university of virginia scholar and nbc anchor brian williams. on lectures and history universal north carolina at chapel hill professor looks at civil military relations during the korean war including general macarthur's removal from command by president harry truman. watch american history tv every weekend and find a full schedule on your program guide or watch online at any time at c-span.org/history. >> thank you for joining us for today's program black freedom on native man. the library supports and inspires research, teaching and learning in the humanities. since our founding in 1887 has remained dedicated for understanding of ourselves in the world around us we connect researchers and visitors with our collection and that reading room the exhibition galleries, program spaces, classroom and online resources.

we open our doors to readers and visitors to come visit our website newberry.org to make an appointment to do research in the reading room you can stop at the library without an appointment tuesday through saturday to visit her paul. rosenberg bookshop is open wednesday through saturday. you can visit the website newberry.org/cause to learn about her current exhibition and program series about the age of revolution across the americas in the late 18th and early 19th century. the exhibition will be open until july 24. today's program is one example of the newberry library commitment to public engagement intellectual engagement. bring together committees of scholars, students and the public to discuss ideas that matter in our world today central to newberry's mission. they also committed to a better understanding of history to promote equity fight to be in today's program

with the history and the land of which chicago resides. located near the several waterways the elaborate fits on planet intersects with the homelands of several tribal nations. the pottawatomie the illinois confederacy, the. nation and the squawking nation. the nations also call the regent of northeast illinois home. indigenous people continue to live in this area and silver their traditional teaching and lifeways. today chicago is home to the largest urban indigenous communities in the united states this lander means important place for indigenous people. at the chicago institution it's the responsibility to acknowledge the historical context and build reciprocal relations with the tribal nations on whose land we are situated. during the program you have the opportunity to enter questions and a q&a feature on

zoom or in the comment section if you're joining us on facebook or youtube. as time permits our speakers will respond to your questions. and now is my pleasure to introduce today's speaker doctor elaine at roberts is a professor of history at the university of pittsburgh. our research focus on the intersection of american native history in the 19th century the modern-day with particular attention to identity, federal colonialism. in addition to ben hur all the while black freedom on american land which is published by the university of pennsylvania tracked press in 2021 writing has appeared in the "washington post", the journal of the civil war aired western historic orderly. at this point l hand things over to doctor roberts. >> i am so happy to be here virtually too share my new book with the albright you to doctor myron as well as elizabeth cummings who ran the planning for this like a wild oiled machine part i will

introduce myself to you all the research i do as a historian and professor is connected to my family. like most people who identify themselves as african-american, i come from people who were enslaved for generations. but on my father's side, my ancestors were not owned by white people. they were owned by native americans. in the 1830s they along with their chickasaw and indian owners embarked on a journey we nosy trail of tears make in the reach of oklahoma was then known as indian territory. during the civil war there owners fiber confederacy when the confederacy lost the united states government forced my family's owners, along with other native american slave owners to free their slaves for it and provide them with land. and so in about a minute i have just how most people think about slavery the civil war and reconstruction. all of these events are so important to this country's history were different for my gown because they lived within

indian nations, not within the united states. retelling in reshaping this history is a core of my book i've been there all the while. one of the key things of my book is what it means for native americans adopted slavery in the first place. so ideas of race and black inferiority that we usually only associate with white people. and another theme is how emancipation some african-americans took on stereotypes about native americans as they migrated to the west. this evening i'm going to give an overview of this history and talk to about acknowledging some of the negative interactions which indoctrinate people in our past is necessary for us to work together as allies today. let's talk without native americans began to on black people as slaves. in the late 1700s and early 1800s white american politicians and performers encourage native americans of the southeast to adapt aspects of their american culture such

as language, clothing and clinical structures arguing this would symbolize them. this may be familiar to some of you. for example have henry knossos secretary of war in president george washington advocated what we call the civilization policy because he believed indians were more like whites to be more willing to give up a majority of their lands. then this ideal world would reduce landholdings like white americans engaging in agriculture and disavowing the tradition of communal land ownership. child slavery became integral to white society, becomes slaveholders the course slaveholders were considered the height of economic success. all indian tribes took on various factors of american culture and ignore those that did not. for example religion and american gender roles were two things in the chickasaw nation

with known members of my family did not embrace those until arguably the early 20th century. people this time. our picking and choosing that they're in what they care about. many of the wealthiest most influential members of five indian nations did begin to buy in place black people like my family members. the chickasaw's, choctaws, crete seminoles and cherokees. you probably heard of these tribes and especially. [inaudible] and so in addition to slavery these five tribes also do things like treat newspapers, create a government structure similar to that of the united states these are two things working really alongside each other as well as american governance.

and for this reason because these five tribes white americans begin calling them because five civilized tribes. along the slaveowning and these tribes comes with the idea people are inferior. we'll just like the united states the majority of people did not own slaves the indian elites who did create a culture and an economy that highly values and regulates slavery and the rights of slave owners. and then in the 1830s an event or process change the lives of all of these slaveholding tribes as well as the black people who lived among them. that is indian removal. the british had those to reconcile the fact they want native american lands but the reality they did not have the

manpower or the resources to take it by force. and so they make treaties and agreements with native people for parcels of land or control of various regions. they negotiated the settlements on relatively equal grounds having more power and influence in these relationships. with the political measures as well as war and violence. after the revolutionary war, the encroachment on the native american lands homesteads and move further west. the slavery spreads to the nation the agriculture risk begin to illegally squatting on their land it's all part of an effort to force indians to move west of the mississippi

river as america's them and trying to get them to do since the beginning of the country and allow whites to take the land. now, native american people are against this. sometimes militarily through poor conflicts. but also through law is what they were told to do. it's what they're told civilized people did, use the law. all of these were ultimately unsuccessful. especially in these five tribes. as you probably know, this is mick going onto the 1820s. the 1830s with president jackson show support for what they are doing by advocating for the removal act. now, for good reason the removal for many tribes is considered to be a foundational journey we try to take from this talk is indian removal, the trail of tears of

that same thing for many enslaved people who endured alongside their owners in the five tribes. with remembered removal as a trauma solidified their membership in these tribes and their shared history with tribes. there are two different ways they intersect. it's what i've just given you an indian removal is necessary for these plantations of slavery. and second indian removal itself involves people of african descent. now, after these tribes were building after removal many aspirins will argue they rebuilt better than before. many people who are economically successful 30s path united states increasingly divided over

slavery the five tribes are very interested in these discussions occurring in black humanities during the civil war, the extension of slavery all these things we think about as key to this country some tribes especially the cherokee in creek nations the joy in the war. and then effort recruit them. he'll talk to the tribes using an agent whose very familiar with members of the tribes argues give them with the united states in union doesn't mean giving them. allow them to have congressional representation allow them be more reliable

allow them to keep slavery while the unions after 1863 of course has not. met with the confederacy kept these promises? probably not. two members of the five tribes. give shared ideology run slavery for members of the five tribes have and think are very important. you also have geography. so the indian territory, especially where these five tribes are located are very close to texas, arkansas, many confederate strongholds in a more western part of the country at this time. they have some sort of protection.

there are practical aspects of these alliances on the shared sentiment around slavery. they leave indian territory just like in the united states they lead to the union or stay work for their confederate owners doing physical labor predominantly. and when the war is over, the united states ignores the fact some tribal members, they ignore the fact they have not provided any protection for it they would even give them extra munitions. instead the united states uses effective tribals have brought the confederacy against them. the confederacy as behavior

building of distrust they no longer valid treaties with them. they threaten to withhold money they desperately need after the war. unless a sign that treaties and they do because i've been forced into it. they're called the treaties of 1866. exurban five tribes official surrender along the tree investment documents. one of the most extreme items is land. they really are just moving on. the other big items in our discussion today was the five tribes tried to emancipate in their nations they have to adopt them as citizens i give them a lab land.

they had to get them specifically 40 acres of land. now you're all familiar with reconstruction or black history in general, but you know how significant that 40 acres is. because they fought for that it did not get that. this is the united states coming into another nation, indian nations are supposed have the right to create their own laws, run their own nation be sovereign just about every other way. the u.s. is saying we are going to force you to free enslaved people, something we ourselves cannot do without a war. brenda forced her to adapt to the citizens and give them all the accompanying rights of citizenship. but then we ourselves in 1866 have not yet done printer going to force you to give them land. now is this right? legally no. the cherokee nation had ordered emancipation 1863. they were not the owens who decided to do without direct

coercion by the creeks, the sentinels, the choctaws, without ever emancipate enslaved people without american intervention? we do not know. emancipation within given their former slaves rights and citizenship? probably not. but they've given them land? probably not. but this freedom, these rights and especially this land with the former slaves of the five tribes on a different plane than african-americans in the united states. give them different opportunities. this is why so many blacks fought their emancipation to why oklahoma estimate black towns and white had black wall street which of course the anniversary of the massacre more people are far more aware of black wall street at its existence. and so this moment in reconstruction indian territory history is really one of those interesting historical moments were my identities as both a historian and a descendent of former

slaves and psycho free people as interplay. after recognize something as legally wrong. the domestic nation also recognize people like my family might never have agreed they want to use that term for former slaves again and again i want to go over those real quick. it's a general term used in my work to refer to any former slave of any of the five tribes. more specifically chicken chickasaw referred to specifically the former slaves of the chickasaw indians. and so the reason the land designated for indian free

people in the treaties of 1866 is different and it is significant is because this was through american governmental action. the russian republicans had not been able to give african americans in the united states land. it was frankly impossible for the majority republicans were moderates and often taking from a white person and giving it to a black person as i'm sure you know property ownership was and continues to be one of the most revered american values. but, public and such the secretary of interior mission of indian affairs of the time, could not imagine inland people of african dissent. because in these men's opinions they value plans because they valued private land ownership the same way white americans. also indian use of land is on supervised. it is not properly utilizing their land. therefore to them, giving indian land away to people of

african descent felt a lot idealistic of black land ownership was still allowed white states to maintain their land. and so, here is the united states using this idea of indian savagery against the five tribes the indian free people of the tribes played into this. i want to show you a chickasaw freeman in the way he talked about his former owners. he said at that time the indians did not have anything but small farms. and of course they were revered among them so they did not work like they should.

he uses that do not work like they should creating wealth. in his opinion native americans were looking to survive. there are incapable of working harder the way they should only given the model and the opportunity. this is strategic language use. we were very aware it was the united states to having negotiated for their freedom and further land ownership. not the former slave owners. some of them align themselves with white americans and productivity for there's more black people look to the left they look at american native laziness, lack of

productivity. in fact one of the most famous african-american leaders of the 19th century gave several speeches were spoke about how african-americans find peace in the west and how the united states should support this endeavor financially. but to support this appeal, douglas integrated native americans right in a speech to the american antislavery society in 1869 he said this. the negroes might be white men than the indian in his taste and tendencies indian rejects her civilization loves your remains with the under all circumstances and slavery and freedom. now here we can see a clear dichotomy being made between african-americans and white americans on one hand. and native americans on the other hand. the uncivilized side really

with white people by using our civilization. on. the national demand and enterprising, intelligent race of immigrants the savage wilderness under forcing civilized communities, multiplying and adding a message to wealth and industry as a nation. would extend the area of freedom would increase the north and west as part of the people, would dangerously part opportunity of slavery and a democratic slaveholding aristocracy built upon it. the sound that good things, right? we want to increase freedom pretty went to increase the power of aristocracy. but, to say these things what

is douglas doing? again he's putting down native people who in his words here have not utilized the west. of course as an educated man i knew the land was not free and at always been part of the national domain but rather taken from indian hands. douglas also knew a swell of american immigration to the region would change and worsen circumstances for people. yet, here he is savagery and civilization to juxtaposed with the region was allegedly like what it might be like after interracial american immigration of whites and blacks. now while douglas is to speeches are given represented the same belief on they

deserve to share in the spoils of the native blacks because of how it boils down to is my identity is two different worlds because african americans and the united states, allowed me too see the categories we traditionally put natives and american black people into. i might see them as victims are people who have horrific events occur in their lives and baalbek against them. and so we celebrate their triumphs. and of course i understand why. but when we are confronted with the complexities of their actions and the ways in which their words affect others, are we willing to see black and native people in a different way? can we accept the fact that people who suffered so much from colonialism is a forced laborers and force re- producers and mixed raised children, can we accept these same people could also act in a capacity that serves a

colony of state at times? the difficult questions, i do look forward to hearing your thoughts about them. thank you. >> thank you so much alayna i already thought i've learned so much i'm excited to talk with you more about this topic and your book. i want to pick up how what you were just saying about frederick douglass and just start there. could you tell us a little bit about what the reaction to douglas' words were from african-americans in the united states? did they listen to people like douglas customer. >> yes. douglas there plenty of black leaders who pop up who are either existing and rolls like a church pastor, as well as like a politician after the civil war towns.

lots of african-americans who want to take advantages of what they see as an opportunity to cash in on that land blacks are getting in indian territory for there also people who really appreciate the ideas frederick douglass is espousing as african americans to not just settle in the west but also have access to the ideas of democracy, freedom, everything the united states supposedly stands for. >> how did the five tribes and indian free people react to that migration? >> it's really interesting. there's lots of intermarriage between indian people and native americans. their expenses are very similar as former slaves. there are also groups of indian free people who see african-americans as messing up the good thing that they have. they see this as a result of their enslavement.

when there's more and more african-americans come, a lot of these people get afraid. afraid they will no longer be seen as native and that will affect their political status any sovereign nation they will politically overrun them. the become a bigger building block than they are. the interactions that african-americans from the u.s. have with the freed people as in the lightning because you see different groups of people who have all suffered at the hands of the united states coming together to defend what they see as theirs. it's really all over their land in the territory. >> i want to step back a little bit and ask you about the actual process of how indian people received land allotments.

keep tells a little bit more about what that looks like and how native reacted in that moment? >> yes. a big part of my book is talking about land allotments is very positive for people of african descent and very negative for people. that is the predominant narrative that i think has existed with land allotments. land allotment happens with the dollars act to the five tribes. this is the late 1880s and early 1890s. and in the early 1890s receiving their land allotment. formerly they were living on parts of each indian nation pretty could basically claim as much as you could build on or as they call improve it. could pick a place in the nation build a fence there

makes this more formal in the land allotment ghost of the traditional american way of owning property. native american are trying to defend themselves and try to absorb it into itself in essence. land allotment really sets up the state of oklahoma. and unfortunately it happens. the supreme court decision establish these reservations still exist and never stopped existing. but it still reneges on the original promise made to the 55 tribes. there's never american settlement at all. >> so, the next question i want to ask is about the relationship about native and

black people during this time. now that leads to today. it ties into question some in the q&a. the question what to ask you, how that ties to colonialism. and this ties to a question someone asked in the chat about assimilation. they're asking specifically about the use of the words of choice. saying indigenous people chose to assimilate into white norms rather than were coerced. i wonder if you could talk a little bit more about how these problematic perspectives developed but how it plays in that and how these issues exist today. >> i talk about parts of assimilation with anti- blackness as choices because the fact that the five tribes

in part because they were slave owners. they were members of other nations throughout america who owned slaves or participated in slavery in different ways. terms of really being kind of a part of capitalism. in 11 to accumulate well and they are some of the wealthiest tribes in north america. many were forced to change ways of culture, ways of disseminating that culture the discovery of the presidential school which is also our history in the united states. there are of course in many ways native people did not have control over so much. but there are many ways especially in the even early 1800s that it was kind of a

choice to decide if you want to let missionaries into your nation or not. do you want to send your children to a boarding school at that time because it was voluntary at that time. but as may go on and as the united states gained support military power and expands across america, native people have less and less of a choice. think it's important to differentiate when they do and when those decisions are strategic in that they help them become seen in a specific way. it's allowed the five tribes to negotiate with the united states in a different way. the u.s., the different tribal agent secretary of interior often thought of them in a different way. we were able to choose the lands to a degree in indian territory for the chickasaw's were able to essentially carry out their own removal and pay for it. kind of do it more in a like courses is still coercion.

okay so moving into we should probably do that today, there are so many legacies of the adoption of slavery and the five tribes that reverberate in the way we look at citizenship, what is an indian look like, what is the importance of kinship? and i think it is important to think of the adoption of anti- blackness as a choice because it is still a choice. okay all of the five tribes have had issues with essentially throwing out the citizenship of their former slaves. the cherokee nations currently the only tribes to accept formally and legally the former slaves as citizen. even though all of these try to do so after the civil war. in the 1970s and 1980s, all of the tribes they claim

these people of no history with us, they are not indians that should not be here there taking resources that are ours. it is kind of a segregationist narrative in a sense. and today, people like black seminoles do not have full citizenship. they actually have literally second-class citizenship. these are all remnants from ideas these people chose to take on and adopt in the 1700s. >> thank you. certainly complicated history that has a lot of ramifications today as we have talked about. so i'm one last question for you than i will open up to audience q&a pair of er to have quite a few questions coming in on the chat. i want to tie up to the massacre. centennial is this week. i would love to hear talk about how black migration to oklahoma connects to the tulsa

massacre. >> what the anniversary, feeling i've been screaming everywhere i can it's a changing is and there's a little with the centennial. but understanding african americans came to tulsa, were interested in toll's and the region because of this history and because of what's owned is really key to understanding the wealth that created black wall street and also the existence of not just a black entrepreneurship but also black community building. many of the black towns that exist in oklahoma were created by people the process. those people they had towns serve the land allotment, and

so the african-american to come to indian territory are already expecting a different experience. they know there are opportunities. there is a different kind of landscape because of tribal sovereignty. because these people do have a right to vote, going up to state headed 1907 when the united states have been rewound by white terrorism and white violence. this tilt black people in tribal council and indian territory. and so they see this difference. this is why it's a turn-of-the-century relates a larger population. that is why mixture of black and black people wealth from

their land allotments. sometimes oil and gas wealth. but also people willing to farm, get education, things like that. they really create the community we think of as black wall street. >> thank you. like i said we have a number of questions in the chat here. i'm going to try to get to as many as i can. we have a couple questions about gender. i will start there. one person ask you talk about the role gender played when the sports tribe that have access to the lands. the role that is native women are perhaps a black women played in marriages and black people during this period just wondering how gender played a role as the allotments were playing out. >> there has been a lot of writing on the allotment

process as it relates to native women. let me see if i can over the names right now, rose has the. [inaudible] everyone gets an allotments. men do allotments, children get allotments. sometimes are perhaps often you find out they are not next to each other. there are decisions to be made about which over going to live on? every going to sell the others are going to use us for farmland et cetera? i note usually is chosen more often. but there are various ways that land allotments are better or worse. sometimes there is timber on it. sometimes it's barren but there's oil underneath. as far as intermarriage, there

are relatively small amounts of intermarriage. especially in the choctaw nations. there are people like franklin who talks about his grandmother. there are stories of intermarriage. but when it comes down to it will be little of that depending on the nation. i know they have more. there's always a kind of fear that intermarriage and interracial is going to create people who are viewed as black and not native. you see a lot of legislation all these tribes for bidding interracial, for bidding interracial marriage forbidding citizenship for interracial children. and it talks about that, how it was difficult to have

interracial marriage or an interracial sexual relationship that produces children. and how those children were treated differently depending on how the nation was thinking about citizenship think about kinship and belonging at that time. i would recommend for anyone interested in this topic is the question i think ties to thank you so much for insightful discussion gaining traction and free tree people may look like at all? >> is just time this conversation on twitter. so in my book i do that

because the white americans who are orchestrating this allotments are doing it definitely to create native dispossession. two as i said get a foothold and tearing apart nations and make it part of the united states. but also think of land ownership at allows black people to create their own communities, to build themselves up after slavery. this is usually thinking but i feel like it is really with the intent to make a difference in these black people's lives. i did economically and socially change the lives of

those people the cherokee free people did have a better education, wealth accumulation as a result of these land allotments. even though it didn't come with an apology, and secondly it did not come willingly. it still is something i think is given the desire to make a difference and does make a difference. it would have continued to create generation wealth if not for the black wall street. the destruction and the tulsa massacre. of course the conversation about the massacre and the operation for that is ongoing. it is really what of the clearest examples of black wealth that has been purposely destroyed. plenty of of records show exactly what people lost. one of these survivors who spoke to congress spoke about

how her life change, or economic circumstances changed after the massacre. and yet there's still no ability or desire in that conversation just that yes we owe you something. not just an apology but financially. the discussion i think is interesting and indian territory because i feel like it did kind of happen is reconstruction was used as part of an experiment and land possession for black people. but also it is kind of an example of how racism and the united states works. and it builds on itself. even if you get out after slavery, to be everything you had just blew up because of the racist weiss people to tulsa massacre. now you have to start over again. even if you do that, what is going to happen when redlining comes? it's almost impossible to escape unscathed.

but yes basically think oklahoma is a great study there's a great need for. >> that sort of ties to question we got in the chat about the aftermath of these allotments. people were given these allotments were the able to maintain that land? they already talked about multiple other barriers that come up. are there black landowners today who can trace their allotments in oklahoma back to the 1866 treaty? we want to hear but with the aftermath of it is. >> my family still has their land allotments. there's at least one that still there plates kind of funny to see the deed is now 30 people, 40 people every generation is almost -- there are many families like that in oklahoma.

but, unfortunately there were guards put in place to protect native and free people by not having them pay taxes. and i know is paternalistic but allowing some native people to sell their land allotments. which was on one hand kind of beneficial and the other hand harmful because some needed that land or money to eat or to buy things. and eventually a few years out from the end of allotments those restrictions are taken off. many native and black people do not release those restrictions are taken off they do not pay taxes and lose their land that way. sometimes there are people who are just schemers and cheaters to steal their land away. they do that through various means like many are still illiterate. there are also people like sarah rector who may be some

people know who at one point was the richest black girl i think richest girl generally in the united states he was a freed person descendents. she was able to keep all of the wealth from her land and that came from oil and natural gas. it was a guardian appointed by the united states. the land allotment was still very fundamentally important that we sell that land in our family. and there are many more people most of which were out of their control. >> thank you. we have a couple of different questions about the differences between the sum the tribes that helped slaves. so i will say that generally and then sort of follow up with these specific things folks are asking.

one is following up the treaty of 1866. some tribes resisted such as the chickasaw resisted adoption. can you talk more about the differences of these tribes in terms of the relationships with free people. how do you roasted for this topic? [inaudible] >> i am not sure i understand the differences between the five tribes in challenging existing scholarships. there is not been that much work done on the chickasaw, still not as much a say the cherokees or the creeks. generally the chickasaw are known for the historical say that, travel agents, white men

who come into these nations often say they are kind of surprised at how badly black people are treated. or how badly how they think about black people. not too say a racial utopia. the other nation but they do that better way, quicker way, around the cherokee federal nation tased takes on leadership roles or take part in government. say look in the chickasaw nation free people never adopted. there is nothing to point to dissent one time we were adopted and now we are disenfranchised. they signed a treaty and they never followed through. they did at a later date because the chickasaw treaties were tied together, it did not necessarily come to how to

explain that, the chickasaw's have an interesting treaty because the united states says you could adopt these people if you don't adopt them you're not going to get the money for the land that we have just taken from you, bought from you. it is an interesting choice given to them. why there a specific choice but i've not them, maybe 70 else will. i have to draw aching collusion there's a prejudice among these two nations was known and they thought were not going to adopt and they're going to keep the money that's really great. there been lawsuits back and forth between the two nations and the united states over that money and over that difference in the treaties. that is the biggest difference. there are other differences and how much land is given to

free people through the treaties. the chickasaw nation treaty is the only treaty not to have what you'd call a guilt clause. they do not admit guilt to aligning themselves with the confederacies. what did the other nations do do that in the treaties, another part of the difference is deciding educate their children and deciding for them e strategic choice they made to buy into certain american things. couple of other questions about the aftermath these different tribes are able to extend citizenship. it indian free people during the allotment.

with ever forced to go to boarding schools in the same way native children were during this period? we talked about that just briefly before. there's another question about of course after this period, you have lots of ways united states government populations of people. one person is asking if there was pressure from indian free people to identify as either black or native on the census? and if that was a choice people were able to make personally or one that was forced upon them? >> well, there is a twitter account called chalk talk i believe there are two undergrads at columbia. there also descendents and they have a wealth of information and introduce things i did not know. they were talking about a boarding school the other day. now, i had never found

anything and my sources that talked about free people being forced to go to boarding school. but there are many schools for black and native people, not necessarily black native people but african-americans came into contact like the choctaw academy which is written a book about. this also handsome and black schools were native students went either voluntarily or forcibly. so those are examples that again being pushed into subservient role because they are supposed to learn how to be second-class citizen. us lots of interesting examples about how the come lottery and the alliance of the schools but also racism and prejudice against each other. your second question, visit 1960 i think, so a census

taker usually a white person would come to your door and decide what race you are based on how you look, sometime based on who is in your household and how they looked. so what my family actually on one census we are native. and i try next census we are black present because somebody else came to the door the next time? there are multiple reasons why. but it actually creates and can be hard to trace your family and to kind of see going to find out because races change all the time after census it's a really big thing when people could check multiple boxes. i think maybe that was the last census? two census ago could be multiracial suddenly.

i know that was really great for black native people who were ready to finally have their full identity as well as a love that lot of other mixed race people. >> thank you. we have time for about one more question forgive a couple questions in here about your research and a couple people were interested in researching their own family history. i wonder if you could talk a little bit of some of the challenges you face to archive i think about methodology in the field and bringing some of these unheard voices to the forefront? how did that work in your own research any advice you have for others we are interested in exploring their own family histories that are tied to this pass? when you start talking people especially her elders i waited too long and many of my elders have passed on. that is something i will always regret. i did get to interview some of

them because i knew would be important for me too have my family and my book. which they are. what i also, oral histories and a family narratives are important. you want to make sure they are interspersed with private sources and things you can also point to to say, this was a pattern and did not just happen with my family. it happened differently with my family. this shows something else about history and how certain prophecies happen. so for example, my second cousin was one of my big treasure trove told me about a story of my great, great great grandfather being told with the former owner. he can live on that land. and he did it had a very good piece of land sounds like cool

bit something will be in a tv show. and i found it to other times in the archives. people saying similar things. it means is not just kind of an exaggeration or a fabrication. it means it happened a few times. maybe it's rare it still shows the relationship between black and native people in a certain way after the civil war. so gather as much information as you can. use things like testimony to some places like ancestry.com. and then use genealogical resources. the black native run by angela was amazing. i went there as a college student. : : :

>> thank you, i think that's good advice. thank you so much dr. roberts. this was a wonderful conversation and i appreciate you sharing your knowledge with us. ♪ ♪ ♪ ♪ ♪ ♪ ♪

>> robert novak's nickname was the prince of darkness named by many friends and based journalists. in 2007, in '78 autobiography was published about 50 years as a reporter, television personality, author and conservative political commentator. he appeared on book notes at the time about his book, the prince of darkness. >> late columnist robert novak on this episode of notebook plus, listen podcast or wherever you get your podcast. c-span's american history t continues now. you can find the full schedule for the weekend on your program guide or at c-span.org/history. >> so, okay, spook fans. this