3 ms·

I think what the author is saying is that the history taught in schools and colleges should not omit the part about the how the lands were acquired from the nat

I think what the author is saying is that the history taught in schools and colleges should not omit the part about the how the lands were acquired from the native americans.

kghose 12y ago
And the OPs point is that we should not stop there either, because it is an arbitrary point in history. Also, as the number of immigrants increase in US schools, White guilt and other forms of self flagellation lessens. If you are not European, and your parent immigrated you have less of a complex about where the land came from, and are less likely to want to carry some burden foisted on you by some one with a funny political agenda. It's interesting to me how we finally got rid of Original Sin, but now have replaced this with other, atheistic forms of this, like trying to make our children feel guilty about Native Americans and Slavery. I personally think this is the best way to increase tensions.
- king_jester 12y ago
  > It's interesting to me how we finally got rid of Original Sin, but now have replaced this with other, atheistic forms of this, like trying to make our children feel guilty about Native Americans and Slavery. I personally think this is the best way to increase tensions. Time and time again people like to derail important discussions about the nature of Native American genocide and slavery by claiming this. Acknowledging this history is not about making people feel guilty, it is about understanding how those people are treated today and how their treatment is an extension of this history. The nature of racism and its history and legacy should not be trumped because it makes someone somewhere feel bad. The best way to increase tensions is to ignore the past and continue to let that past influence how people are treated in the present, both socially and politically.
- trextrex 12y ago
  Yes. Ideally history taught in schools should present all sides in an unbiased manner without leaving parts out and go all the way to the present. But it happens all too often that parts of history are left out because of political agendas, ignorance, or lack of data. My understanding of the article is that the auther is pointing out one part of history that is consistently not taught (but should be).
  - happyscrappy 12y ago
    They should also teach that Native Americans owned Negro slaves, but that doesn't fit the narrative.
    - rmxt 12y ago
      I don't think that a few sentences can do a complicated topic justice, but it would folly to point out what you are saying without also acknowledging that Europeans are indeed the people that brought that specific form of slavery to Native Americans. No Europeans, no Native American ownership of Africans, but I agree that a holistic view of Native American culture should be presented in textbooks, etc.
    - benbreen 12y ago
      Claudio Saunt, the historian who wrote the Aeon article above, is quite literally a leading expert on this exact topic (see his book "Black, White and Indian" with Oxford University Press).
- arethuza 12y ago
  Well, one possible perspective is that during a lot of the 20th century the US held itself to be morally superior to the "colonial" powers as they didn't have an empire. However, the US - like Russia, didn't colonize other "nations" it appears to have mostly completely supplanted them in the areas it grew into. Of course, this is only of historical interest, but as a wise man once wrote: "Who controls the past controls the future".
  - cygwin98 12y ago
    The Philippines?
    - arethuza 12y ago
      I should perhaps have said "likes to think it didn't colonize other nations".
  - userulluipeste 12y ago
    In US the government sold land that it didn't own to armed civilians and then sent its armies to help with negotiation and settling things. Russia occupied Siberia by sending explorers and then government officials to siberian chieftains requiring submission under Russian tsarists crown by threatening them with military invasion. Then it was not uncommon in Russia for various ethnic populations to be moved (willingly or not) from one place to another in order to accomplish some political agenda. So neither US nor Russia have not "grew into" just like that.
- mercurial 12y ago
  Children (and adults) should, as much as possible, get the entire picture. Even if it means acknowledging that, yes, the former national narrative of the brave conquest of the West by proud white immigrants is less than accurate.
- jasonisalive 12y ago
  Sorry, this article is about taking responsibility. Criticising the tribal struggles of the people you dispossessed, exterminated and then wrote out of history, as if there's some sort of moral equivalence in play here, that's the worst form of evading responsibility. White people had the choice to steal land and dispossess, they chose to do it. White people had the choice to buy land that had been stolen and ignore its provencance, they chose to do that. White people should deal with their crimes. And as far as more modern immigrants? Sorry, people knowingly chose to immigrate to a land which has been stolen. Again, there's a choice to do the right thing or not, and people are choosing to do the wrong thing. People should take responsibility, full stop. The history and deeds of the native tribes of America have nothing, absolutely nothing to do with the current invading population. No non-native American has the moral right to even allude to it, let alone point fingers and try and force moral equivocations. It's the worst form of hypocrisy.

I think what the author is saying is that the history taught in schools and colleges should not omit the part about the how the lands were acquired from the native americans.

kghose 12y ago

And the OPs point is that we should not stop there either, because it is an arbitrary point in history. Also, as the number of immigrants increase in US schools, White guilt and other forms of self flagellation lessens. If you are not European, and your parent immigrated you have less of a complex about where the land came from, and are less likely to want to carry some burden foisted on you by some one with a funny political agenda. It's interesting to me how we finally got rid of Original Sin, but now have replaced this with other, atheistic forms of this, like trying to make our children feel guilty about Native Americans and Slavery. I personally think this is the best way to increase tensions.

king_jester 12y ago
> It's interesting to me how we finally got rid of Original Sin, but now have replaced this with other, atheistic forms of this, like trying to make our children feel guilty about Native Americans and Slavery. I personally think this is the best way to increase tensions. Time and time again people like to derail important discussions about the nature of Native American genocide and slavery by claiming this. Acknowledging this history is not about making people feel guilty, it is about understanding how those people are treated today and how their treatment is an extension of this history. The nature of racism and its history and legacy should not be trumped because it makes someone somewhere feel bad. The best way to increase tensions is to ignore the past and continue to let that past influence how people are treated in the present, both socially and politically.
trextrex 12y ago
Yes. Ideally history taught in schools should present all sides in an unbiased manner without leaving parts out and go all the way to the present. But it happens all too often that parts of history are left out because of political agendas, ignorance, or lack of data. My understanding of the article is that the auther is pointing out one part of history that is consistently not taught (but should be).
- happyscrappy 12y ago
  They should also teach that Native Americans owned Negro slaves, but that doesn't fit the narrative.
  - rmxt 12y ago
    I don't think that a few sentences can do a complicated topic justice, but it would folly to point out what you are saying without also acknowledging that Europeans are indeed the people that brought that specific form of slavery to Native Americans. No Europeans, no Native American ownership of Africans, but I agree that a holistic view of Native American culture should be presented in textbooks, etc.
  - benbreen 12y ago
    Claudio Saunt, the historian who wrote the Aeon article above, is quite literally a leading expert on this exact topic (see his book "Black, White and Indian" with Oxford University Press).
arethuza 12y ago
Well, one possible perspective is that during a lot of the 20th century the US held itself to be morally superior to the "colonial" powers as they didn't have an empire. However, the US - like Russia, didn't colonize other "nations" it appears to have mostly completely supplanted them in the areas it grew into. Of course, this is only of historical interest, but as a wise man once wrote: "Who controls the past controls the future".
- cygwin98 12y ago
  The Philippines?
  - arethuza 12y ago
    I should perhaps have said "likes to think it didn't colonize other nations".
- userulluipeste 12y ago
  In US the government sold land that it didn't own to armed civilians and then sent its armies to help with negotiation and settling things. Russia occupied Siberia by sending explorers and then government officials to siberian chieftains requiring submission under Russian tsarists crown by threatening them with military invasion. Then it was not uncommon in Russia for various ethnic populations to be moved (willingly or not) from one place to another in order to accomplish some political agenda. So neither US nor Russia have not "grew into" just like that.
mercurial 12y ago
Children (and adults) should, as much as possible, get the entire picture. Even if it means acknowledging that, yes, the former national narrative of the brave conquest of the West by proud white immigrants is less than accurate.
jasonisalive 12y ago
Sorry, this article is about taking responsibility. Criticising the tribal struggles of the people you dispossessed, exterminated and then wrote out of history, as if there's some sort of moral equivalence in play here, that's the worst form of evading responsibility. White people had the choice to steal land and dispossess, they chose to do it. White people had the choice to buy land that had been stolen and ignore its provencance, they chose to do that. White people should deal with their crimes. And as far as more modern immigrants? Sorry, people knowingly chose to immigrate to a land which has been stolen. Again, there's a choice to do the right thing or not, and people are choosing to do the wrong thing. People should take responsibility, full stop. The history and deeds of the native tribes of America have nothing, absolutely nothing to do with the current invading population. No non-native American has the moral right to even allude to it, let alone point fingers and try and force moral equivocations. It's the worst form of hypocrisy.