Disappearing History

[Michael]

Andy: It's not a matter of faith that we have not run out of oil when proved reserves -- which are only the economically available oil demonstrated by geological analysis to be in the field -- are at their highest levels ever. Add to that the many claims in the past that we were running out of energy, none of which ever turned out to be true.

As for the longer-term future -- simple economics tells us that if (or as, if you prefer) oil becomes scarce, its rising cost will make more alternatives feasible. Until then, however, the facts of geology, and the awareness of whatever aspect of human nature it is that inclines us toward apocalyptic fears, both give significant reason to be skeptical of today's doomsaying.

There are other reasons to reach that conclusion as well. It's fascinating to look at the history of whale oil (and the breakthrough of kerosene lamps) for a possible historical parallel to what we are experiencing this century regarding petroleum. A few more years of whaling could have made them, or several species of them, extinct. But the introduction of kerosene lamps wiped out the need for a whaling industry, at least on the scale it had been operating.

One thing history shows indisputably is the adaptability of the human race, and our creativity and ingenuity. I don't see any reason not to conclude that those attributes will be applied to energy sources in the future, just as they have in the past. Although we can't know the future, that is still a logical deduction we can make from history -- as opposed to an act of faith. So, to answer again from this perspective, I think it is quite logical to conclude that, one million years from now (if we have survived the next ice age), any homo sapiens so backwards as to want a barrel of oil will be able to obtain it.

Andy wrote: "In post 35, though, it seems to me that you are utilizing a sense of faith even as you decry it. You take it as a matter of faith that oil is not running out. I take it as a matter of faith that it is running out. (Fifty years ago, it took one barrel of oil to extract twenty barrels of oil. Today, because we have consumed the "easy" oil first, it takes one barrel of oil to extract only four barrels of oil. When the ratio hits one to one, we will effectively be out of oil.)

Then you say this: “But only by knowing the past, and learning facts, will we be able to tell which may be true, and which unlikely.” Surely, if we as humans are prone to being manipulated by non-factual “faith-based” arguments, it would behoove students to not only learn facts, but to also learn to spot faith when they see it, right?..."

[Andy]

Oh goodness, all this talk about the importance of facts and logic, but it's creativity that is going to solve the problem? Testing does no good for creativity. Hail the creative arts!

[Norma]

The thing that bothers me about oil and our alternative futures is the fact that so many people have such a huge stake in maintaining the status quo. Historically, the kind of change we get depends on which alternative is embraced by the most manipulative and wealthy person. Geniuses labored to make dozens of kinds of good automobiles and aircraft with all kinds of technologies, only to be edged out by the manipulative and the greedy. The movie TUCKER is a great example of that.
Now someone has finally been moved to rummage through history and tell us how GM bought up and trashed or changed numerous good public transportation systems to make us all dependent on cars or diesel fueled buses. I know Nashville had an electric trolley system until at least 1940, because my father rode it in the fall of 1939. It reliably got him from one end of the county to the other twice a day.
We´ve had this nasty process with railroads, too. For years the L&N Railroad virtually owned Tennessee, and it took a very determined and wealthy man to operate an alternative intrastate network.
Sometimes it seems like we need innovative geniuses AND manipulative S.O.B.s.

[Michael]

They're not mutually exclusive. Look at Einstein. Or Bach.... DaVinci.

In fact (oops, that bad word), isn't all great art rigorously logical within its universe? I'm venturing off-topic, I suppose. But Alice in Wonderland, just f'rinstance, would be mere confusion and frustration were it not for its careful logical balance. Logic is not the antithesis of creativity, is it? Isn't confusion more so?

Andy wrote: "Oh goodness, all this talk about the importance of facts and logic, but it's creativity that is going to solve the problem? Testing does no good for creativity. Hail the creative arts! "

[[deleted user]]

To me a key feature of creativity is the willingness to entertain alternatives with an open mind, no matter how strange or far-fetched they might seem at first sight.
So, dogmatism might be one antithesis of creativity.

[Candy]

I would say that the opposite of creativity is cynicism, negativity and death.

I would say these three things because...negativity and cynicism are facets of the death instinct.

[Andy]

Good discussion.

My opposites for logic: Illogic, emotion, and, in some contexts, creativity

My opposites for creativity: unimaginative I agree with death, dogmatism and negativity/cynicism as opposites, too.

I believe Logic is a creative process, and at the same time the creative process often employs illogic.

P.S. Russ, nice to see you hear playing the opposites game. I knew we'd make a post-modernist out of you yet!

…Tracing difference was one way Derrida explained his process. He generally set out to trace a word or words back and forth, or forth and back, on a continuum line between irreducible opposites. His tracing enlarged and expanded meaning. This process explored the difference between opposite terms without a bias for either term. In other words, Derrida might have written about truth by writing about error…

-http://www.ontruth.com/derrida.html

[[deleted user]]

Hi Andy,
Derrida is, in fact, someone I am interested in, now that I have settled into a comfortable reading interest in Beckett. Always new challenges to keep the brain alert. :)
Many thanks for the link.
Sincerely
Russ

[Tom]

Iran, CIA, an drecent history

I just posted a blog on the subject at The Huffington Post. You can find it at:

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/tom-gab...

Please leave any thoughts you have, pro or con, in the comments section.

[Sandy]

When I was a Peace Corps Volunteer in Iran, we lived with the suspicions that we were CIA. This article does a great job of explaining why. President Obama is taking the right stance. Hands off and leave it to the Iranian people. There will be time later for diplomacy.
Sandy

[Barbara]

I agree, Sandy. The worst thing we could do is to be seen as interfering, once again. Tom, do you write a regular blog for the Huffington Post? I must say that I've never read it before.

[Tom]

That was my first. I will be posting on Huffington again, but I'm not sure how regular it will be. I guess it'll depend on what's happening in the world and whether or not I think I have something worthwhile to say.

[Michael]

Tom, your thoughts may be worthwhile, or they may not be, but what did this have to do with the subject of teaching history in grade schools? Or the discussion of creativity and anti-creativity into which it morphed?

Tom wrote: "Iran, CIA, an drecent history
Please..."

[Tom]

I was never too interested or impressed with the way history was taught in my grade school, or beyond for that matter. With one exception. Mr Kaufer was unique in that he taught history with a newspaper.

History disappears when we don't look at the important events of the moment through the prism of what has come before.

If that idea doesn't fit into this conversation, well then, I offer my apologies.

[Michael]

Baloney. You came on to promote a blog entry you had written. Which you had already promoted under the Blogs-Promotion section, I noticed subsequently. Gotta tell the truth just a little, before this topic drops off the directory.

Tom wrote: "If that idea doesn't fit into this conversation, well then, I offer my apologies"

[Tom]

Michael wrote: "Baloney. You came on to promote a blog entry you had written. Which you had already promoted under the Blogs-Promotion section, I noticed subsequently. Gotta tell the truth just a little, before..."

Some people found the subject of interest. Clearly you didn't, but it seems to me that you are just looking for a fight. Why don't you find something constructive to do with your time?

[Karol]

How very sad to see what started as an interesting and enlightening conversation degenerate into what I'm seeing in these last few posts!

[Sherry, Doyenne]

Michael, just a note to let you know that we welcome authors here, as long as they stick around to talk about things in general. And often our threads go round about following no particular pattern. Some of the most interesting discussions happen that way. We like to keep the book threads on topic, but the other threads are welcome to go where they please. We also like to stay friendly and polite. Just keep that in mind, everyone.

[Tom]

I admit that my post was meant to draw attention to my blog on the Huffington Post, but I was surprised and disappointed when, instead of generating a discussion on the ideas I put forth, it drew a rebuke for going off topic.

Given the potential importance of recent events in Iran, and the impact the CIA's 1953 coup has had on the country's psyche, I found it interesting that on CNN's website they posted an "educational timeline" of Iran's history -- that began in 1979!

If that isn't "disappearing history" I don't know what is.

[Sandy]

Tom wrote: "I admit that my post was meant to draw attention to my blog on the Huffington Post, but I was surprised and disappointed when, instead of generating a discussion on the ideas I put forth, it drew a..."

That is disappearing history and far too common. Iran has thousands of years of history. But "history is written by the winners." You have a good command of the culture, by the way. At the risk of going off topic, I just finished The Tehran Conviction and it took me back.
Sandy

[Tom]

Sandy, I'd love to hear about your experiences in Iran. You were in the Peace Corps?

[Sandy]

Tom wrote: "Sandy, I'd love to hear about your experiences in Iran. You were in the Peace Corps?"

Yes, I was. It grieves me to witness the demonizing of Iran.
Sandy

[[deleted user]]

The demonizing of Iran.

Just which Iran, and by whom?

Seems to me one has one's pick over the course of recent and not so recent history.

And is there anything wrong with pointing to a blog one has written? I have a bunch elsewhere, some of them relevant from time to time.

[Andy]

I agree the blog post was very far off topic. There's nothing wrong with an off topic post every now and again, but his was real far off. I think it would have been better to just start a new thread with his writing, like I and other people have done in the past.

Now if he would have said the thing about CNN's timeline of Iran, then mentioned that he had a blog, that would have been less egregious, imo.

The timeline brings a new element to the history discussion: how the media affects our perceptions, etc. The topic has basically been about the study of history in general, his blog post was about a specific piece of history. Certainly that can shed light on the larger discussion, but if that was his intention, he might have framed the original post that way.

Russ2 wrote: "The demonizing of Iran.

Just which Iran, and by whom?

Seems to me one has one's pick over the course of recent and not so recent history.

And is there anything wrong with pointing to a blo..."

[[deleted user]]

Perhaps I am off base here, but it seems to me that all the hoo-ha over whether or not it was off topic was more distracting and off topic than the original post was to begin with.

It didn't seem that far off to me, and was of interest.

Basically making a mountain out of a molehill.

[Erin]

Kelly Jo, I think that's an excellent point. Have you ever read Lies My Teacher Told Me Everything Your American History Textbook Got Wrong? I thought it was fascinating.

Considering your statement about questioning everything you read, what did you think about this book (if you read it)? With a degree in history, I expect your knowledge is more in-depth than mine (I only had to take 2 history courses to complete my BA, which is really only skimming the surface).

[Erin]

In fact, I think I need to go back and read that book again ... if I can find it!

[Michael]

Thank you for your explanation and other comments, Sherry. But I am still wondering..... the fact that a separate folder has been created for Book & Blog Promotions means nothing, then? If someone isn't getting the attention he hopes for there, he should then feel free to promo his blog entry on other threads? And that is welcomed?


Sherry wrote: "Michael, just a note to let you know that we welcome authors here, as long as they stick around to talk about things in general. And often our threads go round about following no particular pattern..."

[Michael]

Isn't history full of facts, though, Kelly Jo? Isn't it only our own limitations on, first, learning them, then understanding them, and finally synthesizing them into the most likely of meanings that cause us to fall short of "complete" understanding, so to speak?

I agree that we should question the interpretations put forth in most things we read, whether from the daily newspaper, the prize-winning history book, or the approved textbook. But some specific interpretations are still going to be superior to others in integrating the facts we know, or believe most likely.

My point here is to try to distinguish between the zones of what's knowable and what isn't; what's reasonable conjecture or unreasonable; and what's a valid interpretation, based on available evidence, and what's less valid or downright preposterous.

It seems to me all too easy for someone to use your very argument, below, as a way to dismiss fairly accurate (or likely) interpretations of events, in order to replace them with others that are simply a part of a larger agenda. To oversimplify, the more we tell ourselves that everything is relative, that many interpretations are valid, or that the truth is just a matter of whose perspective happens to be prevailing at any given time -- the easier it is to degrade the very discipline of historical analysis and let fads, fantasies, or political ideologies gain a sway they don't deserve.


Kelly Jo wrote: ".... History can never be factual in a wholly truthful or philosophical sense, because it will always be an interpretation of events.
Too many schools/governments/etc discourage or repress any and all questions to the official textbook, and children are taught to blindly believe everything adults tell them."

[Andy]

But what makes you so sure that your argument wasn't inspired by a fad as well? Your teachers and elders and the general culture that informed the way you think were immune to fads?

I wonder if you could define "larger agenda?" Specifically, I would like to know what makes you think your argument is free from a larger agenda?

Michael wrote: "It seems to me all too easy for someone to use your very argument, below, as a way to dismiss fairly accurate (or likely) interpretations of events, in order to replace them with others that are simply a part of a larger agenda. To oversimplify, the more we tell ourselves that everything is relative, that many interpretations are valid, or that the truth is just a matter of whose perspective happens to be prevailing at any given time -- the easier it is to degrade the very discipline of historical analysis and let fads, fantasies, or political ideologies gain a sway they don't deserve."

***

Reason and truth are shibboleths that conceal the irrational forces of domination and discipline that rule human institutions." James Berlin

[Michael]

But that's not a true statement, Kelly Jo. There are gazillions of facts, of every degree -- not just a few big ones. Yes, before recordkeeping began to improve, most of those facts got lost in the mists -- most, but by no means all of them -- but historians since Thucydides have spoken of the need to balance their appraisals on the evidence obtainable. Look at how much is known about Agincourt, for example. (And how much is still arguable.) Certainly historians of the future will be overwhelmed with data. Applying wisdom and judgment to the sheer vastness of the facts at their command will be their crucial test.

We've fallen in love with ambiguity. And part of the reason for that is simple, but damnable -- it permits laziness of thought. It allows people to retain their prejudices, and dismiss evidence that might contradict them. It is, all too often, a convenient dodge that vitiates the necessity to learn, to think, to analyze, and to judge.


Kelly Jo wrote: "Michael and Andy, the only facts are the big facts of history. For instance, We know King Henry VIII lived and died. We know that he had many wives. But the details of his life, as the details of a..."

[Michael]

Andy, of course my teachers reflected the zeitgeist. What's baffling is that so many of us assume those teachers were limited, but today's much superior! Anyway, that's another matter. I'm in my 50s; my education was meant as a preparation for adulthood. Meaning that we had to learn a body of knowledge at each stage of education. That would prepare us for the next stage. And whenever we stopped that process, hopefully we were prepared to be reasonably thoughtful people, capable of analysis based on what we had learned, what we continued to learn, and what experiences we could bring to bear on any particular subject.

God, this sounds elementary... ! But some of that purpose seems to have been squandered, is my impression. Anyway, I've posted my thoughts. I have no further agenda than trying to arrive at the truth. I do believe there is truth -- the truth is out there.... We humans can approach it. Isn't it incredible that one mind could encompass major forces of the universe, and express them in a few simple symbols (and some math)?

But, in contrast, our society has fallen too much for Heisenberg's uncertainty principle. It takes three or four generations for huge insights to be assimilated by us, the general public. And then we use them for our own purposes. That's why we're so in love with the discovery that we cannot "know" anything. We take it to mean that the truth is elusive (true) and almost infinitely malleable (false).

But Heisenberg was only describing the quantum level of things. His theory did not attempt to describe all physics. We have abused it. And ignored the lesson of his colleague, who did penetrate to an amazing and surpassing truth.

Hey, you asked, Andy..... LOL..... : )

Andy wrote: "But what makes you so sure that your argument wasn't inspired by a fad as well? Your teachers and elders and the general culture that informed the way you think were immune to fads?

[Norma]

The way not to be taken in by fads is to have many teachers or sources with many different viewpoints. Some have hobby horses you can see a mile away.
My idea of What Is The Truth was greatly changed by reading Lawrence Durrell´s ALEXANDRIA QUARTET. Three of these books describe exactly the same events, each from a different point of view. I began to realize how much we can live through and not notice about the concerns and motives of people we interact with every day. I´m not about nasty CIA deeds or obvious propaganda. It´s like the truth is a giant prism - you pick it up and turn it over and learn some other facet of it.

[[deleted user]]

Ah, back to books!
I loved the Alexandria Quartet.

But I still can't resist: has anyone else heard the notion that writing history is not that much different from writing a fictional novel, in the decisions made about selection and presentation of material, at the least, and just possibly also in making it flow and intresting to read? And possibly also giving it a theme?

Or am I the only one who has heard that, and from a possibly benighted friend with usually respectable thoughts.

[Candy]

Wow, what a fantastic discussion. And I believe it's just arriving at the root right now. I'd hate to see Andy and Michael disappear because they...among everyone elses comments have really brought this discussion to an amazing focus. I think you are on to something as Watson might say!

Michael...I've copied this out...and want to put it on my blog:

We've fallen in love with ambiguity. And part of the reason for that is simple, but damnable -- it permits laziness of thought. It allows people to retain their prejudices, and dismiss evidence that might contradict them. It is, all too often, a convenient dodge that vitiates the necessity to learn, to think, to analyze, and to judge.

this is something I have thought for a longlong time, but had no idea how to phrase. It's actually something I've really noticed via discussions on the internet especially! And it's somethign that people seem to embrace the older they get. It's as if everyone learns stuff and becmes an adult...then they ride on that...without continuously challenging themselves of what they believe they know or were taught. Like, they learned something in school...years later find out it was an urban myth or based on bigotry...so now they dismiss any study or any research. "Oh we can't know everything...it might mean this for someone in 1890 but that for someone in 1990". I think part of this embracing ambiguitiy is a laziness...but it's also means of allowing oneself not to challenge oneself any more. You can always sound "clever" by pulling out the ambiguity of knowledge card, if you will...yes, it's a mental and spiritual laziness. And a defensive move.

Often there are so many participnats on the internet who love piping in and saying "but we can't know everything" or "deconstruction and contemporary philosophy refutes knowledge because it depends on who tells it" or the confusion between a notion in physics and quantum theory has been applied to common sense!

I tend to read "prehistory" and study life from that viewpoint. Actually I think the term "prehistory" is so insulting to all the human lives that lived, fell in love, made art, gathered food and had children labeled as "prehistory" just because it wasn't close to how contemporary history is told today. I might even suggest that the notion of prehistory has blinded us from recognizing much truth in human motives and existence(and mis-understanding or romanticizing contemporary history)...as if we are some kind of different creature since "the Agricultural Revolution" (a silly name for desperate choice of survival)

Oh and by the way...The Alexandria Quartet is one of my favourite reading experiences ever. In fact, my sister and I are going to read them all together in the fall.

[[deleted user]]

Russ2 wrote: .......has anyone else heard the notion that writing history is not that much different from writing a fictional novel, in the decisions made about selection and presentation of material, at the least, and just possibly also in making it flow and intresting to read? And possibly also giving it a theme?

All true. History is written by the victorious, no doubt about that, and their last victory over their enemy is putting forth the version of the incidents that is most flattering in some way to themselves.

And, Candy, no matter how you slice it, we cannot know everything. That isn't a cop out, lazy, or ambiguous, it's a fact of life.

Of course we have to be flexible on new evidence that comes up later, we're learning all the time. The trick is to sift the new knowledge that becomes available and be able to somehow judge from previous knowledge whether or not the new knowledge is in fact valid or logical.
A neat trick if we can manage it. :)

[Candy]

Uh, right. What I mean to say was that often the phrase "we can't know everything" is used to dismiss insight. Or info or knowledge etc. I didn't mean to say that I thought we could know everything.

What I meant was that often ambiguitity and the concept (a wise one) that we can't know everything is used to argue against wisdom or learning (not wise). And I've heard it used to dismiss or pooh-pooh diversity, to dismiss or pooh-pooh new research and ideas. ALL the time. Especially on the internet heh heh.

It's kind of like that adage "nothing matters, so everything doesn't matter"

[Erin]

Candy wrote: "What I meant was that often ambiguitity and the concept (a wise one) that we can't know everything is used to argue against wisdom or learning (not wise). And I've heard it used to dismiss or pooh-pooh diversity, to dismiss or pooh-pooh new research and ideas. ALL the time. Especially on the internet heh heh."

When, ultimately, the concept of ambiguity should be an impetus to study more, to gain the best understanding of the complexity of history as possible. To truly learn from the past (and to prevent the same things from happing over and over again), one needs to understand the complexity and the ambiguity.

You can't prevent another Holocaust or Rwandan genocide if you only understand the Allied or Tutsi perspective - you also need to understand the German experience leading up to the Holocaust or the Hutu mindset & the European colonial influence from an objective perspective if we are to grow as a society and to prevent these types of things from happening in the future.

From what I can tell, as a species we haven't learned much yet ... thousands of years of history and racism, genocide and opression still exists. *sigh*

[Ƹ̵̡Ӝ̵̨̄Ʒ รђ๏รђคภคђ]

Hello all! As a school psychologist and former 7th grade Language Arts teacher, I have to jump in here and add my 2 cents! I taught during grad school for 3 years in S. Florida-one of the hardest hit states educationally speaking. I had the privilege of teaching almost all of the advanced students which gave me a little freedom with my curriculum. But, for the most part, my lesson plans consisted of pre-packaged, FCAT rich, muck! FCAT, just so you know, is the Florida Comprehensive Achievement Test, or as my students referred to it, Forget-College-After-This. I can't describe the amount of pressure and stress that this exam brings upon teachers, staff, and students! Instead of having time to explore critical thinking skills while reading a great novel, or take students on a mind opening field trip to someplace great (i.e. the Holocaust Memorial while reading Anne Frank) we are in classrooms teaching students how to properly navigate a multiple choice question! The students who care (which are few, sadly) are stresses enough to throw up prior to the test, the teachers are worried for their jobs, and the principals are worried that their SCHOOL won't recieve a good grade (at least a C or better) which means no extra money! Yes, the schools are graded which results in money if it's good enough. I won't even tell you about the mayhem said money causes among staff and teachers if the school is fortunate enough to get it.
Our nation is indeed losing sight of what an "educated" individual looks like. Perhaps we will not learn the lesson until all is lost and chaos results? It sounds dramatic but I have no doubt in my mind that, if we continue to churn out students they way we are now doing, eventually there will be a dire consequence.

[Candy]

Oh I think there are amazing aspects to ambiguity. It is a kind of "altered state" and it offers a window into contemplation too. But I don't think it is reliable sole worldview. It's an aspect of human perception. Ambiguity is an excellent device in storytelling and in visual arts by causing a sense of alienation and putting the responsibility for comprehension on the audience. ( a great example of this is McCarthy's novel Blood Meridian and it's "ending")

Erin said "From what I can tell, as a species we haven't learned much yet ... thousands of years of history and racism, genocide and opression still exists. *sigh* "

On that we highly agree.

[[deleted user]]

Erin wrote: When, ultimately, the concept of ambiguity should be an impetus to study more, to gain the best understanding of the complexity of history as possible. To truly learn from the past (and to prevent the same things from happing over and over again), one needs to understand the complexity and the ambiguity.

Taylor Caldwell, in her foreword to A Pillar of Iron, wrote:
"Any resemblance between the Republics of Rome and the United States of America is purely historical, as the similarity of ancient Rome to the modern world."

I first read that when I was 15, and while it seems an almost trite factoid now, it made a huge impression on me at the time. I could hardly believe that it was true, I shuddered to think that we as humans had not learned anything in those thousands of years. But, sadly, it is all too true. History repeats itself, just as a teenager does not learn from his/her parents, neither do we learn from past mistakes. I don't know if it's ego or just plain blindness, or unwillingness to accept facts, but we seem almost genetically incapable of learning from the past. Of course we are doomed to repeat it.

[Sandy]

The thing to remember is that history is written by the winners.
Sandy

[Erin]

Sandy wrote: "The thing to remember is that history is written by the winners.
Sandy"

Which is unfortunate.

[Sandy]

Erin wrote: "Sandy wrote: "The thing to remember is that history is written by the winners.
Sandy"

Which is unfortunate."

Always has been. I am Creek/Chickasaw. The history of Indians which has been taught in our country is abysmal.
Sandy

[Ruth]

I didn't know you were Indian, Sandy. That's interesting. Are there any books you recommend for a better outlook on Indian history?

[[deleted user]]

I happened across an article that might add a bit of fuel to the thread. Looks most interesting.

http://www.nytimes.com/2009/07/19/boo...

[Karol]

Hmmm, interesting comment about history being written by the winners. There are all kinds of "facts" documented, large and small, but the interpretation of those facts is what all historians do - right? And I don't think anyone can help writing from their own experiential filters. Even the most fair-minded person cannot help interpreting the facts based on his or her own world-view, built on his or her individual experience. Without the interpretations (colored as they may be by one's own personal filters), history would be a pretty boring thing . . . just dry facts and statistics.

[Candy]

Ruth one of the best books you can read about Native North Americans is The Other Side of Eden: Hunters, Farmers and The Shaping of the World by Hugh Brody. I've recommended it here at Constant Reader for years and years now. It is an excellent overview of my hunter-gatherer brothers and sisters history.

Ruth, there isn't "one" Indian history as there are hundreds of tribes of First Nations in North America. My local American Indian Center here in Chicago has about 160 different tribes participating. Not recognizing the border in the same way as European or "Western" agriculturalists do is an important insight into some of these narratives.

http://www.aic-chicago.org/

I also recommend Story Sharp as a Knife: The Classical Haida Mythtellers and Their World by Robert Bringhurst. And One River by Wade Davis. These three books will give you a very good introduction. I could write you a list of about 50 books though, but these three are really outstanding.

http://www.amazon.com/Other-Side-Eden...

http://arcticcircle.uconn.edu/Related...


http://www.amazon.com/Story-Sharp-Kni...

http://www.amazon.com/One-River-Wade-...

[Wilhelmina]

True, Kay, which makes it so very important to have as diverse a group of scholars as possible contributing to the discussion.

[[deleted user]]

Does anyone have a take on 1491?