I wonder, why do we use terminology that places us on one side or the other when discussing historical terms?
If I was Native American, would it be fair of me to say "You did such-and-such a thing to me"? Is it fair for me to say "We did such-and-such a thing" to them?
I don't think anyone in the class was alive during the policies/legislations/actions taken, and I find it interesting that we associate ourselves with one side or the other based on our race.
If we were discussing the Armenian Genocide, which side would we take?
Should we thus take sides in this debate? I submit no.
If we were taking sides, I would say no. However, I don't think that in that particular context, we are siding. When discussing Native Americans and the US, it is necessary to use "us," we," and "them" because if we didn't, we wouldn't be able to distinguish who we are talking about. It's not like we could say "When people came to the New World, they did such-and-such to themselves" referring to actions taken against the Indians - it's too confusing. True, it is wrong to use "us," "we," and "them" if our intention is to make a different race appear less human or something of that nature, but in order to discuss history, we do need to make distinctions between different races, cultures, and so on in order to explain who was fighting against who, what one group was doing to another, etc. When we talk about the ratification of the Constitution, we have to talk about conflicts between northern and southern states regarding slavery - that's a perfect example of "us" versus "them," but it's also necessary. It's the same thing with talking about the United States and the Native Americans - different cultures, desires, expectations, beliefs. We need some way to distinguish.
ReplyDeleteHow about, "When Spanish, English, etc., came to the New World, they, respectfully, did such and such to the Native Inhabitants?"
ReplyDeleteThat is all I am positing.
Considering I've never left America, and neither has a person with indigenous blood in their veins, why would it make sense for me to consider "we" when referring to the British, and "them" when speaking of American indigenous peoples?
I'm also curious about your statement in regards to the North and the South--which side do you consider yourself being associated with, and which side not?
Personally, I think it is better to say "The people at the time of the (year here) did this to native inhabitants" or, "Those in the Northern states enacted such and such to those in the Southern states"
I think that we use "we" and "them" to make what we are saying easier to understand, but you are right, we shouldn't be saying that. "We" didn't do anything to "them", our ancestors did. It also makes me wonder why we need to apologize to the Native Americans when "we" didn't do anything to them and most of the Native Americans that we would be apologizing to aren't the ones that were directly hurt by the government. I don't think that we need to be giving them lots of money or anything either when it was their ancestors that got hurt and not them. There are lots of other problems in the US that are happening now that we should be giving our attention to instead of giving attention to something that happened in the past and that we can't take back.
ReplyDelete