State officials should respond to the request of American Indian groups to revise some of the state’s historical markers.

History doesn’t change, but sometimes they way we look at it does. Wednesday, following a ceremony at the state capitol to proclaim November Native American Heritage Month, American Indian representatives asked state officials to re-examine some of the language in historical markers across Kansas. Their concern was the portrayal of Indian people as violent savages who wreaked havoc on innocent white settlers. There are two sides to every story, and some of the historical markers currently take a pretty one-sided view of history.

One marker used as an example is located in Ellsworth County and states: “Indians, angered by encroachments of white settlers, sometimes took bloody vengeance.”

The story told by the marker is correct, but it offers little context for the events and fails to acknowledge the circumstances from the Indian perspective. When the marker was placed, the questionable adjectives probably drew no notice, but today, many Kansans — native Americans and others — would describe the facts a bit differently.

A similar situation arose in Lecompton a number of years ago and resulted in a revised historical marker in a roadside park on U.S. Highway 40. The original sign, which had been in place since the 1950s, labeled Lecompton as the “Slavery Capital” and the “headquarters of the Proslavery Party in Kansas.” The information on the marker was correct, but some Kansans were offended by the nuances of the narrative.

The sign was replaced by the Kansas State Historical Society with a sign that more fully explained the role of Lecompton in the battle over whether Kansas would be admitted into the union as a slave state. The new narrative offers a much broader understanding of the issues while avoiding some of the language that modern viewers found offensive.

That also should be the goal of state historical society officials as they respond to the concerns of American Indians in Kansas. This isn’t a matter of revisionist history; it’s a matter of adding more information and context to the events that transpired.

In the scientific world, certain basic principles are pretty constant, but new interpretations based on new information are a common occurrence. The same is true with history. Revising the historical markers will benefit everyone interested in Kansas history.