Three Words in the Declaration of Independence Paint a Cruel Picture of Natives

Quick Answer

The phrase “merciless Indian Savages” appears in the Declaration of Independence’s list of grievances against King George III. These three words justified centuries of violence, dispossession, and genocide against Native peoples by framing them as subhuman threats rather than sovereign nations. The language remains unchanged in the original document, and its legacy continues to shape how Indigenous communities are perceived and treated in America today.

Last updated: July 1, 2026

What Are the Three Words About Natives in the Declaration of Independence?

The three words are “merciless Indian Savages,” which appear in the Declaration’s longest grievance against King George III. The full sentence reads:

“He has excited domestic insurrections amongst us, and has endeavoured to bring on the inhabitants of our frontiers, the merciless Indian Savages, whose known rule of warfare, is an undistinguished destruction of all ages, sexes and conditions.”

This passage sits near the end of the Declaration’s list of 27 grievances. It accuses the British king of encouraging Native peoples to attack colonial settlements. The language strips Indigenous nations of political legitimacy and humanity, reducing complex diplomatic and military conflicts to acts of savage barbarism.

The phrase served multiple purposes for the Continental Congress. It rallied colonists around a common enemy, deflected responsibility for frontier violence onto the British, and established a rhetorical framework that would justify westward expansion for the next century.

By calling Native peoples “savages,” the founders positioned them outside the social contract and natural rights they claimed for themselves.

Key context you need to know:

• The grievance appears as #27 out of 27 total complaints
• It was one of the last additions to Jefferson’s draft
• The Continental Congress debated and approved this language unanimously
• No delegate objected to the characterization on record

The phrase wasn’t accidental or careless. It was a deliberate political choice that reflected and reinforced colonial attitudes toward Indigenous peoples. Understanding this helps explain why the Declaration’s promises of equality didn’t extend to Native Americans, enslaved Africans, or women.

Merciless Indian Savages Declaration of Independence Meaning

The phrase “merciless Indian Savages” functioned as propaganda to unite the colonies against Britain while dehumanizing Native peoples. Jefferson and the Continental Congress used it to shift blame for frontier violence away from colonial expansion and onto British manipulation.

The meaning operates on several levels. Literally, it accuses King George of inciting Native attacks on colonial settlements. Politically, it frames Indigenous resistance to land theft as illegitimate violence rather than self-defense.

Ideologically, it establishes Native peoples as outside civilization and undeserving of the rights the Declaration claims are universal.

What the phrase accomplished:

• Justified colonial expansion by portraying Native peoples as obstacles to progress
• Deflected moral responsibility for violence onto the British crown
• Created a legal and philosophical framework for denying Indigenous sovereignty
• Established a pattern of dehumanizing language that persisted in U.S. policy for centuries

The word “merciless” suggests Native warfare violated European norms, ignoring that colonial militias routinely massacred Indigenous villages. The term “Savages” (capitalized in the original) denies Native peoples’ complex political systems, legal traditions, and diplomatic practices.

The phrase “undistinguished destruction of all ages, sexes and conditions” accuses Native warriors of targeting civilians, though colonial forces did the same.

Historians note this language contradicted Jefferson’s own writings about Native cultures. In Notes on the State of Virginia, he praised Indigenous oratory and governance. The Declaration’s harsh rhetoric likely reflected political necessity rather than personal belief, though that distinction mattered little to the Native peoples it harmed.

Why Did Jefferson Call Native Americans Savages?

Jefferson included the “savage” language primarily for political reasons, not personal conviction. He needed to unite 13 fractious colonies against Britain, and blaming the king for frontier violence served that goal. The phrase also reflected widespread colonial attitudes that viewed Indigenous peoples as impediments to westward expansion.

Jefferson’s personal views on Native Americans were contradictory and evolved over time. In his early writings, he expressed admiration for Indigenous eloquence and governance. He believed Native peoples could be “civilized” through education and agriculture, a paternalistic view that still denied their sovereignty and cultural autonomy.

Factors that influenced Jefferson’s language:

• Political pressure to justify colonial expansion into Native territories
• Need to rally colonists who had suffered in frontier conflicts
• Enlightenment-era racial theories that ranked human societies hierarchically
• Economic interests in western land speculation
• Desire to deflect criticism of colonial violence onto the British

By 1776, Jefferson owned significant western land claims that depended on removing Native peoples. His financial interests aligned with the expansionist ideology the Declaration promoted. The “savage” language served both his political coalition and his personal wealth.

Common mistake to avoid: Don’t assume Jefferson’s private writings about Native cultures meant he opposed their dispossession. He consistently supported policies that forced Indigenous peoples off their lands, regardless of his stated respect for their abilities.

Later in life, Jefferson advocated for Indian removal and assimilation policies that destroyed Native communities. His 1803 Louisiana Purchase doubled U.S. territory and set the stage for forced relocations like the Trail of Tears.

The Declaration’s language provided ideological cover for these actions by establishing Native peoples as threats rather than neighbors.

For more context on how founding narratives shaped Indigenous experiences, see our article on the history of Native American boarding schools.

Did the Founding Fathers Consider Native Americans in the Declaration?

The founding fathers considered Native Americans primarily as obstacles to colonial expansion, not as peoples with inherent rights. The Declaration’s “merciless Indian Savages” phrase reveals that Indigenous peoples were excluded from the “all men are created equal” framework from the start.

The Continental Congress debated Native policy extensively during the Revolutionary period. They established a Committee on Indian Affairs and negotiated treaties with several nations. But these diplomatic efforts coexisted with the Declaration’s dehumanizing language, revealing a fundamental contradiction in founding principles.

How the founders viewed Native peoples:

• As sovereign nations when it served diplomatic purposes (securing neutrality or alliances)
• As “domestic dependent nations” when claiming authority over their lands
• As “savages” when justifying violence and dispossession
• As potential citizens only if they abandoned their cultures and identities

The Iroquois Confederacy influenced some founders’ thinking about federalism and representative government. Benjamin Franklin and others studied Indigenous political systems. Yet this intellectual curiosity didn’t translate into recognizing Native peoples’ equal rights or sovereignty.

The Constitution later codified this exclusion. Article I, Section 2 originally counted “Indians not taxed” separately from citizens for representation purposes.

The Commerce Clause gave Congress power to regulate trade “with Indian Tribes,” treating them as foreign entities. These provisions established Native peoples as outside the body politic.

Edge case: Some individual founders, like Benjamin Franklin in his earlier writings, expressed more nuanced views of Native societies. But the Declaration and Constitution reflected the dominant colonial perspective that Indigenous peoples were temporary occupants of lands destined for American expansion.

How Did the Declaration of Independence Justify Treatment of Natives?

The Declaration justified harsh treatment of Native peoples by framing them as tools of British tyranny rather than independent nations with legitimate grievances. This rhetorical move allowed colonists to position themselves as victims defending their homes, not aggressors stealing land.

The “merciless Indian Savages” phrase specifically blamed King George for “exciting domestic insurrections” and bringing Native attacks on frontier settlements. This language accomplished several justifications simultaneously.

How the Declaration’s logic worked:

1. It portrayed Native resistance as illegitimate violence, not self-defense against colonial expansion
2. It denied Indigenous peoples’ agency by casting them as British puppets
3. It established a precedent for viewing Native sovereignty as subordinate to American interests
4. It created moral permission for retaliation and preemptive strikes against Indigenous communities

The Declaration’s natural rights philosophy theoretically applied to all humans, but the “savage” language placed Native peoples outside that category. If Indigenous peoples were uncivilized and merciless, they couldn’t claim the same rights to life, liberty, and property that colonists demanded for themselves.

This justification pattern continued after independence. The Northwest Ordinance (1787) promised “utmost good faith” toward Native peoples while simultaneously organizing their lands for American settlement. Treaties were signed and broken repeatedly, with each violation justified by claims of Native aggression or savagery.

The long-term impact: The Declaration’s language established a template for American Indian policy that persisted for over a century.

Andrew Jackson cited similar reasoning when defending the Indian Removal Act of 1830. Military leaders invoked “savage” warfare to justify massacres like Sand Creek (1864) and Wounded Knee (1890).

For more on how these founding attitudes shaped later policies, explore our piece on Native American history in Georgia, where removal policies devastated Creek and Cherokee nations.

What Grievances About Native Americans Are in the Declaration?

The Declaration contains only one explicit grievance about Native Americans, but it’s the longest and most emotionally charged in the entire list. Grievance #27 accuses King George III of inciting “domestic insurrections” and bringing “the merciless Indian Savages” against frontier inhabitants.

The full text reads: “He has excited domestic insurrections amongst us, and has endeavoured to bring on the inhabitants of our frontiers, the merciless Indian Savages, whose known rule of warfare, is an undistinguished destruction of all ages, sexes and conditions.”

What this grievance claimed:

• The British crown actively encouraged Native attacks on colonial settlements
• Indigenous warfare violated civilized norms by targeting civilians
• Native peoples were instruments of British policy rather than independent actors
• Frontier violence was Britain’s fault, not a consequence of colonial expansion

The grievance conflates two separate issues: slave rebellions (“domestic insurrections”) and Native resistance. This pairing suggests the founders viewed both enslaved Africans and Indigenous peoples as internal threats to colonial society, not as peoples with legitimate claims to freedom or sovereignty.

Historical evidence complicates this grievance. While Britain did form alliances with some Native nations during the Revolution, Indigenous peoples had their own reasons to resist colonial expansion.

The Proclamation of 1763 had attempted to limit colonial settlement west of the Appalachians, protecting Native lands from encroachment. Colonists violated this boundary repeatedly, and Native nations defended their territories in response.

The grievance ignored:

• Colonial violations of British treaties that protected Native lands
• American militias’ attacks on Indigenous villages
• The legitimacy of Native peoples’ self-defense against land theft
• Indigenous nations’ own diplomatic and military strategies

The grievance also erased the diversity of Native responses to the Revolution. Some nations allied with Britain, others with the colonists, and many tried to remain neutral. The Declaration’s blanket characterization denied this complexity and agency.

Has the Declaration of Independence Language About Natives Been Changed?

No, the original language has never been changed. The phrase “merciless Indian Savages” remains in every official copy of the Declaration of Independence, including the engrossed parchment displayed at the National Archives.

The Declaration is considered a historical document, and there’s no legal mechanism or political will to amend its text. Unlike the Constitution, which has been amended 27 times, the Declaration serves as a statement of principles from a specific historical moment, not a living legal framework.

Why the text hasn’t changed:

• The Declaration is a historical artifact, not an active legal document
• Changing it would be seen as erasing history rather than confronting it
• No formal process exists for amending the Declaration
• Political consensus for such a change doesn’t exist

Some educational materials and modern reprintings include contextual notes explaining the problematic language. The National Archives website provides historical context for the “Indian Savages” phrase. But these explanatory efforts don’t alter the original text.

What has changed: How the Declaration is taught and interpreted. Some educators now include critical discussions of the “savage” language and its consequences. Museums and historical sites increasingly acknowledge the document’s exclusions and contradictions. But these interpretive changes don’t modify the 1776 text itself.

The question of whether to change historical documents remains contentious. Some argue that altering the text would be dishonest and prevent future generations from understanding the founders’ actual views. Others contend that leaving harmful language unchanged gives it continued legitimacy and authority.

Alternative approach: Rather than changing the Declaration, many historians and educators advocate for teaching it alongside Indigenous perspectives and documents. This contextual approach preserves the historical record while challenging its assumptions and consequences.

How Do Historians Interpret the Native American References in the Declaration?

Historians interpret the “merciless Indian Savages” language as revealing the founders’ exclusionary vision of American identity and their willingness to dehumanize Indigenous peoples to justify expansion. Most scholars view the phrase as politically motivated propaganda rather than an accurate description of Native warfare or British policy.

Contemporary historians emphasize several key interpretations. First, the language reflects Enlightenment-era racial hierarchies that ranked human societies from “savage” to “civilized.”

Second, it served immediate political purposes by uniting colonists against a common enemy. Third, it established rhetorical patterns that justified centuries of violence and dispossession.

Major scholarly perspectives:

• Founding mythology critics argue the phrase exposes the hypocrisy of declaring “all men are created equal” while denying Indigenous peoples’ humanity
• Political historians emphasize the strategic function of the language in building colonial unity
• Indigenous scholars highlight how the Declaration’s rhetoric enabled genocidal policies and continues to harm Native communities
• Legal historians trace how the “savage” framework influenced Supreme Court decisions that denied tribal sovereignty

Historian Woody Holton notes that Jefferson’s draft originally included a grievance blaming King George for the slave trade, which Southern delegates forced him to remove. The “Indian Savages” language, by contrast, faced no objections, suggesting broader consensus on anti-Native sentiment than on slavery.

Native American scholars like Roxanne Dunbar-Ortiz argue the Declaration should be read as a document of empire, not liberation. In An Indigenous Peoples’ History of the United States, she contends the “savage” language reveals the founders’ colonial project: creating a white settler nation on stolen Indigenous land.

Historiographical debate: Some historians argue we shouldn’t judge 18th-century figures by modern standards. Others counter that Native peoples and some colonists at the time recognized the injustice of dispossession, so the founders’ choices weren’t inevitable products of their era but deliberate political decisions.

Recent scholarship increasingly centers Indigenous perspectives on the founding period. This work reveals that Native nations viewed themselves as sovereign equals negotiating with the new United States, not as “savages” subject to American authority. The gap between these perspectives explains much of the violence that followed.

What Was the Context for Calling Natives Savages in 1776?

In 1776, colonial attitudes toward Native peoples were shaped by decades of frontier conflict, Enlightenment racial theories, and economic interests in western lands. The “savage” label wasn’t new to the Declaration; it reflected widespread colonial rhetoric that justified expansion and violence.

The immediate context was Pontiac’s War (1763-1766) and ongoing frontier violence in the 1770s. Native nations resisted colonial encroachment on their territories, leading to brutal conflicts that both sides prosecuted with extreme violence. Colonists who had lost family members or property in these conflicts readily accepted the “merciless” characterization.

Cultural and intellectual context:

• Enlightenment thinkers ranked human societies on a scale from “savage” to “civilized,” with European cultures at the top
• Colonial literature and sermons routinely depicted Native peoples as obstacles to Christian civilization
• Economic interests in land speculation made Indigenous removal profitable for colonial elites
• The Proclamation of 1763 had frustrated colonists by limiting westward expansion to protect Native lands

The Seven Years’ War (1754-1763) had seen Native nations allied with both British and French forces. Colonists experienced this as Indigenous peoples choosing sides in European conflicts, which reinforced the view that Native nations were pawns rather than independent actors with their own interests.

What colonists ignored: Native peoples had sophisticated diplomatic traditions, legal systems, and political structures. The Iroquois Confederacy, for example, operated a complex federal system that influenced American constitutional thinking. But acknowledging this would have undermined the “savage” narrative that justified taking their lands.

Religious context also mattered. Many colonists viewed westward expansion as a divine mandate to spread Christianity and civilization. This providential thinking cast Native peoples as either potential converts or obstacles to God’s plan, not as peoples with equal rights to their homelands.

Edge case: Some colonists, particularly Quakers and certain missionaries, opposed the “savage” characterization and advocated for peaceful coexistence. But these voices were marginalized in the political debates of 1776, and the Declaration reflected the dominant expansionist perspective.

For more on how these attitudes shaped specific regions, see our article on Native American history in Texas.

Do Schools Teach About the Anti-Native Language in the Declaration?

Most American schools do not explicitly teach about the “merciless Indian Savages” phrase or its historical consequences. When the Declaration is covered in curricula, the focus typically falls on the preamble’s ideals of equality and natural rights, not on the grievances section where the anti-Native language appears.

A 2019 survey by the Southern Poverty Law Center found that only 8% of high school seniors could identify slavery as the central cause of the Civil War, suggesting broader gaps in teaching uncomfortable historical truths.

Similar patterns apply to Indigenous history, where curricula often skip from early colonial contact to westward expansion without examining founding documents’ role in justifying dispossession.

Why this language is rarely taught:

• State standards emphasize the Declaration’s ideals, not its exclusions
• Teachers have limited time and often skip the grievances section entirely
• Textbooks frequently excerpt only the preamble and conclusion
• Discussing the “savage” language requires confronting uncomfortable truths about the founders
• Many educators lack training in Indigenous history and perspectives

Some states have recently improved Indigenous history requirements. California’s 2021 ethnic studies framework includes critical examination of founding documents. Montana requires teaching about tribal sovereignty and treaties. But these remain exceptions rather than the norm.

What students typically learn instead: Most curricula present the Declaration as a universal statement of human rights, with little discussion of who was excluded from “all men are created equal.” Native Americans, if mentioned at all, appear later in units on westward expansion, disconnected from the founding period.

Best practices emerging: Some educators now teach the Declaration alongside Indigenous responses and documents. This approach preserves the historical text while challenging its assumptions. Students read the “savage” language, discuss its purposes and consequences, and consider how Native peoples at the time would have understood it.

The National Museum of the American Indian offers educational resources that contextualize the Declaration within Indigenous history. These materials help teachers address the document’s contradictions without either erasing its importance or ignoring its harms.

How Did Native Americans Respond to the Declaration of Independence?

Native American nations responded to the Declaration and the Revolution with diverse strategies based on their own interests, alliances, and assessments of which side would better protect their sovereignty and lands.

Most Indigenous leaders recognized that American independence would likely accelerate westward expansion and threaten their territories.

The Iroquois Confederacy split over the Revolution. The Mohawk, Onondaga, Cayuga, and Seneca largely allied with Britain, while the Oneida and Tuscarora sided with the Americans. This division reflected different diplomatic calculations about which power would respect their lands and autonomy.

Common Native responses:

• Alliance with Britain: Many nations allied with the British, who had attempted to limit colonial expansion with the Proclamation of 1763
• Alliance with Americans: Some nations, particularly those with existing trade relationships or conflicts with British-allied tribes, supported the colonists
• Neutrality: Many nations tried to avoid involvement, recognizing that both sides threatened their interests
• Opportunistic warfare: Some nations used the conflict to settle scores with colonial settlements or rival tribes

The Cherokee, who had fought colonists in the 1760s, initially attacked frontier settlements in 1776. American militias responded by destroying Cherokee towns, forcing a treaty that ceded significant territory. This pattern—Native resistance followed by devastating retaliation and land loss—repeated throughout the Revolutionary period.

What Native leaders understood: Indigenous diplomats recognized that the Declaration’s rhetoric about liberty and rights didn’t extend to them. They had experienced decades of broken treaties and encroachment. The Revolution represented a choice between two colonial powers, neither of which respected Native sovereignty.

Joseph Brant, the Mohawk leader who allied with Britain, articulated this clearly. He argued that the British at least acknowledged Indigenous nations as allies, while the Americans treated them as obstacles to be removed.

His assessment proved accurate; after American victory, the Treaty of Paris (1783) transferred Native lands to the United States without consulting Indigenous nations.

The long-term impact: Native nations’ Revolutionary War allegiances were used against them for decades. Those who sided with Britain were punished with land cessions and removal.

But even those who allied with the Americans, like the Oneida, eventually lost their lands to the same expansionist pressures the Declaration’s “savage” language had justified.

For more on how Indigenous peoples navigated these impossible choices, see our article on origin stories of Native American tribes.

Are There Other Problematic Phrases in the Declaration of Independence?

Yes, the Declaration contains other exclusionary language beyond the “merciless Indian Savages” phrase. Most notably, Jefferson’s original draft included a passage condemning King George for the slave trade, which the Continental Congress deleted to appease Southern and Northern delegates with economic interests in slavery.

The deleted passage read: “He has waged cruel war against human nature itself, violating its most sacred rights of life and liberty in the persons of a distant people who never offended him, captivating & carrying them into slavery in another hemisphere or to incur miserable death in their transportation thither.”

Other problematic elements:

• The phrase “all men are created equal” excluded women, enslaved people, and Native Americans from its scope
• The grievance about “domestic insurrections” referred partly to slave rebellions, framing enslaved people’s freedom struggles as threats
• The document’s entire framework assumed the legitimacy of colonial land claims on Indigenous territories
• The Declaration’s natural rights philosophy was selectively applied based on race and gender

The deleted slavery passage reveals the founders’ contradictions. Jefferson condemned the slave trade while owning over 600 enslaved people during his lifetime. The Continental Congress removed the passage not because they opposed slavery, but because they couldn’t agree on blaming Britain for it.

Why these exclusions matter: The Declaration’s universal language (“all men”) created a rhetorical standard that marginalized groups later used to demand inclusion. Abolitionists, suffragists, and civil rights activists all invoked the Declaration’s ideals to challenge the founders’ exclusions. But those exclusions were built into the document from the start, not accidental oversights.

The Declaration’s treatment of women is implicit rather than explicit. The document uses “men” throughout, and the political theory it draws from (particularly John Locke) assumed only male property owners were full citizens. Abigail Adams famously urged her husband John to “remember the ladies” in the new government, but the founders ignored this advice.

Modern reckonings: Scholars and activists increasingly read the Declaration as a document of its time—revolutionary in asserting colonial rights against monarchy, but deeply limited in its vision of who counted as fully human. This critical reading doesn’t erase the Declaration’s historical importance, but it refuses to treat its exclusions as acceptable or inevitable.

What Did Thomas Jefferson Really Think About Native Americans?

Thomas Jefferson’s views on Native Americans were contradictory, paternalistic, and ultimately subordinated to his vision of American expansion. He expressed admiration for Indigenous cultures while consistently supporting policies that dispossessed them of their lands and sovereignty.

In Notes on the State of Virginia (1785), Jefferson praised Native eloquence and governance. He included a speech by the Mingo leader Logan as an example of oratory equal to classical Greek and Roman examples. He argued that Native peoples were intellectually equal to Europeans and that their “savage” state resulted from environment and education, not inherent inferiority.

Jefferson’s stated views:

• Native peoples were capable of “civilization” through education and agriculture
• Indigenous languages and oratory demonstrated sophisticated thought
• Native Americans should be encouraged to abandon hunting and adopt farming
• Intermarriage between whites and Indians could eventually assimilate Native peoples into American society

These views sound progressive compared to the “merciless savage” rhetoric, but they still denied Indigenous peoples’ right to maintain their own cultures and sovereignty. Jefferson’s “civilization” program required Native nations to abandon their traditional lifeways and adopt Euro-American practices.

Jefferson’s actual policies:

• Supported aggressive land acquisition through treaties and purchases
• Advocated for Indian removal from eastern territories
• Encouraged Native peoples to accumulate debt to traders, then pressured them to cede land to pay it off
• Doubled U.S. territory with the Louisiana Purchase, setting the stage for forced relocations
• Told Native leaders they must “become one people” with Americans or move west of the Mississippi

Jefferson’s 1803 letter to William Henry Harrison, governor of Indiana Territory, reveals his strategic thinking. He advised Harrison to encourage Native peoples to go into debt at government trading posts, then use that debt as leverage to acquire their lands. This wasn’t the policy of someone who respected Indigenous sovereignty.

The contradiction explained: Jefferson believed in a hierarchy of human societies from “savage” to “civilized.” He thought Native peoples could ascend this ladder through assimilation, but he never questioned whether they should be forced to do so. His admiration for Indigenous cultures was anthropological curiosity, not recognition of equal rights.

Edge case: Some historians argue Jefferson’s views evolved over time, becoming more pessimistic about assimilation and more supportive of removal. His later writings suggest he came to believe Native and white societies couldn’t coexist, and that Indigenous peoples would need to move west or face extinction.

The gap between Jefferson’s intellectual appreciation of Native cultures and his political support for their dispossession reveals a fundamental contradiction in Enlightenment liberalism.

He could admire Indigenous eloquence while signing policies that destroyed Indigenous nations because he never saw Native peoples as equals with the same rights to their lands and sovereignty that he claimed for Americans.

Really? Only 3 Words?

The three words “merciless Indian Savages” in the Declaration of Independence reveal a founding contradiction that shaped American history for centuries. While the document proclaimed universal human rights, it simultaneously dehumanized Indigenous peoples to justify their dispossession and removal.

Understanding this language and its consequences is essential for honest reckoning with American history. The Declaration’s rhetoric wasn’t accidental or merely a product of its time. It was a deliberate political choice that enabled policies from the Indian Removal Act to the reservation system to forced assimilation in boarding schools.

What you can do with this knowledge:

• Advocate for more complete teaching of the Declaration in schools, including its exclusions and contradictions
• Support Indigenous-led efforts to tell their own histories and challenge founding mythologies
• Recognize that the struggle for the Declaration’s ideals to apply equally to all people remains ongoing
• Understand how historical language shapes present-day attitudes and policies toward Native peoples

The Declaration’s promise that “all men are created equal” has inspired generations of Americans to demand inclusion and justice. But fulfilling that promise requires confronting the document’s original exclusions and the violence they justified. Native American communities continue to fight for sovereignty, land rights, and cultural survival against legacies that trace directly back to 1776.

For those interested in learning more about Indigenous perspectives on American history, explore our resources on Native American culture and history. Understanding the past is the first step toward a more just future.