Notes Over Chapter Four

* Contrast between near-naked Native Americans and fully clothed Europeans is

commonly shown; not fully true; just an easy way to show the difference between

“‘primitive’ (American Indian) and ‘civilized’ (Europeans)” (p. 94)

* “Some scientists believe that the original settlers came in successive waves over

thousands of years; genetic similarities convince others that most Natives descended from

a single small band.” (p. 96)

* “Absence of evidence is not evidence of absence.” (p. 97)

* “How could humans confront the vastness of Canada – itself larger than Australia – and

not know they were exploring a large land mass? (p. 97)” – It’s not known if the early

peoples really knew what they were about to see or not. Overtime, authors have pretty

much put words into these ancient people’s mouths since there aren’t really any records

of what happened. The people may not have been the most intelligent but they probably

had an idea of what they were looking at.

* Textbooks generally only compare rural American and urban Europe when discussing

primitive vs. civilized (p. 100)

* Tenochtitlan being compared to rural Scotland would produce an entirely different

outlook on which societies were primitive and which were civilized (p. 100)

* So many Pawnee Indians were sold to whites that “pawnee” became the term for any

slave, regardless of ethnicity (American Indian or African) (p. 104)

* cultural imperialism – Puritans controlled Indians, built “Praying Towns” to enforce

Christianity as the only religion that was right (p. 105)

* John Sutter – formed Indian army with the permission of the Mexican authorities; had
Russian uniforms and commanded in German (p. 107)

* Multicultural, interracial ways of the American frontier are often left out of textbooks

(p. 107)

* Some Natives chose to always live among whites from earliest times; this “migration”

goes both ways, “No European who has tasted Savage Life can afterwards bear to live in

our societies.” – Ben Franklin (p. 107)

* “What did whites find so alluring?” – Whites were drawn to the frontier and Native

lands because there weren’t any rules. Most men were free to do as they pleased without

having to face any form of serious punishment. (p. 108)

* “Native American ideas are partly responsible for our democratic institutions.” (p. 108)

* Dutch traditions, English common law and Magna Carta all influenced Plymouth and

New York and eventually American democracy (p. 111)

* “Does the textbook describe the religions, philosophies, and contributions to thought of

the American Indian? (p. 113)” – Textbooks mention some things that Native Americans

did but they never fully give them credit for everything that they did. The stories are kept

short to make Americans appear superior.

* Only 326 pioneers and 426 Native Americans died in all recorded battles between 1840

and 1860 as 250,000 whites and blacks moved across the Plains (p. 116)

* American Indians were generally friendly and helpful towards the settlers; helped with

directions, finding water and food; helped to guide and act as interpreters (p. 116)

* War with American Indians started in 1598 in New Mexico after Acoma pueblo

residents killed thirteen Spanish conquistadors who attempted to conquer their village;

ended in 1890 with Battle at Wounded Knee (p. 117-118)

* Seven Years War, or French and Indian War, was fought between 1754 and 1763 on

North American territory mainly by Native Americans on both sides (p. 118)

* War of 1812 – United States fought five out of seven of the major battles that took

place on land mainly against Native Americans; resulted in Great Britain ending alliances

with American Indian states, United States leaving Canada alone, loss of part of history

from American Indians (p. 123)

* Adolf Hitler had a great knowledge of treatment of American Indians; admired the

concentration camps and the treatment (p. 124-125)

* “Were there alternatives to this history of war? (p. 125)” – There were different options

for settling matters that the Americans could have chosen, but war is the road most

travelled. The Americans could have tried to work with the Indians to settle things rather

than fighting.

* “Peaceful coexistence of whites and Native Americans presents itself as perhaps the

most obvious alternative to war, but was it really possible? (p. 125)? – Although this

would have been a nice solution, it would not have been easy. Many people would not

have liked it and would have been stubborn. Something that would have been simple

would have been made extremely difficult.

* European and African populations grew while Native American populations decreased

du to plagues (p. 126)

* Intermarriage was an easy way to achieve racial coexistence (p. 126)

* Europeans saw Natives as nomads; Natives saw Europeans as nomads (p. 130)

* “How long would we last? (p. 130)” – If there were ridiculous, unlawful rules today,

the country would be amuck. No one would listen to the government’s ludicrous laws, so
everyone would rebel and the nation would be in a state of mass chaos.

* “Indian history is the antidote to the pious ethnocentrism of American exceptionalism,

the notion that European Americans are God’s chosen people.” (p. 134)

Forum Posts

* Explain what is meant by this statement and describe the degree to which it is or is

not a contradictory statement. – I believe what Loewen is trying to say is that as people

grow so do their conflicts. As the boundaries of a notion expand, other people will lose

their homes so there will be conflict. The statement is mildly contradictory but it is

overruled by the sense. For a civilization to grow, another civilization must crumble.

When such an event occurs, there is bound to be quite a bit of conflict, most of which will

get violent.

* Would thinking about history in this way make history more meaningful for you?

Would you be any more intelligent for thinking about the alternatives? Why don’t

textbooks want to touch this? – When discussing history, one must always consider

their own opinion and the opinions of others. When given options as to what one should

believe really happened thousands of years ago, one is bound to feel more intelligent for

being curious and almost deep. However, it just means that he or she has a different way

of looking at things and likes to discover thinks for him or herself. Although, when

considering alternatives and choosing what one believes happened may lead to a deeper

connection and more passion about the subject. People getting too passionate or offended

might be what textbooks are trying to avoid by not including alternatives as to what

happened. Textbook authors seem to just want to pound facts into the heads of students

without leaving room for curiosity or questions.

* To what extent did contact, syncretism, and cultural imperialism de-skill and then

eventually attempt to destroy much of the Native population and culture? – When

the Europeans came to the Americas, they attempted to work together with the Natives.

However, over time, the Europeans, especially the Puritans, dominated the Natives. Due

to the creation of “Praying Towns,” Native Americans were forced to conform to what

the Puritans wanted. This extreme dominance faded overtime but the Natives were still

always seen as below the settlers. Eventually, this difference led to wars and the Natives

losing their land.

* In what ways were native societies attractive to European Americans and African

Americans? – Native societies were attractive because they did not have many rules.

Men were extremely attracted to this because they could generally do as they pleased.

Also, this meant that they could easily dominate the Natives. Ironically, much of what

the Natives did helped to shape American law.

* To what extent is “civilized” or “uncivilized” ethno, white, or Euro-centric? – The

term “uncivilized” was generally applied to the Natives by the Europeans. However, the

roles could be easily reversed. The Europeans and other whites were uncivilized towards

the Natives. They never did anything “properly” and had behavior that was borderline

barbaric. There was not really too much that was civil about that time period.

* What does Loewen believe will happen if we begin looking at the lost alternatives

in American history? How do we go about this? What happens to our national

memory? – Loewen believes that people will question things more and gain a sense of

freedom with their history if the alternatives were to be considered. People would have a

chance to believe what they wanted rather than just listening to what they were told. For
people to gain a better understanding of all the unknowns in history, textbooks would

have to be altered and teachers would have to be more open minded to other ideas. Also,

this process would have to being while students are still young but old enough to think

for themselves. This might make people more interested in their country’s history or feel

more connected to it. The nation’s memory or the thought process might be altered, but

the original thought would always still be there.

Vocabulary

outmoded (p. 98; general) – gone out of style; no longer in fashion

Third Reich (p. 100; historical) – Nazi Germany; common name for Germany during the

time which Adolf Hitler and the Nazis dominated and controlled Germany

extolled (p. 105; general) – praised highly

dissonance (p. 124; general) – disagreement or incongruity

acculturate (p. 128; general) – to assimilate cultural traits of another group

catechism (p. 128; general) – a similar book of instruction in other subjects; catechetical

instruction

jettisoned (p. 133; general) – to throw off (something) as an obstacle or burden; to

discard

Thesis

In this chapter, Loewen focused on recognizing the unrecognized. Many

textbooks just ignore what the Native Americans did to help build society. Loewen

discussed how much they really did to help the settlers survive and to create the nation

that exists today.

Reflection
 After reading this chapter, I see the Native Americans totally differently. Now I

really appreciate what they did for the settlers. History makes them appear as nuisances

but they actually helped to keep everyone alive. It makes me wonder what other people

history has degraded to make them seem as they really weren’t. The Native Americans

have almost gone through a de-heroification process, which is extremely unfortunate.

Once again, history gives credit to the wrong people and makes the good people look

bad.