NEED A PERFECT PAPER? PLACE YOUR FIRST ORDER AND SAVE 15% USING COUPON:

Ethnic Studies Please read Roxanne Dunbar Ortiz’ “Introduction” from her book, An Indigenous People’s History of the United States (attached below). Then,

Ethnic Studies Please read Roxanne Dunbar Ortiz’ “Introduction” from her book, An Indigenous People’s History of the United States (attached below). Then,

Click here to Order a Custom answer to this Question from our writers. It’s fast and plagiarism-free.

Ethnic Studies Please read Roxanne Dunbar Ortiz’ “Introduction” from her book, An Indigenous People’s History of the United States (attached below). Then, upload a pdf or word document with your responses to the following questions. 
In 2-3 sentences each, please respond to the following: (please see the attachment)
1. Define Settler Colonialism (p.2) 
2. Why does Dunbar-Ortiz disagree with historians’ use of the term “encounter?” (p. 5)
Complete the steps below: 

1. Choose a topic from the following list of Indigenous activist issues that interests you the most. If you are not familiar with any of the topics, do a few quick google searches to help you decide 

Sogorea te land trust (Oakland, California)
Thirty Meter Telescope on Mauna Kea (Hawaii)
Wet’suwet’en Territory (Canada)
Arizona Sacred Sites and Border Wall (Arizona)
Dakota Access Pipeline (North Dakota) 

2. Find and watch or listen to a short video or podcast about the issue
3. Create and submit a document or creative art work that includes the following information: 

A short summary of the Indigenous land activist issue of your choice: who/what native people were involved? When did the activism begin? What land or natural resources are they trying to protect? 
A personal reflection– what do you think should be done about the issue you chose?  
an image that depicts a certain aspect of the activism (people, protests, the land or water being protected, etc). 

the link to the short film or video that you watched to familiarize yourself with the issue xiv Author’s Note

Chippewa). I have used some of the correct names
combined with

more familiar usages, such as “Sioux” and
“Navajo.” Except in ma

terial that is quoted, I don’t use the term
“tribe.” “Community,”

INTRODUCTION
“people,” and “nation” are used instead and

interchangeably. I also

refrain from using “America” and “American”
when referring only

to the United States and its citizens. Those
blatantly imperialistic

terms annoy people in the rest of the Western
Hemisphere, who are, TH I S LAN D

after all, also Americans. I use “United States” as
a noun and “US”

as an adjective to refer to the country and
“US Americans” for its

We are here to educate, not forgive.
citizens. We are here to enlighten, not accuse.

—Willie Johns, Brighton Seminole Reservation, Florida

Under the crust of that portion of Earth called the United States of
America—”from California . . . to the Gulf Stream waters”—are
interred the bones, villages, fields, and sacred objects of American
Indians.1 They cry out for their stories to be heard through their de
scendants who carry the memories of how the country was founded
and how it came to be as it is today.
It should not have happened that the great civilizations of the

Western Hemisphere, the very evidence of the Western Hemisphere,
were wantonly destroyed, the gradual progress of humanity inter
rupted and set upon a path of greed and destruction.2 Choices were
made that forged that path toward destruction of life itself—the
moment in which we now live and die as our planet shrivels, over
heated. To learn and know this history is both a necessity and a
responsibility to the ancestors and descendants of all parties.
What historian David Chang has written about the land that

became Oklahoma applies to the whole United States: “Nation, race,
and class converged in land.”3 Everything in US history is about the

its wildlife; who invaded and stole it; how it became a commod
ity (“real estate”) broken into pieces to be bought and sold on the
market.

land—who oversaw and cultivated it, fished its waters, maintained

US policies and actions related to Indigenous peoples, though

often termed “racist” or “discrim
inatory,” are rarely depicted as

what they are: classic cases of imp
erialism and a particular form of

colonialism—settler colonialism. A
s anthropologist Patrick Wolfe

writes, “The question ofgenocide is
never far from discussions ofset

tler colonialism. Land is life—or, at
least, land is necessary for life.”4

The history of the United States is a
history of settler colonial

ism—the founding of a state based o
n the ideology of white su

premacy, the widespread practice of A
frican slavery, and a policy

of genocide and land theft. Those who
seek history with an upbeat

ending, a history of redemption and rec
onciliation, may look around

and observe that such a conclusion is
not visible, not even in utopian

dreams of a better society.
Writing US history from an Indigenous

peoples’ perspective re

quires rethinking the consensual natio
nal narrative. That narrative

is wrong or deficient, not in its facts, da
tes, or details but rather in

its essence. Inherent in the myth we’ve b
een taught is an embrace of

settler colonialism and genocide. The m
yth persists, not for a lack

of free speech or poverty of informatio
n but rather for an absence

of motivation to ask questions that challe
nge the core of the scripted

narrative of the origin story. How mig
ht acknowledging the reality

of US history work to transform society? T
hat is the central question

this book pursues.
Teaching Native American studies, I a

lways begin with a sim

ple exercise. I ask students to quickly
draw a rough outline of the

United States at the time it gained inde
pendence from Britain. In

variably most draw the approximate pr
esent shape of the United

States from the Atlantic to the Pacific—t
he continental territory not

fully appropriated until a century after ind
ependence. What became

independent in 1783 were the thirteen B
ritish colonies hugging the

Atlantic shore. When called on this, st
udents are embarrassed be

cause they know better. I assure them th
at they are not alone. I call

this a Rorschach test of unconscious “m
anifest destiny,” embedded

in the minds of nearly everyone in the U
nited States and around the

world. This test reflects the seeming ine
vitability of US extent and

power, its destiny, with an implication t
hat the continent had previ

ously been terra nutlius, a land without
people.

Woody Guthrie’s “This Land Is Your La
nd” celebrates that the

land belongs to everyone, reflecting the unconscious manifest des
tiny we live with. But the extension of the United States from sea to
shining sea was the intention and design of the country’s founders.
“Free” land was the magnet that attracted European settlers. Many
were slave owners who desired limitless land for lucrative cash crops.
After the War for indepenäe but preceding the writing of the US
Constitution, the Continental Congress produced the Nortlwest
Ordinance This was the first law of the incipient republic, revealing
the motive for those desiring independence It was the blueprint for
gobbling up the Indian Territory (“Ohio Coun
try”) on the other side of the Appalachians and Alleghenies Britain
had made settlement there illegal with the Proclamation of ‘763.
in 180i, PresidentJefferson aptly described the new settIerstate’s

intentions for horizontal and vertical continental expansion, stating:
“However our present interests may restrain us within our own lim
its, it is impossible not to look forward to distant times, when our
rapid multiplication will expand itself beyond those limits and cover
the whole northern if not the southern continent, with a people
speaking the same language, governed in similar form by similar
laws.” This vision ofmanifest destiny found form a few years later in
the Monroe Doctrine, signaling the intention of annexing or domi
nating former Spanish colonial territories in the Americas and the Pa
cific, which would be put into practice during the rest of the century.
Origin narratives form the vital core of a people’s unifying iden

tity and of the values that guide them. In the United States, the
founding and development of the settler-state in
volves a narrative about Puritan settlers who had a covenant with
God to take the land. That part of the origin story is supported and
reinforced by the Columbus myth and the “Doctrine of Discovery.”
According to a series of latefifteenthcentury papal bulls, European
nations acquired title to the lands they “discovered” and the Indig
enous inhabitants lost their natural right to that land after Europeam arrived and claimed jt. As law professor Robert A. Williamsobserves about the Doctrine of Discovery:

Responding to the requirem5 of a paradoxical age of Re
naissance and Inquisitj the West’s first modern discourses

of conquest articulated a
vision of all humankind un

ited

under a rule of law discov
erable solely by human reas

on. Un

fortunately for the Amer
ican Indian, the West’s first t

entative

steps towards this noble v
ision of a Law of Nations co

ntained

a mandate for Europe’s sub
jugation of all peoples whose

radi

cal divergence from Europ
ean-derived norms of right co

nduct

signified their need for conq
uest and remediation.6

The Columbus myth sugg
ests that from US indepen

dence on

ward, colonial settlers saw th
emselves as part of a world

system of

colonization. “Columbia,” th
e poetic, Latinate name used

in refer

ence to the United States f
rom its founding throughou

t the nine

teenth century, was based o
n the name of Christopher C

olumbus.

The “Land of Columbus” wa
s—and still is—represented b

y the im

age of a woman in sculpture
s and paintings, by instituti

ons such as

Columbia University, and by
countless place names, incl

uding that

of the national capital, the D
istrict of Columbia.7 The 179

$ hymn

“Hail, Columbia” was the e
arly national anthem and i

s now used

whenever the vice president
of the United States makes a

public ap

pearance, and Columbus Da
y is still a federal holiday d

espite Co

lumbus never having set foot o
n the continent claimed by t

he United

States.
Traditionally, historians of the

United States hoping to have
suc

cessful careers in academia a
nd to author lucrative school

textbooks

became protectors of this or
igin myth. With the cultural

upheavals

in the academic world duri
ng the 196os, engendered by

the civil

rights movement and stude
nt activism, historians came

to call for

objectivity and fairness in r
evising interpretations of U

S history.

They warned against mor
alizing, urging instead a dis

passionate

and culturally relative appr
oach. Historian Bernard She

ehan, in an

influential essay, called for a
“cultural conflict” understan

ding of

Native—Euro-American rela
tions in the early United State

s, writing

that this approach “diffuses
the locus of guilt.”8 In strivin

g for “bal

ance,” however, historians s
pouted platitudes: “There w

ere good

and bad people on both sides
.” “American culture is an

amalgama

tion of all its ethnic groups.”
“A frontier is a zone of inte

raction be

tween cultures, not merely ad
vancing European settlemen

ts.”

t
Introduct0. This Land

Later, trendy postmodernist studies insisted on Indigenous
“agency” under the guise of individual and collective empowerment,
making the casualties of colonialism responsible for their Own de
mise. Perhaps worst of all, some claimed (and still claim) that the
colonizer and colonized experienced an “encounter” and engaged
in “dialogue,” thereby masking reality with justiflcatio5 and ratio
nalizations_in short, apologies for one-sided robbery and murder.
In focusing on “cultural change” and “conflict between cultures,”
these studies avoid fundamental questions about the formation of
the United States and its implications for the present and future.
This approach to history allows one to safely put aside present re
sponsibility for continued harm done by that past and the questions
of reparations, restitution, and reordering society.9
Multiculturalism became the cutting edge of post-civilrights

movement US history revisionism. For this scheme to work_and
affirm US historical Progress__Indige05 nations and communities
had to be left out of the picture. As territorially and treaty-based
peoples in North America, they did not fit the grid of multicultur
alism but were included by transforming them into an inchoate
oppressed racial group, while colonized Mexican Americans and
Puerto Ricans were dissolved into another such group, variously
called “Hispanic” or “Latino.” The multicultural approach empha
sized the “contributions” of individuals from oppressed groups to
the country’s assumed greatnes Indigenous peoples were thus cred
ited with corn, beans, buckskin, log cabins, parkas, maple syrup,
canoes, hundreds of place names, Thanksgiving and even the con
cepts of democracy and federalism But this idea of the gift-giving
Indian helping to establish and enrich the development of the United
States is an insidious smoke screen meant to obscure the fact that the
very existence of the country is a result of the looting of an entire
continent and its resources. The fundamental unresolved issues of
Indigeno lands, treaties, and sovereignty could not but scuttle the
premises ofmulticulturajjsm
With multiculturaljsm manifest destiny Won the day. As an

example, in ‘994, Prentice Hall (part of Pearson Education) pub
lished a new collegeeJ US history textbook, authored by four
members of a new generati0 of revisionist historians. These radical

4 An Indigenous People
s’ History of the United Sta

tes

U

6 An Indigenous Peopl
es’ History of the United

States

social historians are all
brilliant scholars with p

osts in prestigious

universities. The book’s
title reflects the intent o

f its authors and

publisher: Out ofMany
: A History ofthe Ame

rican People. The ori

gin story of a supposed
ly unitary nation, albei

t now multicultural,

remained intact. The o
riginal cover design feat

ured a multicolored

woven fabric—this ima
ge meant to stand in plac

e of the discredited

“melting pot.” Inside, fa
cing the title page, was a

photograph of a

Navajo woman, dressed
formally in velvet and ad

orned with heavy

sterling silver and turqu
oise jewelry. With a t

raditional Navajo

dwelling, a hogan, in the
background, the woman w

as shown kneel

ing in front of a tradit
ional loom, weaving a n

early finished rug.

The design? The Stars a
nd Stripes! The authors,

upon hearing my

objection and explanation
that Navajo weavers ma

ke their livings

off commissioned work th
at includes the desired de

sign, responded:

“But it’s a real photograp
h.” To the authors’ cred

it, in the second

edition they replaced the
cover photograph and rem

oved the Navajo

picture inside, although
the narrative text remains

unchanged.

Awareness of the settler
-colonialist context of U

S history writ

ing is essential if one is
to avoid the laziness of th

e default position

and the trap of a mytho
logical unconscious belie

f in manifest des

tiny. The form of colonia
lism that the Indigenous

peoples of North

America have experienced
was modern from the be

ginning: the ex

pansion of European cor
porations, backed by go

vernment armies,

into foreign areas, with s
ubsequent expropriation

of lands and re

sources. Settler colonialis
m is a genocidal policy. N

ative nations and

communities, while strug
gling to maintain fundame

ntal values and

collectivity, have from th
e beginning resisted mod

ern colonialism

using both defensive and
offensive techniques, incl

uding the mod

ern forms of armed resis
tance of national liberatio

n movements and

what now is called terror
ism. In every instance the

y have fought for

survival as peoples. The
objective of US colonialis

t authorities was

to terminate their existen
ce as peoples—not as ran

dom individuals.

This is the very definition
of modern genocide as c

ontrasted with

premodern instances of ex
treme violence that did n

ot have the goal

of extinction. The United
States as a socioeconomic

and political

entity is a result of this cen
turies-long and ongoing c

olonial process.

r
Introduction. This Land

Today’s Indigenous nations and communities are societies formed
by their resistance to colonialism through which they have carried
their practices and histories. It is breathtaking, but no miracle, that
they have survived as peoples.
To say that the United States is a colonialist settIerstate is not

to make an accusation but rather to face historical reality, without
which consideration not much in US history makes sense, unless
Indigenous peoples are erased. But Indigenous nations, through re
sistance, have survived and bear Witness to this history. In the era
of worldwide decolonization in the second half of the twentieth cen
tury, the former colonial Powers and their intellectual apologists
mounted a counterforce often called neocolonialism, from which
multiculturalism and pOStmodernjsm emerged. Although much
revisionist US history reflects neocolonialist strategY_an attempt
to accommodate new realities in order to retain the dominance……

neocolonialist methods signal victory for the colonized. Such ap
proaches pry off a lid long kept tightly fastened. One result has been
the presence of significant numbers of Indigenous scholars in US
universities who are changing the terms of analysis. The main chal
lenge for scholars in revising us history in the context ofcolonialism
is not lack of information nor is it one of methodology. Certainly
difficulties with documentation are no more problematic than they
are in any other area of research. Rather, the source of the problems
has been the refusal or inability of US historians to comprehend the
nature of their Own history, US history. The fundamental problem is
the absence of the colonial framework.
Through economic penetration of Indigenous societies, the Eu

ropean and EuroAmerican colonial Powers created economic de
pendency and imbalance of trade, then incorporated the Indigenous
nations into spheres of influence and controlled them indirectly or
as protectorates with indispensable use of Christian missionaries
and alcohol In the case ofu settler colonialism, land was the pri
mary commodity With such obvious indicators of colonialism at
Work, why should so many interpretations of US politicaleconomic
develop be convoluted and obscure, avoiding the obvious? To
5O extent the twentiethcentury emergence of the field of “US

‘llriH

West” or “Borderlands” h
istory has been forced into a

n incomplete

and flawed settler-colonia
list framework. The father

of that field of

history, Frederick Jackson
Turner, confessed as much in

1901: “Our

colonial system did not st
art with the Spanish War [1

898]; the U.S.

had had a colonial histo
ry and policy from the be

ginning of the

Republic; but they have been
hidden under the phraseolo

gy of ‘inter

state migration’ and ‘territ
orial organization.”10

Settler colonialism, as an in
stitution or system, requires

viotence

or the threat of violence to
attain its goals. People do n

ot hand over

their land, resources, child
ren, and futures without a f

ight, and that

fight is met with violence.
In employing the force nec

essary to ac

complish its expansionist go
als, a colonizing regime ins

titutionalizes

violence. The notion that s
ettler-indigenous conflict is

an inevitable

product of cultural differe
nces and misunderstanding

s, or that vio

lence was committed equa
lly by the colonized and th

e colonizer,

blurs the nature of the histo
rical processes. Euro-Ameri

can colonial

ism, an aspect of the capita
list economic globalization

, had from its

beginnings a genocidal tende
ncy.

The term “genocide” was c
oined following the Shoah

, or Ho

locaust, and its prohibition
was enshrined in the Unite

d Nations

convention adopted in 194$:
the UN Convention on the P

revention

and Punishment of the Crim
e of Genocide. The conven

tion is not

retroactive but is applicable
to US-Indigenous relations s

ince 198$,

when the US Senate ratified
it. The terms of the genocid

e convention

are also useful tools for his
torical analysis of the effects

of colonial

ism in any era. In the conv
ention, any one of five acts i

s considered

genocide if “committed wit
h intent to destroy, in whole

or in part, a

national, ethnical, racial or
religious group”:

killing members of the grou
p;

causing serious bodily or me
ntal harm to members of the

group;

deliberately inflicting on the
group conditions of life

calculated to bring about its
physical destruction in whol

e

or in part;
imposing measures intended

to prevent births within the

group;
forcibly transferring children o

f the group to another group.
11

In the 199os, the term “ethnic cleansing” became a useful descrip
tive term for genocide.
US history, as well as inherited Indigenous trauma, cannot be

understood without dealing with the genocide that the United
States committed against Indigenous peoples, from the colonial pe
riod through the founding of the United States and continuing in
the twentieth century, this has entailed torture, terror, sexual
abuse, massacres, systematic military occupations, removals of In
digenous peoples from their ancestral territories and removals of
Indigenous children to military-IIke boarding schools. The absence
of even the slightest note of regret or tragedy in the annual celebra
tion of the US independence betrays a deep disconnect in the con
sciousness of US Americans.
Settler colonialism is inherently genocidal in terms of the geno

cide convention. In the case of the British North American colo
nies and the United States, not Only extermination and removal
were practiced but also the disappearing of the prior existence of
Indigenous peoplesand this continues to be perpetuated in local
histories, Anishjnaabe (Ojibwe) historian Jean O’Brien names this
practice of writing Indians out of existence “firsting and lasting.”
All over the continent, local histories monuments, and signage nar
rate the story of first settlement: the founder(s), the first school, first
dwelling, first everything, as if there had never been occupants who
thrived in those places before Euro-Americans. On the other hand,
the national narrative tells of “last” Indians or last tribes, such as
“the last of the Mohicans” “Ishi, the last Indian,” and End of the
Trail, as a famous sculpture by James Earle Fraser is titled. 12

Documented policies of genocide on the part of US administra
tions can be identified in at least four distinct periods: the Jackso
nian era of forced removal; the California gold rush in Northern
California; the post—Civil War era of the so-called Indian wars in
the Great Plains; and the 195os termination period, all of which are
discussed in the following chapters. Cases of genocide carried out
as Policy may be found in historical documents as well as in the
oral histories of Indigenous communities. An example from 1873
is typical with General William I. Sherman writing, “We must
act With Vindictive earnestness against the Sioux, even to their

8 An Indigenous Peoples’ H
istory of the United States j Introduction. This Land 9

extermination, men, women and
children . . during an assault,

the soldiers can not pause to distin
guish between male and female,

or even discriminate as to age.”13
As Patrick Wolfe has noted, the

peculiarity of settler colonialism i
s that the goal is elimination of

Indigenous populations in order to
make land available to settlers.

That project is not limited to gove
rnment policy, but rather involves

all kinds of agencies, voluntary mi
litias, and the settlers themselves

acting on their own.’4
In the wake of the US 195os term

ination and relocation poli

cies, a pan-Indigenous movement aro
se in tandem with the power

ful African American civil rights m
ovement and the broad-based

social justice and antiwar movement
s of the 196os. The Indigenous

rights movement succeeded in reve
rsing the US termination poi

icy. However, repression, armed att
acks, and legislative attempts

to undo treaty rights began again i
n the late 1970s, giving rise to

the international Indigenous moveme
nt, which greatly broadened

the support for Indigenous sovereignt
y and territorial rights in the

United States.
The early twenty-first century has s

een increased exploitation

of energy resources begetting new
pressures on Indigenous lands.

Exploitation by the largest corporat
ions, often in collusion with

politicians at local, state, and federal
levels, and even within some

Indigenous governments, could spell
a final demise for Indigenous

land bases and resources. Strengthenin
g Indigenous sovereignty and

self-determination to prevent that r
esult will take general public

outrage and demand, which in turn
will require that the general

population, those descended from se
ttlers and immigrants, know

their history and assume responsibilit
y. Resistance to these power

ful corporate forces continues to have
profound implications for US

socioeconomic and political develop
ment and the future.

There are more than five hundred fed
erally recognized Indigenous

communities and nations, comprisi
ng nearly three million people

in the United States. These are the d
escendants of the fifteen mil

lion original inhabitants of the land,
the majority of whom were

farmers who lived in towns. The US
establishment of a system of

I Introduction: This Land
Indian reservations stemmed from a long British colonial practice
in the Americas. In the era of US treaty-making from independence
to 1871, the concept of the reservation was one of the Indigenous
nation reserving a narrowed land base from a much larger one in ex
change for US governme protection from settlers and the provision
of social services. In the late nineteenth century, as Indigenous resis
tance was weakened, the concept of the reservation changed to one
of land being carved out of the public domain of the United States
as a benevolent gesture, a “gift” to the Indigenous peoples. Rheto
ric changed so that reservations were said to have been “given” or
“created” for Indians. With this shift, Indian reservations came to
be seen as enclaves within stat’ boundaries. Despite the political
and economic reality, the impression to many Was that Indigenous
people were taking a free ride on Public domain.
Beyond the land bases within the limits of the 310 federally rec

ognized reservationsamong 554 Indigenous groupsJndigen05
land, water, and resource rights extend to all federally acknowl
edged Indigenous communities within the borders of the United
States. This is the case whether “within the original or subsequently
acquired territory thereof, and whether within or without the limits
of a state,” and includes all allotments as well as rightsofway run
ning to and from them.’s Not all the federally recognized Indigenous
nations have land bases beyond government buildings, and the lands
of some Native nations, including those of the Sioux in the Dakotas
and Minnesota and the Ojibwes in Minnesota, have been parceled
into multiple reservations, while some fifty Indigenous nations that
had been removed to Oklahoma were entirely alJotteddivided by
the federal government into individual Nativeowned parcels. Attor
ney Walter R. Echo-Hawk writes:

In 1881, Indian landholdings in the United States had plum
meted to 156 million acres. By 1934, only about 50 million
acres remained (an area the size of idaho and Washington)as a result of the General Allotment Act of 1887. During
World War II, the governen took 500,000 more acres for
Thilitary Use. Over one hundred tribes, bands, and Rancherias

10 An Indigenous Peoples’ History o
f the United States

12 An Indigenous Peoples’
History ofthe United States

relinquished their lands und
er various acts of Congress d

uring

the termination era of the 1
95os. By 1955, the indigenous

land

base had shrunk to just 2.
3 percent of its original siz

e.’6

As a result of federal land
sales, seizures, and allotment

s, most

reservations are severely
fragmented. Each parcel of

tribal, trust,

and privately held land is
a separate enclave under m

ultiple laws

and jurisdictions. The Din
e (Navajo) Nation has the

largest con

temporary contiguous land
base among Native nations:

nearly six

teen million acres, or nearly
twenty-five thousand squar

e miles, the

size of West Virginia. Each
of twelve other reservations

is larger

than Rhode Island, which
comprises nearly eight hun

dred thou

sand acres, or twelve hundred
square miles, and each of ni

ne other

reservations is larger than D
elaware, which covers nearly

a million

and a half acres, or two thou
sand square miles. Other re

servations

have land bases of fewer th
an thirty-two thousand acr

es, or fifty

square miles)7 A number of i
ndependent nation-states wi

th seats in

the United Nations have less
territory and smaller populat

ions than

some Indigenous nations of N
orth America.

FollowingWorld War II, the U
nited States was atwarwith m

uch of

the world, just as it was at w
ar with the Indigenous people

s of North

America in the nineteenth c
entury. This was total war,

demand

ing that the enemy surrender
unconditionally or face anni

hilation.

Perhaps it was inevitable th
at the earlier wars against

Indigenous

peoples, if not acknowledged
and repudiated, ultimately wo

uld in

clude the world. According
to the origin narrative, the Un

ited States

was born of rebellion agai
nst oppression—against em

pire—and

thus is the product of the f
irst anticolonial revolution f

or national

liberation. The narrative flow
s from that fallacy: the bro

adening

and deepening of democracy;
the Civil War and the ensuin

g “second

revolution,” which ended sla
very; the twentieth-century m

ission to

save Europe from itself—twi
ce; and the ultimately triump

hant fight

against the scourge of commun
ism, with the United States i

nheriting

the difficult and burdensome
task of keeping order in the

world. It’s

a narrative of progress. The 1
960s social revolutions, ignit

ed by the

African American liberation
movement, complicated the

origin nar

1fltOthtcj01j: This Land 13

rative, but its structure and periodization have been left intact. After
the 196os, historians incorporated women, African Americans, and
immigrants as contributors to the commonweal Indeed, the revised
narrative produced the “nation of immigrants” framework which
obscures the US …

Place your order now for a similar assignment and have exceptional work written by one of our experts, guaranteeing you an A result.

Need an Essay Written?

This sample is available to anyone. If you want a unique paper order it from one of our professional writers.

Get help with your academic paper right away

Quality & Timely Delivery

Free Editing & Plagiarism Check

Security, Privacy & Confidentiality