Disappearing History

[Norma]

Shoshannah, I´ve been following the education mess in Florida on Democratic Underground. A frequent poster is a retired teacher who calls herself Mad Floridian. Her posts are one reason I brought this topic up. There has never really been a golden age of education except in isolated cases. I do worry about my grandchildren and am taking extra pains to see they get some history and a love of stories.

[Mark]

Russ2 wrote: "Does anyone have a take on 1491?"

I didn't read the book, but I did read a longish magazine article based on it, and I thought he had some fascinating information, including the fact that Native Americans in the eastern forests actually created game preserves by making clearings so they didn't have to work so hard at finding their food

[Ƹ̵̡Ӝ̵̨̄Ʒ รђ๏รђคภคђ]

Catherine wrote: "Shoshannah, I´ve been following the education mess in Florida on Democratic Underground. A frequent poster is a retired teacher who calls herself Mad Floridian. Her posts are one reason I brought..."

Hi Catherine,

I left Florida in 2007 and, since working in the school system in north suburban Illinois, I am even more saddened by the state of Florida's lack of decent education. The county/district I work in is one of the less fortunate, but not one of the worst in the state by far! Chicago Public schools takes that title easily! But, that said, I am still astounded on a daily basis at how much MORE is available (even in the less affluent areas)and the QUALITY of teaching, materials, and even attitude when compared to FL.

And, don't think the problem is exclusive to public schools in poor areas. When living in S. FL I had to enroll my daughter in a private school due to her b-day being one week past the deadline for kindergarten (Sep.1st) I was not about to make her wait a whole year just for one week! So, into private school she went to the tune of $350 a month. I felt it was a sacrifice worth making, even on a teacher's salary! She attended this school from K until spring of 2nd grade and then we moved to Illinois. My husband and I felt it important to keep her environment, educationally speaking, as consistant as posible so we opted to enroll her in a private school of similar nature once again. This school even used the same curriculum (Abeka) as her old one. After a month of her attending this school (spring term of 2nd grade) we came to find that my daughter was almost a year behind her classmates!! She had not even been taught her multiplication tables and this school had the 2nd grade class working on their 7's! Needless to say, I was livid! Here I was thinking that my daughter was getting a top notch education and she might as well have been in a public school for all the difference it was making. Her new teacher even reviewed the packet of graded work my daughter had completed from Florida and found that the teacher had been only grading for completion! Disgusting!
Fortunately, we came early enough that, with a lot of time and hard work, the teachers at her new school brought her up to date. She has not only caught up to her classmates, she is on the Principal's list every year! I'm so grateful for having left that state I can't even put it into words!
I'm glad your grandchildren have you. It is probably the only way to ensure that they are properly educated! Good luck!

[Susanna - Censored by GoodReads]

Russ2 wrote: "Does anyone have a take on 1491?"

I found it a little scattered, but very interesting. I gave it four stars, I believe.

[Norma]

Reading this discussion I keep thinking back to Sir Terry Pratchett´s JINGO:

The meaning enveloped Vimes like a chilly mist.
¨Youŕe offering to change history?¨ he said. ¨Is that it? Rewrite the--¨
¨Oh, my dear Vimes, history changes all the time. It is constantly being reexamined and reevaluated, otherwise how would we be able to keep historians occupied? We can´t possibly allow people with their sort of minds to walk around with time on their hands.¨

[Candy]

What Gail said. Love Pratchett.

[[deleted user]]

Currently the attitudes of the German generals in the Hitler assassination plot (Valkyrie and similar) seem to be undergoing some burnishing also. There is evidence originally that they were fully supportive of Hitler's goals, only wishing to replace his bumbling military leadership that was losing the War with something more effective and victorious for the Third Reich. Lately, treatments of the Gereral's Plot paint it instead as altruistic -- opposed to his goals, and trying instead to derail his entire genocidal program.
I offer the thought as a caution, before a heinous chapter in human history gets completely whitewashed by "open-minded" come-latelies.
Some of us remember still, though dwindling in numbers as the years go by.

PS and thanks, Susannah, for your reply re 1491. :)

[Andy]

Russ2 wrote: "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 interesting to read? And possibly also giving it a theme?"

Russ, I liked what you had to say about historians choosing material. I would submit that for all these great records of things that have happened, much of what we know about past events is chosen and recorded quite arbitrarily. Take time for instance. There is no absolute time. All clocks in the world, like the clocks in my apartment, are off from each other! So historians choose the time stamp for events.
Time is essentially abstract meaning created by humans. When we think of time, we are processing information with our collective brain and putting order to it. I believe this has some bearing on the present discussion, in the sense that doing history is a way of processing, a way of applying arbitrary meaning to events that may or may not have cosmic meaning apart from what is happening within and among humans.

Candy wrote: "Often there are so many participnats on the internet who love piping in and saying … " the confusion between a notion in physics and quantum theory has been applied to common sense!"

Well damn it, Candy, I was going to bring up how physics seeps into general culture. Not only Heisenberg but Bohr saying things like The opposite of a great truth is another great truth. Of course Einstein's relativity (subjectivity in physic's clothing) and Thomas Kuhn on scientific revolutions (all paradigms will eventually change)... I think it is worth noting that their work can be interpreted as changes in the nature of logic, and of course those changes seeped into other expressions of logic, including the popular understanding of logic, at least part of the way we have arrived at this argument today. And a theme of American Pastoral?

Michael wrote: 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.

Michael wrote: "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.

agenda
I'm not one for applying the better or worse label, Michael. Though I think it's interesting that you bring it up. Would you consider yourself a competitive person?

I'll happily admit to an agenda. Like you, I enjoy spending time helping to draw the boundaries of what is reasonable conjecture and valid interpretation. My agenda, I suppose, is drawing the lines in a way such that my own experiences will be included within the lines. I want to be included on my terms.

I have been drawn to theories of the fallibility of truth, I suppose because of my personal history. I have embraced and rejected two religions. I have a family. I have ambiguities in my social life. You call me lazy for maintaining ambiguity and uncertainty. I say I have been trained to be okay with irrationality, and that that view works just find for me. But yes, I do like to come here and express myself and seek support and understanding from others who might feel the same way. I admit I have had this argument before online, I have it a couple times a year. I like to argue with men around my father's age in relatively safe terms. Have you had this argument before online, Michael? Just curious. Have you noticed Constant Reader doesn't have a non-fiction thread? I noticed from your profile that you enjoy fiction? Why?

Michael wrote: "To answer your questions, Janet, no one I know has ever dismissed the Holocaust or the sacrifices this nation made to fight in World War II. Do you know many who do?, there are Holocaust deniers out there, but it's not through lack of exposure to the facts. It's from some innate bigotry or hatred -- something that no degree of education may be able to eradicate, in most such cases. "

Candy wrote: "What I meant was that often ambiguity 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"

This is so funny because I thought avoiding absolutes was a better way of dealing with bigotry. And I absolutely disagree with Michael's assertion that bigoted or hateful people can't be educated to feel differently. Especially children.

I feel that this is an arena where an appreciation for ambiguity can aid both teacher and student. Say a student grows up in a family of holocaust deniers. A teacher finds out and works with the kid to expose her to different facts than what the kid is getting at home. Does the kid go home and tell their parents that they are wrong? Does the kid accept the fact that her parents have one set of truths and her teachers have another set of truths? What are the determining factors in how the kid handles this situation? It's hard to say. Probably has something to do with the kids temperament, etc. I was talking to a friend about this very topic and he said he was arguing with his parents about bigotry at age six, but then later he admitted he instructed his own children to hold their tongue when they disagreed with the educators at the parochial school they went to on topics of bigotry.
I was on a field trip once, and kid, a recent immigrant from southeast Asia, told me his neighbors were (n-words). I could see in his face that he was testing the word out to see what I’d do.

Is it possible for that kid to love and respect his parents even if he can't convince them their language use is morally wrong? What about empathy? Should the
kid empathize with his parents or not?

Russ2 wrote: " Valkyrie "
Interesting point, Russ. I remember thinking how tricky it must have been for the movie makers to get us to root for a Nazi. I've watched enough "making-of" documentaries to know that people making big budget movies will work very hard to make sure people like the hero. It's funny that to like is the same word as is used in the simile, to be like.

I remember history teachers telling us stories. In a way, teachers are selling knowledge in a way similar to film makers.

Let us not forget cognitive errors. You can try to be a hard ass and keep your imagination out of your understanding of history, but, in my opinion, just by the very size of the project of History, all the people who stick their noses in it, history will change to suit people's agendas. Claims of purity should be discounted.

In certain sects of Buddhism, there is an exercise where people attempt to disrupt the human impulse toward narrative. It is interesting to at least consider that creating story and meaning is as arbitrary as placing numbers to the sensation of time. Is it strictly a process, like an Excel spreadsheet adding up a column of numbers?

As Russ suggested, maybe history is written by people who have a need to tell a story, for the same reasons people write novels. Or for the same reasons people march armies across the world.

[[deleted user]]

Andy, Many thanks for your kind and understanding response. Perhaps history is a topic unlike many others, a topic where everyone just everyone can have an oar in the water. :)

[Candy]

Wow great stuff Andy.

First, I would say there is a difference between being ambiguous with one's parents or teachers about core moral issues/bigotry...and being cautious/avoidance manuevers and polite/respectful.

I think it's unfortunate that parents do't get lessons on how utterly painful it is for a child to feel torn between them, ideas, ideals and general culture.

I think a child who is brought up in a home where they are not welcomed to confront bigotry, to test their beliefs with their parents is going to be a child that will likely need therapy and guidance onhow to manueveur in the world as a grown adult.

So...in a way...we can't help your imaginary child.

Unless we encourage schools to teach dialogue style, to teach discussion style. And sometimes that does happen.

I think we have to let that child ride for a bit. Instead it is much more practical for us to use adults for examples in this discussion. I think.

Now...you asked/said...This is so funny because I thought avoiding absolutes was a better way of dealing with bigotry.

You're correct, ambiguous behaviour would be a good way to deal with family who is bigoted. I think it's also called avoidance. Ambiguous sure by acting like we didn't hear it or saying things like "well we don't know other peoples motives" etc. These are perfectly normal devices used by all of us to get along with others ha ha! It's a fine way of dealing with work scenarios where people express different morals too.

and...you asked...

Is it possible for that kid to love and respect his parents even if he can't convince them their language use is morally wrong? What about empathy? Should the
kid empathize with his parents or not?

I think the kid could definately love their parents, navigate around difficult topics and have empathy for their parents lack of tolerance.

We ALL do it all the time. Especially with parents who are either stuck ina rut, who don't be open minded etc etc. and especially people who believe that "wisdom comes with age" those kinds of people are very difficult to deal with because they ahve a false sense of authority. They believe the myth that age gives wisdom. (sometimes it does sometimes it doesn't)...they often displaythat repulsive attitude fof "entitlement" (yuck!)

Okay...I have more to say but will post this for you as I'm kind of going through your post Andy...a point per point...ok?

[Candy]

Okay...now Andy, there is a thing we can be tangible on about historuy. The actual way that people have investigated history, the past and other sets of human community has changed over the last twenty/30 years. There are separate camps of how to approach human study.

It used to be that people had an attitude or set of beliefs that people in other countries were "different". For example...back to parental gaps...my parents believed and seemed to be taught in school that Africans were different than Chinese, Americans were different than Mexicans and Europeans form each country were different etc etc. People believed that "olden times" people were different from modern day people. People had preconceptions that prehistoric people were different than we are today!

Academic study of history and anthropology was based on examining this notion of difference.

Then things changed.

They changed due to a few fascinating people who had the idea...hey what if we aren't all that different?

The actual approach to observing other cultures, other economies, and history has changed because now the contemporary approach is to see how very alike we actually are. Now...listen you'll have a hard time selling this to anyone who was educated in the "old approach". I remember a discussion here about Jared Diamonds books Guns, Germs and Steel about ten years ago...and many Constant Readers could not accept his approach or his style of writing or thinking. They faced a paradigm shift and couldn't make the transition.

We had a kind of generation gap...and a resisitance and it did seem to be the divide was who had studied from the former approach to those of us who had been in school more recently. It was fascinating!

So...we have a whole slew of books, research and information that reflects this change in approach to observing human behaviour and hitory.

Anthrolpoligists like Marvin Harris changed the way we look at "pre-history" by putting forth the argument that we should look at different eras as if they had the same wants, needs and issues we have today!!!!

What we have seen happen...and this is in art history too...was the idea that people used to look at ancient art and buildings as if they couldn't know the minds of the people.

Of course this was a bizarre and silly notion...of course we can know their minds...they DO have the same motives, need and issues we ALL have.

So when we look at a painting from five hunded years ago our window of comprehension is through what we know of life ourselves.

In the simplest manner of example...art is relevant to us today even if it was painted a few hundred years ago. It touches us and moves us emotionally because we are common...

Picasso's Guernica, or Goya's monsters move us emotionally because we all have face recognition...we all know what a suffering or anguished face looks like. We know what loss is...we all know what love feels like. We are stunned at Monet's haystacks because we've all felt that monumental emotional response to something supposedly ordinary ...

[Candy]

One more thing...why history seems to be something written by the winners, or part of a constructed narrative is that another thing has changed in mass comprehension in appraoch to history or human behaviour study.

The idea that "accepting difference" or the concept of diversity still kept us separate and different.

Diversity sometimes does produce a sense of alienation for people who want "communal" to equal the same beliefs, the same customs and same appearance. I was posting about this in another thread of Walter Cronkite. But we can see in some countires where diversity doesn't equal alienation or "different". It means tolerance. Rather than the word ambiguous to describe how we behave with people who we MUST communicate with despite having difference of beliefs...like parents and co-workers.

It is tolerance...not ambiguity.

We can tolerate our co-workers different core moral beliefs because we have "rules" about not sharing politics, sex or religion in the work place. Same at dinner parties heh heh! Plus...we don't want to lose our jobs...so we try very hard to "button up" when we disagree!

We are tolerating our parents because we love them despite their restricted or dated approaches to other people and/or contemporary life.

Now...I suppose I should offer some evidence to these observations huh? Well, there is a precedence I can point out to you. Two examples...one is Marvin Harris an anthropoligist who was able to write popular books for non-academics about "cultural materialism"...an approach to observing other economies and cultures by common sense rather than subjecture or bigotry: based on the notion or fear of "the other". And Stephen Jay Gould who also was able to write popular easy to understand accounts of paleontolgy.

Cultural Materialism is an anthropological research orientation. "It is based on the simple premise that human social life is a response to the practical problems of earthly existence" Marvin Harris.

What we have seen in the last 15 years is their "offspring" if you will...


Books like Freakonomics by Leavitt, Guns, Gems and Steel and Collapse by Diamond, No Logo and The Shock Doctrine by Klein, Outliers by Gladwell...

(I could list a bunch more books but I've already talked too much!)




Probably the most significant change in the approach to history narratives and study of the human condition is that they has become interdiciplinary...as evidenced by the above books.

[Dottie]

"I know it is the fashion to say that most of recorded history is lies anyway. I am willing to believe that history is for the most part inaccurate and biased, but what is peculiar to our own age is the abandonment of the idea that history could be truthfully written."
— George Orwell

Just ran across this from my quotes and thought of this thread -- I'm behind on reading the posts here but will be back as soonas I can find time to do so.

The emphasis is mine. I found this echoed some discussion I've heard, seen, taken part in recently regarding similar topics -- the blurring of boundaries of various sorts -- no strong right/wrong, truth or untruth.

[[deleted user]]

And therefore anything goes. Feh!
Not my cuppa tea, Dottie.

[Andy]

Interesting stuff about how doing history is a kind of roleplaying, a way to achieve understanding of the self, from an essay on history by Emerson. (And this was before the post-modern challenge of the last 40 years or so!)

We are always coming up with the emphatic facts of history in our private experience, and verifying them here. All history becomes subjective; in other words, there is properly no history; only biography. Every mind must know the whole lesson for itself, -- must go over the whole ground. What it does not see, what it does not live, it will not know. What the former age has epitomized into a formula or rule for manipular convenience, it will lose all the good of verifying for itself, by means of the wall of that rule. Somewhere, sometime, it will demand and find compensation for that loss by doing the work itself. Ferguson discovered many things in astronomy which had long been known. The better for him.

History must be this or it is nothing. Every law which the state enacts indicates a fact in human nature; that is all. We must in ourselves see the necessary reason of every fact, -- see how it could and must be. So stand before every public and private work; before an oration of Burke, before a victory of Napoleon, before a martyrdom of Sir Thomas More, of Sidney, of Marmaduke Robinson, before a French Reign of Terror, and a Salem hanging of witches, before a fanatic Revival, and the Animal Magnetism in Paris, or in Providence. We assume that we under like influence should be alike affected, and should achieve the like; and we aim to master intellectually the steps, and reach the same height or the same degradation, that our fellow, our proxy, has done.

All inquiry into antiquity, -- all curiosity respecting the Pyramids, the excavated cities, Stonehenge, the Ohio Circles, Mexico, Memphis, -- is the desire to do away this wild, savage, and preposterous There or Then, and introduce in its place the Here and the Now. Belzoni digs and measures in the mummy-pits and pyramids of Thebes, until he can see the end of the difference between the monstrous work and himself. When he has satisfied himself, in general and in detail, that it was made by such a person as he, so armed and so motived, and to ends to which he himself should also have worked, the problem is solved; his thought lives along the whole line of temples and sphinxes and catacombs, passes through them all with satisfaction, and they live again to the mind, or are now.

-Ralph Waldo Emerson
http://www.age-of-the-sage.org/transc...

[Candy]

Thanks Andy, I found that very interestng and inspiring. I was surprised to read Emerson say "There is one mind common to all individual men." which was a paragigm shift for contemporary approaches to human study inclusing history and anthropology which I said earlier. Accepting that humans had the same physical emotional needs 400 years ago as 400,000 years ago has helped us get a more rounded view of disiciplines and observations.

But of course...ask me who won the war of 1812...Canada of course!

:)

[[deleted user]]

The use of the word "same" in such contexts strikes me as a highly subjective term, open to much self-centered athropomorphizing, if that is a word. There are obvious differences which the supposedly seeing eye minimizes and brushes aside to see the sameness. Since we all eat and have eaten, it is quite easy to suppose all peoples have been interested in eating, or at east survival. When it comes to intellectual activity and thinking, such as say Emerson's profound observations which we have just seen, it seems to me harder to assert such a "sameness" in human understanding and consciousness throughout the eons. But, obviously, I speak as someone outside of the field.

[Rosana]

Thanks for the essay Andy. I have printed it to read it later.

But I too run into a passage that made me think of this discussion. From The Enchantress of Florence by Salman Rushdie, page 34, paperback, Vintage Canada, 2009 edition.
As Akbar, the Mughal, prepares to behead the ruler of a conquered kingdom, they have the following conversation:

The Rana of Cooch Naheen (...) had knelt at Akbar’s feet (...) waiting for the blow to fall. ‘History repeats itself,’ he said. ‘Your grandfather killed my grandfather seventy years ago.’

‘Our grandfather,’ replied the emperor, employing the royal plural according to custom (...), ‘was a barbarian with a poet’s tongue. We, by contrast, are a poet with a barbarian’s history and a barbarian’s prowess in war, which we detest. Thus it is demonstrated that history does not repeat itself, but moves forward, and that Man is capable of change.’

‘That is a strange remark for an executioner to make,’ the young Rana said softly, ’but it is futile to argue with Death.’

I could be wrong, but I thought that Russ2 would appreciate Rushdie’s irony.

[Candy]

Russ, yes but that is what I was trying to say about the change in approaches of the practice of history. It used to be that people and academics and "experts" used to feel we couldn't know the mind or motives of people in other countries...genders...eras...etc etc.



We used to believe that...like a meme or an concept.

We used to believe in "race"...but now we know that differences in skin colour are superficial adaptations to environment. We are one race...the human race.



BUT...we have changed the approach that actually people have much more in common with each other...despite external or superficial differences in customs or skin colours. The biggest differences between cultures are the way they make a living...the way they structure their economics rather than religion...eras...or regions.

We relate to a painting of a ship wreck painted 400 years ago or 200 years ago...because we know how it would feel today. The human in a terrible shipwreck or storm would be every bit as concerned as we would today.

100,000 years ago a father loved their baby and cuddled it. An elder died...one group of people tried to take resources from another group of people. Conflict arose. People all over the world, in all times and economic structures alter their bodies with elective surgeries and make-up and costume (well...some feminists, some hippies too, in the 60's and 70's stopped that tradition...very interesting stuff)

I'll re-post this quote:

Cultural Materialism is an anthropological research orientation. "It is based on the simple premise that human social life is a response to the practical problems of earthly existence" Marvin Harris.

[Candy]

Russ said "But, obviously, I speak as someone outside of the field. "

No I don't think so...I think you speak as someone who was raised or taught an approach about observing human behaviour before 1960, but after 1920. Or you were highly influenced by ideas from that time period by a mentor, family leader or teachers. Either your parents or your time in school is from that time period in U.S.

It's very very difficult to push beyond our individual social constructs of what we were taught growing up...once we get older. We don't like to think we had based all our life on a misconception or false or wayward thinking.

We need to be able to let ourselves break free from rigid thinking...and be open to new disciplines and research...


Lifelong learning is a contemporary trend.

[[deleted user]]

Thanks for your efforts, Candy, but were they an answer to the point I raised, other than to assert that I couldn't understand your point? Or are you really suggesting that Emerson's particular insights were also thought by wise cave dwellers early in time? Or to put it another way, I will grant you that cave dwellers thought. What is the/your current view of what they thought in the way of philosophy? I'd be glad to hear they were as wise as Emerson.

And thanks for the remark about a contmeporary trend that had apparently missed my attention. I'll keep an eye out for it.

[Candy]

Russ asks... likely jokingly..."thought by wise cave dwellers early in time? Or to put it another way, I will grant you that cave dwellers thought. What is the/your current view of what they thought in the way of philosophy? I'd be glad to hear they were as wise as Emerson. "

It's not my thoughts on what cave dwellers think Russ. It's about common sense. "Cave dwellers" ...the sensitive and/or more appropriate term is indigenous or hunter-gatherer and they aren't extinct...hunters and gatherers are still living although their areas are massively encroached upon by farmers. You don't need to imagine what hunters and gatherers believed or thought. You can go and find out. Hundreds and hundreds of extinction level hunters and gatherers living in North America and other remote places as well. They are alive and well today.

You don't need to ask me. There are plenty of accounts of their philosophies all around us.

But...if you would like a book form or reference form I suggest Story As Sharp As a Knife...it has many Haida classical stories and they are every bit as wise and guiding as Emerson or the folk tales and words of wisdom that you might share with your community.

I listed these books for Ruth earlier but will list them again:

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

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

[Candy]

And Russ...here is the Wikipedia page on "Lifelong Learning" buzzwords...

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Lifelong...

I'm here for ya buddy!

:)

[[deleted user]]

Well, Candy, I see that pigeon-holing and stereotyping are alive and well in modern anthropology and that my choice of language affronts you and causes you to immediately think of some cartoon caricature of earlier generations that you have picked up along the way being not as knowledgable or as suave as yourself. You know nothing about my education nor the sensibilities, sensitivities and insights that were ingrained into me, and I don't feel any need to try to justify myself to you. Clearly you do not regard my level of understanding as being the same as yours, and at least in that sense you do recognize the word "same" that I originally asked you about, with its many fluid meanings. Including the meanings which are used to cover "manifest difference" and to avoid seeeing it or mentioning it. You clearly see "difference" between you and me. I suppose now you will have to go rinse such unworthy thoughts out of your brain.

How about responding to the original question in some other way than with ad hominem and age-oriented putdown?

It shouldn't be difficult for a person who claims to know the subject as well as you do.

[Michael]

Russ2 wrote: "Or to put it another way, I will grant you that cave dwellers thought. What is the/your current view of what they thought in the way of philosophy? I'd be glad to hear they were as wise as Emerson..."

They were as wise as Emerson. Or, at least, a few of them were. Without an established literary tradition that we are aware of, cave dwellers nonetheless wondered about many of the same things we wonder about, and pondered many of the same questions that we do, that Emerson did, that Homer and Herodotus did, and Anaximenes, and probably Methuselah and his forebears.

Now, don't ask me how I know this, Russ.... : ) But reading the Cunliffe book Europe Between the Oceans 9000 BC to AD 1000, it is a thought that has occurred to me several times already (and I'm not halfway through). We underestimate our ancestors, I think.

[[deleted user]]

I pass.

[[deleted user]]

Gail wrote: ...we may make surmises about them, but we can't honestly say we have evidence of their thought processes. How can we know what they pondered?

The only real evidence I can think of only tells partially what would have been on their minds, the essentials of hunting and preparing the carcass of whatever they found. Paintings of these types of activities have been found in some caves, and to me not only expresses what they thought about, but also the compulsion/need to record said activities. The latter in itself says much about their thinking abilities.

I definitely agree, they didn't have the time to philosophize or over analyze, but don't you think the existence of those paintings show the seeds of capability?

[Theresa]

Some anthropologists have argued that hunter/gatherers were/are the original affluent society and spend less time on subsistence activities than us industrialized folks. This theory was first put forward by Sahlins, a prominent University of Chicago anthropologist back in the 60s. It has met with some debate, of course, but it is not necessarily true that agriculture brought leisure - and to the extent agriculture did bring leisure, it brought it only for the privileged few. See Jared Diamond for a populist approach to the function of agriculture.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Original...

Theresa

[Theresa]

As the article states, Sahlins' theory was based on studies of modern hunter/gatherers. By the same token, what is your hard evidence for stating that "they sure were a lot busier, with little time to think?" That's an assumption that one often hears, but I think it is more logically based on what we know about peasant culture, not hunter/gatherer culture.

I should add here that I have an anthro degree and worked as an archaeologist for a few years before going to law school. So I have a bit of a bias, but I'd have to disagree that there is no "hard evidence" or artifacts that would tell us anything about prehistoric life. The hard evidence we have is open to different interpretations (some of it driven by the need for modern academics to further their own careers - i.e., intellectual thought as a subsistence activity in itself) but written documents, which you point to as evidence, are just as open to different interpretation. Not to mention the need to interpret the bias and motivations of the writer in the first place.

I'm also not sure what specific practice(s) you are referring to re child sacrifice? There is no evidence that I know of for child sacrifice as a common practice of prehistoric societies. I have dug out Neolithic longhouses in northern France (early agriculturalists) where we found quite a few infants buried in post holes - some have interpreted this as intentional sacrifice, some as just where they buried newborns who died. We have hard evidence of the burials, we have only interpretation for the rest. And we may not have overt child sacrifice any longer but we sure have plenty of throwaway children.

Theresa

[Candy]

Hi Russ, nope what I said to you was nothing to do with age or your personal background. It was about what time period conceptions about history and approaches were rooted in...and how history approaches have changed in last 20-30 years etc. It's not like you to take things so personally...I have great affection for you and sorry if you misunderstood what I was saying about approach. I wasn't affronted by your choice of words. I was suggesting a more appropriate and sensitive wording for my brothers and sisters. It is a credit to how much I care for you that I was so comfortable in suggesting such a sensitivity.

Don't worry...you haven't hurt my feelings by making jokes about thinking I am merely claiming to know about the subject. I don't have any interest in any claims..I just happen to be a hunter gatherer. You can respect that as a precedence or not. I was not dividing you and I into "levels" I was saying that history has become more interdiciplinary. I sincerely thought you would enjoy the Wikpedia page about LLL. Sorry you felt like taking my joyful feelings about you and this topic n a negative manner. I hope you feel better and reconsider.

[Candy]

Gail and Pontalba...the idea that we can know what hunters and gatherers lives were like 10,000 or 20,000 years ago is based on the fact that we can visit and interview and observe hunter gatherers today. Many of the economic structures, ways of making a living, philosophies and oral narratives and cultural artifacts exist the same with hunter gathers today...as they did. Many of the societal structures have not changed in thousands of years. We can observe /visit Inuuit, South American societies aboriginal cultures all over the world. Those cultures of pre-agriculture are still alive and existing. It is a fairly general concensus...among nthropologists that the life-style ofhunter gatherers left more time for art, storytelling...and was healthier than totalitarian agricultural societies.

Mark Nathan Cohen Health and The Rise of Civilization


http://www.primitivism.com/health-civ...

Marshall Sahlins ...his original article in whole (I think...)

http://zinelibrary.info/files/the%20o...


And the ever fun..."Worst Mistake In The History of The Human Race"

http://www.environnement.ens.fr/perso...

[[deleted user]]

Candy, re your #141,
I am suddenly overwhelmed by the feeling that you and I have no common basis for communication and words fail me.
So, I'm out.

[Andy]

Thanks for the link to the Cunliffe book, Michael, I have been interested in this period of European history for a long time. It seems to me there is much interest in Native American cultures, but less so about "Native European Cultures". People don't even really talk about Native Europeans, I don't understand why. I'll have to look at that book.

I tend to agree with Theresa and Candy on the question of time spent philosophizing. The little I've read on the topic has always suggested to me that subsistence cultures actually "work (ed)" less than we do. 40 hours per week (not including commute) at a hum drum job, week in and week out for 30-40 years is a strange behavior, imo, and not necessarily designed to support the creation of a meaningful life. 100 years ago, I'd probably be working 80 hours per week, which would leave even less time for "fun". And I think right now there are plenty of populations that work 80 hours per week in fairly lousy conditions.

Which leads to the notion of better and worse. Ordering things in terms of "better and worse" can be a fun and useful exercise, but it's certainly one of the more subjective approaches to meaning making. It's very clearly a way of considering the past through the lens of right now. While I think it is the way history is discussed, I have some problem with considering history in terms of better and worse.

So, IMO, history should not be taught as a set of facts separate from the politics of knowledge, concept, narration, and meaning making. Subsistence cultures "work" less than we do. And it is not entirely useful to consider history in terms of better and worse.

Also, I would like to posit that, one thousand years from now, the history we are creating today will be every bit as confused and jumbled as the history of one thousand years ago. Even very broad facts and dates will be understood differently and "incorrectly". Humanity is capable of a lot of change and error in the course of one thousand years.

[Norma]

If I may bring the discussion forward from pre-history a little, I´ve gotten some small shocks from my recent reading - the shock being IT´S THE SAME DAMNED THING ALL OVER AGAIN! The books were Jacquelin Winspear´s AMONG THE MAD and Barbara Cleverly´s BRIGHT HAIR ABOUT THE BONE. AMONG THE MAD features the chemical warfare testing being done hush-hush by the British government on veterans with PTSD. One of the characters in BRIGHT HAIR ABOUT THE BONE (set in 1926) reels off a list of American and international interests inclined to support the Nazis.
I hadn´t known about the weaponized chemicals testing on WWI vets, but I certainly know it´s happened since then and that it´s extremely hard to stop it from happening. As for the American interests supporting the Nazis, some of that is now belatedly trickling into the news. And it´s all the same. Monied interests pursue their own interests on the blood of everybody else.

[Mary Ellen]

Intrigued by the prehistoric philosopher discussion -- an area about which I know absolutely nothing, I admit -- I have a couple of questions & thoughts.

The questions: first, how can archeology give us insight into the thoughts of prehistoric people? I understand that it might give us ideas about the comparative amount of leisure people had then, and that leisure is a prerequisite for philosophical thinking, but... my ignorance/lack of imagination doesn't see how we can get further. Second, aren't there limits to how useful studies of present-day hunter-gatherers can be in teaching us about the thinking of prehistoric people? For one, folks like the Inuits have had contact with modern inventions, "modern" persons, such as anthropologists -- surely the introduction of these foreign elements have had some effects on their culture. And speaking of Inuits, and speaking of speaking: what has study of their language revealed about their philosophical thought or lack thereof? (All I know is the probably-false canard about their extensive vocabulary concerning SNOW; how about their vocabulary for "truth," "justice," "being," etc.)

Finally, it occurred to me that "Three Day Road," our current Reading List selection, focuses on some hunter-gatherers, Cree living in the bush. (Of course, all have had extensive contact with 20th century Western society at its almost worst... but, still.) Have any of you with an archeology/anthropology background read it? What did you think?

Mary Ellen

[Theresa]

Mary Ellen, I will take a stab at your question, although I am by no means an expert.

First, archaeology can give us insight into both practices and thoughts of prehistoric people - although in both cases it is always a matter of "educated interpretation" (or guess . . .) and this is especially true as to thoughts/emotions. There is a big danger of the interpreter interpolating his/her own thoughts and emotions onto the situation. But, by way of examples:

* prehistoric peoples frequently placed flowers and ochre (red or yellow pigmented earth), as well as ornaments and useful objects in graves - evidence of philosophical pondering about the afterlife? And why bury the dead in the first place?

* prehistoric peoples made and wore jewelry and other ornaments - ornamentation is a philosophy of sorts in its own right

* prehistoric peoples made (and evidently played) musical instruments - music is also a form of philosophy (I use that term in the very broadest sense)

* prehistoric peoples studied the stars and had an excellent understanding of astronomy, as evidenced by Stonehenge and numerous other prehistoric edifices - they tied these observations into burial and other practices, so it was not simply a utilitarian practice

I am not as eager as Candy to make a direct analogy between present-day hunter/gatherers and prehistoric peoples. I think that conflates function and practice (how food is obtained) with persons. As Mary Ellen rightly points out, no one has lived an untouched primordial life these days - the Tasaday were a hoax, after all. There were reports in the last year or so of an "untouched" group in the Amazon area. I have not heard further, but I kinda doubt they have had no contact whatsoever, "isolated group" might be more accurate. And even a truly uncontacted group would still be present day and not prehistoric.

Candy, I'm still pondering your statement that you are a hunter/gatherer. I'm pretty darn sure you buy your food from a grocery store, so I don't see how you could be a hunter/gatherer, since that term refers to a means of obtaining food. It seems the equivalent of me stating that I am a prima ballerina - saying doesn't make it so!

Theresa

[Mary Ellen]

My thanks as well, Theresa. I was particularly struck by the evidence of items left in a grave. Of course, the reasons for that are unknowable, but it certainly points to some thinking about an existence after death, or at least the desire to give a kind of tribute to the deceased. (Or maybe they thought that you CAN take it with you! Sorry; just couldn't resist!)

Now, unless someone else comes up with something stronger, I will assert that we have no proof at all that prehistoric peoples were "as wise as Emerson' (by what measure of wisdom, I suppose is the question) and pondered the same questions as Emerson did. (Michael, I'll admit to not having read the book to which you cite. But I gather from your post that it did not include any such "proof" either.) There's not much proof that most people today, myself included, do as much and the same kind of thinking as Emerson either, of course!

Mary Ellen

[Andy]

We're probably using a fairly modern definition of philosophizing. It's hard to believe any people existed who didn't have some form of ritual or spirituality. It may not have resembled ours in any way. I suppose several thousand years ago, people did not have pointy headed people writing incomprehensible books in ivory towers.

To me, to say a person doesn't have the capacity to philosophize is basically a way of dehumanizing the person. Making meaning is one of the functions of our species that makes us human. It seems to me that once our humans had language, part of having language was related to meaning making. I mean, what else is there to talk about really? Even if you are discussing the plan for the next day's hunt, you might consider that a form of spirituality, or you might be talking about where the berries were last year, there again, you're making meaning out of your experience, maybe you develop a way of recording where the berries are, maybe you use stories as mnemonic devices as a way to remember. Yes Theresa, good point about death. Does anybody really think that people with language saw somebody die and didn't have some sort of explanation for what death was? The same goes for birth. If you are a group of people with language, you are going to develop some explanation of birth. (I've never given birth, but I hear it's a rather powerful experience.) And reproductive cycles, and changes in the human life cycle. And changes in season. And changes from night to day etc. I'm no expert on the history of language, but it seems that if language developed as a product of evolution, it was because language gave people who could speak some sort of survival advantage. The advantage must have been the ability to make some guesses about what was happening around them. Those guesses would be meaning and that meaning would be philosophy.

[[deleted user]]

It seems to me that, once the notions of evolution and change enter the discussion, it wouldn't be a bad idea to have some idea of the time scale we are talking about for the framework in which we are asserting that all humans are the same. How far back are we "the same?" And, once again, in what sense "the same?" Are we all the "same" as the immediate evolutionary predecessor to the earliest pre-hominid, for example? Sorry if it sounds like nit-picking, but my original comment was that "same" is a word being used in a very fluid sense. If you wish me to accept that any utterance or vocalization is "language," and therefore we all "philosophize" (note the very egalitarian and inclusive "we"), then I can go along with the discussion for the sake of being pleasant, but I think it runs the risk of having not much content.

[Andy]

I agree Russ, we probably are working with a sliding scale as far as the timeline is concerned. I guess I took it way back to the beginning of language. Though, to be fair, the point I'm trying to make--language is philosophy--necessitates my going back that far. And that point does speak to language use from that time forward. I have no idea how many years ago language developed.

You've mentioned the issue with "the same" before. I'm not sure if I used the word "same" but I suppose I was getting there. I do think there are similarities in how language is used from today to those very early times. I did some training in conversation skills once--researchers suggest when people talk, they generally talk about one of three things: Themselves, the person they are talking to, or their shared circumstance. I don't think much has changed about what we talk about. The circumstances themselves have changed greatly, but the fact that we talk about our circumstances probably remains "the same".

I hope that clears up how I was using "the same". Like I said, I believe as long as people have language, they have done philosophy, because there just isn't that much else to talk about.

I suppose it depends on how we are defining philosophy. Surprise surprise, I have a wide definition of philosophy :) I don't believe people have to do what Emerson was doing to be considered philosophers. I will stick with my idea that story is philosophy, so nearly everybody is a philosopher and people, as long as there has been language, have always been doing philosophy.

[Candy]

One thing that has struck me as humorous is that we are rarely ever to agree on stature in contemporary storytelling...how will we be able to agree on stature comparing a different age or economy of people compared to us today?

We won't be likely to find anyone who we feel is of stature to Emerson...nevermind imagine someone who lives in an ancient time to compare the stature of their philsoophy or storytelling.

In this way I totally agree with Andy that (paraphrase) literature or storytelling Andy says "I will stick with my idea that story is philosophy". I agree wholeheartedly. This is my evidence that I present. The book Story As Sharp As A Knife is a collection of Haida classical myths. The stories are from a pacific northwest oral tradition. Many of the stories are as complex and entertaining as Homer or Grimms' fairytales...in my opinion. I would love to hear Russ's or Andy's reaction to these stories. In this way we might be better equiped to discuss the comparisons between a different ancient cultures storytelling and contemporary.

Of course...our so-called contemporary stories...are built upon ancient oral traditions as well...or at least according to some people...

http://us.penguingroup.com/static/htm...

[[deleted user]]

Well, Andy, it's not my field anyway, so I won't persist, but it seems to me there are more questions than answers, and at least some some differences, whether or not there are similarities.

It reminds me of a puzzle I saw sometime ago, where one had to identify the pieces that were the same, in among an assortment of pieces of various shapes and colors. Try as I might I could not find even two that were the same.

The solution was that, in fact that was correct; but that nevertheless all pieces were the same, in that each piece had the same property of being different from every other piece. I don't know whether that is sophistry or philosophy, but I think it is indicative of the flexibility, and ambiguity, which our verbal facility with language permits us.

Having offered that, I think I have run out of questions, without having even reached the point of yet contributing anything.

And now back to listening.
Cheers!

[[deleted user]]

Russ2 said: The solution was that, in fact that was correct; but that nevertheless all pieces were the same, in that each piece had the same property of being different from every other piece.

:)
That sounds like an old expression my mother used all the time....
"It's the same difference."
At least now I have a good definition of that! :)

[[deleted user]]

But first, I see a cross-post.

Candy, and Andy, suppose I say that I think the Gilgamesh Epic is a wonderful piece of existentialist literature, dating from the very beginning of the written word 5000 years ago or so, and antedating even the oldest sections of the Bible by about 1000 years. And suppose I further agree that they both revolve about elemental life and moral understanding, with the authors of the Bible in fact (I assert) showing an evolution of such understanding and behavior from its older to its newer sections.

Where does that leave us?

Questions, questions. All I have are questions. :)

[Candy]

Well, Russ, I have the same questions! Because I feel I have some clues...some places to look regarding the questions...is not to ay my "answers" or responses...or recommendations make me "correct".

They make me a person who is seeking out to find resources that aid in asking questions ha ha!

And my feelings earlier were that I saw you as a person who was open-minded to discussing these questions and resources!

I feel...we need to go beyond the resources we were taught in school, or by the social constructs of our mutual cultures or differing cultures. Does that mean I am to be assumed I am negating past approaches? no...but they are not as varied as including what we have added to the resources in last twenty years or so.

Should we quit with Levi-Strauss or Foucault? No...go and read Robert Bringhurst's translations of Classical Haida Myths in A Story Sharp A A Knife.

The linguist and ethnographer John Swanton took dictation from the last great Haida-speaking storytellers, poets and historians in 1900–1901. Together they consciously created a great treasury of Haida oral literature in written form. In this first volume of his trilogy, Bringhurst brings these works to life in the English language and sets them in a context just as rich as the stories themselves one that reaches out to dozens of Native American oral literatures, and to mythtelling traditions around the world. This is the first volume in the triology of Masterworks of the Classical Haida Mythtellers. This magnificent trilogy represents a decade of work from Robert Bringhurst, one of North America's most respected poets, linguists and cultural historians.

I understand if one doesn't want to go and buy yet another book...

but we could find out if I am at all on to something by at least looking at this reference...

Here you can find some of the stuff online:


http://books.google.com/books?id=H1Am...

Guess what?

It might be possible...that all the wise philosophy we admire and raise on a stature pedastal...may have been actually part of an oral tradition of "pre-historic" peoples!!!!

It's possible we have had these wisdoms circling for millenia...

No one has to agree with me that A Story Sharp As A Knife is "correct" but surely taking a few minutes, or half an hour, to check out where I cite my sources is more thoughtful than dismissing my argument without a second thought or effort? Hmmm?

[Andy]

Candy, your earlier post made me reflect on my own experiences hunting and fishing. There is something very strong in our culture that resists the notion that we are indeed hunting and gathering. Some sort of fear of wildness? Fear of being uncivilized? I think culturally it is easy to find security in "civilization" but sometimes don't you ever get freaked out when people bare their teeth in a smile or make weird laughing sounds. In an earlier post, somebody disparaged grunts and early utterances. Some days I feel like we're still making some elemental grunts and calling it language. And let's not even get started on humping... :)

[[deleted user]]

Candy, You are imbued with the wonders of Haida story-telling. There are other books in western literature that plumb the sources of western myths, with pretty much the same insights to be gleaned, I suspect.
The famous The Hero With a Thousand Faces by Joseph Campbell perhaps?

Must I read the Haida stories? Why?

[Candy]

Ha Andy! Let me think on that for a bit...interesting...

No Russ, forget it. If you've read any books on the oral traditions and especially of the variety of philosophy and you have not felt it was on par with European or contemporary or Emerson...I wish you had just given me some examples and said so.

I must have mistakenly thought you said you hadn't had any reading of such titles.

If you feel that Joseph Campbell hadn't been able to convince you of the value and wisdom to be found in ancient oral traditions on a similar level of stature to modern philosophers...well...then I surely won't be able to add to Campbell.

:)

Neither will the Haida classical myths.

I am sorry to hear that Campbell did not convince you that the stature of ancient oral traditions and stories was on a par to someone like Emerson.

[[deleted user]]

Candy, I didn't say I thought much, or little, of ancient people, Haida or otherwise. I used a word (which I'll not repeat) that was apparently insensitive in the ears of modern anthropoligists, as well as personally offensive to you, and you supposed I was not very well educated 20-40 years ago regarding current anthropological thinking about aboriginal peoples. In fact I have not read Campbell. Have you read the Gilgamesh Epic? I recommend it. In addition to reading the classics of Greek and Roman antiquity of course. And also the Bible as literature while you are at it. Mankind did not get smart just yesterday, Haida or others. There have been insightful people around for quite a while. But I didn't think that was what the discussion was about. I was more reacting to what seemed to be the implied claim that he was born smart at the beginning of time. And the Haida especially. That is what I tend to doubt, even though all people are the same and always have been, yadda, yadda, yadda. I know the egalitarian rote as well as anyone.

As for "ancient oral traditions" which you allude to, I think there is probably ancient, and then there is ancient, which is why I suggested it might be useful to have a timeline for just how many eons we are talking about with our handwaving.

[Michael]

Gail wrote: "How can we know what they pondered?..."

Gail, if our ancestors hadn't pondered, how could human society be where it is now?