4 ms·

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 els

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
lovich 3y ago
How deep do you take that though? The reason why bison were gone doesn’t change the fact that they were nearly were at the time and that the introduction of hippos were a replacement. If you need to have every side fact explained in detail, then you’re going to have an extremely long, probably book length discussion on any given topic. I think “bison had become nearly extinct” is accurate enough to show why hippos as a meat source were even a topic of discussion
- boplicity 3y ago
  > How deep do you take that though? The literal reason they were even thinking about importing hippos was because "bison had become nearly extinct." It's not exactly going "deep" to spend one or two sentences on why they'd gone extinct. Without the genocide, this very likely wouldn't have happened. It's the direct cause, and not a "side fact." I'm confused why you would think otherwise.
  - nonethewiser 3y ago
    I posted this article because it highlighted the interesting details about the plan the best, but others suggested meat monopolies were the actual reason. I dont think Bison were a staple prior to 1900 or anything. If we want to talk about a glaring omission, its that.
    - boplicity 3y ago
      >I dont think Bison were a staple prior to 1900 or anything. You've been misinformed. Bison was the "was the principal food source for Indigenous Peoples of the Plains.[0]" Indigenous people depended on bison for food; bison were slaughtered wholesale in order to make life as hard as possible for indigenous people to live. This was quite intentional, and extremely horrible. And yes, it sucks, and is uncomfortable to think about. Doesn't mean we should ignore it, though. [0] http://traditionalanimalfoods.org/mammals/hoofed/page.aspx?id=6136 http://traditionalanimalfoods.org/mammals/hoofed/page.aspx?i...
      - 3y ago
nonethewiser 3y ago
I think it was clearly just out of scope.
- deleted 3y ago
  [deleted]

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

lovich 3y ago

How deep do you take that though? The reason why bison were gone doesn’t change the fact that they were nearly were at the time and that the introduction of hippos were a replacement. If you need to have every side fact explained in detail, then you’re going to have an extremely long, probably book length discussion on any given topic. I think “bison had become nearly extinct” is accurate enough to show why hippos as a meat source were even a topic of discussion

boplicity 3y ago
> How deep do you take that though? The literal reason they were even thinking about importing hippos was because "bison had become nearly extinct." It's not exactly going "deep" to spend one or two sentences on why they'd gone extinct. Without the genocide, this very likely wouldn't have happened. It's the direct cause, and not a "side fact." I'm confused why you would think otherwise.
- nonethewiser 3y ago
  I posted this article because it highlighted the interesting details about the plan the best, but others suggested meat monopolies were the actual reason. I dont think Bison were a staple prior to 1900 or anything. If we want to talk about a glaring omission, its that.
  - boplicity 3y ago
    >I dont think Bison were a staple prior to 1900 or anything. You've been misinformed. Bison was the "was the principal food source for Indigenous Peoples of the Plains.[0]" Indigenous people depended on bison for food; bison were slaughtered wholesale in order to make life as hard as possible for indigenous people to live. This was quite intentional, and extremely horrible. And yes, it sucks, and is uncomfortable to think about. Doesn't mean we should ignore it, though. [0] http://traditionalanimalfoods.org/mammals/hoofed/page.aspx?id=6136 http://traditionalanimalfoods.org/mammals/hoofed/page.aspx?i...
    - 3y ago

nonethewiser 3y ago

I think it was clearly just out of scope.

deleted 3y ago
[deleted]