"Wild Indians"

[Miss Peregrine]

I did. She replied and was very gracious.

[Crimson Wife]

 

I don't think it was designed to offend anyone.

 

Just because someone did not intend to stereotype does not mean that person isn't stereotyping. Most people are decent folks and are not intentionally trying to hurt anyone's feelings. But that doesn't excuse them from being called out when they do cross that line.

[Crimson Wife]

 

I don't have a problem with people selling ethnic items that aren't related to their own ethnicity. As an example, lots of people sell Irish-themed stuff for Saint Patrick's Day, but I don't know anyone who gets upset if the seller isn't Irish.

 

There's a big difference between a "Kiss Me, I'm Irish" shirt and one that stereotypes the Irish as belligerant drunks.

 

[Garga]

I don't see it as offensive. But I'm not...someone who is a descendent from people who lived in the North American continent before Europeans moved to the NA continent.

 

Maybe if I was one of the above people, I would be offended. But I don't know. I think people are getting a little off balance with the offense. There has to be a happy medium somewhere, right?

[Hikin' Mama]

So far I think we've heard from 3 people who are either members or very close to adult members of tribes, and those people said they are not offended. So maybe those of us who are non-NA should stop attacking each other for offending people without even knowing whether they are offended.

Well, if you want to be all logical about it. 😜

[Farrar]

Just because someone did not intend to stereotype does not mean that person isn't stereotyping. Most people are decent folks and are not intentionally trying to hurt anyone's feelings. But that doesn't excuse them from being called out when they do cross that line.

 

Right. And just because some people think it's okay doesn't negate the feelings of others. As in, if some Irish people are okay with a stereotyped Irish drunk joke on St. Paddy's Day, it doesn't mean that other Irish people can't then be offended.

 

FTR, I'm not sure how I feel about that shirt that started this conversation specifically. But I think having awkward conversations about this stuff is sort of... part of being a thoughtful person in this modern, diverse age, and that no one should be dismissive about it, even if you disagree.

[Jean in Newcastle]

There is a movie called Wild Hearts Can't Be Broken...and that's actually what the full quote on the shirt says ("can't be broken" being in lighter color and smaller font -- on this shirt previously linked).  Movie is not about Indians/NA at all.

 

http://www.imdb.com/title/tt0103262/

 

I loved that movie when I was younger...

OK this makes it weirder for me and not ok at all.  If the movie referenced by the quote doesn't have anything to do with Native Americans then why the association unless you are making another association between the word "wild" and Indians.  If it was a movie about N.A. then I wouldn't have as much as a problem with it just like I wouldn't have a problem with a t-shirt with a reference or image from "Dances with Wolves" (provided it was done tastefully).  

[Heatherwith4]

Mamerby, yes, it's weird and I'm dumbfounded. I keep waiting for someone to go, "hhaha, just kidding!" Yes, I'm distancing myself from the problem because taking offense at the shirt is totally bizarre to me. I'm distancing myself from this post because going down another strange rabbit hole is a waste of my time.

 

So yeah, I guess if there is something offensive about that shirt, I'll have to catch up on that memo later. I'm not arguing about a link so tenuous. I have NA in my family and that shirt would be happily embraced, like, "yeah, that's me! wild at heart! Strong! Unbreakable!"

I agree.

[Catwoman]

Just because someone did not intend to stereotype does not mean that person isn't stereotyping. Most people are decent folks and are not intentionally trying to hurt anyone's feelings. But that doesn't excuse them from being called out when they do cross that line.

I agree that they should be told.

 

The problem is when people assume the worst and call them out in an accusatory way instead of assuming they are decent folks who were not intentionally trying to hurt anyone's feelings, and approaching them kindly and politely to let them know how their words or products may be perceived.

 

I'm sure Amy approached the Etsy shop owner in a very nice way, yet still got her point across.

[Tanaqui]

I know you're being facetious, but I would actually be interested in what some real Native Americans have to say about that t-shirt.

 

I was not. Although I stayed my hand because I'm pretty sure nobody wants to intercede in random strangers' squabbles for them. (I did do some googling, though, but with little luck in any direction.)

[Catwoman]

There's a big difference between a "Kiss Me, I'm Irish" shirt and one that stereotypes the Irish as belligerant drunks.

 

I do understand what you mean about the difference between the two shirts, but really, how often do you see someone wearing a shirt that stereotypes the Irish as belligerent drunks? I have never seen anything like that.

 

I already mentioned that when he was little, my ds had a t-shirt that said "Irish temper and Italian attitude." Totally stereotypical. And both our Irish friends and family and our Italian friends and family thought it was adorable and funny. No one got offended by the stereotypes. And I should also mention that I bought the shirt in a local Irish store owned by a family from Ireland, so I guess they weren't offended, either. Honestly, if someone told me they were offended by that shirt, I would have laughed at them and told them to lighten up.

 

I think people are often too quick to get upset over things like t-shirt slogans. I wonder how long it will be before somebody gets up in arms over the Fighting Irish shirts at Notre Dame football games. ;)

[Crimson Wife]

I agree that they should be told.

 

The problem is when people assume the worst and call them out in an accusatory way instead of assuming they are decent folks who were not intentionally trying to hurt anyone's feelings, and approaching them kindly and politely to let them know how their words or products may be perceived.

 

I'm sure Amy approached the Etsy shop owner in a very nice way, yet still got her point across.

 

My sister-in-law is from Japan and she got really hurt by all the tasteless jokes people were making about the U.S. womens' soccer team beating the Japanese team in the World Cup. Trivializing the deaths of hundreds of thousands of innocent civilians at Hiroshima and Nagasaki by comparing them to a sporting event is not okay, even if the person making the joke didn't mean to offend. She's a journalist and wrote an op-ed piece calling them out on it, and I think she was right to do so.

 

ETA: I do think that at least the first bomb probably was necessary to end WWII and prevent an even larger loss of life during an invasion of Japan. But it's still a tragedy and not something that people should joke about.

[City Mouse]

I didn't like the shirt art work even without the possible offensiveness being considered, but I would hesitate to wear either of those particular shirts where I live. The native Anerican tribes and pueblos where I live, as far as I know, Never lived in tepees. Weren't tepees used by the tribes that lived in the plains?

[MBM]

The Plains Indians lived in tipis. Our high school set up a real one in the front for a period of time. People vacationing in Montana can stay in one overnight for a fee.

 

[Chess Dad]

So what?  I imagine most people consider the way the Indians lived pretty wild.  Most people consider(ed) cowboys pretty wild too.  Wild West shows were called that for a reason.  If you're appalled, don't buy them.  Everyone is offended by everything these days.   

 

 

:iagree:  

[MBM]

The problem with the t-shirt is that "wild" means different thing to different people. Personally, I see it as having to do more with nature, strength and an ability to easily adapt to difficulties but to others it has an ugly, negative connotation.

 

One thing I want to mention is that on our reservation Caucasians and Native Americans (and Japanese) get along fairly well. Many have intermarried, so people tend to be empathetic toward one another's problems and histories. Of course, there are exceptions.

 

I found my reservation to be far more accepting and inclusive than any other place I've lived.

[KungFuPanda]

I'm from WV . . . Wild and Wonderful. "Wild" is a positive adjective. It doesn't mean uncivilized. It means not paved over in concrete or filled with man-made block structures. I'm guessing a person with a "wild heart" trusts their own instincts and acts on them. Now, if the shirt said 'Feral" or "Uncivilized" I could see taking offense. I'm not liking this trend where people decide that if you use a word, it's REALLY a code-word for a different, more offensive word. It's a lot of tap-dancing around to find the correct, up-to-date word for your original, non-offensive thought.

[Crimson Wife]

I'm from WV . . . Wild and Wonderful. "Wild" is a positive adjective. It doesn't mean uncivilized. It means not paved over in concrete or filled with man-made block structures.

 

Wild =/= natural. Wild means uncontolled, savage, etc. like animals.

 

If I meant the opposite of urban, I'd use "country". A "country heart" has a very different connotation than "wild heart". When I hear "wild heart" I think of out-of-control passion that tends to be destructive.

 

[KungFuPanda]

Isn't it stereotypical to assume that a teepee or arrow means Native American? The only people I know who have teepees are white. I know white and black people who own bows and arrows, but no Native Americans. Insisting that a teepee can ONLY be a symbol for an American Indian seems a bit frozen-in-time to me.

[KungFuPanda]

Wild =/= natural. Wild means uncontolled, savage, etc. like animals.

 

If I meant the opposite of urban, I'd use "country". A "country heart" has a very different connotation than "wild heart". When I hear "wild heart" I think of out-of-control passion that tends to be destructive.

 

I disagree. I think the general connotation is one of freedom, not savagery. I'm reasonably certain the Etsy owner imagined the shirt would be worn by a curious, free-spirited child, not a future serial killer.

[Butter]

Wild =/= natural. Wild means uncontolled, savage, etc. like animals.

 

Actually, you are both right.

 

http://dictionary.reference.com/browse/wild?s=t

 

(And West Virginia using "Wild and Wonderful" as their tagline most definitely is using wild to mean natural.)

[PeacefulChaos]

Yikes, no, the word 'country' means... all sorts of negative things to me.   :ack2:

 

Nope, nope, nope.

 

If someone ever even considered referring to something I did as 'country', I would be pissed.  If someone referred to something I did as 'wild', I would laugh and keep doing it. 

 

 

Ugh.  Cringe.  Country.   :lol:

On the other hand, I find the word 'wild' to be endearing.  I don't equate it to 'savage' or anything like that.  

 

Semantics again.   :)

[SporkUK]

I am Metis. I would not wear nor let my own kids wear anything like that. It has nothing to do with 'being offended', it has to do with whether I want to support that kind of message. I would never want to support an image that dehumanizes and stereotypes people into a 1D image or treats us like a costume. Their intent or whatever they imagine doesn't matter, it isn't in a bubble, it's part of a wider system. 

 

There are over 500 American Indigenous nations, more prior to the colonial genocides. The idea that they all lived or live one way that would be considered 'wild' is part of stereotypes that are still harmful. That idea is still used to break treaties, take indigenous lands, is still used as an excuse to kill, rape, take indigenous children and put them in non indigenous homes at the highest rate ever (including the boarding school years), to refuse utilities, and to erase their history. It's used as an excuse for missing and murdered Indigenous women to 'not be high on the radar' of governments when Indigenous nations, people, and human rights organization question policies.

 

I mean, the vast majority of current popular foods and plants were purposefully cultivated in the Americas prior to European colonizers arrival. Corn, tomatoes, potatoes, pumpkins alone changed the world. That food is living American Indigenous technology - much of which was sadly lost to book burnings and genocide . It was very popular to record maps and medical information - Europeans sent doctors to learn from several Indigenous nations - and then burn the books and call them wild heretics while using their medicine to save European lives. We still cannot repeat many farming practices that actually improved soils even when we still have some of that soil. So many writings on how easy it was to travel through and how the forests were filled with food as if it just naturally came like that when actually it was purposeful cultivation. There were massive trade routes throughout the Americas prior to European colonizers and...the idea that American Indigenous people were/are wild erases a lot of history and causes harm.

 

It boggles my mind that this idea is still so popular but that is what happens when other people control our images and history. Stereotypes thehurt - the common one about Japanese honor has been used to excuse the atomic bombs and still retold to this day when Japan actually surrendered repeatedly - to the US, to Russia, even to the Vatican because the US refused and ignored them ignored and documentation shows it was more about scaring off the Russians than ending the war swiftly. The ones about "gypsys" as free spiriting erases the history of Roma and Sinte and the others labelled by others by that slur of being enslaved, pushed off land, murdered, and still being refused utilities, citizenship, and having their homes forcibly removed because of their ethnicity. This erasure still hurts and turning into cute clothing wear and quotes feeds into that erasure and harm which I would not want to support. 

 

And most actual cowboys were Indigenous and Black people (hence cowBOYs - nonwhite men demotion to boys is a common tactic to make them seem less than) which is why they had a 'wild' reputation. Even when most TV and stuff whitewashes them and erases their history, the stereotype are still there. 

[MBM]

Isn't it stereotypical to assume that a teepee or arrow means Native American? The only people I know who have teepees are white. I know white and black people who own bows and arrows, but no Native Americans. Insisting that a teepee can ONLY be a symbol for an American Indian seems a bit frozen-in-time to me.

 

You can find tipis on some of the reservations in Montana. I don't know who owns this but here's one tipi camp where visitors can stay:

 

https://blackfeetculturecamp.com/native-american-culture-tipicamp.html

[Catwoman]

My sister-in-law is from Japan and she got really hurt by all the tasteless jokes people were making about the U.S. womens' soccer team beating the Japanese team in the World Cup. Trivializing the deaths of hundreds of thousands of innocent civilians at Hiroshima and Nagasaki by comparing them to a sporting event is not okay, even if the person making the joke didn't mean to offend. She's a journalist and wrote an op-ed piece calling them out on it, and I think she was right to do so.

 

ETA: I do think that at least the first bomb probably was necessary to end WWII and prevent an even larger loss of life during an invasion of Japan. But it's still a tragedy and not something that people should joke about.

I agree that she was right! I can understand giving the "wild" t-shirt designer the benefit of the doubt because we don't know his or her intentions, but when someone jokes about actual events that resulted in the death and terrible illness of all of those people in Japan, that is entirely inexcusable. We know what happened in Japan. The idea that anyone would joke about such a thing is absolutely disgusting.

 

I am very sorry your sister-in-law had to hear such awful and hurtful things :(, and I am glad she took a stand against all of the idiots who said them.

[Catwoman]

You can find tipis on some of the reservations in Montana. I don't know who owns this but here's one tipi camp where visitors can stay:

 

https://blackfeetculturecamp.com/native-american-culture-tipicamp.html

I just wanted to thank you for all of your posts in this thread. I have learned a lot! :)

[ChocolateReignRemix]

I am Metis. I would not wear nor let my own kids wear anything like that. It has nothing to do with 'being offended', it has to do with whether I want to support that kind of message. I would never want to support an image that dehumanizes and stereotypes people into a 1D image or treats us like a costume. Their intent or whatever they imagine doesn't matter, it isn't in a bubble, it's part of a wider system.

 

There are over 500 American Indigenous nations, more prior to the colonial genocides. The idea that they all lived or live one way that would be considered 'wild' is part of stereotypes that are still harmful. That idea is still used to break treaties, take indigenous lands, is still used as an excuse to kill, rape, take indigenous children and put them in non indigenous homes at the highest rate ever (including the boarding school years), to refuse utilities, and to erase their history. It's used as an excuse for missing and murdered Indigenous women to 'not be high on the radar' of governments when Indigenous nations, people, and human rights organization question policies.

 

I mean, the vast majority of current popular foods and plants were purposefully cultivated in the Americas prior to European colonizers arrival. Corn, tomatoes, potatoes, pumpkins alone changed the world. That food is living American Indigenous technology - much of which was sadly lost to book burnings and genocide . It was very popular to record maps and medical information - Europeans sent doctors to learn from several Indigenous nations - and then burn the books and call them wild heretics while using their medicine to save European lives. We still cannot repeat many farming practices that actually improved soils even when we still have some of that soil. So many writings on how easy it was to travel through and how the forests were filled with food as if it just naturally came like that when actually it was purposeful cultivation. There were massive trade routes throughout the Americas prior to European colonizers and...the idea that American Indigenous people were/are wild erases a lot of history and causes harm.

 

It boggles my mind that this idea is still so popular but that is what happens when other people control our images and history. Stereotypes thehurt - the common one about Japanese honor has been used to excuse the atomic bombs and still retold to this day when Japan actually surrendered repeatedly - to the US, to Russia, even to the Vatican because the US refused and ignored them ignored and documentation shows it was more about scaring off the Russians than ending the war swiftly. The ones about "gypsys" as free spiriting erases the history of Roma and Sinte and the others labelled by others by that slur of being enslaved, pushed off land, murdered, and still being refused utilities, citizenship, and having their homes forcibly removed because of their ethnicity. This erasure still hurts and turning into cute clothing wear and quotes feeds into that erasure and harm which I would not want to support.

 

And most actual cowboys were Indigenous and Black people (hence cowBOYs - nonwhite men demotion to boys is a common tactic to make them seem less than) which is why they had a 'wild' reputation. Even when most TV and stuff whitewashes them and erases their history, the stereotype are still there.

While I agree that history has been whitewashed greatly, you posted several things that are serious revisions that are not well grounded in fact.

[Hikin' Mama]

Yikes, no, the word 'country' means... all sorts of negative things to me. :ack2:

 

Nope, nope, nope.

 

If someone ever even considered referring to something I did as 'country', I would be pissed. If someone referred to something I did as 'wild', I would laugh and keep doing it.

 

 

Ugh. Cringe. Country. :lol:

On the other hand, I find the word 'wild' to be endearing. I don't equate it to 'savage' or anything like that.

 

Semantics again. :)

What she said. :)

[Catwoman]

While I agree that history has been whitewashed greatly, you posted several things that are serious revisions that are not well grounded in fact.

 

:iagree: :iagree: :iagree:

 

I wanted to like your post, but apparently I ran out of likes again.

[SKL]

Wild =/= natural. Wild means uncontolled, savage, etc. like animals.

 

If I meant the opposite of urban, I'd use "country". A "country heart" has a very different connotation than "wild heart". When I hear "wild heart" I think of out-of-control passion that tends to be destructive.

 

 

I think your view may be in the minority.

 

For me the connotation of "wild" on a girly t-shirt (an item one chooses to express oneself) would be more like the wild in "wildflowers."  A positive term.  I can see how it may be somewhat ambiguous in some contexts, but it's not like "uncontrolled" or "savage" which are unambiguously negative.

[ChocolateReignRemix]

Wild has different connotations when it is used to describe people vs nature.

[Word Nerd]

Reacting negatively to "country" involves making stereotypes too.

[PeacefulChaos]

Reacting negatively to "country" involves making stereotypes too.

 

I see what you're saying, but...

 

There is a whole genre of music called 'country' music.  There is no stereotype there.  It's country music.  

There is a way of decorating one's home that is often called 'country'.  

 

These things are well established.  Someone like me, who doesn't like either of these things, would take 'country' as an insult because for someone to say it to me would mean it is intended as one.  

 

People who are not averse to these things wouldn't feel the same.  

[SKL]

I think the bottom line is that a t-shirt that says "wild heart" is talking about the person wearing it.  If the person wearing it likes the word "wild" as applied to her heart, why would anyone else have a problem with that?

 

If the issue is with the use of the tipi as an image at all, then let's separate that from the use of the word "wild."  Should people be allowed to have a tipi image on their t-shirt?  Is it always wrong because it is an image that promotes stereotypes?  If so, what other images should we ban for similar reasons?  How should the rule be articulated?

[MedicMom]

I'm actually at a family party with some NA cousins. They are 1/4 NA, very very proud of their heritage, and registered with their ancestral tribe.

 

They didn't find it offensive in the least and have no idea why anyone would.

 

I think my adult female cousin is going to buy it, actually.

[SKL]

Does this change anyone's feelings about it?

 

http://www.amazon.com/Wild-Hearts-Cant-Be-Broken/dp/B00SDBLBYC

[Jean in Newcastle]

There are some phrases that are historically stereotypical.  "Wild Indians" is one of those phrases.  (for example as used in the even longer phrase "Wild Indians couldn't drag that information out of me.")    The movie quote about a wild heart would not be stereotypical since as far as I know, that has no bad connotation.  But the artist of those t-shirts merged the movie quote (which I now know thanks to a PP has nothing to do with Indians) with art that connotes "wild Indians".  That makes the shirts no longer neutral.  It would be equally bad if there was a t-shirt showing an Indian and the  words "noble savage" on it (another slightly more positive stereotype).  It would not be bad if it was simply a t-shirt showing some Indian art of some kind, in my opinion because that has no specific stereotype attached to it.  (Well, unless the Indian art was a caricature of some kind.)

[Word Nerd]

There are some phrases that are historically stereotypical.  "Wild Indians" is one of those phrases.  (for example as used in the even longer phrase "Wild Indians couldn't drag that information out of me.")   

 

Is that common? I've always heard it as "wild horses couldn't drag it out of me/draw me away."

[Jean in Newcastle]

Is that common? I've always heard it as "wild horses couldn't drag it out of me/draw me away."

Isn't the "it" information? 

 

Wait. . . you said horses.  Now I'm doubting myself!  I think you are totally and absolutely right.  (Smack my head)

 

The t-shirt should have a picture of a horse on it!  

[KungFuPanda]

Is that common? I've always heard it as "wild horses couldn't drag it out of me/draw me away."

This is offensive to horses! How could you even say such a thing? It's just as offensive as saying that teepees exist and people lived in them.

[Reefgazer]

*Shrug*

[SporkUK]

 

While I agree that history has been whitewashed greatly, you posted several things that are serious revisions that are not well grounded in fact.

 

Personally and professionally, 'severe' revisions in the way historical evidence is looked at is both a usual, expected ongoing part of any historical scholarship and also required as part of encouraging historical literacy while we live in societies where the representations and connections made to our view of the evidence of the past creates continues to support oppressive systems and dehumanizes so many people. As the orthodox/classic view of historical evidence was made and is sustained with a bias towards those in power which created it, severe revisions considering others points of view is both needed and viewed as a compliment by many of the people I've worked with. As the original post was concerned with the presentation of American Indigenous peoples and multiple people throughout the thread treat the hundreds of peoples under that banner as a monolith, the poor representation of the histories and the damage purposefully created images and stereotypes of them being "wild" to dehumanize and make legitimate violence against them which have become seen as normal and typical rather than part of wider systems. The idea of wild indigenous people still causes harm, we can see that in the statistics of missing and murdered indigenous people, particularly women, and the numbers of indigenous children forced to live in nonindigenous homes regardless of protective laws already in place, lands being taken and either held for ransom or sold (US government forced Lakota and Ojibwe to raise about a billion I think to prevent the selling and paving over of sacred lands and it recent passed as a tack on on a needed military bill sold national park land important to Apaches to a British mining company) the continued images and lack of clear modern representation that are seen as normal are still harmful and worth questioning. 

 

Though I'm not sure which of the bits are revisional or severe. Even very mainstream University backed places like World History for Us All discusses the trade routes and foods and empires and large populations and cities in the Americas pre-Europeans and the other bits have been in academic and popular writings for some time...

 

So, which parts of my ramble do you find not well ground is evidence? Cause I rambled a lot and while I have far too many books and folders and files listing evidence (what happens when one marries a former archaeological scientist who hoards everything plus my desire to categorize all the data I find), you'll likely find it faster through google scholar and such as I am not very board reliable, but I can give you a start where to look if anyone wants grounding in these often overlooked historical areas. 

 

For amount of American Indigenous nations, about 500 American Indigenous nations is a conservative estimate that has been around for decades, both the National Geographic and independent researchers believe the number to be more likely over 600. They made some lovely maps a few years back. There were obviously many large cities and empires pre-Europeans which goes against the wild mythos and would obviously create trade routes. 

 

The purposeful cultivation of foods has a long history of academic study since European colonizers arrived and there are literally giant tomes on how Andeans indigenous people had created over 3000 types of potatoes and how these various types ended up vital to many countries around the world due to the varieties fitting in to so many low soil quality areas - potatoes literally changed the world and there are books on the social importance of the potato. Then we get into corn and squash and tomatoes and the modern Western diet is pretty reliant on foods originally cultivated by American Indigenous peoples. It is a well supported view I think that creations or technologies based on food or nature is often overlooked even when as manmade as what we often think of as technology or inventions. 

 

Cultivating land has writings in both indigenous traditions and from settlers for quite sometime. The hindsight amusement reading some settlers writing lyrically about how clear the forests were and how they were finding rows and rows and fruits and squash as if they were there naturally has been shown in many in journals and books and stuff. Land shaping is seen in multiple American Indigenous cultures - it's how modern researcher have marked out likely trade routes. There are clear land markerers of the Mississippian cultures that reach near beyond Mexico up the Mississippi river and along the rivers that connect and even up into Canada as well as the typically seen findings of trade goods similar to how modern researchers found South Asian goods and Egyptian materials in Viking gravesites (and surviving Viking graffiti in now Istanbul). The same methods and evidence types for Afroeurasian trade routes like the Silk Road are used for Americas. There was also the various empires throughout the America over time that created routes as well much as empires elsewhere did as I previously said. 

 

Soil improvement has been of particular interest of those studying indigenous peoples near the Amazon and around sites we know American Indigenous nations previously lived in Central and South America. There has been traditional discussion of it for some time and there are large soil samples academics have taken recently that we have that give strong evidence that that soil was managed over time. It's this incredible fertile dark soil that shows clear signs of management but still has such enriched qualities compared to other local soils that do not show sign of management and we have no idea how this could happen as typical farming practices obviously do not do this. There are some American Indigenous groups that have close farming practices but nothing like these soil samples and traditional discussion suggest is possible. Similar instances have been found in northern Africa with local people using traditional practices to help stop the spread of desertification - they have many things that work though we're not exactly sure how yet, but we no longer have those specific groups for the Americas (unless one take the view that some of the no-contact nations of the Amazon may descend from those fleeing colonization from Aztecs and/or Europeans but as we have no contact for very good reasons there isn't good evidence for it other than the signs that parts of the Amazon may have been partially maintained for human needs prior to European colonizers arrival). It is likely the least well grounded but still has evidence worth discussing, I think. There quite a bit of well written and researched on all of these topics, they just don't tend to make it into history books. It's hard enough just getting the empires that interacting with European ground included without everything else and before. 

 

As for the medicines and book burning, the Maya Codices are the likely strongest evidence - strong evidence for libraries but only 3-4 copied books remain (all named after European cities). There is also contemporary writing of doctors going to train. The finding, copying useful information, and destruction of "heretical" books was a common European colonizing practice throughout the Americas, Africa, and Asia there is plenty of evidence for that. We're quite lucky places like the University of Timbuktu survived as well as they did. 

 

And cowboys, there's tons of contemporary writings and photos for that and general media literacy and media history shows whitewashing these things is commonly done to gain funding and ratings which continues to this day. 

 

On Truman and the atomic bomb, there is strong evidence Japan surrendered to the US repeatedly; it's in the US's own documentations that the US refused because it was not unconditional - Japan didn't want the US touching the emperor or imperial family. Japan also surrendered to Russia who kinda pushed it off as the US's job while amassing an army against Japan, and the Vatican has also released that Japan tried to surrender to them.  Writings released by the US shows Truman was concerned that previous bombings on Japan would mean that the atomic bomb would not have as much impact on the Russians. The honor stereotype is pretty much how the US got away with Japanese internment as well as the atomic bombings, it's further evidence of how damaging and how much those in power will use those stereotypes to create and maintain situations. 

 

If my writings on Roma, Sinte, and oppression of groups under that term are not well grounded, well, that was the name given to them to force them to move centuries ago, the name which they were murdered in in the Holocaust, and the name in which current legislation is using to refuse citizenship, education, housing, and other basic rights and human needs. The wanderlust stereotype continues to harm them because those in power use it to other and criminalize those of that ethnicity. That is not likely it though. 

 

As I said at the beginning of this ramble, I have piles and files of this stuff (that I should probably finish organizing and put together one day) but you're better off with a good academic search engine. Hopefully bits of what I said will help anyone who wants to research any of this further. There was nothing I said that hasn't been out there academically and beyond for years as part of history research and conversations and evidence  so you'll likely find stuff far better worded and detailed than I can do. The ongoing conversation with the evidence that history is and the our views of the systems that create and present them and seeing how often history is used as facts to create images to maintain systems, continuing to revise those lenses and conversations is part of historical literacy 

 

While I agree that history has been whitewashed greatly, you posted several things that are serious revisions that are not well grounded in fact.

 

Personally and professionally, 'severe' revisions in the way historical evidence is looked at is both a usual, expected ongoing part of any historical scholarship and also required as part of encouraging historical literacy while we live in societies where the representations and connections made to our view of the evidence of the past creates continues to support oppressive systems and dehumanizes so many people. As the orthodox/classic view of historical evidence was made and is sustained with a bias towards those in power which created it, severe revisions considering others points of view is both needed and viewed as a compliment by many of the people I've worked with. As the original post was concerned with the presentation of American Indigenous peoples and multiple people throughout the thread treat the hundreds of peoples under that banner as a monolith, the poor representation of the histories and the damage purposefully created images and stereotypes of them being "wild" to dehumanize and make legitimate violence against them which have become seen as normal and typical rather than part of wider systems. The idea of wild indigenous people still causes harm, we can see that in the statistics of missing and murdered indigenous people, particularly women, and the numbers of indigenous children forced to live in nonindigenous homes regardless of protective laws already in place, lands being taken and either held for ransom or sold (US government forced Lakota and Ojibwe to raise about a billion I think to prevent the selling and paving over of sacred lands and it recent passed as a tack on on a needed military bill sold national park land important to Apaches to a British mining company) the continued images and lack of clear modern representation that are seen as normal are still harmful and worth questioning. 

 

Though I'm not sure which of the bits are revisional or severe. Even very mainstream University backed places like World History for Us All discusses the trade routes and foods and empires and large populations and cities in the Americas pre-Europeans and the other bits have been in academic and popular writings for some time...

 

So, which parts of my ramble do you find not well ground is evidence? Cause I rambled a lot and while I have far too many books and folders and files listing evidence (what happens when one marries a former archaeological scientist who hoards everything plus my desire to categorize all the data I find), you'll likely find it faster through google scholar and such as I am not very board reliable, but I can give you a start where to look if anyone wants grounding in these often overlooked historical areas. 

 

For amount of American Indigenous nations, about 500 American Indigenous nations is a conservative estimate that has been around for decades, both the National Geographic and independent researchers believe the number to be more likely over 600. They made some lovely maps a few years back. There were obviously many large cities and empires pre-Europeans which goes against the wild mythos and would obviously create trade routes. 

 

The purposeful cultivation of foods has a long history of academic study since European colonizers arrived and there are literally giant tomes on how Andeans indigenous people had created over 3000 types of potatoes and how these various types ended up vital to many countries around the world due to the varieties fitting in to so many low soil quality areas - potatoes literally changed the world and there are books on the social importance of the potato. Then we get into corn and squash and tomatoes and the modern Western diet is pretty reliant on foods originally cultivated by American Indigenous peoples. It is a well supported view I think that creations or technologies based on food or nature is often overlooked even when as manmade as what we often think of as technology or inventions. 

 

Cultivating land has writings in both indigenous traditions and from settlers for quite sometime. The hindsight amusement reading some settlers writing lyrically about how clear the forests were and how they were finding rows and rows and fruits and squash as if they were there naturally has been shown in many in journals and books and stuff. Land shaping is seen in multiple American Indigenous cultures - it's how modern researcher have marked out likely trade routes. There are clear land markerers of the Mississippian cultures that reach near beyond Mexico up the Mississippi river and along the rivers that connect and even up into Canada as well as the typically seen findings of trade goods similar to how modern researchers found South Asian goods and Egyptian materials in Viking gravesites (and surviving Viking graffiti in now Istanbul). The same methods and evidence types for Afroeurasian trade routes like the Silk Road are used for Americas. There was also the various empires throughout the America over time that created routes as well much as empires elsewhere did as I previously said. 

 

Soil improvement has been of particular interest of those studying indigenous peoples near the Amazon and around sites we know American Indigenous nations previously lived in Central and South America. There has been traditional discussion of it for some time and there are large soil samples academics have taken recently that we have that give strong evidence that that soil was managed over time. It's this incredible fertile dark soil that shows clear signs of management but still has such enriched qualities compared to other local soils that do not show sign of management and we have no idea how this could happen as typical farming practices obviously do not do this. There are some American Indigenous groups that have close farming practices but nothing like these soil samples and traditional discussion suggest is possible. Similar instances have been found in northern Africa with local people using traditional practices to help stop the spread of desertification - they have many things that work though we're not exactly sure how yet, but we no longer have those specific groups for the Americas (unless one take the view that some of the no-contact nations of the Amazon may descend from those fleeing colonization from Aztecs and/or Europeans but as we have no contact for very good reasons there isn't good evidence for it other than the signs that parts of the Amazon may have been partially maintained for human needs prior to European colonizers arrival). It is likely the least well grounded but still has evidence worth discussing, I think. There quite a bit of well written and researched on all of these topics, they just don't tend to make it into history books. It's hard enough just getting the empires that interacting with European ground included without everything else and before. 

 

As for the medicines and book burning, the Maya Codices are the likely strongest evidence - strong evidence for libraries but only 3-4 copied books remain (all named after European cities). There is also contemporary writing of doctors going to train. The finding, copying useful information, and destruction of "heretical" books was a common European colonizing practice throughout the Americas, Africa, and Asia there is plenty of evidence for that. We're quite lucky places like the University of Timbuktu survived as well as they did. 

 

And cowboys, there's tons of contemporary writings and photos for that and general media literacy and media history shows whitewashing these things is commonly done to gain funding and ratings which continues to this day. 

 

On Truman and the atomic bomb, there is strong evidence Japan surrendered to the US repeatedly; it's in the US's own documentations that the US refused because it was not unconditional - Japan didn't want the US touching the emperor or imperial family. Japan also surrendered to Russia who kinda pushed it off as the US's job while amassing an army against Japan, and the Vatican has also released that Japan tried to surrender to them.  Writings released by the US shows Truman was concerned that previous bombings on Japan would mean that the atomic bomb would not have as much impact on the Russians. The honor stereotype is pretty much how the US got away with Japanese internment as well as the atomic bombings, it's further evidence of how damaging and how much those in power will use those stereotypes to create and maintain situations. 

 

If my writings on Roma, Sinte, and oppression of groups under that term are not well grounded, well, that was the name given to them to force them to move centuries ago, the name which they were murdered in in the Holocaust, and the name in which current legislation is using to refuse citizenship, education, housing, and other basic rights and human needs. The wanderlust stereotype continues to harm them because those in power use it to other and criminalize those of that ethnicity. That is not likely it though. 

 

As I said at the beginning of this ramble, I have piles and files of this stuff (that I should probably finish organizing and put together one day) but you're better off with a good academic search engine. Hopefully bits of what I said will help anyone who wants to research any of this further. There was nothing I said that hasn't been out there academically and beyond for years as part of history research and conversations and evidence  so you'll likely find stuff far better worded and detailed than I can do. The ongoing conversation with the evidence that history is and the our views of the systems that create and present them and seeing how often history is used as facts to create images to maintain systems, continuing to revise those lenses and conversations is part of historical literacy 

 

While I agree that history has been whitewashed greatly, you posted several things that are serious revisions that are not well grounded in fact.

 

Personally and professionally, 'severe' revisions in the way historical evidence is looked at is both a usual, expected ongoing part of any historical scholarship and also required as part of encouraging historical literacy while we live in societies where the representations and connections made to our view of the evidence of the past creates continues to support oppressive systems and dehumanizes so many people. As the orthodox/classic view of historical evidence was made and is sustained with a bias towards those in power which created it, severe revisions considering others points of view is both needed and viewed as a compliment by many of the people I've worked with. As the original post was concerned with the presentation of American Indigenous peoples and multiple people throughout the thread treat the hundreds of peoples under that banner as a monolith, the poor representation of the histories and the damage purposefully created images and stereotypes of them being "wild" to dehumanize and make legitimate violence against them which have become seen as normal and typical rather than part of wider systems. The idea of wild indigenous people still causes harm, we can see that in the statistics of missing and murdered indigenous people, particularly women, and the numbers of indigenous children forced to live in nonindigenous homes regardless of protective laws already in place, lands being taken and either held for ransom or sold (US government forced Lakota and Ojibwe to raise about a billion I think to prevent the selling and paving over of sacred lands and it recent passed as a tack on on a needed military bill sold national park land important to Apaches to a British mining company) the continued images and lack of clear modern representation that are seen as normal are still harmful and worth questioning. 

 

Though I'm not sure which of the bits are revisional or severe. Even very mainstream University backed places like World History for Us All discusses the trade routes and foods and empires and large populations and cities in the Americas pre-Europeans and the other bits have been in academic and popular writings for some time...

 

So, which parts of my ramble do you find not well ground is evidence? Cause I rambled a lot and while I have far too many books and folders and files listing evidence (what happens when one marries a former archaeological scientist who hoards everything plus my desire to categorize all the data I find), you'll likely find it faster through google scholar and such as I am not very board reliable, but I can give you a start where to look if anyone wants grounding in these often overlooked historical areas. 

 

For amount of American Indigenous nations, about 500 American Indigenous nations is a conservative estimate that has been around for decades, both the National Geographic and independent researchers believe the number to be more likely over 600. They made some lovely maps a few years back. There were obviously many large cities and empires pre-Europeans which goes against the wild mythos and would obviously create trade routes. 

 

The purposeful cultivation of foods has a long history of academic study since European colonizers arrived and there are literally giant tomes on how Andeans indigenous people had created over 3000 types of potatoes and how these various types ended up vital to many countries around the world due to the varieties fitting in to so many low soil quality areas - potatoes literally changed the world and there are books on the social importance of the potato. Then we get into corn and squash and tomatoes and the modern Western diet is pretty reliant on foods originally cultivated by American Indigenous peoples. It is a well supported view I think that creations or technologies based on food or nature is often overlooked even when as manmade as what we often think of as technology or inventions. 

 

Cultivating land has writings in both indigenous traditions and from settlers for quite sometime. The hindsight amusement reading some settlers writing lyrically about how clear the forests were and how they were finding rows and rows and fruits and squash as if they were there naturally has been shown in many in journals and books and stuff. Land shaping is seen in multiple American Indigenous cultures - it's how modern researcher have marked out likely trade routes. There are clear land markerers of the Mississippian cultures that reach near beyond Mexico up the Mississippi river and along the rivers that connect and even up into Canada as well as the typically seen findings of trade goods similar to how modern researchers found South Asian goods and Egyptian materials in Viking gravesites (and surviving Viking graffiti in now Istanbul). The same methods and evidence types for Afroeurasian trade routes like the Silk Road are used for Americas. There was also the various empires throughout the America over time that created routes as well much as empires elsewhere did as I previously said. 

 

Soil improvement has been of particular interest of those studying indigenous peoples near the Amazon and around sites we know American Indigenous nations previously lived in Central and South America. There has been traditional discussion of it for some time and there are large soil samples academics have taken recently that we have that give strong evidence that that soil was managed over time. It's this incredible fertile dark soil that shows clear signs of management but still has such enriched qualities compared to other local soils that do not show sign of management and we have no idea how this could happen as typical farming practices obviously do not do this. There are some American Indigenous groups that have close farming practices but nothing like these soil samples and traditional discussion suggest is possible. Similar instances have been found in northern Africa with local people using traditional practices to help stop the spread of desertification - they have many things that work though we're not exactly sure how yet, but we no longer have those specific groups for the Americas (unless one take the view that some of the no-contact nations of the Amazon may descend from those fleeing colonization from Aztecs and/or Europeans but as we have no contact for very good reasons there isn't good evidence for it other than the signs that parts of the Amazon may have been partially maintained for human needs prior to European colonizers arrival). It is likely the least well grounded but still has evidence worth discussing, I think. There quite a bit of well written and researched on all of these topics, they just don't tend to make it into history books. It's hard enough just getting the empires that interacting with European ground included without everything else and before. 

 

As for the medicines and book burning, the Maya Codices are the likely strongest evidence - strong evidence for libraries but only 3-4 copied books remain (all named after European cities). There is also contemporary writing of doctors going to train. The finding, copying useful information, and destruction of "heretical" books was a common European colonizing practice throughout the Americas, Africa, and Asia there is plenty of evidence for that. We're quite lucky places like the University of Timbuktu survived as well as they did. 

 

And cowboys, there's tons of contemporary writings and photos for that and general media literacy and media history shows whitewashing these things is commonly done to gain funding and ratings which continues to this day. 

 

On Truman and the atomic bomb, there is strong evidence Japan surrendered to the US repeatedly; it's in the US's own documentations that the US refused because it was not unconditional - Japan didn't want the US touching the emperor or imperial family. Japan also surrendered to Russia who kinda pushed it off as the US's job while amassing an army against Japan, and the Vatican has also released that Japan tried to surrender to them.  Writings released by the US shows Truman was concerned that previous bombings on Japan would mean that the atomic bomb would not have as much impact on the Russians. The honor stereotype is pretty much how the US got away with Japanese internment as well as the atomic bombings, it's further evidence of how damaging and how much those in power will use those stereotypes to create and maintain situations. 

 

If my writings on Roma, Sinte, and oppression of groups under that term are not well grounded, well, that was the name given to them to force them to move centuries ago, the name which they were murdered in in the Holocaust, and the name in which current legislation is using to refuse citizenship, education, housing, and other basic rights and human needs. The wanderlust stereotype continues to harm them because those in power use it to other and criminalize those of that ethnicity. 

 

The ongoing conversation with the evidence that history is and always has been. is also a conversation with how we see images and how those images and phrases socially impact us and those around us. And "Wild Indians" with a mash of elements from various nations that many of these have shows for me that we socially still value those images over people and people get hurt by it by being the main if only image people see. Images and representation affect us both how we see ourselves and how we see others and I'd rather not support anything that makes people one dimensional tropes - especially ones that currently and have such a long history of causing harm.  

 

As I said at the beginning of this ramble, I have piles and files of this stuff (that I should probably finish organizing and put together one day) but you're better off with a good academic search engine. Hopefully bits of what I said will help anyone who wants to research any of this further. There was nothing I said that hasn't been out there academically and beyond for years with evidence being questioned and put under the microscope for years. With many headlines in the last few weeks on how history textbooks around the world that are edited for political reasons, further exploration of history and images of history beyond that has become all the more important. 

[mamaraby]

Mamerby, yes, it's weird and I'm dumbfounded. I keep waiting for someone to go, "hhaha, just kidding!" Yes, I'm distancing myself from the problem because taking offense at the shirt is totally bizarre to me. I'm distancing myself from this post because going down another strange rabbit hole is a waste of my time.

 

So yeah, I guess if there is something offensive about that shirt, I'll have to catch up on that memo later. I'm not arguing about a link so tenuous. I have NA in my family and that shirt would be happily embraced, like, "yeah, that's me! wild at heart! Strong! Unbreakable!"

I think if you have such strong feelings about it then yes, it's time to walk away. That you can't understand where other people or coming from or can't understand why they find an issue with it does not, however, mean that it's a waste of time in the general sense or bizarre.

 

And again, just because your family may not have a problem does not make it ok. It's a great deal more complex than that. It's not a joke.

[Catwoman]

Personally and professionally, 'severe' revisions in the way historical evidence is looked at is both a usual, expected ongoing part of any historical scholarship and also required as part of encouraging historical literacy while we live in societies where the representations and connections made to our view of the evidence of the past creates continues to support oppressive systems and dehumanizes so many people. As the orthodox/classic view of historical evidence was made and is sustained with a bias towards those in power which created it, severe revisions considering others points of view is both needed and viewed as a compliment by many of the people I've worked with. As the original post was concerned with the presentation of American Indigenous peoples and multiple people throughout the thread treat the hundreds of peoples under that banner as a monolith, the poor representation of the histories and the damage purposefully created images and stereotypes of them being "wild" to dehumanize and make legitimate violence against them which have become seen as normal and typical rather than part of wider systems. The idea of wild indigenous people still causes harm, we can see that in the statistics of missing and murdered indigenous people, particularly women, and the numbers of indigenous children forced to live in nonindigenous homes regardless of protective laws already in place, lands being taken and either held for ransom or sold (US government forced Lakota and Ojibwe to raise about a billion I think to prevent the selling and paving over of sacred lands and it recent passed as a tack on on a needed military bill sold national park land important to Apaches to a British mining company) the continued images and lack of clear modern representation that are seen as normal are still harmful and worth questioning.

 

Though I'm not sure which of the bits are revisional or severe. Even very mainstream University backed places like World History for Us All discusses the trade routes and foods and empires and large populations and cities in the Americas pre-Europeans and the other bits have been in academic and popular writings for some time...

 

So, which parts of my ramble do you find not well ground is evidence? Cause I rambled a lot and while I have far too many books and folders and files listing evidence (what happens when one marries a former archaeological scientist who hoards everything plus my desire to categorize all the data I find), you'll likely find it faster through google scholar and such as I am not very board reliable, but I can give you a start where to look if anyone wants grounding in these often overlooked historical areas.

 

For amount of American Indigenous nations, about 500 American Indigenous nations is a conservative estimate that has been around for decades, both the National Geographic and independent researchers believe the number to be more likely over 600. They made some lovely maps a few years back. There were obviously many large cities and empires pre-Europeans which goes against the wild mythos and would obviously create trade routes.

 

The purposeful cultivation of foods has a long history of academic study since European colonizers arrived and there are literally giant tomes on how Andeans indigenous people had created over 3000 types of potatoes and how these various types ended up vital to many countries around the world due to the varieties fitting in to so many low soil quality areas - potatoes literally changed the world and there are books on the social importance of the potato. Then we get into corn and squash and tomatoes and the modern Western diet is pretty reliant on foods originally cultivated by American Indigenous peoples. It is a well supported view I think that creations or technologies based on food or nature is often overlooked even when as manmade as what we often think of as technology or inventions.

 

Cultivating land has writings in both indigenous traditions and from settlers for quite sometime. The hindsight amusement reading some settlers writing lyrically about how clear the forests were and how they were finding rows and rows and fruits and squash as if they were there naturally has been shown in many in journals and books and stuff. Land shaping is seen in multiple American Indigenous cultures - it's how modern researcher have marked out likely trade routes. There are clear land markerers of the Mississippian cultures that reach near beyond Mexico up the Mississippi river and along the rivers that connect and even up into Canada as well as the typically seen findings of trade goods similar to how modern researchers found South Asian goods and Egyptian materials in Viking gravesites (and surviving Viking graffiti in now Istanbul). The same methods and evidence types for Afroeurasian trade routes like the Silk Road are used for Americas. There was also the various empires throughout the America over time that created routes as well much as empires elsewhere did as I previously said.

 

Soil improvement has been of particular interest of those studying indigenous peoples near the Amazon and around sites we know American Indigenous nations previously lived in Central and South America. There has been traditional discussion of it for some time and there are large soil samples academics have taken recently that we have that give strong evidence that that soil was managed over time. It's this incredible fertile dark soil that shows clear signs of management but still has such enriched qualities compared to other local soils that do not show sign of management and we have no idea how this could happen as typical farming practices obviously do not do this. There are some American Indigenous groups that have close farming practices but nothing like these soil samples and traditional discussion suggest is possible. Similar instances have been found in northern Africa with local people using traditional practices to help stop the spread of desertification - they have many things that work though we're not exactly sure how yet, but we no longer have those specific groups for the Americas (unless one take the view that some of the no-contact nations of the Amazon may descend from those fleeing colonization from Aztecs and/or Europeans but as we have no contact for very good reasons there isn't good evidence for it other than the signs that parts of the Amazon may have been partially maintained for human needs prior to European colonizers arrival). It is likely the least well grounded but still has evidence worth discussing, I think. There quite a bit of well written and researched on all of these topics, they just don't tend to make it into history books. It's hard enough just getting the empires that interacting with European ground included without everything else and before.

 

As for the medicines and book burning, the Maya Codices are the likely strongest evidence - strong evidence for libraries but only 3-4 copied books remain (all named after European cities). There is also contemporary writing of doctors going to train. The finding, copying useful information, and destruction of "heretical" books was a common European colonizing practice throughout the Americas, Africa, and Asia there is plenty of evidence for that. We're quite lucky places like the University of Timbuktu survived as well as they did.

 

And cowboys, there's tons of contemporary writings and photos for that and general media literacy and media history shows whitewashing these things is commonly done to gain funding and ratings which continues to this day.

 

On Truman and the atomic bomb, there is strong evidence Japan surrendered to the US repeatedly; it's in the US's own documentations that the US refused because it was not unconditional - Japan didn't want the US touching the emperor or imperial family. Japan also surrendered to Russia who kinda pushed it off as the US's job while amassing an army against Japan, and the Vatican has also released that Japan tried to surrender to them. Writings released by the US shows Truman was concerned that previous bombings on Japan would mean that the atomic bomb would not have as much impact on the Russians. The honor stereotype is pretty much how the US got away with Japanese internment as well as the atomic bombings, it's further evidence of how damaging and how much those in power will use those stereotypes to create and maintain situations.

 

If my writings on Roma, Sinte, and oppression of groups under that term are not well grounded, well, that was the name given to them to force them to move centuries ago, the name which they were murdered in in the Holocaust, and the name in which current legislation is using to refuse citizenship, education, housing, and other basic rights and human needs. The wanderlust stereotype continues to harm them because those in power use it to other and criminalize those of that ethnicity. That is not likely it though.

 

As I said at the beginning of this ramble, I have piles and files of this stuff (that I should probably finish organizing and put together one day) but you're better off with a good academic search engine. Hopefully bits of what I said will help anyone who wants to research any of this further. There was nothing I said that hasn't been out there academically and beyond for years as part of history research and conversations and evidence so you'll likely find stuff far better worded and detailed than I can do. The ongoing conversation with the evidence that history is and the our views of the systems that create and present them and seeing how often history is used as facts to create images to maintain systems, continuing to revise those lenses and conversations is part of historical literacy

 

 

 

Personally and professionally, 'severe' revisions in the way historical evidence is looked at is both a usual, expected ongoing part of any historical scholarship and also required as part of encouraging historical literacy while we live in societies where the representations and connections made to our view of the evidence of the past creates continues to support oppressive systems and dehumanizes so many people. As the orthodox/classic view of historical evidence was made and is sustained with a bias towards those in power which created it, severe revisions considering others points of view is both needed and viewed as a compliment by many of the people I've worked with. As the original post was concerned with the presentation of American Indigenous peoples and multiple people throughout the thread treat the hundreds of peoples under that banner as a monolith, the poor representation of the histories and the damage purposefully created images and stereotypes of them being "wild" to dehumanize and make legitimate violence against them which have become seen as normal and typical rather than part of wider systems. The idea of wild indigenous people still causes harm, we can see that in the statistics of missing and murdered indigenous people, particularly women, and the numbers of indigenous children forced to live in nonindigenous homes regardless of protective laws already in place, lands being taken and either held for ransom or sold (US government forced Lakota and Ojibwe to raise about a billion I think to prevent the selling and paving over of sacred lands and it recent passed as a tack on on a needed military bill sold national park land important to Apaches to a British mining company) the continued images and lack of clear modern representation that are seen as normal are still harmful and worth questioning.

 

Though I'm not sure which of the bits are revisional or severe. Even very mainstream University backed places like World History for Us All discusses the trade routes and foods and empires and large populations and cities in the Americas pre-Europeans and the other bits have been in academic and popular writings for some time...

 

So, which parts of my ramble do you find not well ground is evidence? Cause I rambled a lot and while I have far too many books and folders and files listing evidence (what happens when one marries a former archaeological scientist who hoards everything plus my desire to categorize all the data I find), you'll likely find it faster through google scholar and such as I am not very board reliable, but I can give you a start where to look if anyone wants grounding in these often overlooked historical areas.

 

For amount of American Indigenous nations, about 500 American Indigenous nations is a conservative estimate that has been around for decades, both the National Geographic and independent researchers believe the number to be more likely over 600. They made some lovely maps a few years back. There were obviously many large cities and empires pre-Europeans which goes against the wild mythos and would obviously create trade routes.

 

The purposeful cultivation of foods has a long history of academic study since European colonizers arrived and there are literally giant tomes on how Andeans indigenous people had created over 3000 types of potatoes and how these various types ended up vital to many countries around the world due to the varieties fitting in to so many low soil quality areas - potatoes literally changed the world and there are books on the social importance of the potato. Then we get into corn and squash and tomatoes and the modern Western diet is pretty reliant on foods originally cultivated by American Indigenous peoples. It is a well supported view I think that creations or technologies based on food or nature is often overlooked even when as manmade as what we often think of as technology or inventions.

 

Cultivating land has writings in both indigenous traditions and from settlers for quite sometime. The hindsight amusement reading some settlers writing lyrically about how clear the forests were and how they were finding rows and rows and fruits and squash as if they were there naturally has been shown in many in journals and books and stuff. Land shaping is seen in multiple American Indigenous cultures - it's how modern researcher have marked out likely trade routes. There are clear land markerers of the Mississippian cultures that reach near beyond Mexico up the Mississippi river and along the rivers that connect and even up into Canada as well as the typically seen findings of trade goods similar to how modern researchers found South Asian goods and Egyptian materials in Viking gravesites (and surviving Viking graffiti in now Istanbul). The same methods and evidence types for Afroeurasian trade routes like the Silk Road are used for Americas. There was also the various empires throughout the America over time that created routes as well much as empires elsewhere did as I previously said.

 

Soil improvement has been of particular interest of those studying indigenous peoples near the Amazon and around sites we know American Indigenous nations previously lived in Central and South America. There has been traditional discussion of it for some time and there are large soil samples academics have taken recently that we have that give strong evidence that that soil was managed over time. It's this incredible fertile dark soil that shows clear signs of management but still has such enriched qualities compared to other local soils that do not show sign of management and we have no idea how this could happen as typical farming practices obviously do not do this. There are some American Indigenous groups that have close farming practices but nothing like these soil samples and traditional discussion suggest is possible. Similar instances have been found in northern Africa with local people using traditional practices to help stop the spread of desertification - they have many things that work though we're not exactly sure how yet, but we no longer have those specific groups for the Americas (unless one take the view that some of the no-contact nations of the Amazon may descend from those fleeing colonization from Aztecs and/or Europeans but as we have no contact for very good reasons there isn't good evidence for it other than the signs that parts of the Amazon may have been partially maintained for human needs prior to European colonizers arrival). It is likely the least well grounded but still has evidence worth discussing, I think. There quite a bit of well written and researched on all of these topics, they just don't tend to make it into history books. It's hard enough just getting the empires that interacting with European ground included without everything else and before.

 

As for the medicines and book burning, the Maya Codices are the likely strongest evidence - strong evidence for libraries but only 3-4 copied books remain (all named after European cities). There is also contemporary writing of doctors going to train. The finding, copying useful information, and destruction of "heretical" books was a common European colonizing practice throughout the Americas, Africa, and Asia there is plenty of evidence for that. We're quite lucky places like the University of Timbuktu survived as well as they did.

 

And cowboys, there's tons of contemporary writings and photos for that and general media literacy and media history shows whitewashing these things is commonly done to gain funding and ratings which continues to this day.

 

On Truman and the atomic bomb, there is strong evidence Japan surrendered to the US repeatedly; it's in the US's own documentations that the US refused because it was not unconditional - Japan didn't want the US touching the emperor or imperial family. Japan also surrendered to Russia who kinda pushed it off as the US's job while amassing an army against Japan, and the Vatican has also released that Japan tried to surrender to them. Writings released by the US shows Truman was concerned that previous bombings on Japan would mean that the atomic bomb would not have as much impact on the Russians. The honor stereotype is pretty much how the US got away with Japanese internment as well as the atomic bombings, it's further evidence of how damaging and how much those in power will use those stereotypes to create and maintain situations.

 

If my writings on Roma, Sinte, and oppression of groups under that term are not well grounded, well, that was the name given to them to force them to move centuries ago, the name which they were murdered in in the Holocaust, and the name in which current legislation is using to refuse citizenship, education, housing, and other basic rights and human needs. The wanderlust stereotype continues to harm them because those in power use it to other and criminalize those of that ethnicity. That is not likely it though.

 

As I said at the beginning of this ramble, I have piles and files of this stuff (that I should probably finish organizing and put together one day) but you're better off with a good academic search engine. Hopefully bits of what I said will help anyone who wants to research any of this further. There was nothing I said that hasn't been out there academically and beyond for years as part of history research and conversations and evidence so you'll likely find stuff far better worded and detailed than I can do. The ongoing conversation with the evidence that history is and the our views of the systems that create and present them and seeing how often history is used as facts to create images to maintain systems, continuing to revise those lenses and conversations is part of historical literacy

 

 

Personally and professionally, 'severe' revisions in the way historical evidence is looked at is both a usual, expected ongoing part of any historical scholarship and also required as part of encouraging historical literacy while we live in societies where the representations and connections made to our view of the evidence of the past creates continues to support oppressive systems and dehumanizes so many people. As the orthodox/classic view of historical evidence was made and is sustained with a bias towards those in power which created it, severe revisions considering others points of view is both needed and viewed as a compliment by many of the people I've worked with. As the original post was concerned with the presentation of American Indigenous peoples and multiple people throughout the thread treat the hundreds of peoples under that banner as a monolith, the poor representation of the histories and the damage purposefully created images and stereotypes of them being "wild" to dehumanize and make legitimate violence against them which have become seen as normal and typical rather than part of wider systems. The idea of wild indigenous people still causes harm, we can see that in the statistics of missing and murdered indigenous people, particularly women, and the numbers of indigenous children forced to live in nonindigenous homes regardless of protective laws already in place, lands being taken and either held for ransom or sold (US government forced Lakota and Ojibwe to raise about a billion I think to prevent the selling and paving over of sacred lands and it recent passed as a tack on on a needed military bill sold national park land important to Apaches to a British mining company) the continued images and lack of clear modern representation that are seen as normal are still harmful and worth questioning.

 

Though I'm not sure which of the bits are revisional or severe. Even very mainstream University backed places like World History for Us All discusses the trade routes and foods and empires and large populations and cities in the Americas pre-Europeans and the other bits have been in academic and popular writings for some time...

 

So, which parts of my ramble do you find not well ground is evidence? Cause I rambled a lot and while I have far too many books and folders and files listing evidence (what happens when one marries a former archaeological scientist who hoards everything plus my desire to categorize all the data I find), you'll likely find it faster through google scholar and such as I am not very board reliable, but I can give you a start where to look if anyone wants grounding in these often overlooked historical areas.

 

For amount of American Indigenous nations, about 500 American Indigenous nations is a conservative estimate that has been around for decades, both the National Geographic and independent researchers believe the number to be more likely over 600. They made some lovely maps a few years back. There were obviously many large cities and empires pre-Europeans which goes against the wild mythos and would obviously create trade routes.

 

The purposeful cultivation of foods has a long history of academic study since European colonizers arrived and there are literally giant tomes on how Andeans indigenous people had created over 3000 types of potatoes and how these various types ended up vital to many countries around the world due to the varieties fitting in to so many low soil quality areas - potatoes literally changed the world and there are books on the social importance of the potato. Then we get into corn and squash and tomatoes and the modern Western diet is pretty reliant on foods originally cultivated by American Indigenous peoples. It is a well supported view I think that creations or technologies based on food or nature is often overlooked even when as manmade as what we often think of as technology or inventions.

 

Cultivating land has writings in both indigenous traditions and from settlers for quite sometime. The hindsight amusement reading some settlers writing lyrically about how clear the forests were and how they were finding rows and rows and fruits and squash as if they were there naturally has been shown in many in journals and books and stuff. Land shaping is seen in multiple American Indigenous cultures - it's how modern researcher have marked out likely trade routes. There are clear land markerers of the Mississippian cultures that reach near beyond Mexico up the Mississippi river and along the rivers that connect and even up into Canada as well as the typically seen findings of trade goods similar to how modern researchers found South Asian goods and Egyptian materials in Viking gravesites (and surviving Viking graffiti in now Istanbul). The same methods and evidence types for Afroeurasian trade routes like the Silk Road are used for Americas. There was also the various empires throughout the America over time that created routes as well much as empires elsewhere did as I previously said.

 

Soil improvement has been of particular interest of those studying indigenous peoples near the Amazon and around sites we know American Indigenous nations previously lived in Central and South America. There has been traditional discussion of it for some time and there are large soil samples academics have taken recently that we have that give strong evidence that that soil was managed over time. It's this incredible fertile dark soil that shows clear signs of management but still has such enriched qualities compared to other local soils that do not show sign of management and we have no idea how this could happen as typical farming practices obviously do not do this. There are some American Indigenous groups that have close farming practices but nothing like these soil samples and traditional discussion suggest is possible. Similar instances have been found in northern Africa with local people using traditional practices to help stop the spread of desertification - they have many things that work though we're not exactly sure how yet, but we no longer have those specific groups for the Americas (unless one take the view that some of the no-contact nations of the Amazon may descend from those fleeing colonization from Aztecs and/or Europeans but as we have no contact for very good reasons there isn't good evidence for it other than the signs that parts of the Amazon may have been partially maintained for human needs prior to European colonizers arrival). It is likely the least well grounded but still has evidence worth discussing, I think. There quite a bit of well written and researched on all of these topics, they just don't tend to make it into history books. It's hard enough just getting the empires that interacting with European ground included without everything else and before.

 

As for the medicines and book burning, the Maya Codices are the likely strongest evidence - strong evidence for libraries but only 3-4 copied books remain (all named after European cities). There is also contemporary writing of doctors going to train. The finding, copying useful information, and destruction of "heretical" books was a common European colonizing practice throughout the Americas, Africa, and Asia there is plenty of evidence for that. We're quite lucky places like the University of Timbuktu survived as well as they did.

 

And cowboys, there's tons of contemporary writings and photos for that and general media literacy and media history shows whitewashing these things is commonly done to gain funding and ratings which continues to this day.

 

On Truman and the atomic bomb, there is strong evidence Japan surrendered to the US repeatedly; it's in the US's own documentations that the US refused because it was not unconditional - Japan didn't want the US touching the emperor or imperial family. Japan also surrendered to Russia who kinda pushed it off as the US's job while amassing an army against Japan, and the Vatican has also released that Japan tried to surrender to them. Writings released by the US shows Truman was concerned that previous bombings on Japan would mean that the atomic bomb would not have as much impact on the Russians. The honor stereotype is pretty much how the US got away with Japanese internment as well as the atomic bombings, it's further evidence of how damaging and how much those in power will use those stereotypes to create and maintain situations.

 

If my writings on Roma, Sinte, and oppression of groups under that term are not well grounded, well, that was the name given to them to force them to move centuries ago, the name which they were murdered in in the Holocaust, and the name in which current legislation is using to refuse citizenship, education, housing, and other basic rights and human needs. The wanderlust stereotype continues to harm them because those in power use it to other and criminalize those of that ethnicity.

 

 

The ongoing conversation with the evidence that history is and always has been. is also a conversation with how we see images and how those images and phrases socially impact us and those around us. And "Wild Indians" with a mash of elements from various nations that many of these have shows for me that we socially still value those images over people and people get hurt by it by being the main if only image people see. Images and representation affect us both how we see ourselves and how we see others and I'd rather not support anything that makes people one dimensional tropes - especially ones that currently and have such a long history of causing harm.

 

As I said at the beginning of this ramble, I have piles and files of this stuff (that I should probably finish organizing and put together one day) but you're better off with a good academic search engine. Hopefully bits of what I said will help anyone who wants to research any of this further. There was nothing I said that hasn't been out there academically and beyond for years with evidence being questioned and put under the microscope for years. With many headlines in the last few weeks on how history textbooks around the world that are edited for political reasons, further exploration of history and images of history beyond that has become all the more important.

You win the award for Longest WTM Post Ever. And if it isn't the longest, it most certainly should be. ;)

 

I think you repeated yourself several times, though, and it made your post very difficult to read. Did you type your post elsewhere and then paste it here or something? It appears that you hit the little "paste" button an extra time or two.

[ChocolateReignRemix]

 

 

 

Personally and professionally, 'severe' revisions in the way historical evidence is looked at is both a usual, expected ongoing part of any historical scholarship and also required as part of encouraging historical literacy while we live in societies where the representations and connections made to our view of the evidence of the past creates continues to support oppressive systems and dehumanizes so many people. As the orthodox/classic view of historical evidence was made and is sustained with a bias towards those in power which created it, severe revisions considering others points of view is both needed and viewed as a compliment by many of the people I've worked with. As the original post was concerned with the presentation of American Indigenous peoples and multiple people throughout the thread treat the hundreds of peoples under that banner as a monolith, the poor representation of the histories and the damage purposefully created images and stereotypes of them being "wild" to dehumanize and make legitimate violence against them which have become seen as normal and typical rather than part of wider systems. The idea of wild indigenous people still causes harm, we can see that in the statistics of missing and murdered indigenous people, particularly women, and the numbers of indigenous children forced to live in nonindigenous homes regardless of protective laws already in place, lands being taken and either held for ransom or sold (US government forced Lakota and Ojibwe to raise about a billion I think to prevent the selling and paving over of sacred lands and it recent passed as a tack on on a needed military bill sold national park land important to Apaches to a British mining company) the continued images and lack of clear modern representation that are seen as normal are still harmful and worth questioning. 

 

Though I'm not sure which of the bits are revisional or severe. Even very mainstream University backed places like World History for Us All discusses the trade routes and foods and empires and large populations and cities in the Americas pre-Europeans and the other bits have been in academic and popular writings for some time...

 

So, which parts of my ramble do you find not well ground is evidence? Cause I rambled a lot and while I have far too many books and folders and files listing evidence (what happens when one marries a former archaeological scientist who hoards everything plus my desire to categorize all the data I find), you'll likely find it faster through google scholar and such as I am not very board reliable, but I can give you a start where to look if anyone wants grounding in these often overlooked historical areas. 

 

For amount of American Indigenous nations, about 500 American Indigenous nations is a conservative estimate that has been around for decades, both the National Geographic and independent researchers believe the number to be more likely over 600. They made some lovely maps a few years back. There were obviously many large cities and empires pre-Europeans which goes against the wild mythos and would obviously create trade routes. 

 

The purposeful cultivation of foods has a long history of academic study since European colonizers arrived and there are literally giant tomes on how Andeans indigenous people had created over 3000 types of potatoes and how these various types ended up vital to many countries around the world due to the varieties fitting in to so many low soil quality areas - potatoes literally changed the world and there are books on the social importance of the potato. Then we get into corn and squash and tomatoes and the modern Western diet is pretty reliant on foods originally cultivated by American Indigenous peoples. It is a well supported view I think that creations or technologies based on food or nature is often overlooked even when as manmade as what we often think of as technology or inventions. 

 

Cultivating land has writings in both indigenous traditions and from settlers for quite sometime. The hindsight amusement reading some settlers writing lyrically about how clear the forests were and how they were finding rows and rows and fruits and squash as if they were there naturally has been shown in many in journals and books and stuff. Land shaping is seen in multiple American Indigenous cultures - it's how modern researcher have marked out likely trade routes. There are clear land markerers of the Mississippian cultures that reach near beyond Mexico up the Mississippi river and along the rivers that connect and even up into Canada as well as the typically seen findings of trade goods similar to how modern researchers found South Asian goods and Egyptian materials in Viking gravesites (and surviving Viking graffiti in now Istanbul). The same methods and evidence types for Afroeurasian trade routes like the Silk Road are used for Americas. There was also the various empires throughout the America over time that created routes as well much as empires elsewhere did as I previously said. 

 

Soil improvement has been of particular interest of those studying indigenous peoples near the Amazon and around sites we know American Indigenous nations previously lived in Central and South America. There has been traditional discussion of it for some time and there are large soil samples academics have taken recently that we have that give strong evidence that that soil was managed over time. It's this incredible fertile dark soil that shows clear signs of management but still has such enriched qualities compared to other local soils that do not show sign of management and we have no idea how this could happen as typical farming practices obviously do not do this. There are some American Indigenous groups that have close farming practices but nothing like these soil samples and traditional discussion suggest is possible. Similar instances have been found in northern Africa with local people using traditional practices to help stop the spread of desertification - they have many things that work though we're not exactly sure how yet, but we no longer have those specific groups for the Americas (unless one take the view that some of the no-contact nations of the Amazon may descend from those fleeing colonization from Aztecs and/or Europeans but as we have no contact for very good reasons there isn't good evidence for it other than the signs that parts of the Amazon may have been partially maintained for human needs prior to European colonizers arrival). It is likely the least well grounded but still has evidence worth discussing, I think. There quite a bit of well written and researched on all of these topics, they just don't tend to make it into history books. It's hard enough just getting the empires that interacting with European ground included without everything else and before. 

 

As for the medicines and book burning, the Maya Codices are the likely strongest evidence - strong evidence for libraries but only 3-4 copied books remain (all named after European cities). There is also contemporary writing of doctors going to train. The finding, copying useful information, and destruction of "heretical" books was a common European colonizing practice throughout the Americas, Africa, and Asia there is plenty of evidence for that. We're quite lucky places like the University of Timbuktu survived as well as they did. 

 

And cowboys, there's tons of contemporary writings and photos for that and general media literacy and media history shows whitewashing these things is commonly done to gain funding and ratings which continues to this day. 

 

On Truman and the atomic bomb, there is strong evidence Japan surrendered to the US repeatedly; it's in the US's own documentations that the US refused because it was not unconditional - Japan didn't want the US touching the emperor or imperial family. Japan also surrendered to Russia who kinda pushed it off as the US's job while amassing an army against Japan, and the Vatican has also released that Japan tried to surrender to them.  Writings released by the US shows Truman was concerned that previous bombings on Japan would mean that the atomic bomb would not have as much impact on the Russians. The honor stereotype is pretty much how the US got away with Japanese internment as well as the atomic bombings, it's further evidence of how damaging and how much those in power will use those stereotypes to create and maintain situations. 

 

If my writings on Roma, Sinte, and oppression of groups under that term are not well grounded, well, that was the name given to them to force them to move centuries ago, the name which they were murdered in in the Holocaust, and the name in which current legislation is using to refuse citizenship, education, housing, and other basic rights and human needs. The wanderlust stereotype continues to harm them because those in power use it to other and criminalize those of that ethnicity. That is not likely it though. 

 

As I said at the beginning of this ramble, I have piles and files of this stuff (that I should probably finish organizing and put together one day) but you're better off with a good academic search engine. Hopefully bits of what I said will help anyone who wants to research any of this further. There was nothing I said that hasn't been out there academically and beyond for years as part of history research and conversations and evidence  so you'll likely find stuff far better worded and detailed than I can do. The ongoing conversation with the evidence that history is and the our views of the systems that create and present them and seeing how often history is used as facts to create images to maintain systems, continuing to revise those lenses and conversations is part of historical literacy

 

 

 

 

I don't have the time to work through the entire wall of text, but a couple of points:

 

1.) Japan offered terms under which it was willing to surrender.  That is not the same as surrendering, and at the time what Japan was willing to agree to was not what the U.S. and U.K. were willing to accept.

 

2.)  In the original post I quoted, you made some incorrect statements about "cowboys".  The majority of "cowboys" were not blacks or American Indians, although those groups were represented among cowboys and are generally ignored as part of the cowboy image.  The word "cowboy" dates as far back as the early 1700s and likely is derived from vaquero.  It is not in any way based on the racial connotations of "boy".