Weblog 3

"We Have a Story to Tell" vs. "History Is a Weapon"
In comparison of “We Have a Story to Tell” from theNational History of the American Indian to “History Is a Weapon” by Howard Zinn, the notions of ideology, sentiment and historiography play completely different roles. Although both of these articles are dealing with the same time period they are completely different in the content they imply. “We Have a Story to Tell” states the facts point blank about what happened. Its not that Zinn does not do the same thing, he just adds in more gruesome facts and examples to paint a better picture for his audience of what life was like for the Indians.
I think that Zinn explains ideology and historiography perfectly when he compares it to a map maker. When a cartographer is making a map there are a lot of area’s left out or slightly strewn. This is due to the fact that the world is round and it has to be put onto a flat piece of paper. When is historian is writing about what has happened in history, the same thing happens. There is no way that we can know all of the facts about what has happened, so many things are either left out or the truth is stretched.
It is not that either one of these articles are wrong. They are just telling the story from different perspectives so inevitably each article will have varying facts and examples. I think that each of these articles have great facts and are very truthful. Depending on what I was trying to teach to my students would be the determinant of which article I used.

