3 ms·

It's possible there are a handful of houses at one site with some structural walls built around 1400 that are currently inhabited. There's no direct evidence fo

It's possible there are a handful of houses at one site with some structural walls built around 1400 that are currently inhabited. There's no direct evidence for that claim except oral tradition and reports from 140 years later. Claiming that "There are still people living in medieval-era houses in the US" is misleading, and a lack of awareness of these houses is not noteworthy. The reason Americans don't think about old buildings the way Europeans do is that there aren't any anywhere close to where most Americans live, and anything older than 600 years requires an extensive intentional search to find. It's not a lack of awareness, as the GP implies.

dredmorbius 4y ago
I've presented documented facts. You're countering with opinion. Just sayin'.
- mgraczyk 4y ago
  The facts are: In the US, most Americans, including indigenous people, go their entire lives without seeing a single structure built before 1500. You can't see one without driving several hours from any population center, and several days from the population centers where the overwhelming majority live. In Europe, most people see buildings built before 1500 every day. Many people live in them. Those are both facts. My belief/opinion is that these facts explain the difference in attitude between Americans and Europeans. It has nothing to do with whether "most Americans simply don't identify with or think about history prior to British/American colonization" Also I'd like to point out that both of my paragraphs are facts, not opinions. The difference is that I could be wrong if for example there was evidence that the Taos pueblo structures were built in the 13th century, but there isn't.
  - dredmorbius 4y ago
    You're not only not arguing the facts, you're not addressing the initial claim but a strawman of it: https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=32120884 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=32120884 Comments should get more thoughtful and substantive, not less, as a topic gets more divisive. When disagreeing, please reply to the argument instead of calling names. "That is idiotic; 1 + 1 is 2, not 3" can be shortened to "1 + 1 is 2, not 3." Please respond to the strongest plausible interpretation of what someone says, not a weaker one that's easier to criticize. Assume good faith. https://news.ycombinator.com/newsguidelines.html https://news.ycombinator.com/newsguidelines.html
    - robocat 4y ago
      dredmorbius, it looks like you could do with re-reading the guidelines too. What you have written here is hardly a shining example of great comments. Disclaimer: I am not a mod. I just wish we could all get along better.
    - mgraczyk 4y ago
      I think I replied pretty directly. The central claim of the comment is that Americans think about old buildings differently because they don't identify with pre-colonial culture. I'm saying that actually there are essentially no buildings that are old here which is true despite one possible counterexample.
      - dredmorbius 4y ago
        And for the third time, that wasn't the argument made. Given your unwillingness to acknowledge any other of your multiple refuted statements, engagement has been rather futile for some time. Cheers, mate.
        mgraczyk 4y ago
        So what was the argument? I am quoting it directly so having difficulty understanding the discrepancy. > It's a cultural thing that most Americans simply don't identify with or think about history prior to British/American colonization. That is the claim > There are still people living in medieval-era houses in the US and ruins that make Rome look young This is technically true but highly misleading. There is one site in the US where oral tradition maintains that some parts of two of the structures were built prior to 1400. There has been no radiocarbon dating of the structures. The closest contemporaneous account is from 1540 and doesn't describe the structures in detail, only the settlement. The ruins are not visible to most Americans, > but they don't occupy anyone's mindspace when it comes to how they think of age. The claim here is that despite the existence of medieval-era home and ancient ruins, Americans don't identify with history prior to colonization. My counter argument is that the evidence for any medieval era homes is weak, and at most there are two, both located at one site. The ruins are extremely rare and far from population centers, which explains the lack of awareness. It's true that most Americans don't identify with history prior to European colonization, but it's true _because of_ the lack of ruins and ancient homes, not in spite of their existence. This is all in contrast to Europe where people see and interact with medieval era homes and buildings all the time.

dredmorbius 4y ago

I've presented documented facts. You're countering with opinion. Just sayin'.

mgraczyk 4y ago
The facts are: In the US, most Americans, including indigenous people, go their entire lives without seeing a single structure built before 1500. You can't see one without driving several hours from any population center, and several days from the population centers where the overwhelming majority live. In Europe, most people see buildings built before 1500 every day. Many people live in them. Those are both facts. My belief/opinion is that these facts explain the difference in attitude between Americans and Europeans. It has nothing to do with whether "most Americans simply don't identify with or think about history prior to British/American colonization" Also I'd like to point out that both of my paragraphs are facts, not opinions. The difference is that I could be wrong if for example there was evidence that the Taos pueblo structures were built in the 13th century, but there isn't.
- dredmorbius 4y ago
  You're not only not arguing the facts, you're not addressing the initial claim but a strawman of it: https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=32120884 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=32120884 Comments should get more thoughtful and substantive, not less, as a topic gets more divisive. When disagreeing, please reply to the argument instead of calling names. "That is idiotic; 1 + 1 is 2, not 3" can be shortened to "1 + 1 is 2, not 3." Please respond to the strongest plausible interpretation of what someone says, not a weaker one that's easier to criticize. Assume good faith. https://news.ycombinator.com/newsguidelines.html https://news.ycombinator.com/newsguidelines.html
  - robocat 4y ago
    dredmorbius, it looks like you could do with re-reading the guidelines too. What you have written here is hardly a shining example of great comments. Disclaimer: I am not a mod. I just wish we could all get along better.
  - mgraczyk 4y ago
    I think I replied pretty directly. The central claim of the comment is that Americans think about old buildings differently because they don't identify with pre-colonial culture. I'm saying that actually there are essentially no buildings that are old here which is true despite one possible counterexample.
    - dredmorbius 4y ago
      And for the third time, that wasn't the argument made. Given your unwillingness to acknowledge any other of your multiple refuted statements, engagement has been rather futile for some time. Cheers, mate.
      - mgraczyk 4y ago
        So what was the argument? I am quoting it directly so having difficulty understanding the discrepancy. > It's a cultural thing that most Americans simply don't identify with or think about history prior to British/American colonization. That is the claim > There are still people living in medieval-era houses in the US and ruins that make Rome look young This is technically true but highly misleading. There is one site in the US where oral tradition maintains that some parts of two of the structures were built prior to 1400. There has been no radiocarbon dating of the structures. The closest contemporaneous account is from 1540 and doesn't describe the structures in detail, only the settlement. The ruins are not visible to most Americans, > but they don't occupy anyone's mindspace when it comes to how they think of age. The claim here is that despite the existence of medieval-era home and ancient ruins, Americans don't identify with history prior to colonization. My counter argument is that the evidence for any medieval era homes is weak, and at most there are two, both located at one site. The ruins are extremely rare and far from population centers, which explains the lack of awareness. It's true that most Americans don't identify with history prior to European colonization, but it's true _because of_ the lack of ruins and ancient homes, not in spite of their existence. This is all in contrast to Europe where people see and interact with medieval era homes and buildings all the time.