5 ms·

I can understand that this was glossed over somewhat to focus on the quirky and bizarre rather than the grim. But here: > Bison had become nearly extinct The

by smcl 3y ago

I can understand that this was glossed over somewhat to focus on the quirky and bizarre rather than the grim. But here: > Bison had become nearly extinct The use of the passive "had become" in the above is hiding a pretty important part of this story - the snippet below from http://www.ozarkbisons.com/aboutbison.php http://www.ozarkbisons.com/aboutbison.php explains a bit more about what happened. > But the fur trade and other commodities from the Bison is only a small part of the story. The American government encouraged elimination of the Plains Indians' primary food source, the bison. The idea was to kill off the Buffalo to starve the Indians, force them into relatively small areas, or north into Canada – make their food source either scarce or non-existent. The results would be starvation and high infant mortality amongst the Indian populations that would pave the way west for European settlement and the start of the western beef industry So they didn't really just "become" nearly extinct, they were very deliberately eliminated in a sort of genocidal effort. Not saying people shouldn't enjoy the story (because it is interesting after all), I just think this additional context is worth knowing.

bombcar 3y ago
Now I'm imagining an alternate history where the Indians were forced into Canada, and came back years later riding war hippos.
- kalupa 3y ago
  I came for hippo burgers but left with hippo warriors
- SideburnsOfDoom 3y ago
  > an alternate history where the Indians ... came back years later riding war hippos. You'd need more than an alternate history, actual hippos aren't that tractable.
bequanna 3y ago
What you’re saying isn’t false, but I guess I don’t understand what you’re suggesting. That this article should take some white guilt detour to delve into this topic? I think most are growing weary of having content about how terrible white people are injected into every possible thing.
- WaxProlix 3y ago
  I don't think the Irish government did this, nor the Germans. And brown Americans' government did. You're the one bringing up white guilt here, and glossing over atrocities can be called out without any need for invoking the idea of racial guilt.
- smcl 3y ago
  I explicitly said that I understood why they didn't include it - the article was meant to highlight the bizarre idea of hippo meat being introduced in the USA. I commented here because I just thought some HN'ers would like to know a bit more - and I said that too. I'm not sure how else I could've worded my comment that wouldn't have triggered this kind of reaction :-/
- jjeaff 3y ago
  Is it really "injecting" to simply be accurate? "Had become extinct" is technically correct. As much as, "Jews had become less populous during World War II." Teaching real history is not "injecting". Bison had become nearly extinct due to extreme overhunting by European settlers would be fine. And if pertinent, you could add more reasons for the extreme overhunting.
  - boplicity 3y ago
    Why not just call genocide what it is -- genocide? Wouldn't it be far more accurate, and just as concise, to say "Bison had become nearly extinct due to genocide by European settlers"?
    - yamtaddle 3y ago
      "Genocide" applied to the killing of animals would be a very unusual usage. Something like "extermination" would probably be more appropriate.
      - smcl 3y ago
        The genocide in question is that of the indigenous people, not of the Bison
boplicity 3y ago
I found that omission distracting; it made me question the rest of the article, if this important piece of context was not included, you have to wonder what else wasn't included.
- smcl 3y ago
  Yeah I think it could've easily been included (even just a sentence[0] and a link to something that explored it in a bit more detail maybe?) but I don't think there was any malice in its omission. Some people want to rewrite or whitewash history, but I don't think that was the case here. [0] - update: user jjeaff included an example of the kind of sentence I meant here https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=35951313 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=35951313
  - boplicity 3y ago
    I think most whitewashing of history comes out of the urge to avoid uncomfortable topics, rather than any malice. The topic of genocide, for example, opens a huge can of worms. It's much easier to keep that can of worms out of sight. Plus, in the interest of storytelling, you often don't want to open up "threads" in a story that don't support the main plot. I've noticed this is especially true for children's books. They have to have a happy ending. (I mean, who wants to read a kids book that leaves the kid depressed about history?) Of course, because of this, many kids grow up thinking that "problems" like racism are things that were solved in the past. And that's because those problems were solved in the books that have been read to them, or that they've read. (This is based on my experience reading many hundreds of books to my kids.) Anyways, that's a bit of a tangent.
    - smcl 3y ago
      Honestly I'm with you on everything you have said in this thread. I was dancing around it because I didn't want to be too accusatory, but I might as well say that what I meant is that if someone's writing little "oo what if we were eating hippos" pieces and the like, I would understand if they didn't want to become a victim of targeted hatred from the weird MAGA guys who can easily get set off by smaller things like this. It may sound silly but they can be dedicated, persistent and creative so if someone figures "it's not worth it for the $x00 I'm getting" then fine. Note: not accusing anyone in this thread of anything like that, it’s pretty cordial as far as I can tell even if I disagree with some
barbazoo 3y ago
This reminds me of an English term that, to me as an ELL, sticks out like a sore thumb every time I see it: Landfill. It almost sounds like we're doing something admirable by filling the land where there's an emptiness rather than saying what it really is, a place where we dump our garbage waiting for it to decompose, creating a hostile environment for everyone and everything around.
- nonethewiser 3y ago
  Thats a good observation, I never thought of it like that. Im not sure where you are, but its also called a dump in the US.
- deleted 3y ago
  [deleted]
- deleted 3y ago
  [deleted]
- callalex 3y ago
  Landfill is what the government calls them. The commonly used term is dump.
- smcl 3y ago
  That's an interesting perspective, I hadn't ever broken the word down and thought about it like that! However from the perspective of a native speaker, I can't imagine anyone thinks there's anything admirable about a "landfill". It's possible that it's a euphemism preferred by the local authority or whoever has to handle the rubbish we generate, but really we all know what it is referring to.
- akiselev 3y ago
  They're called landfills because of the method used to dispose the garbage: digging out a trench, covering the garbage with dirt, and compacting it to prevent rodents [1]. The land is literally "filled in" with garbage. Before that trash was either incinerated, which caused lots of air pollution, or just dumped in large piles that created all kinds of sanitation issues, especially in urban areas. As unsavory as it is to think about, landfills were an actual innovation in waste disposal that exploded in the post war boom, not just a euphemism for a dump. [1] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fresno_Municipal_Sanitary_Landfill https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fresno_Municipal_Sanitary_Land...
whimsicalism 3y ago
The collapse of bison population was multi-causal, attributing it all to an effort to get rid of native americans is frankly ahistorical. Bison decline was already decidedly in the cards by the time colonizers started large-scale hunting of them, due to the introduction of the horse and the rifle among tribal communities (the popular depiction of plains native americans as long-term bison hunters is a western conjuration not based in reality). [0] there is a tendency in pop (progressive) history journalism to use the fact that someone said something as evidence that this was the primary motivator for why people did the things they did. (see, for instance, the 1492 project). The tendency to valorize Native Americans as somehow above material trends, not prone to waste, etc. etc. is a cultural invention of the latter 20th century and the counterculture movement. [0]: https://www.counterpunch.org/2021/06/09/what-role-did-native-americans-and-horses-play-in-the-decline-of-bison/ https://www.counterpunch.org/2021/06/09/what-role-did-native...
- wahern 3y ago
  > The tendency to valorize Native Americans as somehow above material trends, not prone to waste, etc. etc. is a cultural invention of the latter 20th century and the counterculture movement. Perceiving peoples living outside industrialized society (or whatever is perceived as locally modern) this way is definitely not an invention of the latter 20th century. The flip side to being "less civilized" is having access to ancient concepts and norms that are more "natural" and "wholistic", and Native Americans and others were absolutely described in this ostensibly positive light just as much as they were in a negative, derogatory light. All peoples have done this throughout time; pick any cultural group anywhere and at any time and you'll also find another group who were the objective of such perceptions and ideas. If latter 20th century and 21st century leftist thinkers wonder how or why such reductive, dehumanizing thinking could become ingrained in a culture, or if they wonder if the people who promoted these reductive identities had ill or good intentions, they need only reflect upon their own narratives.
  - deleted 3y ago
    [deleted]
  - smcl 3y ago

by smcl 3y ago

bombcar 3y ago

Now I'm imagining an alternate history where the Indians were forced into Canada, and came back years later riding war hippos.

kalupa 3y ago
I came for hippo burgers but left with hippo warriors
SideburnsOfDoom 3y ago
> an alternate history where the Indians ... came back years later riding war hippos. You'd need more than an alternate history, actual hippos aren't that tractable.

bequanna 3y ago

What you’re saying isn’t false, but I guess I don’t understand what you’re suggesting. That this article should take some white guilt detour to delve into this topic? I think most are growing weary of having content about how terrible white people are injected into every possible thing.

WaxProlix 3y ago
I don't think the Irish government did this, nor the Germans. And brown Americans' government did. You're the one bringing up white guilt here, and glossing over atrocities can be called out without any need for invoking the idea of racial guilt.
smcl 3y ago
I explicitly said that I understood why they didn't include it - the article was meant to highlight the bizarre idea of hippo meat being introduced in the USA. I commented here because I just thought some HN'ers would like to know a bit more - and I said that too. I'm not sure how else I could've worded my comment that wouldn't have triggered this kind of reaction :-/
jjeaff 3y ago
Is it really "injecting" to simply be accurate? "Had become extinct" is technically correct. As much as, "Jews had become less populous during World War II." Teaching real history is not "injecting". Bison had become nearly extinct due to extreme overhunting by European settlers would be fine. And if pertinent, you could add more reasons for the extreme overhunting.
- boplicity 3y ago
  Why not just call genocide what it is -- genocide? Wouldn't it be far more accurate, and just as concise, to say "Bison had become nearly extinct due to genocide by European settlers"?
  - yamtaddle 3y ago
    "Genocide" applied to the killing of animals would be a very unusual usage. Something like "extermination" would probably be more appropriate.
    - smcl 3y ago
      The genocide in question is that of the indigenous people, not of the Bison

boplicity 3y ago

I found that omission distracting; it made me question the rest of the article, if this important piece of context was not included, you have to wonder what else wasn't included.

smcl 3y ago
Yeah I think it could've easily been included (even just a sentence[0] and a link to something that explored it in a bit more detail maybe?) but I don't think there was any malice in its omission. Some people want to rewrite or whitewash history, but I don't think that was the case here. [0] - update: user jjeaff included an example of the kind of sentence I meant here https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=35951313 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=35951313
- boplicity 3y ago
  I think most whitewashing of history comes out of the urge to avoid uncomfortable topics, rather than any malice. The topic of genocide, for example, opens a huge can of worms. It's much easier to keep that can of worms out of sight. Plus, in the interest of storytelling, you often don't want to open up "threads" in a story that don't support the main plot. I've noticed this is especially true for children's books. They have to have a happy ending. (I mean, who wants to read a kids book that leaves the kid depressed about history?) Of course, because of this, many kids grow up thinking that "problems" like racism are things that were solved in the past. And that's because those problems were solved in the books that have been read to them, or that they've read. (This is based on my experience reading many hundreds of books to my kids.) Anyways, that's a bit of a tangent.
  - smcl 3y ago
    Honestly I'm with you on everything you have said in this thread. I was dancing around it because I didn't want to be too accusatory, but I might as well say that what I meant is that if someone's writing little "oo what if we were eating hippos" pieces and the like, I would understand if they didn't want to become a victim of targeted hatred from the weird MAGA guys who can easily get set off by smaller things like this. It may sound silly but they can be dedicated, persistent and creative so if someone figures "it's not worth it for the $x00 I'm getting" then fine. Note: not accusing anyone in this thread of anything like that, it’s pretty cordial as far as I can tell even if I disagree with some

barbazoo 3y ago

This reminds me of an English term that, to me as an ELL, sticks out like a sore thumb every time I see it: Landfill. It almost sounds like we're doing something admirable by filling the land where there's an emptiness rather than saying what it really is, a place where we dump our garbage waiting for it to decompose, creating a hostile environment for everyone and everything around.

nonethewiser 3y ago
Thats a good observation, I never thought of it like that. Im not sure where you are, but its also called a dump in the US.
deleted 3y ago
[deleted]
deleted 3y ago
[deleted]
callalex 3y ago
Landfill is what the government calls them. The commonly used term is dump.
smcl 3y ago
That's an interesting perspective, I hadn't ever broken the word down and thought about it like that! However from the perspective of a native speaker, I can't imagine anyone thinks there's anything admirable about a "landfill". It's possible that it's a euphemism preferred by the local authority or whoever has to handle the rubbish we generate, but really we all know what it is referring to.
akiselev 3y ago
They're called landfills because of the method used to dispose the garbage: digging out a trench, covering the garbage with dirt, and compacting it to prevent rodents [1]. The land is literally "filled in" with garbage. Before that trash was either incinerated, which caused lots of air pollution, or just dumped in large piles that created all kinds of sanitation issues, especially in urban areas. As unsavory as it is to think about, landfills were an actual innovation in waste disposal that exploded in the post war boom, not just a euphemism for a dump. [1] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fresno_Municipal_Sanitary_Landfill https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fresno_Municipal_Sanitary_Land...

whimsicalism 3y ago

The collapse of bison population was multi-causal, attributing it all to an effort to get rid of native americans is frankly ahistorical. Bison decline was already decidedly in the cards by the time colonizers started large-scale hunting of them, due to the introduction of the horse and the rifle among tribal communities (the popular depiction of plains native americans as long-term bison hunters is a western conjuration not based in reality). [0] there is a tendency in pop (progressive) history journalism to use the fact that someone said something as evidence that this was the primary motivator for why people did the things they did. (see, for instance, the 1492 project). The tendency to valorize Native Americans as somehow above material trends, not prone to waste, etc. etc. is a cultural invention of the latter 20th century and the counterculture movement. [0]: https://www.counterpunch.org/2021/06/09/what-role-did-native-americans-and-horses-play-in-the-decline-of-bison/ https://www.counterpunch.org/2021/06/09/what-role-did-native...

wahern 3y ago
> The tendency to valorize Native Americans as somehow above material trends, not prone to waste, etc. etc. is a cultural invention of the latter 20th century and the counterculture movement. Perceiving peoples living outside industrialized society (or whatever is perceived as locally modern) this way is definitely not an invention of the latter 20th century. The flip side to being "less civilized" is having access to ancient concepts and norms that are more "natural" and "wholistic", and Native Americans and others were absolutely described in this ostensibly positive light just as much as they were in a negative, derogatory light. All peoples have done this throughout time; pick any cultural group anywhere and at any time and you'll also find another group who were the objective of such perceptions and ideas. If latter 20th century and 21st century leftist thinkers wonder how or why such reductive, dehumanizing thinking could become ingrained in a culture, or if they wonder if the people who promoted these reductive identities had ill or good intentions, they need only reflect upon their own narratives.
- deleted 3y ago
  [deleted]
- smcl 3y ago