Brothers! As we have declared for peace, we desire you will not apply to our Indian brethren in New-England for their assistance. Let us Indians be all of one mind, and live in peace with one another, and you white people settle your own disputes betwixt yourselves.
Speaking for the entirety of the Native American population.
The quarrel seems to be unnatural; you are two brothers of one blood.
This really represents the different logic the Oneida used. Their idea of different nationality probably comes from more of a place of race or tradition rather than international borders.
Brothers!
I find it interesting that the Oneida refer to the New Englanders as brothers. That is different from other tribes.
wherever the English went they caused disturbances for they lived under no Government and paid no respect either to Wisdom or Station.
The English obviously lived under a government. It seems Alibamo Mingo has a different definition of government.
To revise means to look over something again; it’s why students in the UK “revise” for exams. For historians not to revise in this spirit would be the height of arrogance, and yet there are times when we are too proud of our work, too defensive of our process, to listen to questions offered in good faith.
Really, it comes down to whether or not a history professor or teacher is a responsible scholar. Much like a doctor takes an oath to never intentionally harm a patient, maybe a historian should take an oath of historical honesty?
Now, here’s the big reveal: historians do practice revisionist history, in a sense. They revise what they know and believe about the past.
It seems like there are two definitions of revisionist history: To distort past historical events for an ulterior motive; or to attempt to more accurately portray history based on newfound evidence.
the idea that history involves inquiry and interpretation
History is warped as it is made. I believe that a small amount of interpretation is needed in order to understand it better. Simply looking at what happened is too difficult because of the sheer amount of events and perspectives on those events. Most of the records that historians find are from the victors/survivors/prosperers, which are, of course, altered in their favor. The challenge historians face is finding a balance of different viewpoints in order to find the true objective meaning of historical events. Interpretation is actually needed to accurately represent history.
History, for them, is just What Happened, its meaning easily accessed and understood by looking at a set of True and Complete Facts that has been assembled without human intervention
Although it's an honorable objective, I can't see this as being possible. History is a study of human events. It's impossible to take the human element out of human events.
Those invested in the term and its use often claim they are defending history from people who are trying to warp it or use it as a weapon.
I can see those same people using that defense claim as a false justification to advance their own agenda.