Thenewwwguy
Deity
yes, but they did leave oral records that colonists systematically wiped out when they wiped out indigenous languages, and rewrote with their own narratives about what happened and who these people are/were
Indigenous Consultation - Shawnee
- Thread starter bite
- Start date
Ahhhh...the Manx. My noble ancestors need to make an appearance in Civ at last.
I am not so sure that the Manx would be too preturbed about how they would be depicted. The Sami, however, I could concede your point.
Thenewwwguy
Deity
I would imagine even groups that aren't strictly indigenous but have had fraught relationships with the states which they presently lie would be necessary to consult, whether its academics, leaders, or texts--the basques come to mind specifically here, especially with how the language is taken pride in.Ahhhh...the Manx. My noble ancestors need to make an appearance in Civ at last.
I am not so sure that the Manx would be too preturbed about how they would be depicted. The Sami, however, I could concede your point.
I know that Tamil people would not be happy if the Chola or (especially) the Tamil language were poorly perceived, and we're not an indigenous people in India (though there's an argument to be made that perhaps Tamils in Sri Lanka could be considered indigenous to some extent)
I don't think they systematically wiped out the oral records. That's a bit much. They certainly discouraged the speaking of their native languages and especially in residential schools.
They definitely did wipe out most of the Mayan non stone written records, however. Only a few codices remain.
Thenewwwguy
Deity
wide disregard of oral records as myths while simultaneously cleansing the language is systematic wiping out of the oral records, in my opinion
You are entitled to your opinion, as strong as it is. I don't share it.
They did not systematically cleanse the language. They discouraged its use which was obviously wrong. Also some chose to move into cities for employment and then use English or Spanish more and more and after a generation or two, their native tongues were essentially lost. While regrettable, I don't think this was malicious.
Native languages are being tragically lost every day. At least some governments are being proactive in trying to protect them now, although it may be too late for many of them.
As for disregarding oral records, many historians ,(but not all) in the past were guilty of that. We do know quite a bit about the Inca, for example, through the dedication of a few scholars.
Thenewwwguy
Deity
i think “discouraging its use” is an understatement. Residential schools punished students for speaking their native languages. There was considerable shame involved in teaching your native language to your children, and also a huge emphasis on getting natives to integrate into american society. These are major societal pressures. If it was just discouraging, we wouldn’t see the level of damage to their speaking populations that we do.
When the settler-colonial governments forced students at forcible boarding schools to not speak the language, and established a major prestige factor in making sure your kids didn’t know the language, that absolutely *is* done with the intent of wiping out the language.
I think it’s all too charitable to governments that at the time explicitly said their goal was to “civilize” the indigenous peoples by doing this.
edit: i say american in the first paragraph, but really can apply to any of the new world colonies, new zealand, australia, etc.
The boarding schools amounted to cultural genocide by design and were quite open about it: "Kill the Indian; save the man." (The exact words of R.H. Pratt, one of the leading proponents of the boarding school system.) Speaking Native languages at the boarding schools wasn't "discouraged"; it was forbidden and brutally punished. A similar situation existed in some of the Spanish missions. Was the intent malicious? Debatable. Certainly some people involved thought that once they weren't "Indians" anymore they could be assimilated into general society, which, for the time, could...almost be considered racially progressive if it weren't for the cultural genocide part. But whether the intent was malicious or not, the cultural trauma of the event still haunts Native and First Nation communities across the continent.
The Bible contains among other things descriptions of actual historical events. That doesn't make the Bible good history though.
Again, though, study has found oral history to be extremely reliable.
Ok, thank you. You've made your point quite well.
Not speaking for the other countries but Canada, as a nation, has apologized for the residential schools and the racist Indian Act. We have paid enormous compensation over the years including $40 billion, quite recently.
We are not perfect but we are trying to do what is right to rectify the past.
I am sure, if you or any of us were honest, we could look at a lot of things in our own cultural backgrounds that are not so wonderful, too.
We are all human and to err is human.
Thenewwwguy
Deity
the bible has considerable academic study disproving certain stories, though some of its stories have proven reliability as well. Furthermore, the bible hasn’t been an oral history for 2000 years, and considerable academic study has shown that successive authors and editors have changed stories to support certain dogmas.
native oral histories have considerable academic study supporting them. they’ve been written and edited far less.
Thenewwwguy
Deity
absolutely. there’s always room to improve but the fact that certain countries, particularly canada and new zealand, in my mind, have attempted to rectify some of these past horrors, is a promising sign.
It’s always horrifying to hear about how bad this history truly was for enslaved and indigenous peoples. the average citizen of the americas *still* isn’t aware of how evil these times were. We both agree on the importance of consulting cultural experts, and in my mind, this is exactly why.
This is the key point. Studies have found that oral stories are generally considered sacred and immutable, and consequently considerably less prone to editorially emendation than written texts (even sacred texts as early manuscripts of the Tanukh and Bible demonstrate). Also, illiterate societies have long memories. A downside of literacy is you don't have to memorize something if you can look it up again. It's amazing how much pre- and proto-literate people could store in their minds.
Aztecs never developed nor used a full written language. Mayans did.
IIRC, there were actual written languages developed even in the Valley of Mexico cultural region but they were abandoned in favor of the pictoral memorials used by the Aztecs. All written Aztec texts come from these people post-contact.
Not to open up a can of worms here and derail this thread but...
When corroborated with archeological evidence, they certainly are. Biblical accounts have been found to be trustworthy.
For example, for years, scholars dismissed the notion that there ever had been a City of Ninevah as written in the Bible. Until they re-discovered it in the mid Nineteenth century.
I bring it up only to illustrate that oral history and written history can both contain trustworthy accounts and myths together. So painting oral history with a broad brush as trustworthy is misleading. But yeah maybe I could have picked a better example.
I think the original point is that
Oral histories
1. don’t outlast the population dying off
2. require you to talk to the people that tell them (they were a little bit harder to mass copy and distribute for most of the past 500 years)
So for a population with a lot of oral history
1. if they are still alive in massive numbers…a lot of it has probably been written down now
2. if they are still alive in smaller numbers…. you need to talk to them
3. if there is no one believably claiming to be them…you need archaeology (and talk to the locals)
Oral histories
1. don’t outlast the population dying off
2. require you to talk to the people that tell them (they were a little bit harder to mass copy and distribute for most of the past 500 years)
So for a population with a lot of oral history
1. if they are still alive in massive numbers…a lot of it has probably been written down now
2. if they are still alive in smaller numbers…. you need to talk to them
3. if there is no one believably claiming to be them…you need archaeology (and talk to the locals)
- Joined
- Oct 26, 2021
- Messages
- 803
I'm fine with different level of consolation in the design of this game. I would bet that the Shawnee will be more honest about their history than a lot of groups.
I'm pretty sure the Spartans didn't leave any text for future generations and all our knowledge of them comes from Athenian writers. My point being for civ they've got to use what they got sometime to get a civ in the game.
I'm pretty sure the Spartans didn't leave any text for future generations and all our knowledge of them comes from Athenian writers. My point being for civ they've got to use what they got sometime to get a civ in the game.
Similar threads
