Header

Those Who Tell History's Stories Wield Supreme Power

Karenne Wood
10/2/12

Most of us began to learn what we know about the past in grade school, not through history courses, but through a hybrid discipline called social studies. Social studies are defined as the "integrated study of the social sciences and humanities to promote civic competence." The assumption is that social sciences, because they’re called sciences, are based on objective observation and facts rather than subjective interpretation. In the same way, we often imagine history to be an objective analysis of the past. But the truth is, our stories about who we are, and who we were, are grounded within a Western frame of reference.

Stories are made of silences. What the writers of stories—of history—believe to matter becomes the narrative, and what they think doesn’t matter is excluded. Those who construct the story, therefore, exercise tremendous power: the power conferred by academic authority, or by a state or national agenda. In the U.S., our national historical narrative centers around the story of European arrival and westward movement. It tends to include peoples and events that are seen as integral to the preferred story line and to exclude or minimize those who aren’t . What we’ve gained, as most of us know, is an intimate understanding of the lives of Europeans and subsequent Americans who were male, white and wealthy, for the most part. What we’ve lost are the stories of almost everyone else: women, children, poor people, people of color, indigenous peoples. The majority.

Other kinds of stories emerge from the cultures of traditional American Indian communities: stories that show how people came into the world, how to avoid mistakes of all kinds, how to find beauty, how to reciprocate, how to think in balance. These stories are rarely linear: tribal peoples often construct time as cyclical and believe that human beings do not progress but repeat. They imagine themselves in relation to the world around them, not as separated by a man vs. nature dichotomy. In societies with strong oral traditions, people have always valued their orators and storytellers—the keepers of wisdom, faith, and law—those who were careful not to omit what they themselves had been taught by their elders. Within these societies, civic responsibility was embedded and codified in oral narrative, transmitted from one generation to the next.

When Europeans arrived on this continent, they brought their assumptions with them. They named things that already had names, writing over the existing indigenous story, transforming the oral narrative with their “discoveries,” creating categories in which indigenous and enslaved people became “Others.” They called inhabited land “virgin wilderness” and created the Doctrine of Discovery, which justified their claims to land. They interpreted humanity in terms of a dichotomy: civilized vs. barbarian, and they applied the theory of social Darwinism to human evolution. The stories of tribal peoples began to appear in museums of natural history, with dinosaurs, animals, and insects rather than in history museums, with stories of human beings. Another dichotomy delineated the beginning of history as the moment of European arrival, preceded by “pre-history.” Because pre-history has no written narrative, thousands of years of Native presence was minimized. We can think of history in this case as the covering of ancient (oral) texts by writing over them, the burial of historical sites by building on top of them. Call it the Americas.

As a result, the majority of Americans became invisible, and the national narrative was constructed without their perspectives and experiences, or their consent. The notion of objective history created a narrative in passive voice. Words were manipulated, often unconsciously, when applied to people who were considered Other. Words like extinct. Disappeared. Vanished. Anthropological notions about cultural isolation and contact inserted identity markers like authentic and full-blood, suggesting that Native peoples are now not as “real” as they were in the past. Euphemistic language celebrated European accomplishments: discovery, not conquest. Battles, not massacres. Other forms of linguistic manipulation simplified tribal peoples and their lifeways: villages, not towns; gardens, not agriculture; survival skills, not science; legends or myths, but not history. Words like savage. Like lore. Indigenous peoples appeared in past tense: they lived in wigwams, hunted buffalo, wore buckskin…as though all of the indigenous people had died or a Native person in a suit and tie couldn’t be a “real” Indian. The overall effect suggested that some people are naturally superior to others—more civilized, smarter, more successful—and resulted in race-based ideologies from which American society is still reeling today.

If the purpose of social studies is to create civic competence in American students, then we must ask ourselves to what degree we’ve succeeded. Are we educating a public that remains unaware of the experiences of most of the people who populated America’s past? How can we change those stories we think we know, to make them more inclusive, more complete; and what will we lose if we don’t? We can ask ourselves who decides what is momentous and why. Does an imagined national destiny foreshadow the sequence of events? Who invented democracy, free enterprise, cultural pluralism? Did these ideas exist before Europeans arrived, and if so, in what forms? What kinds of American myths do we package for public consumption? Pocahontas, the first Thanksgiving? Who “owns” the story, and who has a stake in its telling? How do sites that interpret our shared history communicate to the public? Was it really a New World? To whom?

The past is not history. It is all of what happened, not some of what some have said happened. For all of us, truth lies not in being faithful to a view of what mattered but in confronting the present as it re-presents the past, and in examining current injustices. If we want a history that is closer to the truth, we need to create and recreate our stories in the present. We must suffuse them with new layers of meaning. We must revise our narratives, inserting absent voices. We must seek words that resist erasure.

Karenne Wood is an enrolled member of the Monacan Indian Nation. She directs Virginia Indian Programs at the VFH and is a PhD candidate and Ford Fellow in anthropology at the University of Virginia, working to revitalize indigenous languages and cultural practices. She has worked at the National Museum of the American Indian as a researcher. Karenne held a four-year gubernatorial appointment as Chair of the Virginia Council on Indians. She is the author of Markings on Earth, which won the North American Native Authors Award for Poetry in 2000. She is the editor of The Virginia Indian Heritage Trail, now in its third edition; and she recently contributed a chapter on Southeastern Indians for National Geographic’s Indian Nations of North America.

You need to be logged in in order to post comments
Please use the log in option at the bottom of this page

4

POST A COMMENT

Comments

laurelseed's picture
Very powerful article and questions. Objective history is paradoxical, to be accurate it should hold multiple points of view respectfully of opposing sides, yet that still creates a dichotomy of sides and events don't really exist as dichotomies. To view life as a dichotomy is deeply ingrained in western culture, it oversimplifies and creates hypocrisy and makes a large number of people easy to manipulate. Agreed. I'm tired of being invisible or an afterthought in American history. As an urban indian I've learned mostly about Arapaho customs from anthropology and specialized history texts, but know little of the other three tribes I have blood of and am not registered with. American history texts should begin with the melange of tribes. How and why we differed explains how we negotiated and were eventually conquered. Native tribes of the Americas were pushed into westward expansion creating strife from the beginning of European settlement. Simultaneously, we had advancements and triumphs from European trade including the golden age of the horse. Native participation determined which European nations would settle and enabled American independence of those settlers from European armies. We wanted modern advancement and had we known our cultural demise was inevitable we naturally would've banded together or chosen differently. Native history isn't separate from American history, they are concurrent. Our motives were equally important as European motives and differed greatly between us. A history amalgamated with all points of view greatly enriches everyone. It would teach tolerance and appreciation of foreign cultures and would make us more concerned with how American politics and business is influencing global markets. It would force even the disinterested reader to evaluate events using content analysis rather than rote learning. Hopefully it would bolster one's ability to re-evaluate preconceived notions to objectively reinforce or subsume ideas. How to change the history which is being presented is the greatest quandary since those who are working to hold the current bias or create bias have great power and a lot of money and are actively working to do so. Also a true history would include other overlooked minorities such as Asian Americans who immigrated before many Europeans but who are still not embraced as long-standing nor are given credit for 'building America' the way other immigrants are. A true history would threaten the view that Mexicans shouldn't be allowed to immigrate, in some cases to lands which they once occupied and culture who they've influenced. Mostly it would create conundrums of popular ideals and almost everyone's known history. America is predominantly an accusatory culture where self-assessment is threatening, and true histories aren't always nice. Even so, I still agree with you, Nosce te ipsum...know thyself.
laurelseed
susmac's picture
Imagine how much more students would know and understand if they learned about the history of not just this continent, but the world, through the eyes and voices of ALL those who have inhabited a place-- not just the eyes and voices of the victors. Euro-centric history coupled with public education that fails to foster critical thinking or a love of learning in general means that even though a more complete history is available, few students will seek it out on their own. And then add to this mix, fifty states and countless school districts who make decisions about what will and will not be taught largely based on the worldview with which they are already comfortable.
susmac
notnek's picture
Thank you Ms. Wood. Your story not only is timely, it should be used in cultural studies. It is more than obvious that the actual truth of our past continues to be hidden. That fact is something the subscribers to the Doctrine of Discovery want keep hidden, pretending to have the moral high ground in all things. Editing text books in our nations schools and omitting science and actual history is a national disgrace. The depth of your thoughts in this piece are truly thought provoking. Hopefully this will give incentive to some to pursue Indian schools and families to give life to stories that need to be remembered. Salute
notnek
Anonymous's picture
Karenne Wood, thank you.
Anonymous