Agreed. But not only is revisionist history to be condemned, the OP is also objecting to omitted history that should be part of all core curriculum.
I can agree with both of those points. We need to stop telling the children "myths and legends" and making them believe that is what actually happened. We also need to focus a lot more on our rights and the Constitution. It is not covered NEARLY as much as it should be, IMO. Taking some elective in high school isn't good enough. There should be regular classes about our rights, how they came to be, why they are important, restrictions on them, and how we can legally practice our rights.
For first graders, I think the lighter version of say the first Thanksgiving is okay. And then as the student matures, the more realistic version should be taught as we have discussed in this thread. The PC version that the Pilgrims 'lured the Indians so they could harm or exploit them' is as much PC myth as the feel good Polly Anna-ish version most of us were taught as kids. And we are absolutely on the same page about teaching kids what they really need to know in the real world in order to understand how it works for their own benefit and for all. And that includes a good grounding in history, government civics, and economics.
Look, no country had "perfect" ideal beginnings. America didn't either. We did some terrible things, and it is okay to acknowledge this.
The Pilgrims of Plymouth, The Original Scalpers
Contrary to popular mythology the Pilgrims were no friends to the local Indians. They were engaged in a ruthless war of extermination against their hosts, even as they falsely posed as friends. Just days before the alleged Thanksgiving love-fest, a company of Pilgrims led by Myles Standish actively sought to chop off the head of a local chief. They deliberately caused a rivalry between two friendly Indians, pitting one against the other in an attempt to obtain "better intelligence and make them both more diligent." An 11-foot-high wall was erected around the entire settlement for the purpose of keeping the Indians out.
Any Indian who came within the vicinity of the Pilgrim settlement was subject to robbery, enslavement, or even murder. The Pilgrims further advertised their evil intentions and white racial hostility, when they mounted five cannons on a hill around their settlement, constructed a platform for artillery, and then organized their soldiers into four companies-all in preparation for the military destruction of their friends the Indians.
Pilgrim Myles Standish eventually got his bloody prize. He went to the Indians, pretended to be a trader, then beheaded an Indian man named Wituwamat. He brought the head to Plymouth, where it was displayed on a wooden spike for many years, according to Gary B. Nash, "as a symbol of white power." Standish had the Indian man's young brother hanged from the rafters for good measure. From that time on, the whites were known to the Indians of Massachusetts by the name "Wotowquenange," which in their tongue meant cutthroats and stabbers.
I posted some links earlier that certainly improve on the sweet story of the First Thanksgiving, but my understanding of the history of Standish is not quite so black as this anti-Pilgrim, anti-American, PC version that has been repeated again and again and again verbatim on anti-Pilgrim, anti-American, politically correct sites again and again. To wit:
. . .He (Standish) led both trading expeditions and military expeditions to the various Indian groups in the region. He led the party that went in pursuit of the alleged killers of Squanto (who was later discovered to be safe). He led the revenge attacks on the Indians in the Massachusetts Bay after they were caught in a conspiracy planning to attack and destroy the Plymouth and Wessagussett colonies; several Indians were killed or executed, for which Standish received some criticism, even from his friends, for being too heavy-handed. . . .
Standish-Myles
Squanto was Standish's Indian friend who helped teach the Pilgrims how to survive that first terrible winter. But there is certainly no historical evidence I can find from any credible source that Miles Standish or the Pilgrims had any intent of exterminating the native populations.
Following the raid that rescued Squanto:
. . .The pilgrim’s bravery that night won them the respect of the Wampanoag. Corbitant later told the pilgrims he no longer wished them harm and peace between the two sides lasted another fifty years. . . .
When the Pilgrims Rescued Squanto
I don't understand why some are so resistant to admitting that we came to America as intruders and slaughtered the indigenous peoples? That is just a fact. That is just what happened.
Yes, we were uninvited by the people who lived here when the first Spaniards arrived in the 16th Century and when the Mayflower arrived in the 17th Century.
But then so were the Indians uninvited when they first arrived on this continent. And so have all people who have migrated from one place to another been univited when they went. When studying history we have to take into account the culture, morals, and ethics of THAT time and not apply our modern day sense of culture, morals, and ethics to judge people of another time and place.
The Spaniards were looking for gold and treasure, and the Pilgrims were looking for a place in which they could live as they chose. Neither had any intent of exterminating the native populations and neither attempted to do so. And had the Christian Spaniards and Americans not invaded the world of the American Indian, however detrimental to the Indian that was, it was inevitable that sooner or later other, perhaps more savage people bent on genocide would have done so. Certainly the Spanish conquistadors were bent on being conquerors while the Pilgrims just wanted a place to live in peace.
The real history is always mixed with good and bad, the brave and the cowardly, the noble and the reprehensible. Yes there were 'intruders' who exploited or intended harm to the native populations. And there were those among the native populations who exploited and intended harm to the newcomers. Had neither side initiated any hostilities, of course there wouldn't have been any. Which side started the hostilities? We can argue until the cows come home about that, and never agree.
Honest history of course admits our own sins along with the virtues. But honest history also shows that the native populations did not always act in an exemplary manner toward the newcomers either. While there were the noble on both sides, there were also the villains. And honest history also demonstrates that the Indians were not always virtuous and were often unconscionably cruel and murderous--at least as we would define that in our culture--to each other as tribe warred against tribe. The noble Indian as portrayed in "Dancing With Wolves" is also a myth which does not take away from much there was to admire among the Indian populations.
If we are intellectually honest, those who argue that we should welcome all immigrants to this country and treat them well, should not the same standard be applied to those who were here when we came? That's probably a subject for another thread, but it is that kind of debate that is included in real education.
