apply it again to that american stereotype which we're just monsters. i think what other government fails to do and our society fails to do that we're the most philanthropic in the world. they not only give time and mon by but maybe they give their lives. i spent some time with the so con valley people they go all over the place to try to innovate and invent solutions to the problems of water shortage. the middle east is facing, it is not the sectarian war. that is one problem. that's a big problem but pretty soon there will be faced with a

water shortage problem. if that is solved, who is doing it? it is americans. i think we need to sell ourselves and it is not selling but it is to inform. it is a campaign of information. to inform ordinary muslims what america is really about. and not stereotypes. >> you referenced in your speech the obama administration's use of the word, violent extremism. to describe the threat. questioner asks, why you think that the administration wants to stick to that terminology? obviously you do not. but if the goal of the administration is to not encourage discrimination against the millions of peaceful muslims out there is that really a a bad goal? >> well, first of all it is not this administration. it was the last administration and the administration before

that and the administration before that and probably most of western governments which is we, the united states of america and the rest of the western world we are not at war with islam. there are people who using islam as a religion and taking the lead and who are at war with us. that is a different story. we're not at war with them. what the american government wants to do over and over again is convince muslims whether they're here again or abroad we're not at war with you. if we were, the circumstances would be very different. i'm going to leave that to your imagination. we're not at war with islam. and i think it demonstrates, a restraint, a sense of restraint. we can be, but we're not. here is what frustrates me. we're not seeing the necessary rest proscy. i'm not talking about ordinary

people. like allies like the government of saudi arabia. we give them a finger, they take a whole hand. analyze the negotiations with iran. the more we give, the more they take. i think in this kind of negotiating context you would want to see the united states of america put its foot down. that doesn't mean to go to war. it just means to negotiate differently. and that is what we're not seeing. i don't care if the president says, you know he calls it violent extremism or, mixed salad. i don't care. that is how governments operate anyway. there is a whole bunch of things we're supposed to agree to and it is in the nature of democratic government to use euphemisms for controversial issues. i really don't care what he calls it.

what are i care about are the polly outcomes. if our president picks up the phone and calls the king of saudi arabia about a gentleman who is going to get a thousand lashes and ends up being lashed, then i think as a most powerful country in the world we're being taken for a ride. these negotiations about whether iran is going to have a bomb or not, again,. i leave that to the experts. the way it is going i feel like we're giving too much. a lot of people think it is just this president. i'm actually pessimistic. i don't know if it is just this president. it could be the next and the next.

it is not if western society finds itself in big trouble it is not because china is strong and destructive it is that we're no longer confident about what we are about and what we believe in? [applause] >> some your critics have said that your criticism of islam crosses the line. so the council on american islamic relations about a year ago, when they wrote brandeis university said that you practiced religious prejudice and that honoring you would be similar to awarding white supremacists or anti-semites. now brandeis withdrew plans to give you an honorary degree a year ago. how do you respond to this group's suggestion that your criticism of islam is amounting

to prejudice and intolerance? >> i just want to highlight that they have a hidden agenda and that hidden agenda has been made manifest by a woman called asra nomani. who was a journalist for "the washington post." she wrote a wonderful essay on the honor brigade which the council of islamic relations is one. she wrote this in january of this year, 16 january. i would like you all to read it. you just know how it all how it all works. i think that it is unfortunate that brandeis submitted to this, that they they caved in. but it is not only brandise. it is government. it is the press. it is, there are some of our institutions who have been taken in by the honor brigade. as the press community, i really

would urge you to take that essay and read it because it gives wonderful answer to the question you are all asking why is it so hard to criticize islam? read nomani, "washington post," 16 january this year. >> okay. you have said that the muslims are responsible for a majority of violence in the world. 70% was one percentage quoted but i think maybe that has changed. but in any event, it was responsible for the majority of violence. this questioner says, does this excuse the u.s. government in contributing at all to the violence in the middle east and the questioner cites the iraq invasion? so has the west played a role in increasing violence.

>> see the thing about the iraq invasion is, if you want to use the iraq invasion and iraq policy as an excuse for the emergence of isis and for al qaeda and for the crisis that islam is in, then that's one thing. if you want to use the iraq invasion in that way and i will take a person who is putting the iraq invasion on the table right now to discuss how can we stop isis and islam extreme i'll, just wants to shut down debate. of course there are policies. american policies, european policies, western policies. and i really think it is extremely important and it happens all the time, to analyze our own policies, rework them, review them and, change them. but, i've been following this

since 2001. what i've seen is, the debate in the united states of america about its foreign policy is, robust and whichever way you want to pull it, the people of america have a say in it. the people of china do not have a say in their foreign policy. in the muslim world people don't have a say in their domestic or foreign policies. and so on, so forth. so please don't allow don't allow these despots when you start to talk about their human rights records and the domestic policies records and foreign policies records, don't allow them to use american and israeli policies as an excuse to change the subject. [applause] >> a couple of questioners want to drill down a little more deeply on the ideas you express.

one says violence in the name of islam is endemic but where is the problem? is it the religion itself or is it the practice by some of today's muslims? and another questioner says is is islam not only a religion, is it not only, because of religion but a combination of religion, legal system, political system, military philosophy, social system and maybe more? >> pick up heretic why islam needs a reformation now. thank you. [applause] >> you mentioned the, the recent terrible attack in the united states, do you think that there's likelihood of seeing some of those devastating type attacks? or do you think that the homeland security and other governments have, in a largely taken the necessary protections?

>> homeland security, the fbi the cia you know, all of our agencies have done a remarkable job, a remarkable and wonderful job and i really think you need to applaud them. we need to applaud them. we in the united states of america have said we're not going to let this happen again ever. some instances have taken place. there have been, you know, policies that were calling what happened at fort hood in 2009, you know, you have a member of the military who kills other members of the military because he is not loyal to our military but he is loyal to something else. calling that workplace violence, that generates just bad will. it is awful. we shouldn't have done that. if you from 2001 till now if you evaluate say we spent trillions and trillions and trillions of dollars not to have an incident

like 9/11 ever happen here again. but what kind of guaranty do we have it won't happen again? we know that there is the determination, the will, that the enemy has these resources. they tell us what they want. and they try and they try and they try again. and, we foil and we foil and we foil, we foil every attempt. if they succeed, at one attempt we, and they have done, never had anything as spectacular as 9/11. but we'll be upset and sad, but i'm confident that we can defeat them. but i think where we're not taking them on, where we're spending all of that money on is, we're being reactive. they try something. we try to stop it. they try something else, we try to stop it. what we're really not taking them on is the battlefield of

ideas. that is what this book is about. if we, bring about public diplomacy defend again as used to be during the cold war we engage them that way so more mecca muslims go to our side instead of going to medina muslims or join the reformists that is where we defeat them and it is much cheaper. >> we're almost out of time but before i ask the last question, i want to remind everyone about upcoming speakers. ban ki-moon secretary-general of the united nations will speak on april 16th. navy secretary ray maybe business mabis will address the club on may 30th. vince cerf, chief internet evangelist for google and a father of the internet will speak on may 4th. i would now like to present our guest with the traditional national press club mug.

we've been talking about a lot of heavy things today but when you enjoy a quiet moment, this is a wonderful way to have a beverage. [applause] >> thank you. >> our final question, i just wanted you to, we just have a couple of minutes left, but you had, renounced islam and said that your an atheist. do you think that's where you're firmly entrenched or how do you think of your, you know, spirituality evolving from where it has been and where is it going? is this where it is going to stay? >> i think my spirituality is just fine. [laughing] but i just, i want to take this moment on the question of spirituality to share with you

that religions are different. i've been promoting this book now for the last two weeks and you've probably seen my conversation with jon stewart and others. it always goes to, but is christianity any different from islam? and, my on observation from islam. judaism from islam. these two religions have gone through process of reformation. that is not to say i'm converting to them. but i want to make it clear that that the christian god in 2015, is different from the muslim god in 2015. and the worst thing that a christian has ever said to me,

the rudest thing a christian said to me, the thing made me most uncomfortable that a christian has ever said to me, i'm going to pray for you. i hope you will be saved. i hope you will be redeem. but within my own family, and my own community and, when i say you know what? i'm in doubt about the koran and muhammad and life after death all that, it is, well you are to die. so i just want to point out that the differences between the religions. you can mock christianity and judaism, as much as you like. you can't say a thing about islam. and that is the kind of, you know, it what makes me really angry is the moral equivalence the moral equivalence. now, religions gives us faith in the future, hope in the future. my hope and faith in the future is that one day one day, islam

and muslims will become so civilized. so peaceful. and so tolerant as christianity and. >> day i. i know that is controversial but i'm going to leave it at that. [applause] >> a round of applause for our speaker please. [applause] i would like to thank our speaker and thank our audience and thank the national press club staff including the journalism institute and broadcast center for organizing today's event. if you would like a copy of today's program, or to learn more about the national press club go to our website

press.org. thank you. we are adjourned. [inaudible conversations]. >> c-span's congressional freshmen profile series concludes tonight with montana republican ryan sinki. he reflects on his military service and his new role as an elected official. that is at 9:00 p.m. eastern on c-span. a look at legacy of former first lady laura bush. we'll hear from a neat that mcbride who served as chief of staff to mrs. bush. watch that at 9:30 eastern also on c-span.

coming up a panel of native americans talk about the stereotyping of their culture in sports and in the media. speakers include the lead plaintiff in a lawsuit against the washington redskins. we'll hear from the director of the national museum of the american indian. arizona state university hosted this two-hour event. >> thank you very much patty. thank you jim for hosting us tonight. it is good to be back in the valley. i was expecting different weather than we've got but we all know that rain is always a blessing in the desert. so we can be happy about that. it is very good to be here at the hurd museum. this is one of our important partners nationally and works with our museum to help us sharpen ideas and share

information and objects quite often. and so, it is always good to be here. for those of you who haven't seen it, i hope you will, as jim suggested, check out the exhibition on native-americans in sports. i think you will be surprised by some of the things you see there. one of the things that many people are surprised by are the range of things that native americans have, different native americans have achieved excellence in. and so, and this is one of those areas. we all know about jim thorpe. but, there are many other native athletes of whom you should be aware, one of whom will be hearing from in a short time. let me jump right into it. unfortunately i will have to turn my side to you from time to time so i can see which slide we're on but as you heard i'm at the national museum of the american indian. one of the things that does interest us greatly is the persistence of stereotypes. we find our visitors don't come

to the museum as blank slates. they come with a preconceived set of ideas. they come not uninformed but misinformed for the most part. and as you can see this took place at the cannonnization of the first native-american saint. just a couple of years ago at the vatican. so this is a nun there at the vatican, celebrating as she understands native-american culture. and, this is one of those examples where we can hardly hold her at fault. she doesn't know any better this is after all, what she has been taught. the, this whole notion of cultural appropriation and sort of taking from native people their authority to define who they are emerged at the end of the 19th and beginning of the 20th century. this is part of the imagery that really laid the groundwork for

what would later become this business of using indians as mascots and, really abuses our history in more significant ways. this is the end of the trail image, very famous one. of course it indicates defeat. but it also indicates the disappearance of native americans. native americans were disappearing and in fact, the very objective of government policy at this time was the disappearance of native-american tribes. it was fine if a few people who looked like indians and used to be indians were still in the population. what they did not want for people to act like indians and be part of indian tribes. that's when the moss cot business began. -- mascot. this mascot was adopted in the 1930s by a particularly vicious racist owner of a team that at that time was in boston. the team was initially called the boston braves. the same as one of the baseball

teams in boston. but, later in order to distinguish his team from the baseball team, the owner chose this particular name. there is a lot of mythology around the name. i find it very amusing, each of the teams with one of these indian as cots have an origin for their mascot. they're elaborate and fantastically untrue. so in this case the team still maintains that the name was chosen to honor a particular coach of the team at the time they were in boston, a fellow who went by the name of dietz. there were a couple of problems with that. first, the owner himself from that time is quoted in the newspapers it is well-documented, saying no, that is not why we named it that. just you know, kind of a name. kind of like red sox except it is this. that's a lie. the other lie is that, lonestar dietz himself was actually an an

indian. lonestar dietz was ultimately convicted of fraud for pretending to be an indian because he was trying to dodge the draft. and so, yet the team maintains on its website, that that is the origin of the name. similarly, this team, has an origin myth. they say there was a fellow named henry sokleses, a baseball player for the team. and they say they named their team to honor henry. if you dig into that history what we find is, first of all henry sokolesus, was treated incredibly badly by the fans in this town. second, he was not really all that good. second he is not the kind of guy you name his team for. he wasn't bad the but he wasn't all that good. third, he wasn't a very nice guy. so all of this sort of suggests that, that they made that up.

this is part of what goes on dealing with indians in the public discourse. things get made up and indians become very malleable and they are formed in order to fill whatever particular role the institution or entity or state or country need them to fill. we'll come back to that idea. this of course is the logo for the chicago hockey team. this one is just as unfortunate as the others because they're actually was a man named black hawk. and, to, turn the team into the black hawks, is a little strange. now the team has made efforts to reach out to the chicago indian community, but what i have always wondered is, if you really wanted to honor black hawk, why isn't in everyone of the game programs. why isn't there a buying graph if i of black hawk and black hawk's war and how he was betrayed and really do teaching

if we use this kind of imagery? this is a retired mascot. for syracuse university, the saul teen warrior. and this elinow, the former mascot of university of illinois has been retired. again there is a wonderful origin myth about him which i won't go into in detail but it involved a fairytale about an incident that took place in this part of the country where the illinois indians died very noble and yet terribly tragic demise and he was their leader. well, it actually, it just didn't happen. it didn't happen. once again they have made up things in order to suit their need for a mascot for their sports teams. this fellow is particularly outrageous.

he is osceola. the mascot for the florida state football team. there are too many things wrong with this picture to begin to describe them all. but i'm fairly certain the seminoles who were after all very formidable fighters, did not fight on horses. and did not carry flaming lances. who would do such a thing? and yet before every game, this guy will ride out to the center of the field throw a flaming lance into the ground as this is some sort of an accurate portrayal of osceola who also was a real and formidable seminole leader. this business of playing indian is, goes way back. and it is something that has been done from the very beginning in the united states. back in the early 1800s they formed societies. for example, in new york city

they had a tamny society. you may have heard of them. they were central to the corruption of the, in the 1920s. that ended up with a lot of people going to jail. the tam any hall scandal. but tamind was a real person. he was a chief who tried his very best to form stable relationships with the surrounding non-indian community. the tamney society, was created to honor him. and, they did the strangest things. they would have secret meetings where they would dress up like indians, assign each other indian names and beat drums and carry out rituals in order to, i guess channel the spirit of tamant. when the creek nation, the must going gee nation came to

new york to negotiate the treaty of new york with george washington, they were created by the tamney society in full regalia. and the tamney societied paraded them down the streets of new york to the capital where george washington awaited. imagine what those muskogee leaders must have thought when these guys showed up. playing indian. some of you recall the mummers in philadelphia. that was offshoot of that type where they would dress up like indians to pretend to be indians. there is this weird kind of need in some way to establish your bonefides as an american by connecting yourself and pretending to be a native-american. and this is the result.

i don't know what this guy is. but it's a real thing at the washington football stadium. and this is chief z, who is well-known figure in washington. i want to back up, because this one's, there is a yes. win of the problems with the mascots is that even if we could educate the supporters of a team to behave themselves, and express themselves in a respectful manner that really does suggest that they're out to honor the native-american heritage of the country or their community, what you can rarely do control the conduct of the opposing team. so, back when north dakota might very well in good faith claim we are honoring the sioux people in our state by having a

fighting sioux mascot, if you went to a north dakota game at another university, you would inevitably see this sort of imagery. and, scalp the sioux and skin the sioux and slaughter the sioux. and that sort of thing. so this is a philadelphia fan expressing his appreciation for washington's football team. these fellows showed up at the last time cleveland's baseball team managed to make the playoffs. and, so that is the sort of conduct that this notion of a disappearing native-american to be replaced, by mascots leads us to. so what's happened is indians have been made imaginary. indians most washingtonnians are most familiar with, not the kind of indians are here in the room tonight. it is this imaginary indian they

constructed. they said, well he is noble and he is brave and he is strong. and, and we keep having to remind them that he is a imaginary. that is not a real person. and that to put us on the side of your football helmet is no particular honor, thank you very much. and to refer to us by that name is the exact opposite of an honor. and yet they have a hard time accepting that. we even had them say this is where it begins to get really weird, that this is our tradition. i said what, mocking indians is your tradition? and they're very serious about that. this is our tradition. this is how we express ourselves. this is our team. and, breaking through that, and getting them to consider how a native-american person might experience that sort of conduct has been very difficult.

the ultimate rebuttal to my mind is to say if being made into a mascot is such an honor why is it that our african-american and asian-american and latino american people have not been similarly honored any place in the country? surely we're not only ones worthy of that sort of honor? and the answer is very simple. it is simply that there are so few indians and so few of the folks in that part of the country have had direct experience with indians, that it never occurs to them this is generally insulting conduct. so at our museum again we'll dealing with people whose information about indians has comply merrily from two sources. first is our formal education system which is failing rather dramatically in teaching history in general and teaching history involving mate native americans particularly badly.

the second place they get their information is from the popular culture, including this sports mascot culture. so when they come to us, to learn something about indians they don't come through the door without already reformed ideas about what indians are. and so you would be surprised how many people come in and look at this array of different tribal cultures that are presented. and say yeah but where are the indians? because their notion of what indian is supposed to look like is that guy on the side of the football helmet. we don't happen to have any indians like that on display in the museum. they're puzzled. they don't realize indians were everywhere and still are everywhere. one indian tribe can be as different from another as china is from france. it would never occur to them that indians are many different things. in a fact a very real sense

there is no such thing as indian. indian was something itself was made up. when we see imagery associated with the mascots they all tend to look pretty much alike. that in itself tell us that people are being misled. we've begun a series of exhibitions at, at the museum in a show that was guest curated by suzan harjo who you will hear from a little later about treaties. part of this we simply want people to gain a deeper understanding of history. and we don't want them to think of it as strictly native-american history because it's not. it's american history. and in many respects it is world history. in or the words, it is just history, not american indian history. and so when we teach about a situation like this, the lenopi treaty with the penn colony, in the 17th century that is the point we're trying to make is. this is everybody's inheritance.

this isn't just an indian thing. we talk about the treaties of candegwa with the united states. this belt depicts that relationship. what you see is the central figure of a house is a long house. and on either side of this the figures are represent the closest figures to the house represent the mohawk nation and the seneca nation as keepers of eastern and western doors of the hoshoni respectively. the 13 figures associated with that represented the 13 colonies. a belt like this, this is a replica, a belt like this was commissioned by none other than than george washington to mark the entry of the united states into this treaty relationship with the shoni. this was no small matter this is

not a trinket. this is not a jewelry. this is a diplomatic exchange. this was protocol. this was how one entered one nation entered into an agreement with the shoni and many other tribes in that part of the world. we go into the treaty's exhibition and removal policy and focus on the popowami. most people heard of trail of tears. we'll come back to that and removal of five tribes to the southeast. most people don't know the policy was quite thorough-going and extended into the great lakes and ohio valley and was intended to remove all indians from east of the mississippi to west of the mississippi. we tell them about the potwatme ei referredded to their journey as trail of death. we go into civilization

regulations. the creation of boarding schools. this is class of indian students at carlisle about 100 miles from washington d.c. they would take these children from all over the country, remove them to carlisle pennsylvania. and, many of them would never see their parents again. and that was in fact the objective. they were not to return home. they were to be educated and released into society to be self-sufficient citizens. we then, though say after this, this narrative arc first there was real diplomacy. then there was this betrayal. but then there was arrestor race. and, a resumption of a more, what shall we say respectable relationship between the tribes and the united states. but it didn't come simply because of the largess of the united states. it was something that indian people fought for and demanded. and that is the only reason that it happened. so in this case, these are great

lakes fishermen who are challenging state regulation of their treaty fishing rights. like the indian nations of the northwest, the great lakes nations also won supreme court litigation affirming their treaty right to fish. and now we see policy made in much different way than it was made when congress was basically telling the indians this is way you should be. during the boarding school era there was literally an effort, at beginning of 20th century to eradicate native-american culture, to eradicate native americans. breaks up the family, break up the tribe break up the reservations, with very specific objective of having no tribes remain. they suppressed tribal religions. they actually prohibited tribal, some tribal dancing. they prohibited these children, the use of their language, in the boarding schools.

they suppressed the tribal government. basically, anything that made them indians the government tried to make them stop doing. now, they failed because of course they were going to fail. they really thought that was something they could do. policy was made unilaterallily. the night was saying, we know what is best for you. so here is how we're going to do this. i included this picture to show that is no longer how policy made. while it would be a stretch to say we've resumed a treaty relationship between the tribes and the united states, it is certainly moving in that direction. and much of the business done between the tribes and the united states now, is on negotiated basis. where both sides consent and agree on how things should move forward. there are many contexts in which that has taken place. so we basically say, now, we're

on the right track. because since this policy was resumed, since this policy of bilateral negotiated, friendly arrangements, was resumed indian country has begun to thrive again. the results are simply indisputable. that indian country has, has recovered, during this period. one of great myths of our formal education, of our popular culture is that the americas were wilderness prior to the arrival of europeans. and, but the newer research is showing that really the americas were as, my curator likes to put it, a happening place in 1491. what he means by that, there were literally hundreds thousands of different cultures that were operating on, in the two continents of the western

hemisphere. there was no parts of these two continents unknown to indigenous people at the time. there were 2000 different languages being spoke, all mutually unintellable to the others. that that suggest as long, long period of time which they were evolving separately. the latest research has some of the scientists believing that there were as many people in the americas in 1492 as there were in europe. now, that completely overturns the notion of an american wilderness. there was no wilderness in 1492. the americas were fully occupied, they were owned every part of these two continents was owned by somebody. yet it is important to the american origin story to refer to the americas as, being wilderness at that time.

because that makes it okay that that others came in and displaced the people who were already there because after all those people were only picking perryies -- berries and hunting deer and not doing much of anything. this is depiction comic one of course, this is the depiction of a city near current day st. louis. this city, in 1100, was larger than london was in 1100. and london was the largest city in england. there were cities throughout the western hemisphere that rivaled in size their european counterparts. so there were people here. there were a great many people here. perhaps as many as 40 million on the two continents. how many have been to peru and

macipichu? they were in the high and december. the -- andes, and there were 10 million people living in world and self-sufficient. they were growing phenomenal amount of food. hunger was unknown in the inca empire. they were stunningly healthy because of their diet and their lifestyle. so we want people to know that. so we're working on some exhibitions that will bring forward the again wynn history of the -- genuine history of the americas. this is cahoica. this is machipchu, one of the smaller facilities in the ink can empire. there is myians several hundred years before emergence of the incas. they were building a vast civilization throughout meso america. this is the city on the lake.

the chaco in the american southwest was very elaborate culture. thousands and thousands of people. i was in up in mesa verde last summer, i guess maybe two summers ago. the park ranger pointed out that there were more people living there in i think he said 1300 than live in that region now. that is how many people living in the mesa verde area. whoops. this is my favorite slide. yes. so we have to kind of return to basics in our educational program. and make sure people understand some very basic propositions. so even bart simpson gets it. now i would like to get to this idea of american mythology and the imaginary indian. we're, we're deeply in the american dna. every major american myth, every

major american orrery begin story has to account for indians in some ways. very interesting how they do that. we see columbus arriving in the new world. looking remarkably fresh for a fellow who spent several months on a 15th century sailing vessel. but hiding over there in the right-hand corner are the indians who were there when columbus arrived. we want to get into this business of the colombian exchange. indians have not only been erased from american history they have been erased from world hive. you can not explain the development of the world we live in today for not accounting of contributions of native americans. massive amounts of information technology wealth, labor, and especially food, left the americas for europe and asia. meanwhile europe and asia were sending back to the new world

many things of their own. a lot of animals. a lot of different plants. bugs. were making the journey in both directions. and of course, disease. and disease was the most devastating factor. it was the decisive factor in the confrontation between the indigenous and the new arrivals. the estimate is the population the native population of the americas was reduced by 90% in 100 years. there is no there is no other there is no precedent. there is no similar experience anywhere in known human history. yet it was it woos the wealth that existed in the americas that made the explosive growth of europe possible. the calories the new calories that were being entered into the european diet from the foods that had been developed here in the americas, let me just make

sure it didn't grow wild. it was cultivated. it was grown. it was bio engineered in some respects by indigenous scientists. these foods were so much more healthy than the foods that europeans had been eatings up to that time, that there was a population explosion in europe, as a result of the introduction of these new foods. many, many varieties of corn, potatoes, and beans entered entered diets throughout the world and radically increased the population of the world. the spanish armada was built by ink can gold. the incan government provided revenue to build the spanish armada. the consequences were absolutely catastrophic. the other result of this colombian exchange was the

introduction of the slave trade and arrival of africans in the new world. so we're back to this, this american mythology. there is an interesting set of murals in the capitol rotunda. i'm going to show you some of them. this is one. this is the embarcation of the pilgrims. so it is very much a part of the american origin story. the, the journey and the arrival and the, what, the aspirations of the pill grimes. -- pill grimes. this is another capitol mural. the baptism of poke haunts? why should that be so significant. we'll come back to that. keep in mind poke can haunts was a teen an. bill: doctor pocohantas. she was 15 when all these events took place. this is desoto discovered

mississippi. thank god he found it because otherwise he would simply be unknown. this of course is the sort of the archetypical image of, what what europeans brought to the new world and what america was accomplishing as it moved across the continent, american progress so we're working on an exhibition that i'm very fond of. it is called americans. if you look in the dictionary of the english language, the oxford dictionary of the english language, you will find that when the word americans entered the lexicon, it was referring to not the europeans who were colonizing the new world. they were referring to the indigenous people of the americas. and so back in that time you had europeans you had africans, you had asians and you had americans. and so, and indigenous people

were the americans. of course that term has undergone a great deal of change in its meaning and as the oxford dictionary is quick to point out. but we want to have a little fun with that idea. and talk about these american origin stories. so one of them is of course the first thanksgiving. we all everybody heard of squanto? right. he was the friendly indian who taught the pilgrims to grow corn, right? as opposed to those other indians who weren't so helpful. squanto was a good indian, because he wanted to help the white men civilize the new world. how many of you knew when the pilgrims landed, and they did land, and but i hate to disappoint you there really is no plymouth rock. they made that up. and, it was made up fairly

recently actually, sometime in the 1900s. they said we have pretty good tourist thing going here with the arrival of the pilgrims but we need an iconic thing to point to. and so they said, how about that one? and that is how plymouth rock was determined. the pilgrims never talked about plymouth rock. it was entirely made you. it's a good story right? good orrery begin myth. -- origin myth. so it is kind of fun. there is no plymouth rock. turns out how many people knew that squanto his real name they believe was squantum, how many people knew that he spoke english when the pilgrims arrived? yeah. he spoke english. so the pilgrims are there. they're kind of cold, you know. it is november. it is lousy time to arrive in new england. and, this indian guy comes walking in and starts talking to them in english.

so and that's weird right? i mean imagine. but it turns out that squantum, twice been to europe. on one of those occasions he had been kidnapped by an english fishing trip and taken back to europe. two times he managed to make his way back to the new world. . .