Return to Transcripts main page


Interview with Ukrainian Ambassador to the United Kingdom Vadym Prystaiko; Interview with Artist and Activist Badiucao; Interview with "The Rediscovery of America" Author and Yale Professor of History and American Studies Ned Blackhawk. Aired 1-2p ET

Aired June 16, 2023 - 13:00   ET




BIANNA GOLODRYGA, CNN HOST: Hello, everyone, and welcome to "Amanpour." Here's what's coming up.


VOLODYMYR ZELENSKYY, UKRAINIAN PRESIDENT (through translator): For Russia, to lose this campaign to Ukraine, I would say, actually means losing the



GOLODRYGA: Ukraine claims partial success in its counteroffensive, but what does that mean for any prospective peace? I ask Ukrainian ambassador to the

United Kingdom, Vadym Prystaiko.

Then --


BADIUCAO, ARTIST AND ACTIVIST: I'm speaking for a lot of people who do not have a voice back in China.


GOLODRYGA: -- art as descent. China accused of trying to shut down a new exhibition, satirizing its leader. I talk to the Chinese Australian artist

behind it, known as Badiucao.

Also, ahead --


NED BLACKHAWK, AUTHOR, "THE REDISCOVERY OF AMERICA": We do have the capacity by looking at our nation's history differently and more

thoroughly, to see within it an alternative understanding of our American both democracy and nationhood.


GOLODRYGA: -- rediscovering America, a new book putting Native Americans at the center of U.S. history. Hari Sreenivasan speaks to its author, Yale

historian, Ned Blackhawk.

Plus, we remember Glenda Jackson, with a look back at Christiane's interview with the Oscar-winning British politician and actress.

Welcome to the program, everyone. I'm Bianna Golodryga in London today sitting in for Christiane Amanpour.

Russia wants more war not peace, that's what Ukraine's foreign minister says after Kyiv faced what he said was its largest missile attack in weeks.

This is Vladimir Putin today confirmed that the first tactical nuclear weapons to be stored in Belarus have arrived there.

Meanwhile, African leaders are in Ukraine on a "peace mission." Next stop for those representatives is Russia this weekend, where they're set to meet

with President Putin in St. Petersburg. The message from the Kremlin today, that the Russian leader support "any set of ideas to end the conflict."

But international legal experts say that is a highly likely -- that it's highly likely that Russia was behind the collapse of the Kakhovka dam. All

of this as Ukrainian President Zelenskyy continues to appeal for weapons for support for his country's counteroffensive.

Earlier, I spoke to Ukraine's ambassador to the United Kingdom, Vadym Prystaiko, about the latest on that military campaign.


GOLODRYGA: Mr. Ambassador, thank you so much for joining us today. I do want to begin this conversation by asking you to respond to this

"Bloomberg" headline that is reporting that in the St. Petersburg Forum, President Putin has said that the country has transferred their first

nuclear weapons to Belarus. What is your response to that?

VADYM PRYSTAIKO, UKRAINIAN AMBASSADOR TO THE UNITED KINGDOM: This is very, very serious situation. And by this gesture, by this step, he is destroying

the world trust from the international law and agreements. If you remember, as Moldovan (ph) -- both the Russians and Kazakhs were signing this

Budapest memorandum that we're laying down the nuclear weapons, in return, we will be defended against anybody who can come to us.

The Russians, obviously, did not respect this with us. But rearming Belarus, it's gas in (INAUDIBLE) and violation of the international

agreements. I believe that the West have to take it very, very seriously.

GOLODRYGA: Does Ukraine view this as a sign, a warning perhaps from Vladimir Putin, a threat, that he could use nuclear weapons, possibly

tactical nuclear weapons in the months ahead?

PRYSTAIKO: I believe that he was blackmailing all of us, Ukrainians, first of all, but then Europeans and Americans and all our partners around the

globe that, at the end of the day, if he is cornered, he will use some aides, like in this case, the nuclear weapons. And that's what he's doing.

He's bringing -- or at least promising to bring to Belarus.

But I have to tell you that, you know, now we are much better equipped to withstand this pressure, with all these anti-air missiles which we're

receiving from our partners. We are downing everything, sometimes on the level of 100 percent. So, he has to be extremely careful what he is

planning, because who knows, if we send something our way, it might not get to the point.

GOLODRYGA: Let me ask you about this counteroffensive, it appears we are now in week -- at the end of week one or two of this counteroffensive. And

it's and usual how mum (ph) Ukraine has been on any of the inroads that it may or may not have made at this point.


Characteristically and no surprise, Russia has been publicly claiming that Ukraine has not been successful thus far. Give us the current state of this


PRYSTAIKO: Obviously, everybody knew that we would come as soon as the ground is solid enough to withstand the heavy western tanks and our own

tanks. It's not a big secret that we were waiting for the perfect moment, and I guess this perfect moment is right in front of us.

It's not yet. We have not engaged and committed all the forces we have. We are probing, trying to find the best place for the attack. The dam, which

was destroyed by Russians, is changing our currents (ph) a bit. We have to re-plan our operation because the part of this huge thousand kilometers

front is not accessible for the heavy equipment. So, this is delaying our counteroffensive a bit, but I guess the Russians have to wait just a couple

days more.

GOLODRYGA: So, is it fair to say this is still the probing stage? Because we know that Ukraine hasn't committed the bulk of its forces yet, early

gains that have been made are clearly not insignificant, but we have seen images of damaged U.S. Bradley armored vehicles as well as Leopard Tanks in

this fighting already, suggesting that these heavier equipped more sophisticated weapons are being used.

PRYSTAIKO: This is true. We never promised that we will come and go all the way without losing some tanks or there in portion some people as well. This

is painful to see this tech (ph). But at the same time, you've seen a couple of these pieces been repaired and returned back to the frontlines.

Which means that there is no perfect solution. This battle will cost us a lot, and whatever we're gaining is just preliminary attacks, allowing us to

understand and see.

All of this has a very much a political meaning and political value as well. I understand that expectations are high, but this is sometimes

playing a very tricky game on us and our partners around the globe. We want them to be careful and patient with us, this is not the last

counteroffensive we might have with Russians.

Obviously, I also understand that the picturesque sort of (ph) success will reenergize the assistance around the globe. That's what we need. If you

want to help the return on investment into Ukraine, maybe we have to increase this investment, give more tanks, to allow us direct hit in the

particular points we will find.

GOLODRYGA: You have made this point about being a bit frustrated with the level of expectations that have been set by many in the media and many of

Ukraine's supporters in terms of the significance of this counteroffensive, perhaps setting the bar as high as what we saw around Kharkiv. Should

people expect to see more of what happened around Kherson? And how worried are you at the possibility that continued support really hinges on the

outcome of this specific counteroffensive?

PRYSTAIKO: Well, even Kherson operation is actually was quite successful, because Kherson was the only significant city Russians managed to get from

very beginning of the war. So, the attack that they sort of got back out of it, preserving their lives, is not bad until we are -- knowing that we are

free our own lands.

Our aim of this whole war is not to kill maximum Russian soldiers or kill the maximum Russian tanks, it's just to get them out of our land and then

decide how (INAUDIBLE) for the centuries to come. So, the Kharkiv operation, I agree with you, it was spectacular, the whole, but that

Russians are also learning from their own mistakes.

I guess this operation will allow them to dig really deep and then, prepare their defenses. We have to be much smarter. We don't want to repeat their

losses, which they have at the Bakhmut and round (ph) when their tanks were just going through the lens of mines and blowing them away. So, that's what

we have to win. We have to be much more sort of clever.

GOLODRYGA: It does appear that Russia appears to be more competent in terms of defense as opposed to their offensive operations earlier in this year.

How much of a game-changer would additional long-range missiles and more F- 16s, for any F-16s, at this point, really be at the stage of the battle?

PRYSTAIKO: Exactly. Well, first of all, the strength of any defensive forces is logistics. That's the trenches, needed the bunkers, needed the

trained soldiers and the numbers of them are important, but actually, this is important how fast you bring in the artillery shells to the frontlines

and allowing your forces to shoot at the upcoming offensive. So, that's what we are trying to resolve with the (INAUDIBLE).

We will need somebody else, our partners to come, including the United States, with something which would allow us to target anything on our own

territory. And that's (INAUDIBLE). F-16s, you know, without the -- it wasn't the failure of Russian attacks, they couldn't establish the air

superiority, over the whole periods of war. The F-16s or any other western planes would allow us to, first of all, deny them from our skies, and

hopefully, to establish our own superiority.


By this moment, if we manage to do so, the war will -- the fate of the war will be solved.

GOLODRYGA: Looking at the longer-term goals here for Ukraine, obviously, first and foremost, after defeating Russia, would be to join NATO. And we

have seen the defense chiefs meet in Brussels yesterday, as far as alignment that NATO -- that Ukraine will join NATO at some point in the

future, they are all aligned on that line. But when they will join, when Ukraine can join, is the big question mark here. And we don't really have a

timetable, even said by President Biden.

There does seem to be this alternative model that it doesn't have to be an all or nothing scenario, that Ukraine could go by way of Israel, perhaps or

even Taiwan, would not officially joining any sort of membership or alliance but getting all of the weaponry and supplies in order to protect

itself. Would Ukraine settle for that right now?

PRYSTAIKO: I believe that it's a bit incorrect, as a comparison, because Taiwan and Israel are not part of the sort of Northern Atlantic Region

where Ukraine is. So, I guess, in a way, if Israel was closer, they would be in the alliance as well. So, that was a decision which was done rather

out of necessity and geographical necessity.

So, I would not expect our friends and partners to, you know, invent something new and unique for Ukraine if we have such a proven mechanism and

instrument as in NATO. And Ukraine was trying to get into the alliance for years and years.

I understand that for some of the members it is difficult for their own reasons, but I guess that Ukraine is proving that actually can be a donor

(ph) of the -- of security in this particular region. We have the strongest army, probably, right now, in Europe. And if we need somebody who will

actually fight with Russians, the only archenemy of the NATO, that's Ukraine. So, I don't believe that we will be happily agreeing on something

else rather than NATO.

Our president is saying, yes, we need security guarantees, may be in the way of Israel or Taiwan, but that will be interim solution until Ukraine

will become a member of NATO.

GOLODRYGA: Let me ask you though about something else that is of significance, and that is the long-term commitment that western allies can

continue to provide Ukraine, perhaps not joining an alliance, but continuing to provide support, militarily, economically for years to come.

There's some ambiguity in terms of what happens in a democracy. You have change in leadership, there has been a change in leadership here in the

United Kingdom, and Rishi Sunak has really stepped up and continued to offer that support. But there is some speculation about what may happen in

a Republican presidency, perhaps even another Trump presidency in the United States. I want you to respond to what the former president said

recently in a CNN Town Hall in terms of support for Ukraine in this war.


UNIDENTIFIED FEMALE: Can you say if you want Ukraine or Russia to win this war?

DONALD TRUMP, FORMER PRESIDENT OF THE UNITED STATES: I want everybody to stop dying. They are dying. Russians and Ukrainians, I want them to stop

dying. And I'll have that done in 24 hours, I'll have it done. You need the power of the presidency to do it.

UNIDENTIFIED FEMALE: But you won't say that you want Ukraine to win?

TRUMP: You know what I'll say? I'll say this, I want Europe to put up more money. Because they are in for 20 billion, we are in for 170, and they

should be --

UNIDENTIFIED FEMALE: But that's not an answer about who should win the war.

TRUMP: -- and they should equalize. They have plenty of money.


GOLODRYGA: He couldn't answer who he supports in this war and says that if he's in power, he would have the war end in 24 hours. What was President

Zelenskyy -- what is your response to that?

PRYSTAIKO: First of all, I like this exchange of the democracy in action. I want to remind you that when President Zelenskyy came to power he also

believed that the war with Russia can be resolved. In his own words that sounds like, we just have to stop shooting at each other and the war will

be over. Over this year, (INAUDIBLE). But very unfortunately, it's not enough what you wish or what you want, whether you -- how are you planning,

you still have Russia on the other side of the same negotiation table. And these guys, they don't want to come.

So, this is a very simplified version what the candidate -- a possible candidate from the Republican Party is saying, but I guess as soon as there

-- somebody, is the Democratic or Republican is the president, they will understand the complexity of the whole problem with Russia and they will


This is still -- even -- it's not even the elections yet, it's pre- electoral sort of process. They have to be careful. They are working towards their own electorate.


GOLODRYGA: Very diplomatic response from you, Mr. Ambassador. We'll have to leave it there. Thank you so much for your time. We appreciate it.

PRYSTAIKO: Thank you very much. Thank you.


GOLODRYGA: And we have a major programming note to tell you about. Next week, Christiane will sit down with Former President Barack Obama for a

one-on-one exclusive interview to talk candidly about Ukraine, the 2024 U.S. election and the global state of democracy. That's "Obama and

Amanpour: Will Democracy Win?" Airing next Thursday at 10:00 p.m. Eastern, and again on this show on Friday at the usual time.

Well, it's an important weekend for U.S. Secretary of State Antony Blinken who is headed for China to reset frosty relations with Beijing. Today,

Chinese president, Xi Jinping, met with Bill Gates, calling him the first "American friend he has seen this year."

Our next guest is all too familiar with China's public diplomacy strategy. As an artist, come activist, his work subverts and satirizes the Chinese

leadership's political messaging. Now, living outside China and known by the name Badiucao, his latest exhibition opens today in Warsaw, despite

alleged attempts by Chinese officials to shut it down. He told me earlier about the responsibility he feels to speak up.


GOLODRYGA: Badiucao, thank you so much for joining us today from Warsaw, where you are debuting your new exhibit. It's called "Tell China's Story

Well." And it's a play on the name of a campaign introduced by then- President Xi in his first term, and we're talking over a decade ago, in 2013, on telling China's story. Why did you choose this name?

BADIUCAO, ARTIST AND ACTIVIST: Well, as an artist I always want to introducing the real situation of China to the world. And I think it will

be a great chance to play with this propaganda slogan, just bring it from my side of the story.

You know, to know China, to know any country, it requires multiple perspective. But in China, you only hear one voice. But as an individual

artist, I want to provide a different perspective. Perhaps, that is a better way to tell China's story well.

GOLODRYGA: Well, we have to talk about the piece of art there behind you, and that is President Xi, an image of President Xi devouring human flesh.

It is a play in reminiscent of Goya's Saturn devouring his children. Give us more insight into this particular piece.

BADIUCAO: Well, correct. To be honest, this is never easy a painting to finish and it's also not easy for any audience looking at it. But my

message is, do not look away. Because given what the Chinese government has done to its own people, to the Chinese citizens, to the Uyghurs, the

Hongkongers, to Tibetans, and also with China's threat more internationally, with its supporting to Russia, with its potential war

threat against Taiwan, I do think it is a legitimized metaphor showing China is this very dangerous government ruling in the country, and its

leader, Xi Jinping, is actually hurting the most vulnerable part of humanity.

GOLODRYGA: You also have a similar piece depicting Vladimir Putin eating flesh, and you have criticized the relationship between President Xi and

President Putin through your artwork, specifically as it relates to the war in Ukraine. Talk to us more about that and the message you're sending by

having this introduced in Poland itself.

BADIUCAO: I think it's particular meaning for to bringing this message, to bringing this juxtaposition and highlighting this very disgraceful and

dangerous romance between Xi Jinping and Putin (INAUDIBLE) in Poland.

Poland probably is the most supportive country to Ukraine regarding, you know, Russia's invasion at this moment. But in the same time, the Chinese

government is always trying to picture itself as some kind of neutral or peacemaker position. But in fact, my knowledge, my understanding of China

has been telling me that Chinese government, 100 percent, is siding with Russia, from financial, economic support, to actually sending weapons,

military vehicles to Russia. This is the very crime that people should not look away. And my art, in this exhibition, it's about to highlighting this

very toxic relationship between China and Russia.

GOLODRYGA: As you know, the Chinese government has tried to do everything in their power to shut this exhibit down and reached out and put pressure

on Polish officials as well. Let me read you a statement from the Chinese foreign ministry. Here's what they said. They said, cultural exchange

should be conducive to promoting objective understanding and friendship.

And what's interesting here is this is not the first battle like this that you've fought. There had been similar pressures put on the Italian

government, a few years ago, over an exhibit that you opened there. The Italian government did not succumb to the pressure and it doesn't appear

that the Polish government is either. What kind of message do you think that sends to Beijing?


BADIUCAO: Well, it's -- well, I'm never a stranger to China's censorship, intimidation and threat. And it has been following me since the very

beginning of my art career. But to be honest, this is not the reason for any artist should compromise. Always very important that we understand how

courage is needed in this time.

I'm speaking for a lot of people who do not have a voice back in China. I'm speaking to the people who might not understand the Chinese government

clearly. And this is my duty, this is my responsibility to do so as an artist.

GOLODRYGA: Badiucao is not your legal name, it is an alias that you have taken on, you had worked and hid your face for many years, given the

threats that you and your family had received. What made you finally come public, at least visually, by removing the mask covering your face?

BADIUCAO: That's correct. I've been anonymous and an artist since the very beginning of my art career. But in 2018, just before my Hong Kong solo

exhibition, my identity actually got compromised, which was leading into the Chinese National Security Police came to my family back in Shanghai,

took my relatives to the police station for interrogation, for the information that they don't even know I'm an artist.

So, after that, the show is unfortunately canceled because of this terrible threat. But also, the bigger question for me is, if I want to continue

making art in this way, and if now, you know, I must face this new understanding that Chinese government knows who I am? I never believed that

anyone can exchange freedom for safety, but I believe that if people bravely is speaking up and that is the way that you can gain more

international support, you can gain more attention to the cause that you are fighting for, and perhaps encourage more people to join, to join this

risk and burden together in the hope that one day we can eventually change authoritarian regime like China.

So, to me, there's not even the choice. I think this is the path that I choose, and I believe this is the right path to choose.

GOLODRYGA: You realize that that is a dangerous path to choose, and so far, it's a very lonely path. It is -- it encapsulates a David versus Goliath.

Tell our viewers a little bit more about what led you to this journey. Because, from my understanding, you were a law student in China, and it was

only when you had watched a video where someone had spliced in illegally footage of the Tiananmen massacre, which you were not aware of, which most

people in China were not aware of, that changed the course of your life. Can you give us more insight into that decision?

BADIUCAO: Sure. I really liked the metaphor of David and Goliath because we know who wins in the end. I would challenge the idea that I am very alone,

because look at what happened last December in China, the entire younger generation protested against the regime. It started as protests in the

COVID lockdown and then become an entire movement, they're demanding more, for democracy, for freedom, for CCP stepping down, Xi Jinping stepping


I do have a lot of hope in the younger generation because they are the ones who, you know, can have the hope, can change China. But also, this is the

biggest protest since probably 1989, Tiananmen Movement. For a long time, I thought that maybe Chinese generation has lost the courage and

understanding the value of democracy and freedom. But last December's white paper movement has proved me wrong and has shook the whole world. They've

giving me a lot of hope.

Yes, that Tiananmen Massacre is something that the Chinese people should never forget. And to me, it is a personal reminder of how terrible this

regime, how terrible crime this regime has committed.


BADIUCAO: And the people who have protested, giving me the power. But also, now, the younger generations protest and the white paper movement is

stressing the power even bigger.

GOLODRYGA: It's important to note, those brave people who went out and protested in China, it's something we haven't seen in decades, as you note,

and also, those who had protested in Hong Kong as well. But you yourself had voiced your disappointment with certain governments, including that of

Australia, where you currently reside that, in your view, did not stand up for you and your work against the bullying that you have described from

Beijing. And you also see other foreign leaders, other western leaders, continue to make visits and trips to Beijing, obviously a large economic



Do you worry, at all, about any kind of compromise? There's the difference between Antony Blinken's visit and wanting to avoid war, but there's also a

question about whether continued relationships, economically, with western leaders will only continue to embolden President Xi and his power there.

BADIUCAO: I think it's indeed a very, well, concerning issue to the democracy that we have in the free world. Yes, I do not 100 percent

satisfied with the Australian government's reaction to China's bully and aggression. While they did have some improvement. At least this time I met

with the Australian ambassador before the opening. But I'm still waiting for them to do a more public and strong condemnation against China's


And to the rest of the world, especially to the democracy, I think a lot of companies, corporations and politicians are not visionary enough. It is

very dangerous to still doing business regularly with China without any obligation, demanding China to valuing universal human rights. And now, the

more pressing issue is actually what you mentioned, China's war threat against Taiwan. This will unleash an entire fire and blood to all of us,

this will be a threat to everyone's peace, well-being around the world.

So, it's a choice that every politician, every democracy must make. It's a choice about our future. We want authoritarian way, we want greedy (ph)

economic to replacing the universal human rights or we want to embrace democracy and want a bright future? This is the question.

GOLODRYGA: Let me end this conversation by asking about your future plans. Do you envision at all returning to China anytime soon? And do you still

have family that currently resides there?

BADIUCAO: Well, it's indeed a hard situation for me. I do not see any hope that I can really coming back to China safely as long as the China's

communist party is still in power. I think my family back in China are still constantly harassed and intimidated by the Chinese police.

What I can do now is actually cutting all my connection with the family back in China. So, that I can become irrelevant to them. So, they become

less valuable to the Chinese authority. But when I'm outside, it doesn't mean I have to be lonely. I still have a lot of voice. I still have a lot

of voice, message to say within my art.

GOLODRYGA: That is a really painful rationale that you view saving your family requires you to severe ties with them. Badiucao, thank you so much

for your time today and best of luck with the exhibit.

BADIUCAO: It'a a great pleasure. Thank you.


GOLODRYGA: And we should note that we have reached out to the Chinese embassy in Poland regarding Badiucao's allegations and have yet to hear


Meantime, in a major victory for Native American rights, the U.S. Supreme Court has upheld key provisions of the Indian Child Welfare Act, giving

preference -- reference of the adoption of Native American children to their tribes and families. The law was passed 45 years ago to protect

tribal sovereignty and to correct past government abuses.

Our next guest is retelling the story of America to include Native American history. Historian Ned Blackhawk traces the role tribal nations played in

shaping the United States, in his new book. And he's joining Hari Sreenivasan to explain why indigenous history is essential to understanding

modern America.


HARI SREENIVASAN, CNN INTERNATIONAL CORRESPONDENT: Ned Blackhawk, thanks so much for joining us.

You are tackling an enormous task here with this book, which is to try to reframe American history by moving more to the center Native American

history. And tell me a little bit about, first of all, why this challenge is necessary.

BLACKHAWK: Thank you for that generous recognition. I am trying to do something that has been a concern of mine for a while, and that is to

provide a kind of single volume synthetic overview of Native American history that tries to do so through conventional subjects of American

history, and does so by building upon what I call the rediscovery of America, which is a generation of academic and tribal and other scholarly

pursuits that have fundamentally realigned how we should think and see American history, but a lot of those studies and findings have yet to be

brought together in a single volume.


SREENIVASAN: One of the things you point out is literally just with the word discovery. Because so much of our history is written and framed by the

notion that the western explorers, the civilized, were the ones who discovered America. And you are -- one of the things you're advocating for

in this book, really, is, let's change that word, to what?

BLACKHAWK: Well, I say we should think more about encounter as a kind of fundamental paradigm for understanding the origins of our nation's history

rather than discovery. And the book is entitled "The Rediscovery" in part to kind of play off of the kind of conventional understanding of America

having been discovered in 1492 by European explorers.

And the idea that we are standing now, perhaps for the first time in the relatively still early 21st century at a kind of precipice where we can, in

fact, turn anew to our continent's history and see it in a new way. We can rediscover American history by engaging the subject and drawing upon this

generation of scholars that I've written about or that I'm referencing.

SREENIVASAN: Give me an example, when we are thinking about American history, how we either sideline, marginalize or forget the people who were

already here?

BLACKHAWK: Well, in a few weeks we'll celebrate our Independence on the 4th of July, and it's really quite shocking, I think, for many American

students, citizens and other kind of concerned community -- civic leaders to learn, for example, that the declaration is, in many ways, an incitement

of violence against Native Americans.

And the last concern that the continental Congress authorizes in the declaration is grievance against the king for inciting merciless Indian

savages as their term. And that is the kind of culminating conclusion to chapter five of this book, which is on the American Revolution.

So, we've been kind of taught the history of the U.S. without really fundamentally recognizing that at really key elemental moments of national

formation, the revolution, the constitution, the civil war era, the rise of the administrative or kind of political new American state of the 19th

century, Indian affairs and Indian peoples were central concerns to American policymakers, and those words are literally found in our nation's

most cherished and often recited documents.

SREENIVASAN: You're right, to understand the revolution without American Indians is like a one-handed clap. Walk us through how the relationship

between the people who are trying to settle this land and Native Americans was a precursor to their discontent with the British?

BLACKHAWK: You know, it's a history that is really understudied and really unknown outside of some relatively small academic circles around 18th

century American history, but there's this monumental conflict in the mid - - that erupts in the mid-1750s and spreads literally across not just North America but much of the European, Atlantic and portions of the rest of the

world, known as the Seven Years' War.

It begins in the interior of North America and it ends even further in the interior. American settlers in these interior regions are not happy with

the British crown because the British crown is attempting diplomatic and trading and various other types of initiatives with native peoples who are

not easily conquered -- or not easily conquerable and have yet to be conquered.

And so, these American settlers, in these backcountry regions that I write about and others do as well, have kind of really -- kind of almost virulent

anti-indigenous ideologies that are forming around British policies, and that's how those sentiments essentially find their way into the

declaration. But the -- you know, I say it's like a one-handed clap, which means it's like an excited but empty gesture to really understand an era in

which indigenous affairs and peoples and power were central to the concerns of the revolutionary era.

SREENIVASAN: You write a little bit about President Lincoln, but you kind of pull out a moment before he's writing the Emancipation Proclamation and

what's happening to -- what's happening out in the Dakotas. And tell us a little bit about the context of Lincoln at this time that we don't hear

about very often.

BLACKHAWK: It was one of this kind of a revelatory moments when I was reading, you know, studies and studies of the subject and coming to realize

that very few kind of conventional histories of the civil war recognize that the civil war not only had a western theater to it in which tens of

thousands of Native Americans either fought and/or were killed, but there is also an incredible legacy of -- in the aftermath of the war -- of the

growth of the federal government over this part of North America.


And we really can't understand the ultimate legacies of the civil war or essentially Lincoln's presidency outside of these monumental conflicts and

transformations that are occurring. So, the Dakota war of -- the summer of 1862, which is followed by essentially the ethnic cleansing of many several

thousand Dakota peoples from Southern Minnesota and their force relocation eventually to the Dakota territories includes -- which includes the largest

mass executions in U.S. history in December of 1862, right as the Emancipation Proclamation essentially is being drafted.

We can't really understand -- that war is part of a series of, you know, extraordinarily traumatic campaigns between the federal government and

native nations that stretches from Northern California across southern -- the southwest, includes the forced relocation of nearly 10,000 Navajo

peoples during the long walk, sets of, you know, horrific massacres at the Bear River at Sand Creek, these are well-known within the history of

Western America, which is one of my fields of specialty, but they've yet to be really brought sufficiently into kind of understanding of the civil war


Because when they do, you start seeing both the civil war and the West very differently. You start seeing that the civil war was, in fact, an

incredibly undetermined moment in American history, in which violence became a primary form of social change and kind of power. But if we think

of the civil war, essentially, as a continental wide conflict and/or struggle that has an inherently kind of indigenous western dimension to it,

we can perhaps begin this kind of larger recalibrations.

SREENIVASAN: We have recently been coming into a reckoning of the role of the slave trade and African Americans and how that is considered one of the

original sins of the founding of this nation. And you write in the book that it's important to identify -- you say, identifying American history as

a sight of genocide complicates a fundamental premise of the American story.

What is it that, I think, you wish was central to that kind of American founding story that's been overlooked?

BLACKHAWK: I think the real takeaway that I would kind of encourage listeners or readers to the text to kind of consider is, you know, do we

have a capacity to see ourselves both differently in a sense, more historically? Because if we do, which I know we do, we can understand that

there are multiple, both indigenous as well as imperial subjects upon -- particularly the early American landscape.


BLACKHAWK: And we, you know, really have too many kind of mythologies in the U.S. about the kind of centrality of anglophone settlers, particularly

in New England, that, you know, really discounts the kind of diversity, even of the British subjects themselves, who -- you know, there are more

people in Barbados in 1650 than all of British North America combined. You know, and so, we -- you know, we just lose the kind of heterogeneity of --

you know, of the subject and kind of fall upon relatively received and simplified categories of analysis.

So, if we have that kind of capacity, it's not -- you know, it's not going to yield initially the kind of immediate moment of revelation that we may

be hoping for, but we can see past them and you can start seeing how numerous monuments have recently come down. The State of Massachusetts

finally abandoned its kind of mythologized state flag of an Indian welcoming Puritan settlers from the 1620s. There's a kind of reckoning

happening, not just with the history of African American slavery and its centrality in America, but also with the indigenous peoples of the


And I'm hopeful that we can someday bring these two reckonings, essentially, together within a kind of public sphere to discuss our

country's history and it's present and new forms.

SREENIVASAN: There's also a chapter in American history for the culture eradication of native peoples, the forced assimilation, the taking of

children and putting them into these different boarding schools. Tell us a bit about how large-scale that was, how effective that was, and really,

what the goal was?


BLACKHAWK: This is an incredible moment of kind of American political change, and it affects Indians in certain ways more than any other peoples,

because these communities are being literally, simultaneously confined and then often subdivided, and their children are being taken from them.

And so, this is the kind of dominant theme of the federal government throughout the late 1800s, shortly after reconstruction concludes. There

are U.S. army officials who had been out west and stationed among Indians who start realizing that their -- you know, their charges, essential the

people they're supervising lack the kind of capacity to become immediately incorporated into the union.

There are very few missionaries initially in certain parts of the west, there are very few schools, and military officials start trying to forcibly

impose certain types of pedagogies on their -- on, essentially, their prisoners. And that becomes the kind of model of pedagogy that forms at the

Carlisle Indian Institute in 1879, run by former military captain named Richard Henry Pratt.

And so, this military style pedagogy eventually reaches roughly 40 percent of all the nation's indigenous children, roughly 75,000 American Indian

children are sent to these boarding schools, which essentially characterized federal Indian policy about half a century. And we really

can't understand the evolution of the 20th century with the Native America without understanding how extensive, influential and harmful these

institutions became because they inspired then a generation, Native American activists, who took aim at changing these policies, which they

were successful in doing throughout the '20s and into the '30s.

So, this kind of anti-assimilation kind of ideology and activism of Native American leaders and a group particularly known as the Society of American

Indians helps establish other alternative political philosophies about what Indian country should look like and what it should be doing. And this sets

in motion some of the most important reforms in federal Indian affairs during the new deal era known as the Indian New Deal, when tribal

governments start forming and adopting constitutions for themselves to be self-governed.

SREENIVASAN: I want to end our conversation maybe with the first words from your book, and how can a nation founded on the homelands of dispossessed

indigenous peoples be the world's most exemplary democracy? What do you hope is corrected in the historical account that we all read and hear about

this country?

BLACKHAWK: You know, it is sobering kind of query that opens this project, but it's one with a kind of hopeful, if not optimistic, sentiment, that we

do have the capacity, by looking at our nation's history, differently and more thoroughly, to see within it an alternative understanding of American

both democracy and nationhood in which indigenous peoples can be and should be centrally included.

Far from being merciless Indian savages, Native American communities have become among the most resilient, adaptive and, in many places, visible

social communities within our kind of contemporary national fabric.

Can we find a way to think of our democratic practices, our court doctrines and jurisdictional kind of conflicts differently, that understands native

nations as distinct, sovereign communities within a larger fabric of American democracy? That would be the kind of hope that I would respond to

that question with.

SREENIVASAN: Professor Ned Blackhawk, author of the book, "The Rediscovery of the American: Native Peoples and the Unmaking of U.S. History," thanks

so much for joining us.

BLACKHAWK: Thank you.


GOLODRYGA: Now, we'd like to take a moment to reflect on the life and legacy of Oscar-winning actress and former U.K. politician, Glenda Jackson,

who died this week at the age of 87.

An acclaimed performer of the stage and screen, she also built a legacy across a 23-year stint as a British lawmaker. Christiane spoke to Glenda

Jackson in 2018.


CHRISTIANE AMANPOUR, CNN CHIEF INTERNATIONAL ANCHOR: You put your acting career on hiatus to take up another career. Did you ever think, when you

decided not to run again, you put politics aside, that you, Glenda Jackson, would not just be asked to come back to one play, which was Queen Lear

(ph), right, here at The Old Vic, but now "Three Tall Women". I mean, these are huge monumental plays and roles.


GLENDA JACKSON, BRITISH ACTRESS: It didn't occur to me, no. I mean, I remember saying to my girls in the office when I said I wouldn't stand at

the 2015 election, I'm going to enter irresponsible episodes in my life only to discover that, in fact, when you don't have work, your

responsibility increases. Who gets you out of bed in the morning, if not you?

But the BBC asked me to do a series on radio, which I was very happy to do. They were great scripts. And I did that. And I did (ph) that. I was then

asked by The Old Vic instantly to do a play. I didn't want to do the play they wanted me to do. And "Lear" came after that. And I did it. And now,

I'm doing "Three Tall Women" and I'm very, very lucky indeed.

AMANPOUR: So, isn't it incredible that you did "Lear" as a woman?

JACKSON: Well, you know, one of the really interesting things about doing that incredible play, no one ever mentioned it. Nobody in the production,

nobody who watched it, in a curious way, nobody who commented on it made anything off that. It may be because there had been forerunners, certainly

in London, of the kind of gender bender regime. I mean, marvelous productions, all-women productions, for example, of Shakespeare's


What I found interesting over and above the greatness of the play was when I was a member of Parliament, I would visit old people's homes, day

centers, things of that nature. And one of the things that struck me most was how, as we get older, as the -- as we get higher and higher up the age

scale, the gender barriers start to fray, they become to fracture, they're sort of foggy, they -- the absolutes aren't there anymore, and that I found

very useful when I was playing "Lear." It was really interesting.

AMANPOUR: Actually, that's a very encouraging thought for us coming up in those footsteps of age. So, that's great. Tell me about being a politician.

Did you employ your acting abilities, credentials, your performing abilities in Parliament? I mean, how much did that help you or was it


JACKSON: It was never at the forefront of my mind, but what was, not infrequently at the forefront of my mind, was that years ago, there was a

scientific exploration of what we as human beings fear most. And apparently, what we fear most is death, and number two on the list is

public speaking. So, I had that one covered, except when I rose to make my maiden speech in Parliament, I had never been so frightened in my life

because I was suddenly made aware of the fact, A, that my constituents, Hampstead and Highgate, has been home to some of the greatest exponents of

the English in history.

And the other that -- you know, had actually invested in me their trust. They had exercised what I regard as our greatest right, if you like, the

right to vote, in me. And so, that was extremely scary.

AMANPOUR: Just for people who might not know, give us just a few names of the illustrious names from Hampstead and Highgate.

JACKSON: Well, the one that sort of pounded in my head was Keats, of course.

AMANPOUR: You also took part in a tribute to Margaret Thatcher. Of course, yours was the -- I mean, could I call it an anti-tribute?

JACKSON: I hope that I told the truth. I certainly told the truth as I had experienced it, as I had seen my constituents experience it, even though

when I was first elected, she had long been elevated to the other place, as we call the House of lords.

Everything I have been taught to regarded advice she told me was a virtue. Greed wasn't a vice, it was doubty independence. Selfishness wasn't a vice,

it ensuring you cared for yourself and your family. That there was no such thing as a society. What have the suffragettes ever done for her? That, in

a way, was peripheral. Anything I could've done that was legal to ensure that what I regarded, and still do, as the destruction, not only in

economic and social but the moral destruction of my country, I was prepared to have a go out.

AMANPOUR: Can I just play it, actually? I mean, you paraphrase some of what you said, but I'm going to play it so that our viewers will see you.



JACKSON: We were told that everything I had been taught to regard as a vice, and I still regard them as vices, under Thatcherism was in fact a

virtue. Greed, selfishness, no care for the weaker, sharp elbows, sharp knees, they were the way forward.

AMANPOUR: So, Glenda Jackson, that was pretty bold and brave. Obviously, you are true to yourself and true to your politics. How were you received

in the chamber? And do they know what you were going to say? Did you have to -- not permission, but did you have to sort of warn people what you were

going to say?

JACKSON: Good heavens, no. I mean, was there. I wasn't guaranteed to be called. No one is guaranteed to be called in that sense. And certainly, I

remember when I kicked off with what I was saying, there was a certain amount of barracking from, obviously, the conservative benches, but that

die down.

AMANPOUR: I wonder, because we're in this moment now of so much focus on women, MeToo, women running for office, women trying to really finally, you

know, change the sort of scales of inequity, would you call yourself a feminist?

JACKSON: I think I would in the sense of, you know, it being more than demonstrating you're a feminist by burning your bra. I've never burnt a bra

in my life because I don't wear them. But if I could just kind of cut to the bottom line about all this, as far as on concerned, I would just say

that in the United Kingdom two women die every week at the hands of their partner, usually a male, and we are deluding ourselves if we think that

this movement that has arisen is going to transform the lives for all women, around the world, overnight, because it isn't.

And we have to accept that the steps forward, we are moving forward, but they are small steps at the moment, they are not giant strides, but we have

to keep pushing for it.

AMANPOUR: And I want to go back to one of your earlier films. We're going to play a little clip of "Women in Love."

JACKSON: Oh, right.

You don't think you in love, do you?


JACKSON: You don't think you can love me, do you?

UNIDENTIFIED MALE: I don't know what you mean by the word, love.

JACKSON: Oh, yes you do. You know very well that you have never loved me. Or have you, do you think?


AMANPOUR: Oh, that's so dramatic and so sad. Does it take you back at all?

JACKSON: I don't watch it. I don't like wanting myself. I'm completely subjective about seeing myself on the film. I only look at myself, really.

And I think, oh, my God, why did you choose to do that? It's all too late because there ain't nothing you can do to change it.

AMANPOUR: But you do have -- you are quite known for being a bit irascible and you did not accept any of your Oscars. You got two Oscars, one for that

film, and you didn't go to Hollywood to pick them up.

JACKSON: Well, I was working. I mean, I couldn't go. I was extremely fortunate I was employed. And that is still a very fortunate position to be

in if you're an actress. So, no, I didn't.

AMANPOUR: Are you glad you got them? Are you glad you get all the plaudits? And are you happy now with all the reviews and playing these amazing roles?

JACKSON: I'm very happy that we're playing to full houses and I'm very happy to be working with these two remarkable actresses. I'm very happy

with the way the audience listens and laughs and how we clearly are delivering.

What is really a remarkable play, but what I always jib at when you talk about the Oscars, people say to me, you won them, I never competed for

anything. The winners are the people who vote for you. And that's, you know, nice for them and have always very nice to have a present. But it

doesn't make you any better.


GOLODRYGA: Glenda Jackson, the world lost a tour de force in her passing.

And finally, tonight, well-deserved recognition for another much love artist. Gloria Estefan is now the first Latina to be inducted into the

Songwriters Hall of Fame. The Cuban American singer-songwriter is also a multiple Grammy-award winner, a Presidential Medal of Freedom recipient and

one of the best-selling female musicians of all time.

So, for anyone who hasn't danced at a wedding recently, we leave you now with a clip from one of Estefan's best love songs, "Conga," co-written with

her husband, Emilio Estefan.

Thank you for watching and goodbye from London.