This is MY America!

[xoxoxoBruce]

Originally Posted by Flint

I never said that. Why do I have to keep repeating myself?

I don't see your name in that rhetorical question.

What I think is important is to be honest about our history, not so that we can beat ourselves up about it; but so that we can gain some perspective about the origins of our society, so that we can better understand where we are today.

I agree.

The common belief, whether stated outright or implied, is that Europeans prevailed because they were "superior" to the "savages" - does it serve us to teach a "history" that perpetuates white superiority? Does that benefit us, today, in a multi-cultural society?

Does it serve us to state outright or imply, the Europeans prevailed because they were savages compared to the noble, peace loving, at one with nature, natives?

People being people, the only difference was the Europeans had more reserves and a little better technology.

[Flint]

Originally Posted by jinx

Flint, I gotta say, I'm pretty disappointed with your point.

I'm not going to squabble over semantics. I don't have anything to say about archeology. I won't try to impress you with any fancy links or quotes I Googled to "prove you wrong" ... it doesn't have a thing to do with what I'm talking about here.

If you take a few steps back and look at the big picture, you might see all the meaningful discussions we could have had about the nature and origins of our American culture.

Originally Posted by xoxoxoBruce

I don't see your name in that rhetorical question.
...
Does it serve us to state outright or imply, the Europeans prevailed because they were savages compared to the noble, peace loving, at one with nature, natives?

Am I allowed to respond to that one?

What I've been discussing is a comparison of primary historical sources (what people who were actually there wrote about what was happening at the time of our two cultures meeting) versus the feel-good narrative provided by history textbooks.

In answer to your question: an honest, balanced look at history would serve us best. Today, we don't have that.

[xoxoxoBruce]

You, like anyone, can respond to anything you feel you want to, but why bother to defend yourself against things you weren't accused of?

When you starting adding detail to K-12 history books, where do you stop?
If I was back in school, I'd be mad as hell if I had to read all those primary sources. There was quite enough crap I was expected to remember.

History text books are outlines of the subject. It's sufficient to say Jefferson wrote the constitution without speculating on his inspiration or comparisons to all the other systems in detail, until you're a college history major.

It would be naive to think the people writing those primary sources didn't have bias of their own, or were necessarily aware of parallel events impacting, or being impacted by, what they were witnessing. While they are the best description of the play by play, the effect on history sometimes isn't understood for decades or longer.

[jinx]

Originally Posted by Flint

I'm not going to squabble over semantics. I don't have anything to say about archeology. I won't try to impress you with any fancy links or quotes I Googled to "prove you wrong" ... it doesn't have a thing to do with what I'm talking about here.

So you want to get technical, but not too technical... got it.
I'm sorry Flint, I wasn't trying to fuck up your thread, but it is some facinating shit... I didn't have to google - I've been follwing the Kennewick story for years. I'm pretty sure I've posted about it before too, in reference to McCain's pandering.
And I took my kid's to the PA State museum in Harrisburg a few weeks ago, where they have an exhibit (reconstruction) of the Meadowcroft rock shelter - I've been thinking about it, and how long man has been on this continent ever since.

So anyway, carry on, don't let me stop you from having your meaningful discussion.