""Indians": Textualism, Morality, and the Problem of History"

Alright so before i begin, i just wrote this whole blog out, and thought i had saved and published the post, but it didn't, i pressed the wrong button or something, so now i'm a little pissed but here goes. I will attempt to recreate what i just said:
Ok, so i pleasantly surprised with how this essay turned out. Judging from the title i figured it was going to be a long rant about how hard it's been to be an Indian since the white man showed up. I should have known by now that whenever i think that about something in this book, i'm almost always surprised to be looking at something in a way i had never thought of before (although in my defense i had heard a quote once about how if you always plan on the worst, your life will always be full of happy surprises). It's not that i don't feel bad for the indians, because i do feel that they were mistreated, it's just that i wanted to hear something different and different was definitely what we got.
We were told in the preface that this was less of an essay about indians than a "behind-the-scenes" look at this woman compiling "evidence" about what she was going to write about, which happened to be the american indians. She starts it off by giving an anecdote which outlines the difference between an ideal of something and the reality of something. For modern americans, we romanticize the indian and what it meant to be one. This part reminded me of "the loss of the creature", when we see indians we want to see our ideal of what they should be, based on movies, etc. We want to experience "it", the authentic feel of what we think it is to be indian.
She goes on after this to explain that she is writing a paper and gathering all the facts she can get about the indians and the relations they had with early settlers until present. what she ended up getting was a problem that arises when none of the "facts" seem to fit very well with each other. She attempts to circumvent this problem by going to other sources, and then first hand accounts, and yet what she finds is an intense degree of perspectivism. Every has an influence acting upon how they see and feel and event, therefore everyone roughly sees in essence, a different reality of the same event. we see things as we are taught to and how we feel we should. some people have bad experiences with a group of people and search out (i believe unconsciously) for anything that backs up what they felt or thought when having the experience. Same goes for the people who had the good experience. What does that mean? truth is subject to perspectivism and is intrinsically relativistic?
This is an interesting dilemma and she ends by saying:
"The moral problem that confronts me now is not that i can never have any facts to go on, but that the work i do is not directed toward solving the kinds of problems that studying the history of European-Indian relations has awakened me to."
Basically, her search for answers led her to more questions. By addressing the problem of truth, she is doing what many others have done, ignore what it is we should be focusing on in order not to repeat it, but how does one do that without all the facts?