Massacre at Wounded Knee
My initial reaction to the wounded knee video was that there was a lot of untold American history being revealed. The mistreatment of the Native Americans was always a topic discussed in primary school. However, the Massacre at Wounded Knee showed the true side of the white man who was afraid of trivial discrepancies. The way Native American men, woman and even children were shot down was, as some might see it, a completely unacceptable "blip" in the founding of America.
The reason many of us never learned about the Massacre at Wounded Knee was because of the information in our history textbooks - most were extremely biased in favor of the winner (usually us). It disgusts me that something like that resides in our country's past and is not common knowledge. The early settlers in America were incredibly disrespectful and the more I learn about the European immigrants, the less I admire them as descendants. Although the Native Americans were probably not always solely the victim, America seems like the bully with demanding lunch money, when the Native Americans did not have it.
The Massacre was one of the first events labelling the white man as the terrorist. It was, unfortunately not the last.
As for terminology, I hate both terms. "Indians" is completely incorrect, and I am against using it. The moral and offensive controversy against using it does not concern me as much as the fact that the geography is incorrect. Native Americans (for lack of a better term) should not be called Indians for the simple reason that they are not from India.
The term "Native American" just frustrates me in general. It is politically correct and likely inoffensive, but the people in question were not the first people in America. In all fairness, however, they were native to America. So it is, by deafault, the better term to use.
The reason many of us never learned about the Massacre at Wounded Knee was because of the information in our history textbooks - most were extremely biased in favor of the winner (usually us). It disgusts me that something like that resides in our country's past and is not common knowledge. The early settlers in America were incredibly disrespectful and the more I learn about the European immigrants, the less I admire them as descendants. Although the Native Americans were probably not always solely the victim, America seems like the bully with demanding lunch money, when the Native Americans did not have it.
The Massacre was one of the first events labelling the white man as the terrorist. It was, unfortunately not the last.
As for terminology, I hate both terms. "Indians" is completely incorrect, and I am against using it. The moral and offensive controversy against using it does not concern me as much as the fact that the geography is incorrect. Native Americans (for lack of a better term) should not be called Indians for the simple reason that they are not from India.
The term "Native American" just frustrates me in general. It is politically correct and likely inoffensive, but the people in question were not the first people in America. In all fairness, however, they were native to America. So it is, by deafault, the better term to use.
2 comments:
You're right; Native American is much less offensive. You're also right when you say that American history isn't all about fourth of July parties and George Washington. It is full of awful, terrible things that are attempted to be removed from history by many of our nation's leaders and educators. I know I want history, not the sugar-coated version of something simialr.
♥, Angela
I agree with you both. Native American is a better term than Indian. It seems like there's so much history that we hadn't learned about before now, and its because we're the bad guys in that part. I agree with you our history books have been kind of biased..And Angela has a good point about wanting to know history, "not the sugar-coated version of something similar".
♥ Jess
Post a Comment