What does where we live have to do with the way we experience and learn history?

The classic example of this divide is how, traditionally, history curriculums approach the Civil War.

While this is less the case today, 25-50 years ago, if you grew up in the South, you would have learned about the "War of Northern Aggression"

If you grew up in the North, you would have learned about the American Civil War and the South's history of slavery and the war to end the slavery.

"Traditional" History is often written by those that were victorious, so it is remarkable to see how in the modern era voices are being heard that would not have been traditionally heard.

A global society means that history is more nuanced with more perspectives present at the table of history.

But there is still a long way to go. Californians will spend lots of time learning about Sutters Fort while Pennsylvanians will learn about Fort Duquesne.

as general terms,  indian territory,  the indian territories, or  indian country  describe an evolving land area set aside by the  united states government  for the relocation of  native americans  who held  aboriginal title  to their land. in general, the tribes ceded land they occupied in exchange for  land grants  in 1803. the concept of an indian territory was an outcome of the 18th- and 19th-century policy of  indian removal. after the  civil war(1861–1865), the policy of the government was one of  assimilation.

native americans suffered high rates of poverty and unemployment.

during the late 1960s and early 1970sthe need for political militancy grew among the native americans. throughout the 1960s, they had been the nation's poorest minority group, the most deprived group, according to practically every socioeconomic measure. in 1970, the indian unemployment rate was 10 times the national average, and 40 percent of the native american people were below the poverty line.