soldiers from the 1960s civil rights mofl, beginning with gloria grinnell, who talks about the lunch counter protests during her time at richmond virginia union university. she also describes the culture shock she experienced as a californian attending college in virginia. watch tonight. enjoy america history tv this week and every weekend on c-span3. bill barker and brandon dillard, monticello's he manager -- the conversation is driven by viewer questions and draws on mr. barkers's career on independence hall. thomas jefferson's monticello

report recorded this conversation. >> you might recognize my voice, because in previous life streams, i'm usually the guy behind the camera, and i'm reading questions from our audience as they come in so that we can directly engage with you while we're talking to our first person interpreter/actor bill barker, who portrays thomas jefferson. we wanted to do something different this week. given the national conversation and given events all around us, we know that 2020 has been a challenging year. monticello has been closed for months. we reopen this weekend millions all over the country are actively fighting for equity against different forms of racial injustice, whether it's

racially motivated police violence or racially motivated monuments, memories. it's a conversation that we must engage in. and working here at monticello, we are a site of memory, and monticello is a plantation where over 400 people were enslaved. today we decided that, to have a conversation, we would do something we haven't done, and i'm sure everyone,0 knows this, when you tune in you're not talking to thomas jefferson. you're talking to my friend bill, who portrays thomas jefferson. bill is going to join us today. when he does so, he will be out of character. we talked about this before we

would go live as to how we would best address the subject. we thought that perhaps a good idea would be to talk about the challenge of interpreting slavery explicitly. obviously, bill and i, when we talk about this, we recognize that we are both white men and we're talking about something that greatly impacts people of color and black americans. this friday is juneteenth, which marks a day of remembrance in this country for the end of slavery. it's a day that all americans should celebrate, knowing that this is an institution that legally ended. but that institution legally ending was not the end of its legacies. slavery has always existed and slavery still exists, but the

kind of slavery that existed at monticello, race-based slavery that developed through the transatlantic slave trade and into the early united states was inextricably intertwined with developing concepts of race, the lasting legacies of which we still struggle today. and the systems that we're still trying to dismantle. we believe, bill and i, that we must engage this conversation, and monticello is engaging this conversation and inviting others to do the same. i'll still be accepting questions online. bill and i will will try to answer those as best we can, but today we believe we're going to use this time to invite you all to join us in this, understanding that we do have privilege as white men and as such a duty to engage in a

conversation about all of our shared pasts and help us understand how the history of the past determines who we are today. so, bill, i think we should start with just a little explanation of what a first-person interpreter is. can you tell us, what is a first-person interpreter do? and what do you do here? >> thank you all to talk about, speak with and importantly listen to, because in my vocation, it is an element of theater. you cannot strict it frextricat it from theater. this is no mere intermission of

a so. this is no on track. this is the reality of our times, our past times, and this conversation continues. in my capacity as an historic interpreter, the theater is, as shakespeare said, the thing. the play is the thing often to spark and to provoke the mind of the king, to help us look at ourselves. shakespeare in particular succeeds in his place to hold up a mirror in which we can see our human nature. it's nonetheless an historic interpretation so my vocation,

for what i've done for 40 years, put on the vestments, but also the theater of mr. jefferson to help us think and to help us better understand our past, and particularly who we are as americans, and to engage that conversation, certainly as he would want. >> so you have made reference that you've done this for a number of years. our topic today about interpreting slavery, talking about slavery, is so relevant, but it has been an ongoing part of conversations at monticello for a long time, historic sites around the world. can you tell us how it's changed from your perspective over the years, this interpretation of slavery? >> yes, we are talking about it now t we had been talking about it for a few years, but not the 40 years i've been involved.

imagine, i'm a child of the '60s, so i grew up in talking about this and we go in and out of it, in and out of it, but at historic sites, as i began this in independence hall in philadelphia, yes, there was mention of slavery, but it was not engaged thoroughly. i'm going back 40 years. when i went to colonial williamsburg, in the spring of 1993, williamsburg had already embarked for several years upon the discussion of slavery. there was the african-american interpretative group at colonial williamsburg. i welcomed that opportunity to work with them to better explain the story and enact the story of our history. monticello had embarked at the same time upon speaking on slavery, and continues as colonial williamsburg and many order living museums and

national historic sites across our country, continues to speak about this more and more, engage this, but most particularly what is so important, to acknowledge it. to acknowledge it. and struggle with it. we need to struggle with this. >> a first-person interpreter is limited to the character, the time period they must portrayed. actually in conversations preparing for this week, one of the things that you and i discussed is a great example, juneteenth is manage that thomas jefferson, during his life, would know nothing about. can you talk about the challenges of staying in character when talking about slavery in particular?

for mr. jefferson to say, what is juneteenth? and this allows the guest to speak with him. this is to come to an united states that mr. jefferson learns from the future, with the hope that the future may learn, well, if you are refer to a time in which we have finally ended slavery, what does it take then for that to come about? would he want to know what it took to come about? we know and what i can tack about are his predictions. it's my job to interpret those

letters and the conversations we know he had, and the interactions with those of his period, but it becomes even more a struggle for him as it does for us to ponder what it took and then for mr. jefferson to understand what it continues to take you answered this a about i with that question. gives the limitations of staying in character, there are strategies, of course, that you all implement to see more complete messages across. i work as an interpreter, but not as a first-person interpreter. i think people would call me a tour guide, but not someone who dresses in a costume, or is bound by the times. so can you share some strategies about how you bridge that gap?

>> i think the strategies for helping us to better understand where we have been rest in the reiteration and continuing conversation about our nation's founding principles. i always preferred to introduce mr. jefferson as writing what george washington referred to as the promise, as the declaration of american independence, as something that's not new. it's the representation of accumulation of man's eternal history in the struggle for liberty. that is considered in jefferson's time. that has gone on. the fact that our promise, our declaration in an expression of the american mind smiths they

facts to a candid world. one of my strategies in that introduction is to remind people that we achieved the first nation in the history of man founded on principle, not upon monarchy, not on nobility, air stock crazy. principles of inalienable rights in nature, that every individual is entitled to. is that the experience in his day? no, it is not but he wrote it. it's our founding principles and our blueprint from which we continue to struggle and have the conversation and pursue that equality. i remind people as a strategy that we brought 13 individual nations together, to remind us that these er colonies were

nations unto themselves, with differences in religion, with slavery the overwhelming experience in many, but not in others. that we brought this all together, e pluribusunum, and to understand that egal tearianism, is not a socialism. it's an equal opportunity. it's an opportunity for everyone to be able to achieve the pursuit of their happiness, to be happy. to understand that freedom is not free. it requires an eternal vigilance in order to reflect on the founding principles.

those are initial strategies that i try to engage at the very beginning and quite obviously the conversation will continue. >> so we are starting to get some questions in from the audience. this is a great one. groups are by fast the more diverse groups that visit monticello. in normally times we see tens of thousands of students each year. bridget wants to go how do you go about addressing topics like slavery whether you're talking to a younger audience? >> bridget, it's always been my experience to realize that the younger very sensitive to begin with, and have a great common sense and understand, out of the mouth of babes. where better to engage this

conversation if only to begin it with many who have been thinking about it, who can continue to think about it, continue to engage it. for a stay tuned as to ask mr. jefferson about slavery opening the door. it's very sincere, very innocent, it's obvious. we approach it. and we speak about it. we speak with and we listen to. so i welcome students. i've been going out to schools for nor than 40 years. i can tell you it's the most satisfying work, particularly when greeting them here at monticello, as i was able to do at colonial williamsburg. this is how we touch or past, how we prepare our future, these are opportunities to speak with the future. >> this one is interesting.

it says, zach wants to know -- do you find people assume your views are thomas jefferson's views? is it hard for people to differentiate between the two of you? i have a follow-up -- do you ever wish you could answer as bill instead of as thomas jefferson? >> firstly, of course i wish i could answer as bill, but i'm in my job. i'm in my vocation. i'm in my duty to teach history, to interpret history, but certainly not to justify mr. jefferson's pins. i expose his opinions, but i also speak about his vision, and most importantly, too, to reveal he changed his mind as he grew

older. to help us understand, we all change our minds as we grow older. you read jefferson. he'll let you know, i one thought this, i now think that. it's helped me to keep in touch, and particularly to help me better understand how day to day what we meet and what challenges y you. >> i think this is a challenging one, but you just opened the door for it by saying it's not your job to justify jefferson's writings. john asked about notes on the state of virginia. any color about jefferson knows the notes where he describes his opinions on race is the crucial element to understanding

slavery. you made me think of this earlier as well, that it's changed the way we talked about slavery. even in my short time in the field, i've only done this for ten year, but the way we talk about race in historic sites and the public discourse has changed. these were not broadly known conversations ten years ago outside of at the academic discourse. let's talk about another point cash talks about how as public historics we can have an aance that finds it abhorns, but understands the context. can you talk about how jefferson would write about these things without justifying what jefferson wrote?

>> if someone -- and they have many times -- asked mr. jefferson about hi notes on the state of virginia, you will certainly see remorse, to begin with. you will certainly see an effort to dodge talking about it. but he's node going to dodge it. he's going to approach it. as he does later in life, he's going to apologize for it. he does this in a her to henri gregor, who becomes a well-known abolitionist. he writes in february of 1809, but even in remark is not meant to be an excuse. it's a revelation of the

struggles that jefferson was going through. a further revelation is we know they see now. he did not write the notes to be published extensively. he wrote them collectively in answer to a questionnaire that was put out to the commonwealth the virginia so that france could become better aware of information, particularly to investing in the american revolution he had them published in french privately, and handed out to gentlemen of scientific curiosity. quite naturally it got out of their hands, it was published and there it was.

there's a background. it's not a justification for them, but a revelation. in these notes, jefferson makes bold statements not only about race, but also religion. he makes bold statements about habits and customs. he maybe comments about particular names he's ascribed to flora and fauna. he answers much of the questions from marbeau. he answers them, too. here's the revelation of the scientist who writes very early on -- be so bold as to question everything. follow trust wherever it should

lead us. again these are not justifications. they're revelations of had information we struggle with it, as we should, and he did. can it be reconciled? i've never been able to. >> we just got a comment that i think is very relevant to what you just said and also the conversation at handle. i'll preface this as saying this is an emotional topic, and i can reference that by saying look at the comments. people have strong feelings about this. they run across the board, and particularly addressed towards

this history. some people clearly say that we are trying to tear down the history of a great man. others say we are trying to celebrate a singular narrative of a white man, and we welcome that discourse. but dylan asked this question, and i think it's pertinent for you -- when you're out there, you can see the emotions in people. how do you help mitigate that while you're in character, helping people, audience members, grapple with their own emotions? >> i only his tay, because i'm looking for the word. i use it frequently in persona. this is the duty of an american citizen. it's our duty. we the people hold the reins of

our government. we the people who are responsible for the american conversation. this is exactly the foundation upon which the american revolution was engaged as the british will want to play on the surrender field at yorktown. the event that turned the world upsidedown. the recognition by john locke and others that a monarch is not put on the throne by divine right. the model of the royal family in great britain, you can still see it cut on the coat of arms on the governor's palace -- got is my right. i'm here by divine right. no, it is the people, the people from which a leader emanates. if there were no people, the government would govern over no one. so it is the people who not only provide the purpose but the

power for government. this is our conversation. it always has been our conversation, and if historiology will tend to it one way in a particular period, it will tend to it in another but we continue to revolve through this, and in my opinion evolve that's my hope. that's why i continue to do this. retirement is not a word in my vocabulary, nor in mr. jefferson's vocabulary. he left at 65 to devote his time for found a university. would he could have succeeded as well in end the slavery altogether, we know that the coles brothers approached him. what did he reply?

he said this is on the shoulders of your generation. so again, i think this is a duty, this is a necessity and perhaps as a system of government where george washington referred to as the guarantee of our promise. a system of government the first line of which is "we the people." what a wonderful honor and obligation in my opinion. you spoke about the idea that history is a set of facts. it's not exactly right, the more we learn about history, the more we learn history almost says as

much about the times it's written, and the times it's trying to describe or understand. there's an aspect of jefferson's history i think we should definitely address, and it is one of the reasons why jefferson's history and the history of monticello is such a compelling lens, and that is of course the fact that jefferson fathered children with a woman who he owned as property. monticello has for years addressed what this relationship with sally hennings and tom-t ms jefferson means, and what it means how consent between a master and slave could exist, and how we'll never know about the feelings one way or another but this conversation and the

recognition of jefferson as hemming's children's father, there was a dna study. this dna study did not prove that thomas jefferson was the father. no one ever claimed that it did. what the dna study did is that it provided a significant data point, a piece of rkorroborator evidence. could you talk for a minute how that news spread and what people's reactions were? >> i distinctly remember in september of 1997 there was a seminar held here at monticello. actually the historians and

interpreters of jefferson sites, independence hall, the jefferson memorial, the national parks service represent 'tis, i was there as well. in our collective conversation, it was mentioned that the dna study in the process for several years was soon to be revealed in its final statement. so we want you to understand this, this will come about in our studies and in our conversation to be very, very effective we all wondered when can came out, many of you may recall, on the front page of "the washington post," sunday edition, and it was i think the first sunday in november 199 7. i was walking to the capital

building in williamsburg to have a program, and a number of people were gathered around saying, mr. jefferson, have you seen this? have you seen this? i read it, and i remember saying, well, i will follow science wherever it should lead us. and yesterday wondering at the same time what would this lead to in that group of people there? what it led to was someone making a remark that was politically explosive and there then began an engagement among all of those people there and they forgot mr. jefferson was part of it, and i was able to turn around and go off to my program. that was the beginning. it's never ended. we know mr. jefferson never said anything about it what i just mentioned, i will follow science to wherever it leads us, is what

has brought us further into this conversation. where there science go from here and beyond in dna is one of the most remarkable elements of science that still continues in its further perfection. what does it show? something that jefferson and many others in his day were -- are we all interrelated? are we all, as the nate i was are want to suggest, a family of man across the globe? there are many who are cautious to find their dna to be taken. i find at the marvelous thing for us to understand that we all are connected. i even question, race? we're all one race. that's a great segue, actually, for this next section.

this is true, this conversation about race, what does race mean? a dna test, it can't tell you your race, right? because race is not scientifically based. race is a social construct. what does that mean, right? it means that race was created by human beings to categorizes other human beings. of course, that happened during the transatlantic slave trade. now, when we look at that and we have that conversation, we can e easily say it -- but the reality of how people are treated because of the color of their skin are different.

i've known about you and the work that you do, and you are very well respected. when you came here and started working with us, i was blown away at the amount of knowledge that you have. so you've got a student of historic for a localo long time. people asked this, so i'm going to ask you to just address it. slavery and racism today, are they connected? >> they certainly are. of course they are. i remind people in persona that though jefferson's paternal line had been settled in virginia from the early 17th century, though his maternal line is

settled in virginia in the mid 17th century, that does not make mr. jefferson any more the american than those who continued to arrive here to make for a better might have for themselves and their families. i hope people remember though we are colonies of england, it was not only the englishmen coming here, but people escape the kingdoms of italys, germany, and mr. madison -- from everything i now see, which i have seen in my native land, i think next to the english, the germans make up the greater portion of our religion. in virginia, jefferson should have thought for a mom. in williamsburg that i've known for 20 years, every other face on gloucester street is african-american. the great population of virginia is nearly 50% of

african-american at the time he's going to write the declaration of american independence. i remind people, as we talk about when their ancestors may have arrived, and what about the african-american? did not the first ship bearing african-americans sail into the chip apeek bay in 1619? and it was not of their free will. they were slaves and they have been here for many, many, but the point of the matter is we realized before the american revolution began we were becoming the less and less british and more and more -- and the answer, americans. then the problem best gins. who are representing americans? the white male free holder. 21 years of age off older. that's jefferson.

that's his so i. society. that's what is governing our new nation, and continues to govern our new nation even when we have 22 states before jefferson passes away. generally throughout our country, it is the white male free holder, meaning someone who owns outright his property, who has the vote, who has the say. looks at our history. you see the admitting of states, and this is a as a result of the northwest ordinance, finds one from the north open, but the next one is going to come from the south. then the one after that from the north, the next one from the south. this continues, of course, independent we have a question we have to grapple with, admitting the north of massachusetts, known as the maine, and missouri, which falls distinctly in the center of the

west, 3630. how do we balance this? who will provide the answer? the white male free holder. compromise. kicking the can. that's when,ing as we began this conversation, we know jefferson wrote to one of the first two senators of maine, jonathan holmes, i think this could be a fire bell in the night. it would call the knell, and very few. i that i my creator i will not have to live and see it, because he knows all too well i will spend the rest of my games weeping over the neglect of the grandsons who have forgotten entirely the principles. that's one generation between the founding fathers and those who contend ant gettysburg. one -- man is always one

generation removed from barbarism. if you forget, you fall backward. what if we had had a universal system of education before jefferson passed away? where the child of massachusetts as well in virginia, the child in the missouri territory let alone the child in georgia or connecticut could all be learning these founding principles at the same time, grappling and understanding, but wait a minute, it's still only the white male free holder. women certainly should not be allowed to vote. yes, systemic racism is still with us, despite everyone having that opportunity to vote, or do and does everyone have that opportunity and freely able? to tannattend to it?

>> this ongoing conversation and the national conversation as well reminds me of something that james baldwin wrote 60 years ago -- this country is celebrating the end of the civil war 100 years too soon, celebrating 100 years after the war, 100 years too soon. you're talking about this long ongoing struggle. it's so broad and it impacts many people in different ways, and women and american indian people, other people of color, all of these conversations, poor people, people who don't own their own land. they intersect in different ways. it's an ongoing conversation that i hope we continue to have. we have time for one last question today. i think that it's one that

applies very much. what's your hope for historic sites and interpreters like yourself? what role can you play in this conversation moving forward? >> reminding us of who we are as americans. reminding us of that. you made this statement earlier. this an emotional conversation. it ought to be an emotional conversation, because being an american is the most wonderful experience if you have -- if you have all of those rights which you are entitled to under nature and nature's god to pursue your happiness. where else in the history of the world? that's why we're peopled with so many who continue to come here. if you want to feel the emotion even more, please attend a naturalization ceremonies. monticello continues to offer that, independence hall offers

that. listen to the people who raise their right hand and take the oath of allegiance to their nation while they forgo any further allegiance to their nation, that they may someday have to take up arms against the nation of theirs birth, and then realize what they are learning about our history, and particularly of slavery, is already our charge, and has been since we started this nation that, i hope, and i know has been the pursuit and the effort of historic sites to remind us of this great honor as an american, to remind us of our duty to continue to struggle with it, and to make for a more perfect union. >> thank you, bill. thank you all for joining us today this conversation is

pertinent to us here at monticello and to the world, and we try to foster these dialogues. we invite you to join us in these conversations. we've hoped again in the public and hope in the coming months we'll see some better changes, some normalcy return to our country as we advance hopefully through scientific defense against this disease, and we also hope to foster this kind of civic engagement that is so essential to self-governance, and a fight for equity. we believe that monticello is a place that can allow that because of exactly what it is. the home of a man who said all men are created equal, who yet owned human beings. it's a lens of how we can

understand how this country can live, and still be created with some of the most -- with the removal of native indian people and the enslavement. it is most american for this fight for justice, and the active participation in our governments through civil discourse, through protest. that's also a duty. you're watching american history tv, every weekend on c spans 3 explore or nation's past. as a public service by your television provider. weeknights this month we're features america history tv programs as a preview of what's

available every weekend. tonight oral histories with foot soldiers from the civil rights movement, beginning with gloria grinnell, who talks about her time as a student at richmond's virginia university. she also describes the culture shock she experienced as a californian attending college in virginia. watching tonight beginning at 8:00 eastern. next,ings smithsonian institution secretary longie bunch and david reuben stein discuss the role of slavery