[Silence] Okay, so the situation is quite different in the 19th Century. By this time, the United States has been founded. And from the 1830's onward, American settlers are in the process of expanding the territory of the United States toward the West, beyond the Mississippi River and eventually all the way to California. We will have some maps later on. And in this context, the making of the modern United States and the expansion to the West, it is here that we can see clearer examples of genocidal acts, and let me talk briefly about four of these. The Cherokee Nation, the Mandan Tribe- the Mandan Tribe is a small tribe, many of you may not have heard of them, but they're interesting because you'll see it's a very clear case of death by disease- the Yuki Indians of California, and finally, the Cheyenne and the Arapaho Indians, which will take us into direct killing and into the area of Colorado and the Dakotas. So let's talk first about the case of the Cherokee; four cases that I want to address today. The Cherokee Nation. So, the Cherokee Nation was one of the largest indigenous groups in North America, and in the 17th and 18th Century, it was basically a confederation of many different tribes into one large, complex political entity. In the 17th and 18th Century, the Cherokee entered into a series of settlements or treaties with the whites that were arriving with Europeans, and this resulted in the shrinking, the gradual shrinking of their allotted territory. So what you can see here is the blue line on this map. You can see a map that shows you the shrinking of the territory, right, through a series of treaties. The blue line, this larger territory, is the original territory of the Cherokee, encompassing Kentucky and much of what would become Tennessee, and you know, crossing into South Carolina, parts of Georgia, North Carolina. Well, the red line is the first decrease and then the green line is where they ended, so you can see this kind of shrinking of their territory. Now, after the establishment of the United States, they, the Cherokee, sought to cooperate with the federal government. They adopted new laws that were based on the US Constitution, and many of them settled down to a life of farming or permanent homesteads rather than hunting and moving around. They even helped the United States Army to crush resistance among the Shawnee and the Creek Indians. Now, none of this helped. In the 1830's, President Andrew Jackson signed the Indian Removal Act, removing basically Indians west of the Mississippi, right, the expansion to remove them away from the east, west of the Mississippi. And this was prepared by a series of decisions of the United States Supreme Court that established the legal status of Indian tribes in American law, right? Because it was clear that the American Indians were kind of a different category, and so the question is, what was their legal status? So these decisions on this, the Supreme Court decisions on this are called the Marshall Trilogy, a series of decisions passed between 1823 in 1832. And the second decision dealt specifically with the Cherokee Nation, it defined it as "dependent-" not independent, but dependent, and dependent on the United States and with their relationship with the United States that was that of, and I quote, "a ward to its guardian," "a ward to it's guardian." So the United States is like the guardian of the Cherokee Nation. So the Indian Removal Act meant that it's basically a forced relocation, forcing the Cherokee to emigrate west on the continent. Their path, as they emigrated west on foot and some of them on horse and on carriages, is called the Trail of Tears. Some of you may be familiar with this story, and it's called the Trail of Tears because many of them died. Of course, the reason they died, they didn't necessarily have to be killed, but you know, life of the community is not just a question of having enough food and not being killed. It's a whole delicate ecology, right? And when you kind of abruptly uproot an entire community and force them to move somewhere else, you're going to see demographic disasters of various kinds. The Indians, the Cherokee, were pushed onto reservations with the goal of quote on quote, "civilizing" them, which basically meant forcing them to become farmers, but really it was removing obstacles for white settler expansion, and entire ways of life were destroyed in this process. This is the map that kind of shows you the routes of the removal, what comprises the Trail of Tears, right, from these territories that are kind of in the southeast, south- centric towards the west, right? Southwest toward here. So what we see here is that as the United States is- sorry, here are some details about the Trail of Tears. A death toll of 4,000 to 5,000, estimated; they were interned in camps under terrible sanitary condition. And because these are tribes that are used to hunting for their own food, that was- they could not do that. There was a lot of starvation, and other communities along the way that are mentioned here also experienced dispossession and forced removal. Now, since we are- what we see here is that as the United States is building itself as a modern state, an important part of this process of building itself as a modern state is the management of the population. And what we see here is the removal of those parts of the population that have come to be seen by the government, by the state, as an obstacle, obstacle to the goals of the modern emerging American state- I want to say something about this a little bit. I'm going to get into theory, now, for a second. [Pause] I don't think I assigned this to you, but in module nine, when we talk about social science and genocide, I don't think I assigned you the article by this scholar, but there is a scholar of genocide called Mark Levine. And he wrote an article about genocide in the 20th Century, and in that article, he made a very interesting claim. He said the genocide is actually a creative act. And that might sound like, whoa, all of these deaths, "creative act?" What the hell are you talking about, man, right? But here's what he means. He doesn't mean "creative" in a positive way like, you know, making music or a work of art; he means" creative" in the sense that it is an attempt to create a new reality. What he says is, genocide happens when the state- he talks about the 20th century- he says when the state- the state is an entity that has an objective, and its objective is to manage a population in a particular way. Now, when the state encounters groups in society that do not fit the objectives of the state, and that are actually standing in the way of the objectives of the state, then many times the result is some form of removal, and the most extreme form of removal is genocide. So genocide happens, Mark Levine says, when there is too wide a gap between the way that the state reads the reality, what the reality should be, and the way that the reality is really on the ground. When there's too wide a gap, genocide is an attempt by the state to create the reality that it sees in its vision, in light of what it's supposed to do; particular management of a particular kind of population. I know it's a bit abstract, but it's a very interesting argument, and I think- although Mark Levine speaks about the 20th Century- it kind of applies to this case, right? Look, we're still within the discussion of the Native Americans in the 19th Century, but why don't we take a break here? When we come back, we'll talk about a different case, the Mandan tribe, and this is a case of death by disease. [Silence]