Posted on 07/29/2018 10:40:59 AM PDT by ProtectOurFreedom
California 4th-graders have studied Golden State geography, people and history. Now, historians and Native American teachers are pushing to broaden that curriculum to include more on the culture and history of the states original inhabitants.
For so many years, the story of California Indians has never really been part of classrooms, said Rose Borunda, an education professor at Sacramento State University and a coordinator of the California Indian History Curriculum Coalition. Our story has never been present. Its often sidestepped because its inconvenient. But its the truth, and students should learn it.
Borunda, who is Native American, and her colleagues are working to educate teachers statewide on the history of Californias indigenous people, who were among the most populous and diverse Native Americans in North America. Their curriculum would complement the states History-Social Science framework, which was updated two years ago.
The changes are part of a broader effort to expand Native California curriculum in K-12 schools. In October, Gov. Brown signed AB 738...to create a Native American studies class curriculum for high schools that will satisfy the elective course requirements for admission to CU and CSU. Earlier this year, Brown signed AB 2016, which creates an elective high school ethnic studies course that could also include Native American history and culture. The State Board of Education is required to adopt the ethnic studies curriculum by March 2020.
While the [California] missions marked the beginning of colonization in California, they were also the beginning of the end for most tribes, as thousands were enslaved by missionaries, killed by settlers over the next few decades or died of diseases introduced by Europeans. Within 70 years of the Spanish arrival, the native population dropped to fewer than 70,000, according to the states Native American Heritage Commission.
(Excerpt) Read more at mercurynews.com ...
Yup. That should be a part of the history that is taught. The biggest problem with teaching any 'history' of American Indians is that prior to the European invasion, there was little to no actual written history on the continent. Makes it hard to go into any deeper pre-columbian history, as what is retained was generally oral histories, little of which was recorded even by colonists, and much of that was somewhat romanticized.
Now, if they'd like to go into what is actually known about pre-columbian times, that would be fine, but I would object to romanticized 'noble savage' nonsense. The native tribes were every bit as violent, warlike, and territorial as every other human society on the planet. The fact that they never made any significant technological progress in their entire history (lacking even such basics as the wheel, and writing), was a major contributing factor to the ability of a more technologically advanced society to fully and unconditionally conquer them.
There did appear to be some tech of sorts in central and south america, but ultimately, they were still largely outclassed by their European foes.
BFL. Sounds interesting
You know, that sounds really horrible and all that, but it overlooks the fact that American Indians insisted on retaining the sovereignty of their 'nations', even after they were a thoroughly conquered people, and we allowed them to maintain that fiction. I certainly object to citizens of other nations having a say in our government. I believe the legal fictions of their 'sovereignty' needs to be relegated to the dustbin of history. Either they are Americans or they aren't.
I understand your point, but it’s part of the issue of the treaties that were broken, as well as the desire to maintain their history, traditions, and what’s left of the land they were allowed to keep/moved to unwillingly. As far as loyalty, Indians who participate in the military serve proudly, and veterans are held in high honor, with ceremonies honoring members in what they call their Warrior Societies. Most are patriotic Americans, and though they weren’t required to participate in WWI, as they were not yet given citizenship, they served in large numbers.
Wait a minute. If you are as old as I am, your great-grandmother lived in the latter half of the 19th Century. Chattel slavery had already been ended. If your Great-Grandmother was a Paiute/Shoshone she wasn’t originally from the San Francisco Bay area; at that time the Utes/Paiutes/Shoshone lived well to the East, in the Great Basin of Utah, Nevada, and contiguous areas. Some bands might have lived in the Mohave; that would be in California, but a long way from the Bay Area. She might have been taken from her family/people (by whom? Under what circumstances?) but “placed in servitude”? Again, by whom? What would have been the terms of this servitude? Who were the Berryessa Family?
If you will pardon my saying so, your account sounds like a family tradition originated by a young woman who didn’t have a clear idea what was happening to her, or why, only that she was no longer with her family and instead was in a household of strangers who treated her like a servant. The plot of Cinderella, but without the Prince or the glass slipper. Or like one of the stories of the kids from the “Orphan Trains.”
Part of my own family’s oral tradition concerns my Irish Grandmother. She was from an upper-middle class family in Belfast. For reasons we don’t like to talk about, she emigrated to the US, where she found employment as a maid in a hotel. At one point, her mail got mixed up with a guest’s. She was summoned to the guest’s room; the other woman turned out to be *her own step-sister* from Belfast. Neither of them would acknowlege by word or gesture that they knew and were related to each other. They exchanged the misdirected letters, and parted without further contacts. EVER. Relationships between household and domestic staff were harsh sometimes, in those days. And could be confusing and confounding.
What geography her people originated from is hard to determine, due to the fact that natives didn't receive a lot of consideration and were not important in the eyes of the Spanish or the American settlers.
I am that previous poster and MY point was that the Spaniards did not practice institutional slavery as the posted article asserted. There is no question that individual Spaniards and others of that period occasionally captured or "bought" (even from other Indians!) some unfortunate like your great-grandmother and treated them like a slave (and because the victim was a Native American they were more likely to get away with it), but that happens in almost every culture even our American culture (you hear about it even today in the news). It is still rampant in many parts of the world. But there was no institutional slavery in Spanish California. Slavery was against Spanish law (which didn't prevent nefarious individuals from practicing it, just like today) and the missionaries wouldn't permit it when it was in their power to stop it.
As long as they include internecine warfare, trophy scalping, woman stealing, and child sacrifice, wherever and whenever it happened, I would allow it. But it would only be sanatized and fantasized propaganda.
Hence: noble savage.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.