Thomas, I'm part Navajo and have lived most of my life in the western US, where native americans are quite common and there's a lot of indian history. Even when I was a child, very little of what I saw was negative. Out here, native american history is widely taught and understood, because it's a part of the region's history. That said, we really only know about the tribes native to this area, and for a long time I was only peripherally aware of those that are big on the east coast.
Even with this level of regional history, native americans are usually mentioned only in passing in history courses, unless the course is specifically about them. There's a very good reason for this: native americans didn't contribute much to modern history compared to other things at the time. That's not a very politically correct thing to say, but it's true - the hundreds of minor indian battles and skirmishes over the decades, all of them combined, pale in comparison to the civil war, or either of the world wars. The simple fact of the matter is that there were a lot more white men, and more men equals more created history. The great transformational factors that really ripped up and changed society were not the tribes fighting for land on the fringes of the country; those changes were wrought by the presses, by the locomotive, by the internal combusion engine, steam engine, mass manufacture, and ridiculously bloody war in the style of the white man. Of course it's easy to look back, or even look at where we are today, and say that native americans were cheated out of a lot. But to say that they were equally cheated out of their rightful spot in the history texts takes it a bit too far. Mormons have arguably had a bigger final impact on the country, and I see very little material on their exodus in the history texts compared to native americans. How did we get to this topic anyway? This seems more than a little off base for the list. Dennis Towne Alter Aeon MUD http://www.alteraeon.com On Thu, Sep 6, 2012 at 12:12 PM, Thomas Ward <[email protected]> wrote: > Hi Dark, > > Right. Although, as I've said before high school courses in the U.S. > are very selective about what history they do and do not teach. Most > of it is geared for American history, and by American history I'm > talking about they start with Christopher Columbus discovering the > Caribbean Islands by accident and then follow that up by one European > migration after another. First, Spain, then the French, followed by > the Dutch, and most importantly the English. That in turn is followed > up by things like the American Revolution, the Civil War, the > industrial revolution, and so forth. What I find extremely irritating > about this version of American history as taught by the U.S. > Department of Education is they almost completely ignore the Native > Americans who were living here long before Columbus and the Spanish > Conquistadors who followed him ever set foot on the American > continents. The Maya, Inca, Aztecs, Sioux, and other tribes pretty > much only get a mention because they just happened to be in the way of > European expansion and usually get painted in a negative light as a > result. > > Then again, I suppose that shouldn't come as any big surprise. Back > when my parents were growing up in the 50's and 60's westerns were the > big thing. They almost always portrayed the hero as a tall white > cowboy or pioneer fighting off outlaws and the ever present Indian > raiding parties. There might be a big scene or gun battle where the > Sioux or some other tribe sweeps down and attacks a wagon train of > settlers and our hero fends them off. The big problem with this > distorted version of American history is that we, the white man, > continually were screwing the Native Americans over, offering them > treaties and then breaking it when the terms no longer suited us, and > pretty much thought taking their lands was a God given right. When > they fought back, which was their right, we called them savages and > regarded them as something less than human. The attitude of the > pioneers was, "the only good Indian is a dead Indian." There aren't > many movies and so on that attempts to accurately represent their side > of things. > > Anyway, given the racial attitudes between white European settlers and > the Native Americans it is most likely one reason the U.S. education > system doesn't spend a whole lot of time discussing them beyond the > 4th or 5th grades. I vaguely remember learning about the Native > Americans in grade school but in junior high and high school very > little time was spent on discussing their culture, beliefs, and so on. > If they did most Americans would have to admit their fore bearers were > blood thirsty racists who thought they had a God given right to take a > piece of land and settle on it weather someone lived there or not. > > As it happens this discussion reminds me of a kid I use to know in > grade school. He took an American patriotic song and changed the > words to it, and looking back on it he was absolutely correct in how > he sang it. As I recall the first verse went something like, "this is > my land. This land ain't your land. I've got a shotgun, and you don't > have one. If you don't get off I'll blow your head off. This land is > now my personal property." > > As I said I think that version is more appropriate because it is > closer to the truth. The entire concept of sharing land definitely did > not apply to Native Americans. They were just in the way. Now, by > keeping them out of the mainstream history books we just want to > ignore them outright. > > Sorry, about the rant, but American education is just bias. In 7th > grade I had Ohio history, in 8th grade I had American history, in 9th > grade I had world history, and in 11th grade I had American history > again. In total I had one year of world history, and frankly given > what I know now even that much was pretty selective and was more an > introduction to world history rather than anything really > comprehensive. > > I don't remember exactly everything we studied but I recall it starts > out with prehistory, the beginnings of mankind, then spent a chapter > or two on early civilizations like Egypt and Mesopotamia. From there > we spent time discussing the Persian Empire, the conquest of Alexander > the Great, the rise and fall of the Roman Empire, perhaps one chapter > on the middle ages, another chapter on the reformation, the > enlightenment, etc. Basically, they tried to cram everything they > could starting from prehistory to World War II in a single book and > consider world history over and done with. Since there was too many > subjects to cover in one year it ended up being highly selective and > were very brief at that. > > Bottom line, if I want to know anything about Spain in the middle ages > per say that isn't something that I'd get from the standard history > courses in high school or university. That is something I'd have to > study outside the classroom or have to sign up for as an extra > elective rather than get it as part of my standard education. Its for > that reason if I want to create a vampire game somewhere in Spain I'd > have to study its culture and history from scratch because the > so-called world history courses that I got in high school and > university simply didn't deem it necessary to go into any detail about > specific European countries and their history outside the larger > events going on such as the protestant reformation, the Renaissance > or the enlightenment as a whole. > > In fact, most of the history I do know happens to be because I read a > lot. I love studying history, read a lot about it, and naturally watch > documentaries on the History Channel etc. Its a sad commentary on our > education system when I've learned far more about history outside of > school then I did in the years I spent locked up in a classroom > studying it day in and day out. If that is the case for the average > American its no wonder they are ignorant of the rest of the world > around them. They've been raised from day one to think in a completely > American way about everything. > > Cheers! > > > On 9/5/12, dark <[email protected]> wrote: >> Hi Tom. >> >> well obviously I have had the advantage of studdying europeean history, >> particularly around the 14th and 15th centuries, so this is a period I have >> >> some knolidge of. indeed, it's one of the major ironies that spain, which >> has often been considdered a miner power and for a very long period was >> under foreigne rule, once it became independent quickly rose in station to >> have massive influence and political standing in europe not to mention south >> >> america, which is exactly why today spanish is I believe the 3rd most >> commonly spoken language in the world besides manderin chinese and English. >> >> If however it would require huge research on your part, fair enough, it was >> >> just a suggestion to try and balance traditional vampire settings yet still >> >> be outside the usual eastern europe or England. >> >> Though having visited witby (indeed it's not that far from Durham), I can >> understand completely wy bram stoker set a lot of the action of Dracula >> there, sinse it's a very distinctive place with the tiny, but extremely old >> >> and disused abby church set on the top of a hill overlooking the sea (the >> scene where Dracula bights Lucy is set precisely at that place, as well as >> cliffs that fall straight down with no beach and a lot of very narrow >> streets below the massive hill). >> >> This is however exactly what i mean by finding a worthwhile place to set a >> vampire story in, where the actual eography and history of the place have a >> >> baring on the story. >> >> Beware the grue! >> >> Dark. >> > > --- > Gamers mailing list __ [email protected] > If you want to leave the list, send E-mail to [email protected]. > You can make changes or update your subscription via the web, at > http://mail.audyssey.org/mailman/listinfo/gamers_audyssey.org. > All messages are archived and can be searched and read at > http://www.mail-archive.com/[email protected]. > If you have any questions or concerns regarding the management of the list, > please send E-mail to [email protected]. --- Gamers mailing list __ [email protected] If you want to leave the list, send E-mail to [email protected]. You can make changes or update your subscription via the web, at http://mail.audyssey.org/mailman/listinfo/gamers_audyssey.org. All messages are archived and can be searched and read at http://www.mail-archive.com/[email protected]. If you have any questions or concerns regarding the management of the list, please send E-mail to [email protected].
