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.
Tuesday, October 2, 2012 - 14:32