3 ms·

There is no evidence whatsoever for your baseless disregard of oral transmission of historical events.

Amezarak 1y ago
Oral transmission of historical events is obviously real. That doesn't mean oral transmission of this particular event for 7700 years is real. Do you also think that two men stopped the eruption by leaping into the volcano? Or that it was actually a fight between gods? There are several other problems with the story that should make you suspicious: - There are several "tells" that if this is even a real story it has been heavily edited. Neither of the links provides a reliable narrative from an indigenous source. Also note that the "klamathtribenews" link says there are many stories about how it was formed but only tells us the one that we want to hear. - One of the articles claims the same people has occupied the area for 13k years. This is extremely unlikely, has little evidence backing it, and suggests the story is being used as part of the political justification for territorial claims. Meanwhile, we know peoples from other areas were perfectly capable of coming to a new area, then making inferences and drawing conclusions about what they saw geographically - we have lots of examples of the Greeks doing this, for example. The ideas behind geology didn't spring out of a vacuum in the 1800s. Anyone who understands the idea behind "volcano" would have also understood why a crater lake existed, even if they had never seen that eruption.
- ab5tract 1y ago
  The point is there is no evidence for your happenstance version of events. You believe it based on your own (very mainstream) biases of “primitive” cultures. There is no evidence of your position, it’s a fantasy you have wrapped around something you don’t understand or appreciate.
  - Amezarak 1y ago
    There's also no evidence for your belief that this represents unbroken oral tradition from eyewitnesses who actually saw the eruption. I also imagine you are cherry-picking what parts of the story you're taking as proof of this: as I said, do you believe that the volcano stopped erupting because two men sacrificed themselves? Why are you erasing the existence of the two giants hurling hot rocks at each other? Why do they say there are "many stories" about how the lake was formed but only tell us this one? What are the others? If they are not about events that can be interpreted as eruptions, what does that mean? > You believe it based on your own (very mainstream) biases of “primitive” cultures. Usually I have been accused of precisely the opposite, particularly in this case, where I commonly assert that people hugely underestimate the technological and social capacity of Native Americans, particularly in North America. If anything, I am suggesting you are underestimating the peoples in the area by suggesting they could not have applied their understanding of natural processes to understand a past event they did not personally witness. > , it’s a fantasy you have wrapped around something you don’t understand or appreciate. I understand perfectly well. But when people make absurd claims like "our people have been here for 13k years", this is a religious claim, not a historical claim (it would be an absurd one), and you should understand when I take what you say alongside that with a huge grain of salt.

Oral transmission of historical events is obviously real. That doesn't mean oral transmission of this particular event for 7700 years is real. Do you also think that two men stopped the eruption by leaping into the volcano? Or that it was actually a fight between gods? There are several other problems with the story that should make you suspicious: - There are several "tells" that if this is even a real story it has been heavily edited. Neither of the links provides a reliable narrative from an indigenous source. Also note that the "klamathtribenews" link says there are many stories about how it was formed but only tells us the one that we want to hear. - One of the articles claims the same people has occupied the area for 13k years. This is extremely unlikely, has little evidence backing it, and suggests the story is being used as part of the political justification for territorial claims. Meanwhile, we know peoples from other areas were perfectly capable of coming to a new area, then making inferences and drawing conclusions about what they saw geographically - we have lots of examples of the Greeks doing this, for example. The ideas behind geology didn't spring out of a vacuum in the 1800s. Anyone who understands the idea behind "volcano" would have also understood why a crater lake existed, even if they had never seen that eruption.

ab5tract 1y ago
The point is there is no evidence for your happenstance version of events. You believe it based on your own (very mainstream) biases of “primitive” cultures. There is no evidence of your position, it’s a fantasy you have wrapped around something you don’t understand or appreciate.
- Amezarak 1y ago
  There's also no evidence for your belief that this represents unbroken oral tradition from eyewitnesses who actually saw the eruption. I also imagine you are cherry-picking what parts of the story you're taking as proof of this: as I said, do you believe that the volcano stopped erupting because two men sacrificed themselves? Why are you erasing the existence of the two giants hurling hot rocks at each other? Why do they say there are "many stories" about how the lake was formed but only tell us this one? What are the others? If they are not about events that can be interpreted as eruptions, what does that mean? > You believe it based on your own (very mainstream) biases of “primitive” cultures. Usually I have been accused of precisely the opposite, particularly in this case, where I commonly assert that people hugely underestimate the technological and social capacity of Native Americans, particularly in North America. If anything, I am suggesting you are underestimating the peoples in the area by suggesting they could not have applied their understanding of natural processes to understand a past event they did not personally witness. > , it’s a fantasy you have wrapped around something you don’t understand or appreciate. I understand perfectly well. But when people make absurd claims like "our people have been here for 13k years", this is a religious claim, not a historical claim (it would be an absurd one), and you should understand when I take what you say alongside that with a huge grain of salt.