The conteporary landscape of American Indian politics and culture were addressed and deconstructed by Paul Chaat Smith, a Comanche author, essayist and curator, during a midday talk Sept. 20 in the Highsmith University Union’s Grotto at UNC Asheville.

Smith, an associate curator of the Smithsonian’s National Museum of the American Indian in Washington, D.C., drew a standing-room-only crowd of more than 100 people. According to his “bio,” he holds no college or university degrees.

His visit was part of UNCA’s Native American Speaker and Performance Series that includes talks by Native American leaders.

Smith’s presentation ran parallel to his most recent book, “Everything You Know About Indians Is Wrong,” He told a number of stories — funny and painful — that illustrate the ways he sees Indian stereotypes infiltrating mainstream American culture.

He also is co-author of “Like a Hurricane: The Indian Movement From Alcatraz to Wounded Knee,” billed as a standard text in American Indian studies and American history courses.

Smith began by telling his fantasy of striking it rich, enabling him to buy “the largest spread just outside of town (Asheville) — and there’d I’d raise llamas.”

He joked that he would have a large stock of “expensive Scotch (liquor)” on hand, as well as other amenities — and life would be a dream.

As the crowd laughed, Smith turned suddenly serious and noted, “When I’m not daydreaming about becoming the world’s laziest llama farmer, I’m thinking about Native American Indians.”

He said he agrees with experts who contend that America’s founding differed with the rest of the world because it was based on “a messianic idea” resulting in a new reality. Smith also contended that the U.S. began as a country with a vision that needed a blank slate.

“During this time, Europeans often called Indians ‘Americans.’ They called the Indian leaders not chiefs but kings and emperors... What happened? How did kings become chiefs?”

He then asked, rhetorically, “What do we remember and why?”

“We forget — all-too-soon — things we thought we couldn’t forget I think forgetting is just as important part of life as remembering.”

Smith ripped newspapers for biased work, including in their reports on Indians far back in American history — and on civil rights leader Martin Lurther King Jr. in his early days.

Only after King’s assassination in 1968 did the media narrative on him change from negative or neutral, to positive, Smith said. The change was so drastic that, by 1983, King’s birthday was made a national holiday, he noted.

“In the 1963 March on Washington, a sense of dread hung over the white people of (Washington) D.C.,” he said. Many whites felt it was impossible to have a huge “crowd of negroes” gathering there without violence. “The big news was that no violence involving blacks occurred,” he said.

He also spoke of “Robert Kennedy’s wire tapping,” referring to the then-attorney general authorizing the FBI to wiretap King’s home and office telephone lines.

“Yet I think we should try to remember the bad stuff, as well as the  good,” Smith said. “Otherwise, we short-change the amazing progress the U.S. has made” in recent years.

Smith devoted a significant portion of his talk to the “epic scale” of the Trail of Tears, involving the forced removal — by the federal government —  “of five Indian nations from the American South in the 1830s.” 

Many thousands of Indians died in the reportedly brutal conditions of the forced marches from the Southeast to Oklahoma that ended with the last tribe — the Cherokee — in 1838. (The other four relocated tribes were the Muscogee (Creek), Seminole, Chickasaw, and Choctaw.

Recently, he noted, “there have been remembrances of the Trail of Tears” around the U.S. “Thousands and thousands of Americans have directly taken part in these activities... The United States government, as well as state governments, have offered an apology and held formal ceremonies to express their regret.

“There is something American — and very practical — about this” effort to remember and forget the Trail of Tears, Smith said. “In the most narrow sense, it’s about the forced march” that resulted in so many deaths. “Everyone agrees it was an awful case of injustice and cruelty and a shameful chapter in our history.”

However, Smith asked, “If it was such a bad thing, why did it happen? Actually, many people even in the 1830s thought it was a bad thing. It was bitterly debated.

“Andrew Jackson presented the Indian Removal Act as a good thing because the Indians were being terrorized for their lands… and (he said) that this was a better option.

“Here’s the thing: Many of the Indians owned businesses. Most of the Cherokee were Christians.” Therefore, Smith suggested, the forced removal of the Indians really signified a move to open up land “for landless whites and eliminated competition.”

“This was a very big project. It took a whole decade from the signing of a document in 1830 until the last group was removed in 1838,” Smith noted.

“They say each Indian nation had its own Trail of Tears... What most people don’t realize was that the South was an Indian place.

“After removal, a few tribes were allowed to stay. But the area never had the same character” afterward. “It was one of the largest removals” of people in world history.

However, he noted, “On the bright side, many Indians made the best of things and many of them are thriving today... On the dark side, the additional lands often became cotton land — and slavery exploded. Cotton takes a lot of people.

“So the larger story goes from the Indian removal and suffering to… It’s how the U.S. became the way it is ... I don’t want the people to feel guilty because nobody here was alive during that time. But I don’t want people to forget. It’s a legacy that’s important.”

During a question-and-answer period, he said he uses the terms “Indian” and “Native American” interchangeably and has no problem — for now — with what is regarded as the politically incorrect term “Indian.” However, Smith said he strongly favors changing the nickname of the Washington Redskins because he feels the term “Redskins” is offensive.