A more accurate description of this would be: In which William F. Buckley and Reverend Noel Maholy gang up on Native American historian Edward Castillo to defend Junipero Serra and make light of the impact of the Spanish colonization on Native Americans.

At about the 11:00 minute mark William F. Buckley actually says with complete sincerity: "Are we going to argue that the blacks in the South were hurt in virtue of being taken from Africa to South Carolina?"

And then goes on at about 19:20 mark to viciously bait Edward Castillo with a defense of the designation of Native Americans as "savages." Buckley's unblinking gaze at Castillo is a dead giveaway of his hostility and disdain as he faux-innocently explains: "which was of course the term that was used universally during the 19th century, and perhaps correctly... about the Indians."). Buckley's rhetorical disingenuous excuse after a brief pause: "I'm sure my great-grandparents were savages, too."

Edward Castillo does an amazing job maintaining his composure in the face of Buckley's spectacularly blatant and aggressive racism.

Buckley directly poses the question to Castillo as to whether the "civilizing" effect the Spanish missionaries had on the Native Americans wasn't an improvement to their way of life.

Castillo brilliantly and calmly puts forward: "It depends on what you consider a higher level of culture. Unfortunately history judges cultures by the size of the buildings they leave. If we look at cultures' abilities to meet the basic needs of their people, to feed them, honoring life — then I think it's up for question."

Buckley then makes a follow up statement about people also having "spiritual hunger" which makes it obvious he has no conception of the idea that Native people already had their own sovereign spirituality.

"Well, he kept Native religious leaders chained and whipped like dogs," Castillo replies.

Buckley, "Well, shackles were everywhere weren't they?" (!!??)

Castillo: "Not among Native cultures."

This is an amazing and valuable illustration of where this discussion was at in 1989 — which gives a vivid sense of what Native activists, historians and educators were up against in trying to shift the terms of the dialogue.