An Indigenous Peoples' History of the United States (ReVisioning American History)

Very detailed, fact oriented accusatory book. Shows only how misinforming and truth bending government is. Indigenous people were mistreated, exterminated and perhaps still being misunderstood. Was it inevitable? In a way, it was due to greed, ideology and cruelty. It shouldn't have happened though. My best respect to author!

"Homeland Security: Fighting Terrorism since 1492" This was the caption on a "tee shirt" I purchased in Lake Tahoe in 2007. It aptly summarizes this book. In bold and defiantly certain strokes, the author paints an unsubtle picture of what confronted Native Americans when the English settler-colonists arrived here more than a century after Columbus landed in the Caribbean. [And for the record, Columbus never once set foot on the land he was supposed to have discovered.]

Professor Dunbar-Ortiz leaves the finesse and nuances to future historians. Her's is a brutal straight ahead approach to history: She marshals the facts, most of which we have seen before in other sources, and makes the only sensible unbiased interpretations that can be made from them. And what they say, does not square with the tidy "patriotic myth-making history" that makes heroes out of the founders of this country.

The Erasure of Violence as a form of Nation-building

Dr. Dunbar-Otrtiz paints a vivid, gory and often a very disturbing alternative picture of the founding of this nation. She fashions her own indigenous interpretation of all the facts that we have seen elsewhere, but that are embedded within an entirely different more heroic context. What results here is a passionate, well-researched, robust and convincing alternative rendition of America's founding myths, one that strips away the false heroism of our founding generation, and thus one that stands in stark contrast and relief to the often suspect and always less than convincing orthodox version of our founding national story.

Whatever the reader may think about the orthodox version of American history, this rendition will prove to be interesting, enlightening and thought-provoking. One reason this is so is because the author's story is more complete, more congruent with the known facts, and her logic is more consistent with the geopolitical context of the times than is the orthodox story.

Another reason is that this research converges neatly with, and cross-confirms, other narratives that challenge the canonical interpretation -- narratives like that of Professor Gerald Horne's of the University of Houston, in his excellent recent book "The Counter Revolution of 1776."

As this author notes with uncanny astuteness, it is not that the facts are always wrong in the orthodox version, but the very essence of the truth, that is. And without saying so, the proper context also is always missing.

Summarized in broad strokes, Dunbar-Ortiz claims that it was not small groups of poor, hardy, adventuresome and pious people, fleeing from lack of religious freedoms that had randomly stumbled upon the shores of the North American continent (as the orthodox version of American History teaches us). Instead, according to her, it was members of the landed gentry of England who came here --at least on the first few ships -- with the same "top-down" destructive plan for colonial exploitation and conquest that they had already perfected on the Irish in the UK, and that Spain and Portugal had used with mixed success in the "New World" for nearly a century before the English arrived.

An essential part of this "top-down" -- rather than "bottom-up" -- plan was to lure and snare as many "wayward" and "down-and-out" poor as possible from the streets of London and other European cities onto a ship bound for America. They set their traps by promising them adventure, fame, wealth and land in the New World. However, now that we know the rest of the story, we know that the real purpose of this "street-wise urban recruitment program" was to use these "down-and-outs" as slaves to do all of the manual labor needed for the landed gentry to colonize the new continent -- while the landed gentry continued sipping their tea.

Somehow, our American history books failed to mention that the ships were chartered by ruling cliques of the landed gentry? Or, that these colonial settlers came armed with a plan that they had xeroxed from the "Spanish and Portuguese colonial playbook?" It was a diabolical plan of "white men gone wild" (appropriately, in New York, they call this "wilding"): that is to say, it was a plan that involved wanton killing of millions of peoples of native nations, stealing their lands and then exploiting and raping it for fun and profit. In normal International Politics, we do not call this process discovery, but the conquering of indigenous peoples and taking their lands by force.

Thus, the rest of the "top-down" plan was no secret. What had to be, and what was in fact done over the next three centuries, was spelled out in excruciating details in the plan: The English settler-colonists were sent to North America to mimic Spanish and Portuguese colonialism by taking over the continent from the indigenous people by any means necessary. Full stop. End of the story of the founding of North America.

Arming the reader with this valuable bit of information about the ulterior motives of our founders, serves like a new over-arching meta-theory for unravelling and understanding everything else that occurred on the continent for the next three hundred years.

The cute patriotic notion hatched after the fact -- that exploration to North America was a "bottom-up" affair, self-instigated by a group of poor but hardy adventuresome and pious people, seeking more religious freedom, now must give way to Dunbar-Ortiz's much more robust claim that the plan, from the very beginning, was little more than a belated "run at colonialism" following in Spain's and Portugal's bloody "top-down" footsteps. Like their predecessors, Britain too sent royal bureaucrats as an integral part of the contingent on their ships. This included land surveyors, tax accountants, and a religious contingent from the newly formed Church of England.

Only this time, the English settlers would execute the plan of taking over the continent by force to perfection: They would take no prisoners, leave no fingerprints at the crime scene and lie forever to the judges of history about what had actually happened? Their theory of the crimes against Native Americans, our orthodox American history, does not pass the laugh test.

When all of the ugliness is tidied-up, forensic evidence removed. When everything is put in a neat package with a red, white and blue bow ribbon tied around it, the slavery, violence, wanton killing of upwards of 10 million people, and ten times as many Buffalos in less than two decades. When all of this mayhem has been sanitized well enough to turn it into a Williamsburg theme Park, and into canned patriotic cant from Mr. Obama, only then does it qualify as socially acceptable (but inauthentic) American History.

Dr. Dunbar-Ortiz's meta-theoretical rendition of the motives of the founding of the American Republic has the logic of the geopolitical competition (the search for more wealth, more virgin lands and new markets) build into it. (No one came here to install democracy and expand freedom for all people?) As well, her meta-theory underscores the overriding imperative that England had: It was behind in the "colonizing racket" and had to catch up. What better way to do so than by using as a template the century of colonial exploitation laid out by Spain and Portugal.

The author makes it clear here that, except for minor innovations, the English settler-colonists followed the Spanish/Portuguse template almost to the letter.

And for three hundred years blood, state-sanctioned murder and mayhem poured forth from the land. However, for any Historians (or anyone else) who cared to look, the blood-letting had an unmistakeable Machiavellian rhythm to it, one that betrayed the clear existence of a plan that had been carefully vetted and was now being just as carefully, executed. The execution of the plan involved the kind of strategic violence that adapted and evolved, became more efficient and brutal and unforgiving as the settler-colonists got stronger and as the Indians got weaker.

The cynical cyclic rhythm of the violence began only after the settlers became strong enough to make threats to local Indians that would stick. Invariably they amounted to little more than extortion demands: "give us provisions from your food stocks on a continuous basis; hand over your cultivated lands and animals, and make your labor available to us for free, or else?"

The inevitable Indian refusals to state-sanctioned extortion, resulted in settler raids on Indian camps, raids that rarely discriminated between men, women and children, raids that involved burning camps, crops, killing and scattering animals, and always moving the Indians further back into the forrest and always further West.

No matter how weak, Indian honor and yearning to maintain even a vestige of their cultural existence alone guaranteed a reprisal to these white extortion attacks.

However, once the Indian reprisals came, the settlers re-framed the reprisals as if they had been the initial triggering event? And thus these Indian reprisals were met with an even more voracious and brutal settler counterattacks, ones in which they doubled-down on the violence and brutality, and now included scalping, rape and taking women and children as hostages -- obviously to be used as bargaining chips in the inevitable negotiations, which in truth were little more than asymmetric surrender terms for the weaker Indians.

The perfidy and dishonesty of settler negotiations with Indians is already a part of both American history and legend, and little else needs to be said about them here except to add that they too were a part of the original plan. False offers of peace, was an important of the foreground to hide the unimaginable crimes killing and suffering by Indians occurring in the background.

So too were divide and conquer strategies a part of the original plan. The settlers were masters at pitting Indians against each other by offering monetary as well as symbolic rewards for supporting settler causes, including instigating internecine wars against other tribes. A third stratagem was of course the old standby of racism, divide the poor whites against themselves, the Indians against themselves and blacks against themselves, and the landed gentry against them all, and there was no way the landowning white males could lose.

The fourth part of the plan that evolved once it was recognized that whites were actually bringing diseases to the continent that killed Indians in very large numbers, was to then wantonly spread small pox and influenza among the tribes by giving them infected articles and infecting their water supplies, killing off their food sources, etc.

This was the basic rhythm of the so-called "Indians wars" that raged across the land for the better parts of three centuries with the only variation being, that, as the settlers got stronger, they added new more gruesome innovations to their tactics: such as adding rangers made up whites with Indian scouts from rival tribes who served as mercenaries against their own people. Together, they carried out preemptive "seek-and-destroy" missions.

If killing Indians was a crime, then why were all the Indian fighters turned into heroes?

Since the most notorious "Indian fighters" were all eventually made into American heroes, that is became, Presidents, Generals popular legends, or other high governmental officials, it made it a bit difficult for American Historians to claim that the founding generation was innocence of the kind of crimes, that (to use Frederick Douglass' words) "would disgrace a nation of savages?"

And indeed had there been a United Nations Convention against a whole host of crimes such as genocide, use of germ warfare, the wanton killing of non-combatants, including women and children, or against the wholesale slaughter of 50 million buffaloes, the crimes of our forefathers would be etched in history as one of the most brutal of all times. Yet, nothing is more American than to live peacefully in racist denial. Ten Stars

This book is a "non-official" history of the birth of this great nation that people from this nation should read asap! The only difficult reading in this book is the names of people and places (native names), everything else is very easy to read and understand.

An important, tragic book that needs to be widely read. The genocide and oppression of the Native American population is a tough subject. Bearing in mind that it is such a tough subject to tackle, it is a very dry book. If a revision could be done with a more engaging style or perhaps a few photos, it could reach a wider audience.

Powerful depiction of how US national expansion savaged the indigenous population and negated their important cultures. Maps and charts would be helpful in future editions as would illustrations of key individuals and artifacts.

A book that should be required reading by all Federal and State Representatives and Senators and taught in all schools. It is to Aboriginal Affairs what Howard Zinn's similarly titled book is to working class Americans. Written using documents readily available it documents the Doctrine of Discovery which was seen as justifying the seizure of lands in the Americas by European colonial powers. It turns America's sacred mission to fulfil its manifest destiny of occupying the continent from Sea to Sea on its head. America was founded and expanded using a policy of extermination and assimilation of the resident aboriginal population that mirrors the Israelite's occupation of Palestine.

This is not easy reading. It sees the patriotic myths that underlie American jingoism as a cult of genocide and theft. Histories are typically written by the victors, this one was written on behalf of the victims.

Great book, sobering story. America ( specifically those of European ancestry) must acknowledge, reconcile and amend the many injustices to peoples of color. Up to and including, correction of historic narratives, the false characterization of American presidents (during this time) as heroes, and other intentionally misleading folklore.

The reviewers above point out the book's academic and intellectual strengths, which are towering. I just want to add that it's very readable. And it's not very long. Absolutely crucial for activists in all kinds of movements.

I promise to update this initial review when I finish reading the book (I'm only up to p. 69). But my first impressions are that ignoring contrary evidence (i.e., "cherry-picking") and historical context in favor of a narrow ideological interpretation is polemicist presentism, not history

This begs the question, have you read a better book on American Indian history? My answer is yes: First Peoples:A Documentary Survey of American Indian History by Colin G. Calloway (now in its 5th edition).

While I found this book to be informative, and extremely interesting, it is not a comprehensive history, and many of the resources cited are secondary and tertiery resources-but to have all of this information pertaining to Anglo-Indigenous relations throughout our country's history in one volume makes for an eye-opening lesson. That said, An Indigenous Peoples' History of the United States forces one to view our country's treatment of the indigenous in a more sobering light, minus the patriotic, "White Man's Burden" mindset that encompasses so much of our history written by Nationalists, or apologist historians.

Read the full review in the Thugbrarian Review @ http://wp.me/p4pAFB-oo

I met with Dunbar-Ortiz at a book signing in Berkeley, I spoke with her and she signed the copy I bought. An Indigenous Peoples History of the United States is filled with good and rich information, from cover to cover. She sets the stage by writing about the growth of class and race issues in Europe, especially in England and Spain. After denying the lower classes, such as enclosing the commons in England, and the conquest of the of the Scottish, Welsh and especially the Irish in England, and the cruelty of the Crusades in both old countries, and after the conquest expulsion of the Moors and the Jews and the binding of the blood (Sangre) to try to win the lower classes in Spain, the upper classes in both counties made promises of land to the common people in the New World in both countries. Their victim of conquest in the New World became the Natives, from the beginning. They were colonist-settlers. The colonists made claim of the right of conquest and annihilation from the beginning. Slavery began with the natives and was later adopted to Blacks imported from Africa. So White Racism developed from the beginning, by the time of the Declaration of Independence, equality was window dressing at best. The natives and the slaves were both to be inferior beings. The natives, inferior in every way including in religion were to be displaced and annihilated. This continued well into the 20th Century. After taking everything they could possibly take from them, including their languages, their sovereign land, their way of life and all connection between parents and children (through the Christian administered boarding schools. The Indian Removal Act its leader and great dispossessor of native peoples lands and great hero (Andrew Jackson) became President). Actually, right from the beginning and colonists in Virginia and New England, and very much so during the Revolutionary War The Colonists developed irregular militias and volunteer irregular armed forces. These were the 'rangers', who would go behind 'enemy' lines, often when no war was going on, destroying native villages, destroying native crops and murdering civilian natives of all ages, including babies, and starving people who were not killed. Throughout all of this the colonists claimed that it was the native who were savages and murdered white women and children. The natives ended up with no rights, no standing in any American court and no protection by any foreign Embassy. Indian killers faced no retribution, it was part of the American way of life. Because of the Declaration o0f Independence considered themselves to be the bringers of freedom and justice to those whom they were exterminating or denying most any basic human rights to. I love this book. The American history we learned is filled with misaimed hero worship and lies. It is time for Americans reject the notion of American Exceptionalism, to grow up and support universal human rights. This book is a refreshing antidote to so many terrible things, and having read it I have found out I can go back to almost any [age in this book and be rewarded and refreshed.

Finally, a look at history from the perspective of Native Peoples. This isn't just a history book about Native Peoples, but reads from an authentic place and viewpoint of history through Indigenous eyes. There were facts and perspectives I was already aware of, but as the book progressed, I found that there was much more to the story that has not been told. This was a breath of fresh air. Yet, it doesn't read like a book exclusively for scholars of Native American studies, but could easily serve as a text for young students in high school or to advanced junior-high students.

Dunbar-Ortiz does not shy away from telling about the "settler-colonialism" and deliberate genocide that took place. But neither does she descend into a "rhetoric of race" to emphasize that there were hundreds of nations who were impacted as distinct peoples instead of targeted solely on the basis of a single ethnic group. There are some hints of Marxist critique, in my opinion, but that is simply a tool. The overwhelming perspective is through Native experience. It's clarity and message are sorely needed to serve as a counter-story to the tired, blunted, denialist, overly-patriotic and incomplete history of a distinct, rich, and intelligent people who have not disappeared, but who still exist on this continent among the aliens who invaded and dominated it.

I don't typically give five star ratings, but the importance of this book cannot be overemphasized. It is easily readable, engaging, and accessible to anyone curious about the true history of America through the lens of this continent's original inhabitants.

A good book for those interested in the beginnings of how America was born from the standpoint of the Indigenous People and those that claimed that this land is MY LAND NOW.
Interesting points of view from what can be gathered from both sides.
I consider this book as a reference for history students as well as casual readers of the early Indians and the colonial settlers.

Excellent, detailed, and understandably angry. ... and if you care about "facts," you will be angry, too.

The author applies the terms "genocide," "annihilation," and "extirpation" to what happened, because ... those are the appropriate terms to be used. The author is *obsessed* with facts. Her tie-in of US exterminate-the-natives-and-take-their-land policy (a policy of white colonial settlers had long before the US was a country) with Biblical mythology re: "God giving someone else's land to His People" reflects what US American Exceptionalists thought and is how her book begins.

it is a difficult book to read, but only because the facts within it are so horrific.

Under the guise of writing a history of America’s indigenous peoples, Ortiz presents a drumbeat of everything that could ever have been wrong about European explorers and settlers and even the US today. She gratuitously throws in little gems such as how terrible the US economic system is (presenting no evidence or relevance to her story) or how the US has repeatedly invaded other countries not to save them but to take them over (citing no examples). She criticizes the white, Christian Spanish for rudely removing the Moors in the 15th century, without mentioning their rude invasions of Spain and North Africa in the first place. (I am sure that she would not have objected to the removal of the Europeans by the Native Americans by any possible means.) She is on firmer ground when discussing the treatment of Native Americans by the Europeans, but even there her repetitions become tiresome. She entirely misses the larger story of how so many peoples have migrated and fought each other for territory over the millennia, including the indigenous peoples amongst themselves.

Nothing new here that is not widely available in standard texts. The author's spin is understandable given her bitterness toward the USA. I was surprised by her rejection of the current, widely held, theory that European conquest was possible because of the prior devastation caused by the importation of communicable diseases (likely because Europeans could not be responsible for bringing diseases, the causes of which were not determined until centuries later.) I was somewhat disappointed by her description of a Precolumbian American utopia similar to that described in the book 1491 that came out a few years ago.

You would be much, much better off reading Steve Inskeep's recent and much more focused "Jacksonland" (Penguin) than this book. It is more insightful, more balanced, more accurate, and more effective. (And only in Dunbar-Ortiz have I ever heard that the Cherokees migrated NORTH from Mexico--quite unlikely since their language is Iroquoian--i.e, predominantly found in the Eastern Great Lakes area! I grew up believing I was part Cherokee so take a special interest in their history.)

I have been sympathetic to the Native Americans all my life--but after living overseas for many years in four foreign countries, I am far less romantic and far more aware of how hard it is to understand deeply different cultures, for example, in East Asia where I lived for over decade. It can take far more patience, endurance, and resources than most people have to truly understand an unrelated culture, and all the more so 200-500 years ago even assuming good will (a very big assumption) with no dictionaries, not common reference frames, including no common conception of property or law, no anthropologists to explain things, no understanding of disease, etc, etc.

In other words, Not all tragedies have arch-villains; some are the result of rather normal people encountering other rather normal people from a radically different culture under very abnormal conditions. Let's not ask our ancestors to have god-like qualities they could not possibly have had. Let's focus on what we can do today, ourselves, to try to understand others. It is far from easy--just look at the divorce rate!

This is an academically and morally brilliant book that should be required reading in high schools across the country. As a history of settler-colonialism in the US, it makes a clear connection between that tragic history and the jingoistic roots of current US foreign policy. A short book with rigorous documentation, it's not bogged down in excessive quotes and is extremely readable.

I wanted a history book. I realize what happened was horrible, but the author can’t contain her political views. Even referencing Iraq and Afghanistan in the era of 1800. A total liberal stand against anything the us had ever done militarily. Not a history book. A liberal tale.

I am highly disappointed in the quality of this book. I wanted to know about the indigenous peoples of early America. I would have liked to learn about their customs and their civilization. I sense from other inquiry that they were well organized and productive. I also understand that they were willing to help the early colonizers. I understand that the indigenous population was treated abominably, because of greed and power by those who wielded a gun. I knew all of these things. What I wanted was a picture of life as it was. This book was filled with hate and a vengeful attitude. I couldn’t get through the entire book. I feel that Ms. Dunbar-Ortiz gave a poor view of the people that she tried to portray.

Dunbar-Ortiz.
Like the hyphenated last name suggests, this book represents disdain for a culture which has improved more lives than any or perhaps all before it combined. To include ours! If you are required to read this or are curious enough to continue in this purchase, be sure to read the Author’s Note. In this book, she has made her personal experience paramount into understanding the perspective for which the story is told. It is an interesting delve into cognitive dissonance. Are you a Psych major?
Contrary to her framing, the ‘Sioux Nation’ was comprised of multiple tribes. In fact, many of The Plains Indians were. So were the Eastern coast nations. This is why treaties were so difficult between the colonies from different countries which grew with immigrants of yet more countries who were trying to make peace with nations who traded with them as the major opportunity of the time. This is lost on the author. Also, he also thinks Western history started in the 1200s (left to assume she means 1288), and she claims peasants (serfs) lost their property rights when the new system began. (Not at all correct. They were part of the land which the Duke owned and they were very much like slaves who had quotas that left unfilled would bring extreme punishment.) The Magna Carta was the beginning of everything good. It has a direct positive influence on the improvement of Native Americans and everyone living in a free society.
How can this D-O on one hand, chastise Europeans for slavery but through the book constantly praise Islam? (Answer: It fits an agenda)
Bill Ayers gives it a big black fist high in the sky. And why wouldn’t he? She carries the same poison he wishes to dole out. (Look for the names. This is whom she aligns with. Do you want propaganda or facts? She offers mostly the prior.)
Other book suggested A Queer History of the United States -and- A Disability History of the United States. To understand this dysfunction you have to except that History actually changes depending on who you are! Isn’t that preposterous? I perpetual juxtaposition of power based on ‘who gots and who wants’. “I’m a victim”. Keep giving and I’ll tell you when to stop.
Critic’s Notes:
My ancestry sounds very similar to hers. Native American. (Also what she calls Irish-Scots but it’s not uncommon in our part of the country.) I, however, will not consider myself a victim. Not only did I grow up mostly in Missouri but I too moved to California. Although, nobody educated me in the art of victimization. My family story won’t be the model of an ethnic Disney movie either but to scorn western culture because of personal shame…I won’t defame myself or our history that way. Yes, OUR history. Pretending every person gets their own version of history is akin to saying we all get our own set of facts. You can have an opinion. You can have feelings. When you put those in a book, that doesn’t make it History!
Native American culture has a lot to share if you learn from real historians. This socialist coup of everything-not-western-culture is the most toxic thing probably to have infected humanity due to the sheer numbers involved. Consider that 80% of all humanity that has ever existed did so in the last two centuries. Then look at how many of those died from revolutions, wars or genocides related to socialism. These are the people who want to revise history and weaponize your ignorance against your own best interests.
When they tell you Indians were cheated out of Manhattan for $24 of beads. Look deeper. The grievance isn't the full story and it's certainly not the education. Had you invested that $24 in 1624 it would be worth billions today. No story can be as facinating as the truth.

An unfortunately shallow presentation of the covenant theology and religious roots of Western and American history, painting the world as a over-simplified duel between the forces of darkness (European settlers) and the victimized forces of light (the indigenous Americans). Covenant theology was tragically flawed, and it had tragic consequences, which we should not hesitate to understand, but a total dismissal of a complex and highly contested tradition does little to help us understand the roots of our situation and what ethical resources we might draw upon to make whatever reparations may be possible, and what redemptive reconciliation we might yet achieve.

I read this book for a university history class I was taking, as it was on the class syllabus for textbooks and texts to be used in the class.

The book is completely biased, revisionist history, and the author whines and wines about people of colour, and there are tons of inaccuracies in it.

Now if you are like me and your university professor makes you read the dreadful ramblings/rant of Dunbar-Ortiz just parrot back the information in the book to get an excellent mark. That's what I did. FYI, I am a moderate and and pretty apolitical at times and even I found the book to be insufferable.

the author wrote that Custer was promoted to General after he was killed. With shoddy research like that, I'll skip it. Just based on that, I am confident that errors abound. And this book won an award! Wow.

Liberal, politically correct bias page after page causes more distraction than information. If you believe this slop the Navaho created the Grand Canyon and the Apache built the interstate highway system. It's history, not made better by modern social mores, just history. I had a hard time finishing this book. I think Al Gore co-wrote this monograph. Not a good history book.

A long anti-USA editorial in the disguise of history. Worth reading for the history, if you can stomach the commentary. The author sees fit to still live here, which is understandable. Why dump a culture that makes your life better?

I have not finished this book but I try to keep an open mind. I seriously question the author's representations of what she cites as facts. She writes like she has a chip on her shoulder. It appears she thinks the entire North American history is the result of an genocide mentality. While I can understand some of that given her stated heritage, at this point I do not recommend this book. While I intend to read the entire book, I hope that the author's attitude looses its apparent biased extreme attitude (to me).

You have to be ignorant of Native American History to give this horribly biased book more than 1-2 stars! Trust Ethnohistory SCHOLARS without an ax to grind, not American Indian activists with "an agenda"!

Ugh. So disappointed. Wanted a solid history of native Americans. Instead got 300 pages of cry-me-a-river. History shouldn't be written in the context of "good" and "bad". It is what it is. Let the reader form their own opinion on the morality.

This is not a history book - it is and opinion piece. It discusses atrocities against the native Americans in a un-scholarly, slanted and inflammatory way. If our old-time history books may have been wrong to under state the war on Indians. This book goes way in the other direction. Two wrongs don't make a right.

Stay away unless you want to read a way left hate book.

All too willing are you to buy into this theory? You cannot project present day mores onto things that may have happened hundreds of years ago. There is no exceptionalism here, just the same, lame excuse of "why" we find a reason to fail.
If you wanted to stick to real history then skewer Andy Jackson for the Trail of Tears not James Fenimore Cooper.
Now, which group of people drove the most Native Americans away from their homes? Other native Americans. I am a native American and hold a PhD in history. Ever wonder why there were no Beethovens, no Robert Fultons, no Da Vincis? Not even the wheel. The wheel?
But if we rename the Custer Battlefield this is a step in the right direction? It does not change what happened. We as a nation keep looking for reasons to fail, and by God, I tell you we indeed will lose the greatest country in the history of the world. We are ALL members of the greatest country on Earth. Ever. All of us.. Find reasons to show us how we are all members despite adversities, not victims.

A shamefully superficial outline of an important and timely subject. Personal propaganda wins out over enlightenment. Very disappointing piece of fluff that stands as an insult to Howard Zinn, whose remarkable book The Peoples History of the United States, inspired this insipid entry in a series that exploits the memory of a great scholar. This is below the level of the cut and paste jobs that pay 1/4 cent a word to bloggers.

As soon as you give away all your wealth and your home and donate them to indigenous people, I will start to feel sorry for them. Oh and by the way, did the indigenous people kill off all the neanderthal people ?? Would they have ??