An attempt to rewrite history gone terribly wrong

By Adam Giuliano

So there I was, mouth unceremoniously agape before Sterling, staring at a chalking whose meaning and intent couldn't be missed: "This is Indian Land." The racism and manipulation of history that it signified struck me, but sadly, it did not surprise me. It's unfortunate, but some activist social liberals, like those who presumably did the chalkings, just refuse to give up tactics that denigrate those they seek to aid. Stating that Cross Campus is "Indian Land" denies both the course of history and the humanity of those who lived in this area prior to European settlement.

Ownership and identification shift over time. Just because one group lived here at one distinct historical moment does not mean that it holds an eternal claim to the region. How can this be Indian land if those who lived in the Americas didn't see themselves as Indians and moved fluidly about both continents?

By trying to acknowledge genuine historical atrocities, sympathy has led to dehumanization. While the record is difficult to reconstruct before 1492, we can say with some assurance that Native American societies rose and fell, migrated, battled, conquered, and died before Columbus' first voyage. If we still claim this to be Indian land then why do we allow China to be rightfully Han, England Anglo-Saxon, or Central and Southern Africa Bantu? History is replete with examples of populations that overwhelmed, outnumbered, and dominated their neighbors, including the Taino and Aztecs who did so to other "Indians" in ways that modern Americans would find unsavory. Accepting this does not negate the immorality of methods like slavery, forced conversion, and deliberate slaughter, and it should not be taken as a justification of might making right. Rather, it brings those who lived in the Americas prior to 1492 into the main of humanity by seeking to understand their experiences within the same framework with which we respect other societies. No population should suffer the indignity of being remembered only as victims.

Then there is the dilemma of the term "Indian." "Native American" may be better only because of geographical correctness. The problem with both is that they are largely European, entirely post-contact constructions. There was nothing approaching cultural, social, or familial unity among all those that are gathered under this umbrella term. The Chinese and the French of the 15th century in many ways shared more in common than did the contemporary Inca and Mandan. Assigning territorial rights in New Haven to an ahistorical notion of Indians puts the land in the trust of a mythical people who could not be found in any one moment or location. It is an insult to all those who lived in the Americas prior to 1492, as well as their descendants. One would not consider defining all residents of Asia as the same, either now, 500 years ago, or 3,000 years ago--so why should we do so here?

The central notion behind sentiments such as those expressed on Cross Campus is that to right past wrongs we must rewrite the past. While the examination of history remains a process constantly invigorated by new evidence, innovative approaches, and the questioning of old assumptions, liberal revisionism of this type does none of these. It should not be mistaken for a genuine effort to better understand the complexities and realities of Native American societies, because the motivation is not to clarify but to seek political gain. This is a process of rewriting in its purest sense that seeks to recast the villains and heroes of the traditional, flawed myth of European colonization without challenging the fairy tale format.

The attitude present in the chalkings treats all the diversity of Native America as a unitary interest, different from all other peoples and deserving of condescending sympathy. The objective may be positive-- the eradication of ingrained prejudicial attitudes and self-justifying historical myths--yet good intentions cannot justify such tactics. In fact, they may make the methods more odious than traditional racism by masking them in a guise of respectability. Simply offering the other side of the same coin is not different enough. We must recognize derogatory ways of thinking in all their manifestations, whether they come from conservatives or liberals, the educated or the uneducated, the oppressor or the oppressed.

Adam Giuliano is a senior in Pierson.

Back to Opinion...