5 ms·
This map might give the misleading impression that the American Indians were a static mix of tribes, sitting in a time capsule, waiting for the Great White Man
by dogruck 9y ago
This map might give the misleading impression that the American Indians were a static mix of tribes, sitting in a time capsule, waiting for the Great White Man to stir things up.
In reality, the situation was fluid. The standard forces of disease, warfare, trade networks, natural disaster, and human ingenuity were always at play.
- snambi 9y agoSure, think of europe of before 2nd world war. It was full of disease, warfare, trade networks, natural disaster, and human ingenuity were always at play. Don't need to denigrate the work, though.
- deleted 9y ago[deleted]
- mikeash 9y agoDoesn't any map with political borders give that misleading impression?
- _Codemonkeyism 9y agoAny map.
- aaron-lebo 9y agoIt might be inaccurate, too. I got a little too interested in the Comanche over the summer, which the article notes is actually a Ute word basically meaning "enemy". The Utes called them enemy because the Comanche prior to European contact lived in the Rockies much farther north. It was only the horse which allowed them to move out onto the plains. He's got them located in the plains of Texas, which again, they weren't at until probably after 1700 and when they were they completely dominated a region way bigger than that. Wiki: The Comanche emerged as a distinct group shortly before 1700, when they broke off from the Shoshone people[15] living along the upper Platte River in Wyoming. In 1680, the Comanche acquired horses from the Pueblo Indians after the Pueblo Revolt.[16] They separated from the Shoshone after this, as the horses allowed them greater mobility in their search for better hunting grounds. http://www.npr.org/assets/news/2014/06/Tribal_Nations_Map_NA.pdf http://www.npr.org/assets/news/2014/06/Tribal_Nations_Map_NA... I'm not sure exactly what he's representing. It can't be a single moment in time. https://www.amazon.com/Empire-Summer-Moon-Comanches-Powerful/dp/1416591060 https://www.amazon.com/Empire-Summer-Moon-Comanches-Powerful...
- wallace_f 9y agoWouldn't the obvious answer seem to be to provide certainty factor estimates where varying degrees of evidence are available? Anyways, I've rarely ever seen historians qualify their data points. Unfortunately humility is only for the scientists, and because they can't escape the same consequences of uncertainty when drawing conclusions from data (i.e. statistical significance). Confidence is for the rest of us, not because it is helpful, but because our human nature commands it.
- nerdponx 9y agoInstead of trying to conduct some kind of comprehensive probability analysis, admirable as the idea might be, you could just be clear and say "this is roughly the point in history I'm representing."
- wallace_f 9y agoI was thinking more along the lines of a metric indicating the probability the conclusion is correct, based on the strength of evidence.
- stevenwoo 9y agoYou might be interested in Lies My Teacher Told Me by James W. Loewen. He's a sociologist but he brings up this point when talking about the different possible discovery dates fo the Americas by the Japanese, Africans, Polynesians and others at one point - history books have a tendency to wrongly paint many things as objective truth when there should be more subtlety. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Lies_My_Teacher_Told_Me https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Lies_My_Teacher_Told_Me
- jcranmer 9y ago> Wouldn't the obvious answer seem to be to provide certainty factor estimates where varying degrees of evidence are available? The uncertainty involved in history is rarely quantifiable. How would you go about attaching a number to, say, the probability that Jesus existed? Where such quantifiability is possible--dates in radiocarbon and demographic estimates come to mind--you in fact do see estimation ranges from historians. > Anyways, I've rarely ever seen historians qualify their data points. Having read a few archaeological papers out of curiosity, yes, these data points are often qualified where prudent. This is much less the case in popular history books, but it's worth noting that popular science books are equally egregious in omitting such details. > Unfortunately humility is only for the scientists, and because they can't escape the same consequences of uncertainty when drawing conclusions from data (i.e. statistical significance). Let's not put scientists on some holy pedestal here. Having read science papers as well, I can tell you that scientists are quite bad at being humble and qualifying their results with limits of uncertainty.
- _Codemonkeyism 9y agoThe map of Europe might give the misleading impression that European nations were a static mix of people, sitting in a time capsule, [...] In reality, the situation was fluid. The standard forces of disease, warfare, trade networks, natural disaster, and human ingenuity were always at play.
- aaron-lebo 9y agoYour reaction gives the implication that he was suggesting Europe didn't have that issue, but I'm fairly certain the standard in "The standard forces of disease, warfare, trade networks, natural disaster, and human ingenuity were always at play." is acknowledging that. That's the entire point of what he is saying.
- doktrin 9y agoThe OP did seem to be suggesting that this map was somehow different from other political maps, otherwise why make the point at all?
- deleted 9y ago[deleted]