This is a painting by American artist John Mix Stanley, and in 1863 to commemorate the 100th anniversary of Pontiac's War.

He painted this particular work, which is called Unveiling the Conspiracy.

Pontiac was an Odawa leader And he was one of the predominant diplomats who had interacted with the British when they first came in.

And he was one of the firs to understand that promises that British had made to indigenous people were not being kept.

Ultimately, what he wants to do is get the British out completely.

What starts with a desire to sort of control the level of dependency on the British, more or less turns into a call to completely expel them So this portrait is a portrait of Chief Pontiac by John McStanley.

There's almost somewhat of a of a bit of a Eurocentric feel to the painting and also to the to the look of Pontiac.

And so I feel like I would maybe have painted him in in a different way.

I think some of his features look a little European, But also there's also no known drawings of Pontiac.

So we're not actually really sure what he looked like.

So Stanley could have taken a lot of liberties here in in the portrayal of Pontiac.

This is an artifact of the existence of women and an indigenous woman in the story, a Pontiac that we've heard so little about, and the woman that's depicted in this painting.

If we're to rely on testimony we read was named Catherine.

She was in Anishinaabe And she's interacting with Gladwin, who's the British commandant of the British Fort She's bringing him elk skin moccasins she's made for him.

And she's about to tell him.

that Pontiac is planning an attack on the fort.

She's giving the British forewarning.

The story of a supposed romantic relationship between Catherine and Gladwin that McStanley is trying to capture here is a 19th century invention, a simplified story of a much more complicated interaction.

This mural was done in the 1920s by Gari Melchers, And he's depicting what is now seen at the beginning of the 20th century as a pivotal moment in Detroit's history.

And that is Pontiac's war.

And Gary Melchers, depicts Pontiac greeting the British commandant in the British commandant's quarters.

where he presents a wampum belt that was supposed to signify peaceful relations between indigenous people and British.

But based on European renditions of what happened in 1763, was a ruse, that it was not meant to signify peace, bu to signify the outbreak of war.

what's interesting about this depiction of this diplomatic meeting betwee Pontiac and the British commanda is that the figure of Pontiac was, again in the same sort of style as John McStanley was doing in the mid-19th century, a generic indigenous figure.

We have no basis for knowing what Pontiac looked like.

So again, it speaks to the generic figure of the indigenous person or the Indian in the American imagination So not even just Pontiac, but Art.

And the way we interpret things has reshaped indigenous history in general.

So when we think about whether it is a Stanley painting or a photograph by George Caitlin or anything like that, Indigenous history is interpreted through a different lens, mostly a Eurocentric lens.

Today we see more contemporary Indigenous artists and photographers that portray our histories and our people as who we truly are and not some creatures of myth or the past.

if we look closely at paintings, if we understand John Mix Stanley was part of an American ideal of manifest destiny, that anything and anybody in the way of that movement west was an obstacle.

Then we come to sort of understand history from the 18th century a little bit different, and also understand the pivotal role indigenous people played as agents in that process