Upon reading Fictions of American Prehistory: Indians, Archeology, and National Origin Myths by Annette Kolodny, it calls to mind the idea of what is accepted as prehistory. While much of the scientific world considers prehistory anything prior to Columbus' "discovery" of the New World, the agreement tends to end there (Kolodny 2003, p.693). Kolodny speaks to Americans desire to create a history (Kolodny 2003, pgs. 698-704) in what I view as an attempt to legitimize themselves, early on in the country's roots, among the elite nations of the world. In doing so, many historians and amateurs invalidated the oral histories of American Indians. While these histories may not be viewed as legitimate in the academic world, there are common threads of creation and parallels in events such as a Great Flood (Dass 2009). So how is it that we can accept some prehistories while dismissing others, when much of their histories are intertwined?
Kolodny, Annette. (2003). Fictions of American Prehistory: Indians, Archeology, and National Origin Myths. Project Muse. Retrieved from http://muse.jhu.edu
Dass, Dr. Rhonda. (2009). AIS 230 American Indians in Minnesota. Class Lecture. Sept 2, 2009.
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
Chris:
ReplyDeleteGood observations. How do we give validity to only some of the story? It is hard to chose - and mainly done by the most powerful group. However, more than one story can exist and both still have legitimacy. Consider the fact that both the United States and Vietnam have memorials to the Vietnam war - they just have a different focus.