I work on public memory a/b the violence of westward expansion, & every so often I wonder if I'm exaggerating the depth to which this country has used the post Civil War wars against Native nations as a national myth of vindication of the genocidal violence of that expansion. 1/

I've been tracing narrative links b/t secondary US history textbook descriptions of those wars & their sources in early histories, memoirs & other public-facing documents. COVID has slowed my research down but I have a/b 15 yrs of a veterans' newsletter here so today I dug in. 2/

In just 1/2 an hour reading only a/b 6 mo worth of "Winners of the West" (a newsletter aimed at securing pensions for veterans of the "Indian wars"), I found the following: 3/

An article claiming the wars against Native nations was the fulfillment of the Declaration of Independence's "merciless Indian s*v*g*es" line (28 Feb 1930)
4/

Two calls for allowing "Indian wars" vets to join the GAR because while the Civil War was fought for the "preservation of the Union" the "Indian wars" secured it through the "redemption of the West" (30 Sept 1930) 5/

Multiple calls to put copies of "Winners of the West" in classrooms so "children of this glorious nation would be taught the loyalty & patriotism to the Stars and Stripes" (30 Sept 1930)
6/

And most disturbingly, a literal blood and soil argument connecting the blood of soldiers spilled on the Plains with the rich harvests the pioneers and settlers reaped. (also 30 Sept 1930 - that issue is... something.)

7/

Obviously this is a booster publication prone to both deep bias & high fallutin' language about it, but this language is mirrored in textbooks, and some of it's still in them today.

So I'm reminded that no, I'm not exaggerating. We have to #ChangeTheNarrative. end/