Yup, for instance the Sioux (Lakota/Dakota) hadn't actually been plains Indians that long, they had massacred the previous plains Indians and taken their place. I think this happened during the time when Westerners were exploring the Americas and it is in the historical record.  
Wow, I did not know about the women doing the torturing, Shark, do you have any sources on that?

Several Native Americans tribes were big into torture in general. Even self-torture. I think Sitting Bull did rituals like that. It was supposed to induce a trance, but probably also to show that you're "the man". Similar things are found all the way down to South America (see, bullet ant rituals, Maya self torture, etc.). Also, if your do that sort of thing to yourself, and expect tribe members to do it, imagine how you treat a captured enemy. Pretty nasty.

Also, on the women; one of the main reasons for tribes raiding each other was often to capture women. They say that the Comanche had a rise in population due to several successful raids on others after they started using horses.

One annoying thing that I noticed when reading a book about Jedediah Smith, the explorer: the author only ever made a moral judgement of white people. If some idiot white person attacked the Indians for no reason he was sure to point out how morally despicable this was. But the Indians would sometimes literally raid the whites for their women, and at one point they tried to massacre the whole expedition because they offended their chief (oh, and one Indian randomly shot arrows into their horses simply because he felt angry about a trade deal). No moral statements whatsoever, in fact the whites "should have known better" etc. I would have preferred no moral lessons whatsoever, or maybe just the of the main character if the author really feels inclined to dissect his personality.

Quote from: Omega;1079570Nope. Even today most native americans are still divided into nations. Before it was torn down a few years ago they held an annual meeting at the Thunderbird Hotel in Minnesota. Which bemusingly allways co-incided with a convention I attended each year.

For sure. Actually, the possible modern exception I was thinking of isn't political, but rather, the recent cultural syncretism that has led some First Nations people to adopt cultural practices they did not traditionally have, e.g. The spread of dreamcatchers, sweetgrass ceremonies, etc.

Quote from: Omega;1079574Thing is. The native americans were cheating, and more often murdering each other long before europeans got on the scene. Whole nations were exterminated just because they had a rep of being dishonest or treacherous. Yes. The NA people got mistreated massively. But they mistreated eachother massively. The advent of eurpoeans was just a new form of the same ol same ol.

Quote from: SHARK;1079587You make some excellent points, Omega! You know, white people get blamed for genocide against the NA so much, but not merely blamed, but *villified* even today, constantly. Well, too fucking bad, you know? It is so easily forgotten, as you pointed out, NA tribes *routinely* slaughtered each other, and genocided entire tribes. Their old, their men, children over the age of 14 were all commonly hunted down, and killed, leaving only the children under about 14 and the *women* to be enslaved, and "married" into the tribe. Yeah, foreign women were also *lower than fuck* on the tribal pecking order. Foreign tribe women were expected to shut the fuck up, fuck constantly, and breed. And work, and do what everyone told her to do. The man who captured her could beat her senseless if he wanted to--but he often didn't need to do so. There were always a gang of 6, 8 or a dozen of his tribal women that would catch her, and beat the fuck out of her with sticks and whips, over and over again, and made sure she *knew* her status was to be a good slave to everyone. So, yeah, foreign women taken captive learned very quick to keep their mouth's shut, fuck and breed, and get real happy with working like a slave for the rest of her life.

This was routine practice throughout the NA tribes.

SHARK, this is a load of ignorant crap. There are essentially no traditions common throughout the North American tribes. No place was a violence-free utopia, but there were different ways of conducting warfare and different ways of social organization.


I know best the Eastern Woodlands tribes. (I ran a campaign and several one-shots set in an alternate history where Icelandic settlers mixed with locals in the Hudson River Valley area.) Algonquian-speaking tribes like the Lenape would indeed raid and take captives, but they did not have slaves. Foreign women and children who were captured and adopted were of roughly the same status as ordinary tribe members. We have multiple accounts of Europeans taken captive and adopted who did not want to be rescued - like Mary Campbell, Jonathan Alder, and Eunice Williams. There was nothing like a slave class. These people would raid and fight - but they did not enslave, and didn't do anything like genocide.

The Haudenosaunee (also called Iroquois) were the enemy in my game. At the time, they were more warlike - and also had more brutal traditions of torture and cannibalism. They still didn't have a slave class, though, and though aggressive and violent - I wouldn't put their overall body count as any worse than the medieval Europeans. (Though methods differed.)


The closest I can think of to SHARK's description is an account of capture by the Comanche - like Rachel Plummer's account. That was in the 1800s, though, after centuries of European contact and in the midst of war with the whites. That account is not necessarily representative of pre-Columbian culture or of how they treated each other. i.e. It may well have been anti-white bias rather than typical treatment. Indeed - Rachel's account included that her treatment vastly improved when she fought back against the women who tormented her and demonstrated bravery, after which she was given more respect.

Slavery did exist in North America. I know that the Northwest Indians did have a significant slave class which was hereditary. I can't think of anything that I would call genocide. It may have happened - but it certainly wasn't something that routinely occurred throughout the continent.

Quote from: jhkim;1079651SHARK, this is a load of ignorant crap. There are essentially no traditions common throughout the North American tribes. No place was a violence-free utopia, but there were different ways of conducting warfare and different ways of social organization.


I know best the Eastern Woodlands tribes. (I ran a campaign and several one-shots set in an alternate history where Icelandic settlers mixed with locals in the Hudson River Valley area.) Algonquian-speaking tribes like the Lenape would indeed raid and take captives, but they did not have slaves. Foreign women and children who were captured and adopted were of roughly the same status as ordinary tribe members. We have multiple accounts of Europeans taken captive and adopted who did not want to be rescued - like Mary Campbell, Jonathan Alder, and Eunice Williams. There was nothing like a slave class. These people would raid and fight - but they did not enslave, and didn't do anything like genocide.

The Haudenosaunee (also called Iroquois) were the enemy in my game. At the time, they were more warlike - and also had more brutal traditions of torture and cannibalism. They still didn't have a slave class, though, and though aggressive and violent - I wouldn't put their overall body count as any worse than the medieval Europeans. (Though methods differed.)


The closest I can think of to SHARK's description is an account of capture by the Comanche - like Rachel Plummer's account. That was in the 1800s, though, after centuries of European contact and in the midst of war with the whites. That account is not necessarily representative of pre-Columbian culture or of how they treated each other. i.e. It may well have been anti-white bias rather than typical treatment. Indeed - Rachel's account included that her treatment vastly improved when she fought back against the women who tormented her and demonstrated bravery, after which she was given more respect.

Slavery did exist in North America. I know that the Northwest Indians did have a significant slave class which was hereditary. I can't think of anything that I would call genocide. It may have happened - but it certainly wasn't something that routinely occurred throughout the continent.

Greetings!

"A load of ignorant crap." You are delusional, Jhkim. The various Indian tribes did have slaves. Throughout the south-eastern United States, there were many examples of the Cherokee, Choktaw, Crow, amongst others that were known to own slaves. Whites, blacks, Indians, whoever. They fucking did have slaves. You need to get out of your Liberal utopian bubble and read more. I've read more than one source which described many of the tribes of the southeast having slaves. They did have slaves. You're wrong, Jhkim. The Apache also are known to have had slaves, along with the Commanche, and others. Again, you need to read more if you don't believe that NA tribes had slaves. White settlers, explorers, soldiers, as well as Indian sources, and Spanish sources describe Indian tribes having slaves.

I've read of many testimonies where foreign captives were not treated well initially. They were low status, and there were social pecking orders imposed by other members of the tribe, especially the tribal women, against foreign women, for example. When such captives were adopted into the tribe, indeed, their social status within the tribe changed for the better. I also note that more than a few white captives later on willingly became members of whatever tribe, and did not wish to return to live in white society. Again, though, many captives also faced torture, harsh treatment, low status and discrimination amongst various tribes, at least until they were officially married or adopted into the tribe. I've read several instances where white men were captured and were not treated sweetly at all. The treatment varied from region to region, and tribe to tribe. If you think the NA were sweet and peace-loving you need to read more, because they weren't.

Yes, there were different styles and approaches to warfare and social organization. I never said there wasn't. The Indians did wipe out other tribes, and absorb them. This was apparently fairly common. This reality goes back in North America from the earliest days of European contact with Indians, and knowledge gained from them. Again, read more. The Sioux forced other tribes out when they moved from Minnesota and Michigan into the northern Great Plains. The Commanche wiped out weaker tribes, as did the Apache. I don't remember the names of the top of my head, but various Indian tribes in California and the North-West also crushed and absorbed weaker tribes. Again, broaden your reading. Not all Indian tribes did this, but it seems to have been common reality amongst Indian tribes, long before Europeans arrived on the scene.

Semper Fidelis,

SHARK

Quote from: jhkim;1079651SHARK, this is a load of ignorant crap. There are essentially no traditions common throughout the North American tribes. No place was a violence-free utopia, but there were different ways of conducting warfare and different ways of social organization.


I know best the Eastern Woodlands tribes. (I ran a campaign and several one-shots set in an alternate history where Icelandic settlers mixed with locals in the Hudson River Valley area.) Algonquian-speaking tribes like the Lenape would indeed raid and take captives, but they did not have slaves. Foreign women and children who were captured and adopted were of roughly the same status as ordinary tribe members. We have multiple accounts of Europeans taken captive and adopted who did not want to be rescued - like Mary Campbell, Jonathan Alder, and Eunice Williams. There was nothing like a slave class. These people would raid and fight - but they did not enslave, and didn't do anything like genocide.

The Haudenosaunee (also called Iroquois) were the enemy in my game. At the time, they were more warlike - and also had more brutal traditions of torture and cannibalism. They still didn't have a slave class, though, and though aggressive and violent - I wouldn't put their overall body count as any worse than the medieval Europeans. (Though methods differed.)


The closest I can think of to SHARK's description is an account of capture by the Comanche - like Rachel Plummer's account. That was in the 1800s, though, after centuries of European contact and in the midst of war with the whites. That account is not necessarily representative of pre-Columbian culture or of how they treated each other. i.e. It may well have been anti-white bias rather than typical treatment. Indeed - Rachel's account included that her treatment vastly improved when she fought back against the women who tormented her and demonstrated bravery, after which she was given more respect.

Slavery did exist in North America. I know that the Northwest Indians did have a significant slave class which was hereditary. I can't think of anything that I would call genocide. It may have happened - but it certainly wasn't something that routinely occurred throughout the continent.

Yeah, pretty much all of this. I mean, I am on board with a setting that isn't just peaceful oneness with nature. A boring and B way off the mark. But the whole First Nations were literally Hitler line is way overheated.

Slavery, sure, as noted a formal institution in the Pacific NW. Torture by the ladies, sure, among Iroquoians. But you can hardly mash it all up as "First Nations Culture."

 Also, particularly in the contact period in the NE, the historical accounts are very much of a particular time. Communities decimated by disease (and, sure, by warfare too), essentially it's a time and a place of refugee populations on the move. No precedent, no rules, and the experiences of refugees fleeing to neighbours ran the gamut. Kindness, acceptance, indifference, cruelty, exploitation. Everything that a caravan of DPs might experience in Europe after WWII.

As for the Aztec, yes human sacrifice was widespread in the region, almost universal, but they took it to a whole new level.

As for the Inca, no they did not war with the Aztec and the Maya. Northern Ecuador was as close as they got.

Quote from: Zirunel;1079663Yeah, pretty much all of this. I mean, I am on board with a setting that isn't just peaceful oneness with nature. A boring and B way off the mark. But the whole First Nations were literally Hitler line is way overheated.

Slavery, sure, as noted a formal institution in the Pacific NW. Torture by the ladies, sure, among Iroquoians. But you can hardly mash it all up as "First Nations Culture."

 Also, particularly in the contact period in the NE, the historical accounts are very much of a particular time. Communities decimated by disease (and, sure, by warfare too), essentially it's a time and a place of refugee populations on the move. No precedent, no rules, and the experiences of refugees fleeing to neighbours ran the gamut. Kindness, acceptance, indifference, cruelty, exploitation. Everything that a caravan of DPs might experience in Europe after WWII.

As for the Aztec, yes human sacrifice was widespread in the region, almost universal, but they took it to a whole new level.

As for the Inca, no they did not war with the Aztec and the Maya. Northern Ecuador was as close as they got.

Greetings!

Good stuff, Zirunel. I agree.

However, I don't believe that Native Americans were like Hitler. I have read through many books over the years, that various Indian tribes from all over the place conquered, and absorbed smaller, weaker tribes. Evidently, this was a routine reality from coast to coast. I don't have any problem accepting such practices as a reality. It is a normal social and military process found throughout European history, as well as Africa, Asia, and South American peoples. Why would people in North America be any different? From all of the many books I have read over the years, the Indian tribes in North America were not any different from peoples everywhere else in the world, throughout history.

I don't think that is some kind of radical or shocking position to take. It seems to line up just fine with human nature, you know?

And yeah, you're right. I don't recall ever reading that the Incas had any contact with the Aztecs either.

Semper Fidelis,

SHARK

Quote from: SHARK;1079660"A load of ignorant crap." You are delusional, Jhkim. The various Indian tribes did have slaves. Throughout the south-eastern United States, there were many examples of the Cherokee, Choktaw, Crow, amongst others that were known to own slaves. Whites, blacks, Indians, whoever. They fucking did have slaves. You need to get out of your Liberal utopian bubble and read more. I've read more than one source which described many of the tribes of the southeast having slaves. They did have slaves. You're wrong, Jhkim. The Apache also are known to have had slaves, along with the Commanche, and others. Again, you need to read more if you don't believe that NA tribes had slaves. White settlers, explorers, soldiers, as well as Indian sources, and Spanish sources describe Indian tribes having slaves.

I already gave examples of Indian tribes having slaves. What I disagree with is that the Apache and Comanche hundreds of miles and centuries later somehow applies to people like the pre-contact Lenape. What you're doing is going through dozens of societies thousands of miles apart over centuries to find examples of slavery or other bad things.  You then applying it to claim generic "North American Indian" behavior. It's like throwing together the Spanish Inquisition, the Mongol Invasions, and the Cathar heresy - and saying that all this was what Europeans routinely did.

I stand by my description of the pre-contact Lenape. They did not have slaves, nor did any of their neighbors. They would be brutal during raids, but eventually treated their captives well. In my RPG setting, it was one of the contrasts of the vikings with the locals that the vikings had slaves and the locals did not.

If I were to run a game set in the Pacific Northwest, then this would be different. The locals would have a large class of hereditary slaves, and a vastly different culture.

Quote from: SHARK;1079660Yes, there were different styles and approaches to warfare and social organization. I never said there wasn't. The Indians did wipe out other tribes, and absorb them. This was apparently fairly common.

SHARK, here's what you wrote:

Quote from: SHARKForeign tribe women were expected to shut the fuck up, fuck constantly, and breed. And work, and do what everyone told her to do. The man who captured her could beat her senseless if he wanted to--but he often didn't need to do so. There were always a gang of 6, 8 or a dozen of his tribal women that would catch her, and beat the fuck out of her with sticks and whips, over and over again, and made sure she *knew* her status was to be a good slave to everyone. So, yeah, foreign women taken captive learned very quick to keep their mouth's shut, fuck and breed, and get real happy with working like a slave for the rest of her life.

This was routine practice throughout the NA tribes.

You claim that this was a routine practice throughout the NA tribes. That is a ginormous pile of bullshit.

Quote from: jhkim;1079668I already gave examples of Indian tribes having slaves. What I disagree with is that the Apache and Comanche hundreds of miles and centuries later somehow applies to people like the pre-contact Lenape. What you're doing is going through dozens of societies thousands of miles apart over centuries to find examples of slavery or other bad things.  You then applying it to claim generic "North American Indian" behavior. It's like throwing together the Spanish Inquisition, the Mongol Invasions, and the Cathar heresy - and saying that all this was what Europeans routinely did.

I stand by my description of the pre-contact Lenape. They did not have slaves, nor did any of their neighbors. They would be brutal during raids, but eventually treated their captives well. In my RPG setting, it was one of the contrasts of the vikings with the locals that the vikings had slaves and the locals did not.

If I were to run a game set in the Pacific Northwest, then this would be different. The locals would have a large class of hereditary slaves, and a vastly different culture.



SHARK, here's what you wrote:



You claim that this was a routine practice throughout the NA tribes. That is a ginormous pile of bullshit.

Greetings!

Ah, I see, Jhkim. Fair enough then, I apologize for over generalizing. It wasn't a routine practice throughout the NA tribes. It was a routine practice with *some* NA tribes.

The point I was making was that the Indian tribes were *not* some peaceful, hippy utopia. That's been a common motif of white academics particularly over recent decades--and that narrative, often pushed by Liberal professors even in college, let alone high school and junior high school, is just historical revisionist Liberal bullshit, Jhkim. I've also found that same syrupy narrative promoted by Liberal authors of many history books, and it's entire nonsense. Yes, it pisses me off immensely. I find it to be not merely overstatement, or wishful thinking, or misinterpretation--but a willful, and purposeful distortion of facts and evidence in order to fabricate their mushy, fraudulent narrative and racist, anti-white, self-loathing worldview. I believe it is intellectually fraudulent and dishonest, and shameful.

Semper Fidelis,

SHARK

Quote from: Trond;1079642Yup, for instance the Sioux (Lakota/Dakota) hadn't actually been plains Indians that long, they had massacred the previous plains Indians and taken their place. I think this happened during the time when Westerners were exploring the Americas and it is in the historical record.  
Wow, I did not know about the women doing the torturing, Shark, do you have any sources on that?

Several Native Americans tribes were big into torture in general. Even self-torture. I think Sitting Bull did rituals like that. It was supposed to induce a trance, but probably also to show that you're "the man". Similar things are found all the way down to South America (see, bullet ant rituals, Maya self torture, etc.). Also, if your do that sort of thing to yourself, and expect tribe members to do it, imagine how you treat a captured enemy. Pretty nasty.

Also, on the women; one of the main reasons for tribes raiding each other was often to capture women. They say that the Comanche had a rise in population due to several successful raids on others after they started using horses.

One annoying thing that I noticed when reading a book about Jedediah Smith, the explorer: the author only ever made a moral judgement of white people. If some idiot white person attacked the Indians for no reason he was sure to point out how morally despicable this was. But the Indians would sometimes literally raid the whites for their women, and at one point they tried to massacre the whole expedition because they offended their chief (oh, and one Indian randomly shot arrows into their horses simply because he felt angry about a trade deal). No moral statements whatsoever, in fact the whites "should have known better" etc. I would have preferred no moral lessons whatsoever, or maybe just the of the main character if the author really feels inclined to dissect his personality.

Greetings!

You're right, my friend. The Sioux tribes were originally tribes that lived in the forests of Minnesota, and I think parts of Michigan. They then migrated into the northern Great Plains. Yeah, I don't recall their arrival in the Northern Plains being very sweet and nice, either. They crushed and absorbed smaller tribes during their migration, and later on as well, as they established a growing position of power and dominance throughout the northern Great Plains. It's kind of interesting to think that there was a time when the Sioux didn't ride horses, huh? Very different imagery there, for certain! And yes, that migration I think occured just as the Europeans were settling in North America, so sometime in the 1600's. It's wierd to then see American soldiers fighting the Sioux some 200 years later, as "Lords of the Plains" in the 1800's. LOL.

Yeah, I can't give you chapter and verse on the customs of women torturing captives. I've read a good number of sources over the years that have described the custom, and also how brutal they could be, especially amongst the Iroquois, Cherokee, and Pawnee. Later, of course, or rather, further *west*, I've read that some of the Apache, and Commanche in the American south-west had some horrific customs of torture, often supervised by their women. I also recall that some tribes in the Pacific North-west may also have appointed such gruesome tasks to their women.

I should note, however, that the various Native American tribes were not *monolithic* at all, and were wildly diverse. There were some Indian tribes, for example, that were in California, and the Pacific North-west, that were very peaceful, even placcid. The Nez Pierce, of Idaho, Oregon, and I think parts of Nevada--the Nez Pierce were well-known for being noble, kind, good-natured, and very peaceful. They even had adopted and embraced Christianity, brought to them *peacefully* too, by the way, through fur trappers and traders, long before the Nez Pierce War which broke out between the Nez Piece and the United States in the late 1800's. That episode in America's expansion westwards was, I have to say, an epic clusterfuck of absolute greed and stupidity on America's part. All because American settlers wanted the Nez Pierce land, and because Mining companies I think, had discovered gold and silver in the region, and pushed the American government to "Save them from the Red Savages." Yeah. Right. So, the U.S. Army moved in, and crushed the Nez Pierce, who reluctantly, but valiantly, stood up for themselves and sought to defend themselves. We even have Nez Pierce records--as some of them spoke English fluently, and their perspectives were recorded--they were basically saying, "American Government, WTF?" Seeing that the U.S. government had a history--at the time--of being friends with the Nez Pierce tribes, and also allies. I remember reading that Nez Pierce warriors had volunteered and helped America as warriors, scouts, and interpreters, in America's wars against violent and warlike Indian tribes of the local region, in years prior to the Nez Pierce War. Then, all of that was somehow conveniently forgotten by the U.S. President and American Generals in the Theater at the time of the outbreak of war. Pretty fucking sad, honestly.

It's a good thing we didn't exterminate the Nez Pierce. They survived the war, and eventually stabilized themselves while living in Indian Reservations established by the U.S. government, and as I recall, are quite prosperous and successful today. I know there is an extensive Indian population and presence throughout the state of Idaho, right here, today. I think that's pretty cool. So fucked up though, the bullshit and tragedy they had to suffer through back in the day. It's a similar kind of betrayal and bloodlust the U.S. had for the Cherokee tribes, as well. After fighting the colonies for generations of bitter warfare, the Cherokee learned English, adoted white dress, and even had Christianity. The Cherokee had their own civilized towns, too, as well as system of schools and law. The Cherokee even took their land case to the U.S. Supreme Court at the time, in the early 1800's. The U.S. said too bad. The Cherokee own the best land, and have the best corn, squash, beans and other farms, as well as the best forests full of good animals. The white people demand that they have it, and fuck the Indians. So, the government organized the Trail of Tears, where the Cherokee tribes were marched at bayonet point from the Carolinas and Georgia, their ancestral homelands forever, to the fucking shitty deserts of the Oklahoma territory. The Cherokee were basically told, either get your shit, and march, or you die. That's fucking monstrously tragic and fucking evil, too. Ultimately, however, it is what we did to the Native American tribes one after another, from the beginning.

Semper Fidelis,

SHARK

Quote from: SHARK;1079672Ah, I see, Jhkim. Fair enough then, I apologize for over generalizing. It wasn't a routine practice throughout the NA tribes. It was a routine practice with *some* NA tribes.

Cool. Glad we got past that point.

Quote from: SHARK;1079672The point I was making was that the Indian tribes were *not* some peaceful, hippy utopia. That's been a common motif of white academics particularly over recent decades--and that narrative, often pushed by Liberal professors even in college, let alone high school and junior high school, is just historical revisionist Liberal bullshit, Jhkim. I've also found that same syrupy narrative promoted by Liberal authors of many history books, and it's entire nonsense. Yes, it pisses me off immensely. I find it to be not merely overstatement, or wishful thinking, or misinterpretation--but a willful, and purposeful distortion of facts and evidence in order to fabricate their mushy, fraudulent narrative and racist, anti-white, self-loathing worldview. I believe it is intellectually fraudulent and dishonest, and shameful.

I agree that American Indians were not some peaceful hippy utopia, and that is a narrative one sometimes finds. However, it is also common to find revisionist narratives of the opposite - inventing faults or over-broad generalizations to justify white action, or skipping over much of what whites did. For decades, American history textbooks have often peddled a lot of the latter. It was certainly true in my textbooks when I was growing up.

The more subtle misconception that bugs me a lot is the vision that nothing happened in America until the Europeans invaded. In the history of Europe, students read about the rise and fall of empires. How advances came and went, going into dark ages and so forth. In the Americas, they just read about a single snapshot of how a people lived when the Europeans encountered them - as if nothing changed until Europeans came along. That was still very common in the textbooks when my son went to school.

Quote from: jhkim;1079694The more subtle misconception that bugs me a lot is the vision that nothing happened in America until the Europeans invaded. In the history of Europe, students read about the rise and fall of empires. How advances came and went, going into dark ages and so forth. In the Americas, they just read about a single snapshot of how a people lived when the Europeans encountered them - as if nothing changed until Europeans came along. That was still very common in the textbooks when my son went to school.

Partly that's due to lack of information. Partly it's because history is traditionally taught as the history of a people - in America's case, the British settlers/conquerors of North America. Other people are bit players in the Heroic Narrative. The traditional expectation was that any people from other cultures allowed to join the core people would integrate and come to see that people's saga as their own. Obviously the ideology of Multiculturalism tries to put a stop to such notions.

Quote from: S'mon;1079747Partly that's due to lack of information.

If by "America" we mean USA, then in my opinion, it is hugely because of lack of information. If you want info on what was going on at the same time as, say, Medieval times in Europe, then there are literally no written sources. It's even more difficult than trying to study the history of, say, the Minoans (because the Minoans left behind more figurative art and a few of their symbols have been deciphered). Now, in Central America the picture is a bit different.

It's not that different down south. Precontact, you have the Classic Mayan inscriptions (dynastic propaganda, which at least gives some actual names, dates and events) and not much more. Interpretation of iconography is pretty darn good at least for the Andean region, Mesoamerica and the Intermediate Area. There's far more there than has been teased out from Minoan imagery.

It's not that so little is known, it's that the record is archaeological rather than documentary. That gives you trends and processes, measured in scales of centuries, but little or nothing on specific individuals or specific events.

There has long been a tendency to interpret this with the aid of the (more detailed) ethnographic record, and while that is not totally a bad thing, it does kind of encourage a view of stasis and continuity. And it denies First Nations peoples the sort of dynamic history we know they have. There has been a lot of change over the millennia.

Excessive ethnographic analogy and extrapolating from the present to the past fell somewhat out of favour in academia quite a while ago, but oddly enough, in recent years it is very much back. Driven partly by First Nations themselves, who seek to gain more ownership of their past by emphasizing connection and continuity. E.g. "Our traditional knowledge is the best way to interpret how our ancestors lived 7,000 years ago because we are the same people living as we always have." Thus it becomes unfashionable to look at change in the past, however profound. Ultimately it deprecates learning about the past at all: if everything has always been the same, why bother. And ironically, it is now First Nations themselves denying themselves a dynamic past. Oh well.

Quote from: Zirunel;1079803It's not that so little is known, it's that the record is archaeological rather than documentary. That gives you trends and processes, measured in scales of centuries, but little or nothing on specific individuals or specific events.

There has long been a tendency to interpret this with the aid of the (more detailed) ethnographic record, and while that is not totally a bad thing, it does kind of encourage a view of stasis and continuity. And it denies First Nations peoples the sort of dynamic history we know they have. There has been a lot of change over the millennia.

On the scale of schoolbooks, though, they generally don't teach the archeological record of change. The comparative lack of data - like names and dates of leaders - shouldn't mean that we convey a verifiably false view, that there weren't dynamic changes like the rise and fall of cities and civilizations. We should at least convey what is known.

History shouldn't be about memorizing names and dates anyway. If there is less data, we should still convey what data we have. As a parallel, it would be nonsensical to not teach astronomy because the interior of stars and black holes aren't as well understood as chemicals here on Earth. Instead, we take a wider view, and teach what we do know - while acknowledging that we still have a lot to learn about astronomical bodies.

Apropos of the OP, who was interested in the medieval city of Cahokia, I think it's a major gap that it's very existence is nearly unknown to most people, when we've been studying it for decades.

Quote from: jhkim;1079815On the scale of schoolbooks, though, they generally don't teach the archeological record of change. The comparative lack of data - like names and dates of leaders - shouldn't mean that we convey a verifiably false view, that there weren't dynamic changes like the rise and fall of cities and civilizations. We should at least convey what is known.

History shouldn't be about memorizing names and dates anyway. If there is less data, we should still convey what data we have. As a parallel, it would be nonsensical to not teach astronomy because the interior of stars and black holes aren't as well understood as chemicals here on Earth. Instead, we take a wider view, and teach what we do know - while acknowledging that we still have a lot to learn about astronomical bodies.

Apropos of the OP, who was interested in the medieval city of Cahokia, I think it's a major gap that it's very existence is nearly unknown to most people, when we've been studying it for decades.

No argument from me. Just look at all the people who say "little is known." Yes it's a shame it isn't more widely taught.

And now the History Channel is mostly just reality TV, it's hard to even learn it from television.