The easiest group to come up with answers to was for Anglos. The Internet and U.S. history books are saturated with information about the contributions of Anglos. Even though other ethnicities have made important, if not critical, contributions to U.S. history, specific individuals are not as renowned as in the case of the Anglo ethnicity. I would have to venture that it was not important to identify the individual contributions of different ethnicities when history was being made and written by Anglos. Also, when we go way back into history, recordings of events may have been limited, lost or destroyed, or people relied more on word of mouth than the written word and therefore some information specific individuals of different ethnicities was lost. Most of the individuals I looked for were of historical significance as these were the people I thought had the highest probability of being documented.

It was easier to come up with the male gender in regards to people. This was applicable regardless of the specific ethnicity I was looking for. Females were not as easily identified before the 1800’s. Again, the same reason for why it was difficult to find different ethnicities is the same reason why it was more difficult to find women in history. The Anglo male is most often documented in historical references as having some significant contribution to the development of the U.S. and Europe. As the Internet is basically a creation of an Anglo society perhaps it isn't surprising then that most of the information I found was predominantly Anglo. Although, I would have to say out of everything in which to get information, the Internet is by far the most diverse.

U.S. history records and discusses the contributions of the male Anglo more than any other ethnic group. Ethnic and gender groups are vaguely mentioned but are not discussed in the history of the U.S. until at least the late 1800’s to 1900’s. At least the contributions of specific individuals belonging to these groups are not called to attention. When other groups are discussed, it is not always in the same positive light as Anglo’s are mentioned. Native Americans were heathens, barbaric savages; Blacks were sub-human and treated with less care and respect than the animals that were owned by slave owners. Women were objects to be owned, objectified, and admired but were not to have say in the daily running of households or business. Need I mention the Salem witch trials? How many male witches were burned at the stake? Asians, although used for the building of our transportation infrastructure at the time, were not allowed to become citizens and were definitely not treated as such during WWII. The discrimination and hostilities against Mexican’s continues to this day, with little true understanding of the contributions that Mexican’s, even illegal ones, have made to U.S. history and economic success. The list goes on. I think some groups are not talked about in the history of the U.S. because of discrimination, embarrassment, and attitudes that the history of the U.S. was created on the backs of Anglos with little or no contributions by other ethnic, gender, or other groups. To quote Chris Rock, “It’s all right, cause it’s all white”

When we consider why minority groups are less represented in history we should look at the text book changes Texas is trying to establish (http://www.guardian.co.uk/world/2010/may/16/texas-schools-rewrites-us-history), it might shed a light on how history is recorded and modified through time.

What are your thoughts on the way Texas is attempting to change their textbooks in an effort to rewrite history?