When will "American History" be changed to "European American History" since this propaganda teaching has nothing to do with Native American History?

[Anonymous]

[nightdrot]

It is an interesting idea. Our conception of history goes far in shaping our identity and thus defining society. This then why we teach history.

It also why the totalitarians burn books. Erase man's history and he becomes a blank slate upon which the totalitarian can re-shape society in whatever vision the totalitarian chooses. Much bloodshed to follow.

The United States of America is a creedal nation. That is to say, as Lincoln said, "a nation dedicated to a proposition." That is those ideals as articulated in the Declaration of Independence, the Constitution, the Bill of Rights and various other historical documents and experiences. (See also the Rev. Martin Luther King's "person is judged by the content of their character and not the color of their skin.")

Thus "American" history. As history rooted in ideals and principles. To be sure, as with anything shaped by imperfect human beings it has not always adhered to those ideals perfectly or consistently. Sometimes even brutally so and the Civil War was a case where much was blood was shed defining those ideals.

Nevertheless, those ideals were and are the aspiration, and even the contemporary political debate, for all of its' absurdities, is an attempt to move the nation closer to its' ideals.

The suggestion here then is that history, and thus society and thus the nation, should not be defined by its aspirations and its defining creeds, but by its' geographical location and its racial and tribal identities. In effect, the lesson to be taught is that man is the sum of his tribal, and thus ethnic and racial, identity.

What could possibly go wrong with that? Indeed, as two world wars have amply demonstrated, national and ethnic and racial identities hardly conduce to a more just and peaceful world.

Re-define American history by its geographic and ethnic/racial/tribal precursors and in due course you will get a society that will be, as the Native American populations were, riven by tribal factionalism. Indeed, what is striking is the degree to which so-called "woke" politics and "identity politics" has conduced to such social and cultural divisions.

In that connection, if the aim of the question is to define history as taxonomically perfectly as possible, then ought not the question speak of "Native American" history? What happened in North America post-1492 merely being yet another stage in Native American history.

The point being that "American" history is just that. Specifically and concretely. It is NOT "European" history and it is more than "Native American" history. It is something unique and distinctive. The sum of its' parts and then more than the sum of its' parts.

Suffice to add, as much history shows, playing with those words is playing with fire. Re-defining the way the nation teaches history, specifically to satisfy the grievances of a particular group, is playing with fire. It is not apt to end well.

[RolandCuthbert]

Nothing you said makes for much common sense. The point is "American History" for most of us is simply a story about the struggles and challenges of the Europeans who came to these shores and eventually themselves "White" people. And if I want to learn the story of those who were not "White" or even those who eventually became "White", I have to go dig. The funny thing is, unless you and yours outlaw that practice, non-"White" people are always going to go dig and find out that history. Because how can a person find some kind of pride or inspiration from a group they have been told they have nothing in common with.

That's actually kind of weird actually.

[nightdrot]

@RolandCuthbert Not sure I follow you. I have a book collection that my movers said weighed in a two tons - and it included several histories not only of North American natives, but also the Aztecs and Incas and such.

These things are not hard to find - and less so all the time. That is NOT the problem.

The problem is - as one wag once put it - that "Americans travel fast because they travel light." Which is to say that they tend not to dwell on their history.

That is good in the sense that it tends not to produce the kinds of festering grievances that have made European history so interesting. However, it is less positive in that Americans tend not to have a strong sense of who they are and where they come from.

That said, Americans are a people are an amalgam of races, ethnicities and religions bound together by an accepted set of ideals. Again, as Lincoln said, "a nation dedicated to a proposition." Alternatively, "out of many, one."

Certainly you can study only certain aspects of American history. However, take that route and you are apt to find your understanding of that history will be less than the sum of its' parts and you will - as Americans are now - degenerate into a competition among racial, ethnic, religious and other groups.

[RolandCuthbert]

I am not sure what is confusing to you. I am glad you studied what you believe to be the history of the Aztecs, Incas, etc. Good for you.

What about an Indigenous boy or girl growing up with no access to that history via public schools?

And I am not sure why you make the claim it is not hard to find. When you just made the case for not teaching it? I mean, shouldn't this be one thing or the other?

And I don't really care about the phrase. I don't see how it applies to this conversation. If "Americans" don't want to study history, then they shouldn't have to. But if Americans do wish to study history, they should be able to.

One shoe does not fit all.

Your issues with grievances is imagined. We have divisions yesterday and today. And the only way we will get to a point where these divisions are gone is if we find a way to tolerate each other's views of history and culture.

Trying to take people's ability away to discover their past won't help you. It will only exacerbate the divisions you see. I don't know of any group of people who wants to forget their culture or their history for the sake of making nice.

And again, your issues with this "competition" are imagined. I have friends of every ethnic and religious slice imaginable. Their group identity is no threat to me.

[nightdrot]

@RolandCuthbert We make the rule based on the principle, not the exception to the rule. Suffice to say that Americans, as noted, tend not to delve too deeply into their own history. That an indigenous boy or girl follows in that pattern makes them more American than not, frankly. The point being that such information is open to them and it does no service to them to tell them that they are merely part of the whole.

It does not "take away" someone's ability to pursue their own past to define history as i has worked out. To stop at a moment in time and, in effect, yell "Eureka! This is what you are" is simply misleading and may ultimately prove to be unsatisfying.

As far as your last point, we don't disagree, Unless of course the purpose in identifying with one group is not to foster a sense of connectedness to the whole and see how they relate each to the other. Rather the problem is when it becomes a focal point for nursing resentments and grievances.

Anyhow, you argue that I am trying to take people's ability away to discover their past. Not at all. My point rather is to view history in its totality. As far as this question is concerned, it is not at all clear to me that the questioner, in re-defining history, is giving a more accurate and satisfying assessment of it.

[RolandCuthbert]

But that is your opinion. Right? I have been exposed to plenty of European history in grade school, high school, and college. There are were whole continents out there I knew nothing about historically. And I assumed this was just the way it was. It was only until years after college, did I go search and find alternative versions of history and information on parts of the world that I had no information on.

I don't know you you insist that you know what Indigenous boys and girls want to know about their own histories. Maybe you don't. And maybe that is a variable, that each community, or individual should decide on their own.

My nieces and nephews were able to learn foreign languages outside of the standard European set. I never had that opportunity. They learned much more about African-American history than I did. And learned much more about histories from other parts of the globe outside of Europe.

That actually made them much more well-rounded when interacting with other "Americans". And it is something I had to learn. I don't think I would have the friends I have today, if I did not do what I could learn about the ethnic groups, culture, and traditions in and around their specific homelands.

Yeah again the grievances point is totally lost. I have a friend who is half Apache and half Sioux. We have even talked about Buffalo soldiers murdering and killing American Indians on the great plains.

We have been friends for over 20 years. We don't see eye to eye on a lot of things. Especially politics. But to pretend that his fierce loyalty to his history and culture is offensive to me, is kind of ridiculously weird.

[nightdrot]

@RolandCuthbert On your last point, you are bayonetting a straw man. The question was not asking if you ought study the history of certain groups or periods in history. It was asking if the name should be changed to "European American history"

You might answer yes as a subset of American history, but American history and the American people are a distinct thing. A people generally united by adherence to a set of common principles. If you are studying "European" American history, then you are only studying one aspect of that. If you are studying "Native American history" then you are only studying another aspect of American history. Again, recalling that the question addresses the TOTALITY of the study of American history.

To insert into the intellectual argument a distinction that describes only one aspect of American history to the present day is to dilute - not to say even distort - that history. Over generations, suffice to say, that will not lead to intellectually satisfying outcomes.

As to your last point, all to the good. However, one need only look at the history of Europe, or of the Middle East or parts of Asia to see how history has been used to nurse grievances. Indeed, Mein Kempf was an attempt to define history as the competition of the races.

Why should that offend? Well, a world war goes far to explain how that was problematic. We are our history as we define it over time. If America is nothing more than the sum of its parts, in due course over time it will become that. Merely the sum of its parts. That is why history, although it can be taught in different aspects, must be taught as American history.

[RolandCuthbert]

Outside of GaG, there are plenty of people who support a more well-rounded version of American history. But you are right. For those who don't want that, they should be accurate about the version of history they are teaching.

[purplepoppy]

No because America did not exist as a single country pre white colonisation. You can reference what happened in various tribal lands before hand but you can not call it American history.

[TroyDT2]

It won't be. America is, somewhat erroneously, used as a synonym for "United States of America."

[MrTaboo]

Because native Americans didn't have a written language to keep history books. If they did our history books would not put them in such high regard.

[Asker]

Me, being Native American (The Real Americans - not the illegal, euro-colonizing, white trash), I have to say you are 100% wrong. Blame it on your propaganda driven, "fake news" education, Homer.

[MrTaboo]

So what's your tribe? And it's written language?

You spelled conquerors wrong. The native Americans did the same to each other. Conquer and enslave other tribes.

[findacure4wokeness]

@Asker Do you receive a welfare payment with other perks that nobody else gets just for being Native? I'm not American but as a white person I believe my people have carried you ungrateful Natives long enough. You should be thrown out into the wilderness to fend for yourselves.

[joeldalton]

Never. The victors write the history books.

[Anonymous]

I ain't no you-ro-pein. I'm totally American. Knock of the politically correct squid talk.

[abc3643]

Stop with the bullshit.

[NerdInDenial]

Well. the classes are called US History.

[SaoirseS]

Anonymous troll.