"But then you bail out...You carry with you, of course, a set of representations of where you've been. You've turned yourself away from the rocks, however, which means that you're free to measure the subject of your biography in any metric you like."
-John Lewis Gaddis, The Landscape of History, page 124
In Gaddis' first step, we had to judge Lippincott's deeds on his own terms, but here, Gaddis is giving us the power to judge Lippincott on whatever terms we want- keeping in mind all that we have already discovered. How would you define Lippincott?
Would you say he was a well-intentioned man who did the best he could in a society that had an unshakeable racial hierarchy?
Or would you say what he did was inexcusable, no matter the time?
Any response is valid, because it's based on your thoughts and perspectives.
Since the question of Lippincott is actually part of an enormous, ongoing debate among historians on whether or not the treatment of Native Americans should be defined as genocide, we can examine a range of opinions on the subject. Two articles featured on History News Network present the two sides of the argument. This piece by Guenter Lewy concludes that the history of the treatment of Native Americans by the United States was a "not a crime but a tragedy, involving an irreconcilable collision of cultures and values." In contrast, this article, written by Roxanne Dunbar-Ortiz, argues that the conflict should be defined as a genocide, and that it must be recognized as so to prevent the threat of continuing and future injustices committed against Native Americans.
What are the implications of this debate? Dumbar-Ortiz explains in her article that it can effect laws and the continuing relations between the government and Native groups today. As conservative radio-show host Michael Medved argued in his article on the "lie of White genocide against Native Americans" it can also affect the way Americans view their own nation and national identity.
Which of these articles do you agree with the most- if any?
Can you think of other ways this debate is important today- especially for historians?
Would you say he was a well-intentioned man who did the best he could in a society that had an unshakeable racial hierarchy?
Or would you say what he did was inexcusable, no matter the time?
Any response is valid, because it's based on your thoughts and perspectives.
Since the question of Lippincott is actually part of an enormous, ongoing debate among historians on whether or not the treatment of Native Americans should be defined as genocide, we can examine a range of opinions on the subject. Two articles featured on History News Network present the two sides of the argument. This piece by Guenter Lewy concludes that the history of the treatment of Native Americans by the United States was a "not a crime but a tragedy, involving an irreconcilable collision of cultures and values." In contrast, this article, written by Roxanne Dunbar-Ortiz, argues that the conflict should be defined as a genocide, and that it must be recognized as so to prevent the threat of continuing and future injustices committed against Native Americans.
What are the implications of this debate? Dumbar-Ortiz explains in her article that it can effect laws and the continuing relations between the government and Native groups today. As conservative radio-show host Michael Medved argued in his article on the "lie of White genocide against Native Americans" it can also affect the way Americans view their own nation and national identity.
Which of these articles do you agree with the most- if any?
Can you think of other ways this debate is important today- especially for historians?