And I wouldn't say that even histories of slavery are being centered in the texts Indigenous scholars have critiqued! But including of slavery is used to explain how/why these same texts erase/ignore Indigenous histories/people as political actors. What do our ancestors have to do with this? 😩

I think the histories are deeply intertwined. But the scholarship doesn't always reflect that. I wasn't thinking of 1619 specifically. I'm talking about anti-Blackness in Native/Indigenous historiography.

Or Rodney Taylor, a disabled double amputee who’s been in America since he was two years old.

He was days away from receiving new prosthetic legs when ICE grabbed him

His health is declining, they won’t let him get his legs and they’ve placed him in solitary

www.disabledginger.com/p/help-rodne...

I look forward to reading it!

And when the false binary is named, there's little to no recognition of Africans as displaced Indigenous people. Or even as actors themselves.

as a central antagonism or problem*

So in turn, a lot of Native historiography leans into that by naming the historiography of slavery as central antagonism. As opposed to the false binary that's generated (though not wholly) by White historians.

I said a little bit more in my following post (I should've threaded them). Many canonical U.S. history texts follow a racial binary that often fails to account for non-Black Indigenous people as actors.

I'd be hoarse if I did. And I've read a lot.