5 ms·

I guess the conclusion is that because the history was rewritten to mean this content was mostly unpopulated, ready to receive the settlers, with some pockets o

by rdtsc 10y ago

I guess the conclusion is that because the history was rewritten to mean this content was mostly unpopulated, ready to receive the settlers, with some pockets of Indian tribes here and there. Anything that contradicts it is difficult to accept. Also most people don't know, and most importantly they don't want to know. The later is most important. I think even if told, or specifically taught in school, people will try to forget it quickly. It is uncomfortable to think of this country as great and glorious and then put the killing of all the Indians and slavery next to that. It just doesn't fit. Even on a more superficial level, people don't care because they don't feel it is part of their ancestry. It is a bit strange to me (but it is just me being weird) that a lot of Americans talk about themselves as Irish, Italian, or German. So I ask usually "so your parents are from Ireland?". And they'd say something like "Oh, no they came in 1850". Yet they have a kilt and go to "Irish" festivals. Nothing wrong with that, but I think it explains why on vacation they want to go to Europe to visit "history" and not to Cahokia.

empath75 10y ago
Well, there's also that there isn't much history to talk about with Cahokia, since not even the Indians knew what it was for by the time North America was colonized. I don't think people would care much about Stonehenge if it was just a round dirt mound, no matter how old it is, since we know so little about the people who built that one, too. A big part of the appeal of historic sites is the connection with a familiar narrative. There are stories written on the walls of chichen itza, or tikal. We know almost nothing about the people that built the mounds in St. Louis. No narrative, and not particularly visually appealing, and you're not going to have much of a tourist site.
- notahacker 10y ago
  Yup. The UK is covered with artificial mounds and earthworks other than Stonehenge, and most of them aren't that well understood or much of a draw for tourists. It doesn't help matters when the article starts comparing Cahokia with sites as visually arresting and technically impressive as Macchu Picchu or Angkor Wat, wondering why it doesn't get as many visitors as an architecturally marvellous cathedral in the middle of a large city in a heavily touristed region or suggesting that it was bigger than London. (London's population was a lot more than 10k in the 12th century, and for that matter the 1st century AD, and we still build supermarkets on top of the old city's rather more substantial ruins)
  - arethuza 10y ago
    Even ancient substantial ruined stone structures in some areas of the UK exist without much notice being taken of them - e.g. the hill forts at Cademuir south of Peebles. Apart from the fact that the name might mean "great battle" there seems to be relatively little known about them.
  - jessriedel 10y ago
    > London's population was a lot more than 10k in the 12th century Yea, how are we supposed to trust the authors of this article on qualitative judgement calls when they are so misleading about basic quantitative stuff. According to Wikipedia, London was 60k people by 100 AD, dropped to 15k around 1100 AD, but then was back to 80k by 1300 AD, which are all very pre-industrious times. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Londinium https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Londinium https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Norman_and_Medieval_London https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Norman_and_Medieval_London Compare this to the article: > Dr. Timothy Pauketat, an archeologist who wrote a book about Cahokia, believes the city was home to over 10,000 people in 1250, with more Cahokians living on the surrounding farmland. If that’s the case, Cahokia was larger than London. So, the author cherrypicks an expert who says the population Cahokia at its peak may possibly have been almost as big as London was at a local minimum over a 2,000 year history.
    - dredmorbius 10y ago
      It's a common trope, though that doesn't entirely excuse it. The claim is technically accurate (the best kind of accurate, as a friend put it). But it also borrows off an interpretation of London as a megacity of millions of inhabitants. The simple addition of "at the time" would make the claim so much more informative and accurate. In thinking of common vs. technical interpretations of words, there was the case of an article on HN a few weeks back titled "Igloos that don't melt". It turned out the "igloo" wouldn't melt (not without fire at any rate) ... because it was made from plastic. Someone tried defending this usage on the basis that the Inuit word "iglu" simply means "house". But the English usage, and the clear intent of the headline, convey the image of a domed structure built from blocks of carved snow. The technique in general is a cheap shot and as you note weakens rather than strengthens an author's credibility. There was a similar
BuckRogers 10y ago
I'm American with the majority of my ancestors being Germans and Swiss that came over in the 1850s. The rest were here when it was still Dutch or British territory. Those branches of family, we have stories written about their battles against Indian tribes where they slaughtered what would've been distant great uncles of mine. An ancestor of mine, an exile Huguenot woman exiled by Louis the 14th (but granted land by the King of England), axed and crushed the skulls of Indians who had just murdered her grade-school children in front of her eyes. While not xenophobic, no, I don't view Cahokia as my heritage. Given the stories that I have passed down to me, that was clearly a war of civilizations. As much as saying that might bother the sensitivities of someone today. Fast forward to today, one of my grandmothers still speaks some German. Not much, mostly carols and stuff from when she was a little girl. But I would never say I'm anything but American, any of my compatriots who do are quite the clowns. I think you'd need a parent from another country to claim that with any reasonable credibility. Over 50% of my family was German or Swiss in 1850, and I visited Germany to see Munich and (old) Mecklenburg, where much of my family came from. Definitely nothing to be ashamed of. Though I'd like to visit Cahokia, it won't be to reconnect with ancestral bonds so you are onto something. I love Europe, but saying I'm a European or even close is disingenuous. It's like someone who claims to be "Mexican" but born in the US. It doesn't exist, there's literally nothing Mexican about them other than maybe the skintone. Same applies to the rest of us.
- CalRobert 10y ago
  "... there's literally nothing Mexican about them other than maybe the skintone..." But the skintone is all a person needs to be treated differently from someone who is presumed to be of European descent. The experiences of a dark, medium, or light skinned person in the US are not likely to be the same.
  - BuckRogers 10y ago
    Yes but you say that as if that isn't the same around the world. I've lived in 3 countries and visited 11+ and it is. Light-skin preference is not a US phenomenon.
mch82 10y ago
In the U.S. we do learn about the civilizations that were here before European settlers arrived. We also learn about how unfairly those people were treated, and our understanding improves as archeology improves and new discoveries are made. The U.S. takes great pride in the Navajo Code Talkers of WWII, as an example. And we're frequently debating whether to rename sports teams, place names, and even recently decided to kick Andrew Jackson off the $20 bill because, in part, of his role in the Trail of Tears. European civilizations are a more direct influence on contemporary American life and law, so we tend to spend more time learning about those.

by rdtsc 10y ago

empath75 10y ago

Well, there's also that there isn't much history to talk about with Cahokia, since not even the Indians knew what it was for by the time North America was colonized. I don't think people would care much about Stonehenge if it was just a round dirt mound, no matter how old it is, since we know so little about the people who built that one, too. A big part of the appeal of historic sites is the connection with a familiar narrative. There are stories written on the walls of chichen itza, or tikal. We know almost nothing about the people that built the mounds in St. Louis. No narrative, and not particularly visually appealing, and you're not going to have much of a tourist site.

notahacker 10y ago
Yup. The UK is covered with artificial mounds and earthworks other than Stonehenge, and most of them aren't that well understood or much of a draw for tourists. It doesn't help matters when the article starts comparing Cahokia with sites as visually arresting and technically impressive as Macchu Picchu or Angkor Wat, wondering why it doesn't get as many visitors as an architecturally marvellous cathedral in the middle of a large city in a heavily touristed region or suggesting that it was bigger than London. (London's population was a lot more than 10k in the 12th century, and for that matter the 1st century AD, and we still build supermarkets on top of the old city's rather more substantial ruins)
- arethuza 10y ago
  Even ancient substantial ruined stone structures in some areas of the UK exist without much notice being taken of them - e.g. the hill forts at Cademuir south of Peebles. Apart from the fact that the name might mean "great battle" there seems to be relatively little known about them.
- jessriedel 10y ago
  > London's population was a lot more than 10k in the 12th century Yea, how are we supposed to trust the authors of this article on qualitative judgement calls when they are so misleading about basic quantitative stuff. According to Wikipedia, London was 60k people by 100 AD, dropped to 15k around 1100 AD, but then was back to 80k by 1300 AD, which are all very pre-industrious times. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Londinium https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Londinium https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Norman_and_Medieval_London https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Norman_and_Medieval_London Compare this to the article: > Dr. Timothy Pauketat, an archeologist who wrote a book about Cahokia, believes the city was home to over 10,000 people in 1250, with more Cahokians living on the surrounding farmland. If that’s the case, Cahokia was larger than London. So, the author cherrypicks an expert who says the population Cahokia at its peak may possibly have been almost as big as London was at a local minimum over a 2,000 year history.
  - dredmorbius 10y ago
    It's a common trope, though that doesn't entirely excuse it. The claim is technically accurate (the best kind of accurate, as a friend put it). But it also borrows off an interpretation of London as a megacity of millions of inhabitants. The simple addition of "at the time" would make the claim so much more informative and accurate. In thinking of common vs. technical interpretations of words, there was the case of an article on HN a few weeks back titled "Igloos that don't melt". It turned out the "igloo" wouldn't melt (not without fire at any rate) ... because it was made from plastic. Someone tried defending this usage on the basis that the Inuit word "iglu" simply means "house". But the English usage, and the clear intent of the headline, convey the image of a domed structure built from blocks of carved snow. The technique in general is a cheap shot and as you note weakens rather than strengthens an author's credibility. There was a similar

BuckRogers 10y ago

I'm American with the majority of my ancestors being Germans and Swiss that came over in the 1850s. The rest were here when it was still Dutch or British territory. Those branches of family, we have stories written about their battles against Indian tribes where they slaughtered what would've been distant great uncles of mine. An ancestor of mine, an exile Huguenot woman exiled by Louis the 14th (but granted land by the King of England), axed and crushed the skulls of Indians who had just murdered her grade-school children in front of her eyes. While not xenophobic, no, I don't view Cahokia as my heritage. Given the stories that I have passed down to me, that was clearly a war of civilizations. As much as saying that might bother the sensitivities of someone today. Fast forward to today, one of my grandmothers still speaks some German. Not much, mostly carols and stuff from when she was a little girl. But I would never say I'm anything but American, any of my compatriots who do are quite the clowns. I think you'd need a parent from another country to claim that with any reasonable credibility. Over 50% of my family was German or Swiss in 1850, and I visited Germany to see Munich and (old) Mecklenburg, where much of my family came from. Definitely nothing to be ashamed of. Though I'd like to visit Cahokia, it won't be to reconnect with ancestral bonds so you are onto something. I love Europe, but saying I'm a European or even close is disingenuous. It's like someone who claims to be "Mexican" but born in the US. It doesn't exist, there's literally nothing Mexican about them other than maybe the skintone. Same applies to the rest of us.

CalRobert 10y ago
"... there's literally nothing Mexican about them other than maybe the skintone..." But the skintone is all a person needs to be treated differently from someone who is presumed to be of European descent. The experiences of a dark, medium, or light skinned person in the US are not likely to be the same.
- BuckRogers 10y ago
  Yes but you say that as if that isn't the same around the world. I've lived in 3 countries and visited 11+ and it is. Light-skin preference is not a US phenomenon.

mch82 10y ago

In the U.S. we do learn about the civilizations that were here before European settlers arrived. We also learn about how unfairly those people were treated, and our understanding improves as archeology improves and new discoveries are made. The U.S. takes great pride in the Navajo Code Talkers of WWII, as an example. And we're frequently debating whether to rename sports teams, place names, and even recently decided to kick Andrew Jackson off the $20 bill because, in part, of his role in the Trail of Tears. European civilizations are a more direct influence on contemporary American life and law, so we tend to spend more time learning about those.