Viewing a single comment thread. View all comments

Aoeletta t1_iz04c4y wrote

Reply to comment by keller892 in How did Native American tribes indigenous to Yellowstone National Park (e.g., Shoshone, Blackfeet, Crow, etc.) perceive the land (e.g., thoughts on geothermal activity) and what was their relationship like with white/European trappers and explorers entering the region in the early 1800s? by electricdresses

My gosh. The history we lost due to colonization is heartbreaking.

183

zpool_scrub_aquarium t1_iz0i1j3 wrote

Now that we are in the digital age we can utilize digital archives and websites to try to preserve, order, streamline and dig up as much of that history as possible.

64

LouQuacious t1_iz17jj9 wrote

Links degrading is a huge problem, try clicking on any 'source' from 2008 or earlier, most likely the link is broken now.

32

BWD1998 t1_iz0ov8d wrote

Is this a valid career path for people? I’m 25 and this is a huge passion for me, but I didn’t go to college for it or anything. But I do have a lot of knowledge on it. I’m wondering if I can turn it into a career

29

nothalfasclever t1_iz0u9hj wrote

You might need to get a degree if you want to do some of the most interesting archival work, since a lot of those are funded by the government and/or prominent universities. It's absolutely a valid career path, though, and it's a deeply important one.

Most universities that offer a Master's of Library Science will have courses in digitization & archive management. If that's not a plausible path for you, there might be other ways to get the connections & experience you need- it's certainly worth investigating.

33

banjo_hammer t1_iz1aewb wrote

This may seem obvious, but I would also add that these positions can be competitive, in the sense that there are more potential candidates than open jobs, so a degree would definitely be an advantage if not a requirement. Also, in my experience (mid-level universities), these jobs are sometimes grant-funded and project-based (read: only for a few years). Not all though, it depends on the institution.

I certainly don't want to be discouraging, but want to make sure folks know the potential entry barriers, which are sadly common in archival and library work.

Edit: It would be worth looking at potential jobs at historical societies and related non-profits to see what's out there and the qualifications needed

9

Thecinnamingirl t1_iz1erbe wrote

If you want to do more advanced work, yes, you would want to pursue a degree. However, it's pretty common for museums and historical societies to have roles for digitization assistants that doesn't require a degree, so if OP wanted to try it out first, that would be a good start. Also, you can find MLS programs that allow you to do coursework in related fields. For example, one of my cohort at Indiana University Bloomington focused on informatics, but she also did a bunch of courses in anthropology (IU has a big anthro program), because part of her interest was in digitization of indigenous/native music.

6

grandsatsuma t1_iz0pq2k wrote

If you can find someone to sponsor you then anything is a career path.

13

_Apatosaurus_ t1_iz0vr7z wrote

It's a niche career, but absolutely possible. I think the best place to start with something like this is to contact someone from a local museum or university and ask if you can do an informational interview to learn more about their career path. Let them know your interest and that you are considering going back to school (whether that's true or not, it's a good way to make it clear you are not asking for a job).

8

LouQuacious t1_iz17ttp wrote

There's internships in this, my wife did one for an oral history project gathering stories from survivors of India/Pakistan Partition.

8

growsomegarlic t1_iz116u4 wrote

When it comes to Native Americans, I think we've done enough "digging up".

−4

Agente_Anaranjado t1_iz133xq wrote

Too much digging up, not enough sitting down and asking the people who (ahem) still exist today.

15

Retr0shock t1_iz13836 wrote

Honestly that depends on who you define as "we" and what tribal peoples you're referencing. Depending on tribe some want all the help they can get preserving cultural history, some want help in the form of funding or access to do it themselves (because some tribes don't have access to their own ancestral lands ffs), some would prefer no outside interference, and finally, a small number of tribes have actually expressed the preference for their history to fade with time. Respecting Indigenous sovereignty, while acknowledging the diversity of viewpoints is key.

7

growsomegarlic t1_iz18qu7 wrote

My perspective comes from visiting "Dixon Mounds" in Dixon, Illinois as a child, and then going back years later to see that they lost a lawsuit and were forced to fill it all back in, or at least take that off display.

−1

ThoughtCondom t1_iz0bc74 wrote

Every colonizes everybody. I agree it is sad but these tribes would also war and wipeout each other. In Mexico The Olmecs were wiped out by the Toltecs, and the Aztecs wiped out the Toltecs and burned their libraries and every aspect of their culture to the ground.

Colonization is an inescapable part of all human history. It’s not just something that the white man did to the brown man, here in America

27

uberwachin t1_iz0uirq wrote

On the other side there's the spanish conquest being a viceroyalty that actually translated and made manuscript of the common tongues, myths and costumes of the indigenous people and gave them status of servers of the crown. Don't buy the black legend.

8

RailRuler t1_iz0whm8 wrote

The spanish destroyed way more than they preserved.

4

uberwachin t1_iz0zmaf wrote

The Spanish preserved way more than any other conquest. That's why 80 to 90 percent of the population in the Americas are indigenous descendants. What's the percentage in the places that used to be french or British colonies?

5

TheBlueSully t1_iz18oc5 wrote

Citation for the 80-90% of the americas?

7

uberwachin t1_iz1f91o wrote

there you go:

https://www.cia.gov/the-world-factbook/field/ethnic-groups/

Mexico

Mestizo (Amerindian-Spanish) 62%, predominantly Amerindian 21%, Amerindian 7%, other 10% (mostly European) (2012 est.)

Peru

Mestizo (mixed Amerindian and White) 60.2%, Amerindian 25.8%, White 5.9%, African descent 3.6%, other (includes Chinese and Japanese descent) 1.2%, unspecified 3.3% (2017 est.)

Bolivia

Mestizo (mixed White and Amerindian ancestry) 68%, Indigenous 20%, White 5%, Cholo/Chola 2%, African descent 1%, other 1%, unspecified 3%; 44% of respondents indicated feeling part of some indigenous group, predominantly Quechua or Aymara (2009 est.)

Colombia

Mestizo and White 87.6%, Afro-Colombian (includes Mulatto, Raizal, and Palenquero) 6.8%, Amerindian 4.3%, unspecified 1.4% (2018 est.)

Honduras

Mestizo (mixed Amerindian and European) 90%, Amerindian 7%, African descent 2%, White 1%

Paraguay

Mestizo (mixed Spanish and Amerindian ancestry) 95%, other 5%

3

[deleted] t1_iz0mnzy wrote

[removed]

−4

Nightmare_Tonic t1_iz0mwgo wrote

Former historian here. The reason why the focus in our field is primarily on European-style, White colonization of Indigenous peoples is because of its concerted effort, across almost all instances, to not only subjugate the Indians but to destroy their languages / spiritual traditions / cultures. There was slavery among black Africans and colonization among Natives, but they truly were of a different breed and scale. One of the reasons why European-style colonialism is so horrifying is because of its legal systematization, which reminds us of an even more recent event - the Holocaust, as a product of political and legal coordination.

Addendum: NOT trying to imply that slavery and invasion among non-white people groups were not horribly brutal and disturbing. It was.

−4

ThoughtCondom t1_iz136pr wrote

There is just an incredible amount of bias in what you just said

9

Nightmare_Tonic t1_iz1fx2a wrote

I'm not sure you understand what the word bias means, because nothing in my statement is even remotely controversial among historians. Like, none of it.

4

ThoughtCondom t1_iz1roq6 wrote

>The reason why the focus in our field is primarily on European-style, White colonization of Indigenous peoples is because of its concerted effort, across almost all instances, to not only subjugate the Indians but to destroy their languages / spiritual traditions / culture

The Aztecs and countless others have literally done the same thing, but you called it "European style White colonization" which leads to believe that although you are a historian on paper, you were indoctrinated by the leftist homogeneity that exists on campuses today.

7

TheBearasaad t1_iz0uylb wrote

“Nonwhite people did it too” is not the strong controversial argument that people seem to think it is when they make it. Everyone recognizes that it isn’t just white folks who did nasty shit to other people. But that doesn’t change that the topic in question here in this thread is how much history and culture for the indigenous tribes of that region was lost as a result of white colonists.

The topic doesn’t need to shift. You can let it be without pretending that you’re educating people on something which they already know.

−5

dubamamorange t1_iz19l45 wrote

take a browse in this comment section, a fair number of people use colonizer as an ubiquitous term for people of european decent. not to mention politicians, government employees, university staff and professors, ngo and non profit employees etc etc

10

TheBearasaad t1_iz1dd3h wrote

It’s still just changing the topic from the actual direct conversation being had, to make a point for a bad faith argument.

−4

Dudecar123 t1_iz0vycy wrote

if you extrapolate this out to every period of history where conquest destroyed records and memories of civilizations, its really astounding.

Its insane to think about how much we don't know, will never know, and have no inkling of a thought that were missing out on it (Alexander conquests (destroyed Persepolis), Mongols wrecking Middle East, random fires or natural events that destroyed the only copies of ancient recorded works... its wild)

26

OsonoHelaio t1_iz190za wrote

Im really sad that all the mayan language writings were lost. How cool would it be to be able to have translations of that body of knowledge? And a written language qhere you use different forms of letters to create artistic pictures?

5

Aimless_Wonderer t1_iz1tgkz wrote

Yeah, it's amazing how strong the instinct to destroy has been throughout history. Makes me sad. It just seems so pointless...

3

Dudecar123 t1_iz249r0 wrote

Survival... if they didn't destroy their enemy, we would be reading their enemy's histories.

3

LouQuacious t1_iz17ceo wrote

One thing I recall reading is that most natives died without ever encountering a European. By the time colonization was really going something like 90-95% of indigeneous people had already perished due to diseases being passed through trade networks. French fur trappers reported finding loads of abandoned 'ghost' villages or a very few ragged survivors. If native people had immunity to diseases it's possible colonization would never have occurred, at least not to the extent it did.

26

Ceramicrabbit t1_iz0q232 wrote

The fact they mostly only had oral traditions is a big factor

17

[deleted] t1_iz1decj wrote

[deleted]

1

Ceramicrabbit t1_iz1e1vu wrote

The post is about north American tribes which didn't have any system of writing though

9

kanegaskhan t1_iz25au1 wrote

There were birch bark scrolls kept that were lost due in fires set to purge areas that were decimated by disease. Stone tablets are a lot more hardy than bark. My father has one passed down to him that tells some story on it in hieroglyphs.

1

Ceramicrabbit t1_iz2co4n wrote

From a North American native population? They didn't use hieroglyphs, they had petroglyphs and pictographs but those arent a form of writing. Do you have a source on the scrolls? That sounds impossible until the Europeans arrived and introduced written language

1

JoruusCbaoth75 t1_iz21rsz wrote

Understatement of the millennium. Their oral histories stretched back further than almost any written histories we have. While some of those have added color, I'm sure more than a few had basis in truth.

3

qarton t1_iz28fot wrote

Don’t learn about the Maya, it will just make you more upset.

2

BlergFurdison t1_iz1kczf wrote

Histories of Indigenous Americans were completely or nearly completely oral traditions. European disease wiped out huge civilizations like the Mississippi before we even substantively encountered them. From what little I know, there is virtually no record of their culture(s) today.

I am happy to be corrected, btw. I think often of the pre-Columbian people whose presence was in harmony with this land centuries ago. I've found several artifacts and their histories are endlessly fascinating to ponder.

1

Cinnamoniation t1_iz262yy wrote

Or rather, a sleeping supervolcano didn't exist as a concept among the natives. As far as they were concerned, there were some hot springs in the area and there were some vents that sporadically puffed smoke scattered across. Why would they be so invested in building a folklore around that? And more importantly, why are you so insistent on assuming they would?

1

bradread1 t1_iz1nkat wrote

History was not lost, however the State run educational system would never tell you the truth.

−3

questingbear2000 t1_iz09kna wrote

Hi, as politely as I can, I don't follow. Was that a throwaway response line, or is there something really tragically useful that has been lost?

−57

Aoeletta t1_iz0aim9 wrote

I appreciate you asking, and I will answer honestly and as gently as I can.

It is inherently racist to say, “or is there something really tragically useful that has been lost?”

Yes. The perspective and culture and first-person history of the tribal communities that existed in this land before colonization is fascinating, beautiful, varied, and we lost it because of genocide. That is a tragic loss.

To ask if it is “useful” is to say that you have no interest in cultural history and see it through a utilitarian lens rather than a human experience lens. It doesn’t have to be “useful” in a practical way for the loss of art, culture, language, history to be grieved.

Many of the tribal nations had a more oratory history tradition, so by killing people, killing the language, stealing the children, and relocation we lost all of that passed on history. To a historian, to people interested in other cultures, to people who study US geography… yes. That seems like a huge loss.

69

jeffersonairmattress t1_iz0d8m2 wrote

In BC we have only recently found archeological and geological evidence of phenomena and practices that First Nations have maintained as oral truths for thousands of years- imagine how much was erased with disease, other murder and cultural erasure.

Ancient Comox fish traps, sunken undersea gardens….

35

TheBlueSully t1_iz18y2p wrote

Gardens in the forest a bit south(but in the same/similar ecosystem. So probably existed up there, too).

1

verdigrizz t1_iz0cgr2 wrote

Good on you for being able to answer that with such grace. What a ridiculous question.

7

DeaddyRuxpin t1_iz0jbsf wrote

Be very careful with slamming people with comments like it being a “ridiculous question”. Unless the person is an obvious troll you don’t want to turn them off from asking questions. It is much better that they asked the question and then had it answered and explained what they were missing in their perspective that lead to the question being necessary. Calling it ridiculous will turn off the person from asking more questions which will only serve to perpetuate their lack of understanding and potential insensitivity towards other cultures.

A lot of people are raised and educated in very homogeneous environments. If their exposure to history has only been to big topics like Greek and Roman culture where we have a massive amount of data, they may not realize how lacking we are in North and South American indigenous history. Their question may have been more along the lines of thinking someone was showing concern over losing a bit of Roman graffiti or a Greek city-state’s local variation of deity worship. Sure loss of that sucks, but they aren’t likely to be revolutionary in our understanding of the cultures.

From that perspective they asked a legitimate question. Is there something in particular we have lost with indigenous history that is significant or is it simply the loss of another longhouse that is fundamentally the same as a dozen others. The response they received was great as it was polite and explained that not only is all cultural history significant but in fact we have lost so much indigenous history that we don’t know far more than we do know.

14

ftbc t1_iz0mlpv wrote

To put it another way: What was lost was basically the pinnacle of stone age culture. They are right that it can't be given a lot of tangible value--but the loss of ten thousand years of cultural evolution is still something to note. 90% of an entire branch of humanity was wiped out. We should regret it no matter how little value it offered.

5

aganesh8 t1_iz0nquc wrote

It can't be given a lot of tangible value? According to what? Science? How do you know what would've come of it, if it was peaceful integration? Your take on it, is still patronizing

0

ftbc t1_iz0qmby wrote

The plagues that decimated the population were inevitable, and those destroyed much of the culture with no special effort by the invaders. Certainly any of thousands of variables would have led to different cultural outcomes, but the native population was so vastly outnumbered after the Old World diseases got done with them that their contribution to the larger picture of humanity was bound to be limited no matter how they were treated.

Ultimately, I don't see a compelling reason to think the world would be substantially different had the genocides not driven them to the brink of extinction.

Edit: to be clear and reiterate my previous point: the loss of culture is a tragic loss no doubt. I'm simply saying that there isn't any way to put a value on that beyond "we don't know things about this culture" which is somewhat circular. There are a lot of cultures we know almost nothing about that were lost to history because they died out or were assimilated. Knowledge is a worthwhile goal in itself, but to say it has any usefulness beyond the satisfaction of simply knowing it is a stretch.

1

BuckinFutts t1_iz0ojdz wrote

"As politely as I can, aren't some human cultures unlike mine and shouldn't they be completely erased?"

7