In Tompkins pursuit to pinpoint an understanding and reasoning of the historic relations with Native Americans finds her self knee deep in murky waters of biased and skeptical views. Tompkins comes to the conclusion that all the authors she has researched are all products of the their individual societies. Each one forming their oppinions about the indians based on their own indiviaual social beliefs. Thompkins found herself in personal delima, dealing with her own personal feelings and moral standing. All the authors she encountered seemed to have another that could succesfull contradict the research. In a way as she researched she seemed to conjure up a battle of personal perception. One can be easily swayed in one direction, based on their own subconsious beliefs about the given subject. As one may beleve that they are looking at a particular piece with an objective outlook, they are still going to be swayed to put their own past beliefs, values and assumptions in their conclusion of the piece. Thompkins found herself kicking this wall subconsicious interpration, when trying to find an answer.
Facts, base the ideas and judgements one makes, but if the facts seem to be faulty in appearance how is one to judge. This is the battle she seem to involved with. All the authors at hand are no more giving facts than the next, all that is relayed is interpration and perception. All these authors where drive in the in the end by what she call "perspectivism" which all in all drowns out and hope for a reasonable solution. The subject at hand becomes distorted and altered by the authors own outlook on the subject. Thompkins argues the idea that in a world based on facts, we must understand that facts are merely and interpration of ones own perseption of a particular subject. And that facts are not static, yet can be altered by another objective person, but at the same time we must understand that our own counter facts are a product of our own perception. In the end Thompkins tried to look at this subject with a objective view, but relised that is not possible she formed notions and theores without even knowning it. Meaning our objective outlook is not realy objective after all, but instead an outlook motivated by our own subconsious. She leaves us with an unpredictable outcome, yet a simple one the answers are left to the individual to interprate, and whether they beleive or not if they have come to a conclusion they have.