Accepting the fact that there is as much bias and corruption in historiography as there is in oral tradition

The recognition and acknowledgment of the extraordinary number of consistencies and overlaps in the oral traditions coming from bands of Native American societies has been gathering in numbers and support--even from those in academic positions. At the same time, the unavoidable and often awkwardly-unsupportable incidences of bias and limited imagination in "professional" academic disciplines such as history, anthropology, archeology, and the like have become rife and rampant. I've long believed (and vocalized) that a meeting and amelioration of the two "sides" would only serve to benefit the conclusions of all parties--that it is, in fact, necessary to the building of "bigger picture" understandings. When story-telling and oral tradition have been the most prized art forms of a culture for hundreds of generations, one must come to the conclusion that it has merit, that it can achieve a level of refinement that warrants categorization in to craft, art, even fine art, if not science. Just as the sub-categories of "sciences" involved in archeology, anthropology, and historiography have exploded in number while, at the same time, been found fallable--open to the influences of temporal and cultural biases--so the value and reliability of oral tradition has (of necessity) gained in credibility. I am so glad. The recognition of the talents, skills, and levels of genius among of Native American traditions has been a long time coming; the dismantling and dis-ordination of Christian-European biases is an important step forward in both scientific perspective as well as our shared quest for bigger, more accurate truths.