So we didn't commit genocide, and therefore, we are morally superior? I'll get the measuring stick, let's see if we can capture the difference in centimeters!
History should be a record, and a fact. Not an inference and a deduction.
I ask this sincerely: have you ever studied history in a detailed manner in a university setting? So much of historical "fact" is inference and deduction, as we interpret primary documents and material evidence to form a timeline of causal and correlative relations. We also try to verify or invalidate the truth of various sources based on how they corroborate other trusted sources. I agree, history should be a record, but the point of contemporary historiography is to acknowledge that even a faithful effort at recording will still be somewhat problematic, as some inclinations will nonetheless present themselves. The hermeneutic of skepticism extends even to the professors, so that the students, if properly taught, will seek to verify any form of bias their professors present them. That is certainly how I teach in English.
What's wrong with teaching that the USA is unique or even morally superior to other nations?
What happened to leaving the morality to the students? That is precisely what contemporary historiography tries to do, and teaching a message of American exceptionalism would rather betray that goal.
The hesitation to speak of these things in academia is rather dogmatic in that you cannot go against newly established views of history.
Sure you can. I don't know the names of history scholars that do so, but in my own field, there are prominent figures like Harold Bloom who have made a career out of speaking against any literary theoretical trend more recent than deconstruction. The issue is that you have to have a reasoned argument against these new methods, as well as an incorporation of the new methods' information into older historiographical projects. Some, by the way, do this.
No longer is it taught that America is founded on Judeo-Christian values and for what gain? A relativistic view of history, morals, and life?
By this statement, your issue is not the correctness or incorrectness of contemporary historical methods, but rather that they do not interpret history in the same way. The naive question to your answer is, "Were we founded on Judeo-Christian values?" Better questions would be these: "What relevance, if any, do Judeo-Christian values have to the founding of this nation?" ; "Were the values seen as Judeo-Christian, or as humanistic?" ; "Were there other values that were as important, or more important, than these?" ; "What are Judeo-Christian values?" I haven't seen anyone give an adequate answer to all of these questions. And I think the answers to these questions give the reason why we shouldn't simply teach that America was founded on Judeo-Christian values.
And I would also point out, to your second sentence, that nothing I've said implies relativism on its own. One can take an objective view of history and still acknowledge that validation and verification of historical data are still methodological problems. As well, one can still see that the objective view may be more complicated than a sticker-sentence slogan like "America is founded on Judeo-Christian values." I seek to be more faithful to literary and historical meaning, and not less. And I love my country more after I've learned of its flaws, because I better know what I love. That does not make the United States exempt of anything.
About the perceived anti-intellectualism in my post. That is not the case at all. Why is it that intellectualism is confined to what you believe? Hmm?
I think you can agree that professors impart to their students their view of historical facts? And the overwhelming majority of professors share a liberal ideology. It makes it so that the educated are placed into colleges where they merely rehash the same anti-American themes that have influenced global thought outside of America. That weakens us immensely.
Naive.
Again, my observations are these:
Decent professors know that what they teach is not the final say, and acknowledge their liberal perspective while letting everyone else make up their own minds. They impart their skepticism, even more than their views. And I must admit, there is more to be skeptical towards in the old, propagandistic views of history, than the contemporary ones. Both deserve skepticism, but in teaching students who have learned only the first view, initial examples of inquiry must work against these. Only after that can students then ask relevant questions for and against other views of history: postcolonial, queer, and so on.
"Intellectual" is a term that designates those who work in academia, normally in the university systems around the world. It is a particular designation of profession in this case. And you are opposed to them implicitly, by calling most of them liberal and implying that this fact alone makes the teaching "brainwashing" and the evils of relativistic thinking. Instead, I see them as encouraging better thinking of any sort, whether objective or relative. As I indicated in the Judeo-Christian part, it enables us to know what we know, and how we understand what we know, instead of dealing in fuzzy distinctions. (You'd be amazed how many "objectivists" don't realize the fuzziness of their own "definitions.")
For the material of the rest of your post, I hope someone can give it the treatment it deserves. I make a few observations against your argument.
1. Native American aggressions against Americans does not make the American treatment of them better. Do their actions justify ours? Never, unless you're more draconian than I thought. You did not, for instance, address the treatment of Native Americans past the later 19th century, including the events surrounding the Ghost Dance.
Yes, there was considerable fear of Native Americans that live nearby. But why did they live nearby? Hmm. Maybe it was because the settlers moved near to the Native Americans first? You move a population into a space, and there is inevitably competition over resources once they become scarce. Thus the early English were led to believe that America was a tabula rasa fit for colonization and settlement, a view that erases the native presence. They presumed that the natives had the same sense of property, and when they didn't, they assumed it was due to inherent inferiority. The noble savage, but the savage nonetheless. Why do we think that Jamestown and Plymouth were settled in lands untouched by natives? Why do we assume that any subsequent assault against them is injust simply because they have a right to defend themselves? Both have valid claims to defense. So it isn't as simple as settlers having a fear of the natives, requesting protection, and then moving them further west. Both sides were wrong. Both sides' responses were sometimes understandable. That does not make them innocent.
2. More nuanced is your claim that other nations were using Native Americans to fight their battles. I have two responses:
a. If we are then to treat those tribes that allied with other nations like autonomous nations that have made an alliance, then why did we not respect their sovereignty even after we defeated them? Why did that give us the right to move their population, take their land and property, and so on?
b. In the example of the Cherokee, they were decidedly not aggressive against settlers. They were the antithesis of aggressive: well-adjusted, educated, moral. If you imply that the settlers shoved them out due to fear, and that such fear was justified, then you've just observed the horrible thing that we have done. We piled many different groups under one negative appelation, and gave in to our fear to subjugate that group in order to feel more safe. Think of the treatment of Japanese-Americans during World War II, for instance. The pattern is not inevitable, but it is habitual.
3.
And the people who participated in removing Indians were the SAME people who in 1861 wanted to fight to the death with the North over a racist bigoted notion.
People can write theses over whether the Civil War was fought over concerns about slavery, or whether it was fought over conflicting claims of sovereignty under federalist and confederate notions. It's probably a more complicated interaction of both ideas.
And a legislature changes radically in thirty years. People die. Others get elected. So your claim that they were the same people is rather dubious.
Finally, you seem to imply that the north was never culpable in any racist action. They abolished slavery earlier, true. And I suppose that, since they got rid of their Native American populations earlier, they did it with more tact and less visibility?
4. A correction to an assumption you give with your map. You assume that the lands a particular nation claims imply that the nation had control over all the tribes within those lands. Incorrect. The lands west of the Mississippi were largely unexplored when Lewis and Clark took their expedition; by then, most of the lands were under American rule, save for Spanish and British holdings west of the Rockies. National interference at the time was restricted to lone traders in these areas. Even east of the Mississippi, the countries only exercised limited control over the areas, trading and negotiating. It was only after the Americans controlled these areas that large scale military interventions, and thus rule, were possible.
Finally, I just want to say that you are very thought-provoking, even as I disagree with you. And I appreciate the time you put in your response.
Should balance out then...lol