Trump's Payroll Tax Cut Will Kill Social Security by 2023

[SupahEwok]

As for your insistence on the total veracity of oral tradition: Have you ever played Telephone? That's how oral tradition works, with the added problem that the message will not only be distorted by mishearing and misremembering, it will be distorted because as time goes on and you learn other things you will mix new and old information up. Unless you're historians are not really human but some rare breed of half-human/half-computer they will forget, misremember and mix up stories. All it takes is for one "Historian" somewhere to want to paint their tribe in a better light, or be influenced by something they read a decade ago about the depravity of the Conquistadors and suddenly it is all wrong, no better then any other historical fiction. And you will never know, because you can never go back to read what the historians before them knew. That you somehow think these, in scientific terms, utterly unreliable anecdotes are more legit then archaeological findings, written first hand accounts and the composite knowledge of those two is utterly perplexing.

I don't think you have a very good understanding of how oral history works if you think it's all a game of Telephone.

Firstly, oral history is structured. Poetry began as oral histories and storytelling; meter, rhyme, alliteration, all were mnemonic tools to aid memorization. Take modern pop songs. Part of what makes them so memorable and easy to digest are couplet rhymes and a simple ABABCA stanza structure. If you're rendition of a song is wrong, you know it, and so does everybody listening to it. Even substitions are difficult: for instance, at the end of a couplet, try substituting "bad" for "evil". Neither the rhyme nor rhythm fits. Doesn't work.

Next, there are a few exceptional/strange people able to remember and calculate things like computers. It is true that they're too few for a culture to rely on having each generation. But it doesn't take a computer to learn oral history. You have people, chosen in youth, with strong affinities for stories and excellent memories. Their apprenticeship is a full time job, for years and years. Hundreds upon hundreds of repititions, of each story, reinforced with beatings and social pressure on mistakes. It's not "a game of Telephone."

Next, oral histories are vague, yet evocative. You don't have "on the twenty-second day of the third month of the one thousandth year, 6,242 of our tribe did battle with a neighboring tribe, with 80 deaths, 754 cripplings, and 1285 wounded. We won 238 prisoners and 431 pounds of leathers." Of course that would get messed up over generations, that's not easy for human minds to remember. What human minds are much better at remembering are evocative details; something along the lines of "Many moons ago, when the flowers were blooming after winter's frost, our people met theirs in battle; through our heroism and the blessings of our ancestors, our losses were few. We put our enemy to flight, winning the coverings that would warm us through the next frost." Or, you know, whatever. It's vague, but it tells the story of the event as well as it needs to; hard numbers in history really are only particularly useful for data analytics. Relative data (this story happened before that one, it occurred somewhere thataways, it happened for this reason) is all that most people need out of history.

Lastly, an example. Historians are only now starting to recognize some of the amazing things that preserved oral histories were capable of. I've been looking into the Dreaming of Aboriginal Australians. Not only is it a collective set of myths and history for a continent, it is the most amazing geographic information system I have ever rncountered. There are songs/stories called songlines: part mythic, perhaps partly historic, but through reciting them Aboriginals were able to guide themselves along landmarks across routes that went through the whole continent. The big kicker: Aboriginals from one end of the continent seem to have been able to navigate through territory they had never encountered through a relevant songline, even if the area was one that nobody from their tribe had ventured to for hundreds of years, and even if the local Aboriginals spoke a wholely different language than the traveling ones. This oral geographic system was passed down for tens of thousands of years SUCCESSFULLY, and modern Aboriginals who have been successfully trained in their people's songlines can still navigate across Australia with them... provided the key landmarks have not been destroyed in colonial expansion.

Like, this is a phenomenon that has been observed and documented. As a student of geography, it ranks as one of the most incredible things I've ever heard. It got me to look into the veracity of oral histories. I'm giving L'il's, and by extension other Native Americans, the benefit of the doubt. Humans are amazingly adaptable creatures, and that another culture went along another route of innovation does not discount their achievement. Quite possibly, their past is better documented in their oral histories than ours is, piecing together what we can from shattered tablets in Mesopotamia.

 

[lil devils x]

I don't think you have a very good understanding of how oral history works if you think it's all a game of Telephone.

Firstly, oral history is structured. Poetry began as oral histories and storytelling; meter, rhyme, alliteration, all were mnemonic tools to aid memorization. Take modern pop songs. Part of what makes them so memorable and easy to digest are couplet rhymes and a simple ABABCA stanza structure. If you're rendition of a song is wrong, you know it, and so does everybody listening to it. Even substitions are difficult: for instance, at the end of a couplet, try substituting "bad" for "evil". Neither the rhyme nor rhythm fits. Doesn't work.

Next, there are a few exceptional/strange people able to remember and calculate things like computers. It is true that they're too few for a culture to rely on having each generation. But it doesn't take a computer to learn oral history. You have people, chosen in youth, with strong affinities for stories and excellent memories. Their apprenticeship is a full time job, for years and years. Hundreds upon hundreds of repititions, of each story, reinforced with beatings and social pressure on mistakes. It's not "a game of Telephone."

Next, oral histories are vague, yet evocative. You don't have "on the twenty-second day of the third month of the one thousandth year, 6,242 of our tribe did battle with a neighboring tribe, with 80 deaths, 754 cripplings, and 1285 wounded. We won 238 prisoners and 431 pounds of leathers." Of course that would get messed up over generations, that's not easy for human minds to remember. What human minds are much better at remembering are evocative details; something along the lines of "Many moons ago, when the flowers were blooming after winter's frost, our people met theirs in battle; through our heroism and the blessings of our ancestors, our losses were few. We put our enemy to flight, winning the coverings that would warm us through the next frost." Or, you know, whatever. It's vague, but it tells the story of the event as well as it needs to; hard numbers in history really are only particularly useful for data analytics. Relative data (this story happened before that one, it occurred somewhere thataways, it happened for this reason) is all that most people need out of history.

Lastly, an example. Historians are only now starting to recognize some of the amazing things that preserved oral histories were capable of. I've been looking into the Dreaming of Aboriginal Australians. Not only is it a collective set of myths and history for a continent, it is the most amazing geographic information system I have ever rncountered. There are songs/stories called songlines: part mythic, perhaps partly historic, but through reciting them Aboriginals were able to guide themselves along landmarks across routes that went through the whole continent. The big kicker: Aboriginals from one end of the continent seem to have been able to navigate through territory they had never encountered through a relevant songline, even if the area was one that nobody from their tribe had ventured to for hundreds of years, and even if the local Aboriginals spoke a wholely different language than the traveling ones. This oral geographic system was passed down for tens of thousands of years SUCCESSFULLY, and modern Aboriginals who have been successfully trained in their people's songlines can still navigate across Australia with them... provided the key landmarks have not been destroyed in colonial expansion.

Like, this is a phenomenon that has been observed and documented. As a student of geography, it ranks as one of the most incredible things I've ever heard. It got me to look into the veracity of oral histories. I'm giving L'il's, and by extension other Native Americans, the benefit of the doubt. Humans are amazingly adaptable creatures, and that another culture went along another route of innovation does not discount their achievement. Quite possibly, their past is better documented in their oral histories than ours is, piecing together what we can from shattered tablets in Mesopotamia.

What is really interesting about that, from my understanding, there were a lot of similarities in some of the tribes oral histories in Australia, Africa and the Americas about the truly ancient events and beliefs. From our oral history they talk about the time when all mankind lived together before the "great migrations of the earth" that sent the people over the Bering strait and into all the lands to populate the earth and how they view the earth itself. It is interesting when you see the similarities in some of these histories matching up after this much time has passed.

 

[Specter Von Baren]

What is really interesting about that, from my understanding, there were a lot of similarities in some of the tribes oral histories in Australia, Africa and the Americas about the truly ancient events and beliefs. From our oral history they talk about the time when all mankind lived together before the "great migrations of the earth" that sent the people over the Bering strait and into all the lands to populate the earth and how they view the earth itself. It is interesting when you see the similarities in some of these histories matching up after this much time has passed.

Add onto this all the stories everyone has about a great flood too.

 

[Ravinoff]

What is really interesting about that, from my understanding, there were a lot of similarities in some of the tribes oral histories in Australia, Africa and the Americas about the truly ancient events and beliefs. From our oral history they talk about the time when all mankind lived together before the "great migrations of the earth" that sent the people over the Bering strait and into all the lands to populate the earth and how they view the earth itself. It is interesting when you see the similarities in some of these histories matching up after this much time has passed.

The Hopi creation story is incredibly interesting if you believe the Younger Dryas impact hypothesis (and I might be remembering wrong, but I think you might be familiar with this already), because it more or less perfectly aligns with what some researchers are finding/think happened. In short it describes three prior worlds or ages destroyed in cataclysms of fire, ice and flooding, in that exact order. Which is precisely what we're starting to think happened around 12,000 years ago. Fire is the initial cometary impact igniting everything for hundreds of miles around. The soot and dust thrown up by that triggers an intense global cooling event that briefly reverses the warming trend that was going on prior to the comet. Then once the impact winter ended, the melting ice sheets would produce huge closed reservoirs like Lake Missoula, and when the ice dams keeping those shut break..."biblical" is an understatement for the resulting floods.

 

[lil devils x]

The Hopi creation story is incredibly interesting if you believe the Younger Dryas impact hypothesis (and I might be remembering wrong, but I think you might be familiar with this already), because it more or less perfectly aligns with what some researchers are finding/think happened. In short it describes three prior worlds or ages destroyed in cataclysms of fire, ice and flooding, in that exact order. Which is precisely what we're starting to think happened around 12,000 years ago. Fire is the initial cometary impact igniting everything for hundreds of miles around. The soot and dust thrown up by that triggers an intense global cooling event that briefly reverses the warming trend that was going on prior to the comet. Then once the impact winter ended, the melting ice sheets would produce huge closed reservoirs like Lake Missoula, and when the ice dams keeping those shut break..."biblical" is an understatement for the resulting floods.

Yea Hopi actually have a few global catastrophic events that our ancestors say mankind experienced in our history that almost wiped us out. I am familiar with the history of the destruction of the previous worlds ( ages, so people understand) , and it is interesting when we find evidence of this happening. I had previously discussed them on the old escapist and that then eventually led to an argument with another member about whether the Hopi calling our story of evolution from " tiny animals moving around" to "animals that walked on all fours that wouldn't stop fighting one another" to evolving to humans actually should be allowed to be called " evolution" or not.. LMAO Hopi have always believed we evolved from "lower states of animals" into the modern humans we are today long before Darwin was a thing and some found that entire idea offensive or something. so I haven't really brought it up since. LOL

 

[Thaluikhain]

Next, there are a few exceptional/strange people able to remember and calculate things like computers. It is true that they're too few for a culture to rely on having each generation. But it doesn't take a computer to learn oral history. You have people, chosen in youth, with strong affinities for stories and excellent memories. Their apprenticeship is a full time job, for years and years. Hundreds upon hundreds of repititions, of each story, reinforced with beatings and social pressure on mistakes. It's not "a game of Telephone."

Telephone is an exaggeration, certainly, but you still get similar distortions of the original message, albeit over generations rather than individuals.

When you are talking about centuries or millennia, you also get sizeable changes in the languages people are using to recite oral traditions. You flat out cannot keep the stories the same when the language you are using for them changes.

Currently, there is an annoying, though understandable tendency to greatly exaggerate elements of indigenous culture in the belief if they reach a certain level of coolness people will stop being racist, which is rather missing the point. We should be able to respect people's cultures and traditions without having to distort them for our benefit.

 

[lil devils x]

Telephone is an exaggeration, certainly, but you still get similar distortions of the original message, albeit over generations rather than individuals.

When you are talking about centuries or millennia, you also get sizeable changes in the languages people are using to recite oral traditions. You flat out cannot keep the stories the same when the language you are using for them changes.

Currently, there is an annoying, though understandable tendency to greatly exaggerate elements of indigenous culture in the belief if they reach a certain level of coolness people will stop being racist, which is rather missing the point. We should be able to respect people's cultures and traditions without having to distort them for our benefit.

There is no level of coolness to any culture that affects racism. I have not seen this trend that you are talking about but I have heard that there were people in Australian complaining that the aboriginals were not behaving aboriginal enough or something stupid, like they get to tell other cultures how to behave properly. LOL

Languages change slowly over time, but this is done very carefully. The Historians are able to keep accurate histories because they are not allowed to make adjustments to the stories on their own, this is something the elders in the tribe and everyone would notice immediately. The histories are constantly taught to all generations so the older generations are present when it is taught to every generation and if there is any change it is addressed quite vocally and corrected, not continued. Historians are not free to just change these things on their own. Out of anything the entire tribe is involved in, this is taken the most seriously.

 

[Thaluikhain]

There is no level of coolness to any culture that affects racism.

Certainly, but we get arguments like "We shouldn't discriminate against Australian Aborigines, they are the oldest living culture, they've been in Australia for 50,000/60,000/100,000 years, they built stone circles before stone henge". The first 6 words are definitely true, but they've got nothing to do with anything after that, the truth of which, is a little unsure.

So then you get a response that "No, Australian Aborigines have only been here for 30,000 years" or something, with the implication that that also disproves the bit about racism being wrong. Leading to some bizarre intellectual tug of war, one side trying to pull the numbers up, the other down. One side might be well meaning, but both are playing fast and loose with the facts. And it's not going to help with racism if the "right" side wins anyway.

I have heard that there were people in Australian complaining that the aboriginals were not behaving aboriginal enough or something stupid, like they get to tell other cultures how to behave properly. LOL

There's that. Various people will fight for Aboriginal groups to own their land, but with the unstated expectation that they will use it in traditional ways, which is not always the case, and can end in arguments. Sometimes those people are themselves Aboriginal Australians from somewhere else in the country.

Then you've got problems with Aboriginal artworks being rather popular, but only certain kinds (dot paintings, for example). So you get the odd Aboriginal artist doing art from some other Aboriginal group, which also ends in arguments.

 

[SupahEwok]

When you are talking about centuries or millennia, you also get sizeable changes in the languages people are using to recite oral traditions. You flat out cannot keep the stories the same when the language you are using for them changes.

Not... really? It's not as if a name going from Zagreb to Zageb to Saheb to Sihab changes anything material to the story if you're referring to the same person or phenomenon the whole time... if your songline is able to survive thousands of years of linguistic evolution to still be usable for navigation, I think that kinda beats that particular test.

 

[deleted20220709]

DELETED

 

[Satinavian]

Another typical problem is misidentification.

Maybe you had some war against dome other group named X in the past and have stories about that. But for the last couple of generations you never had contact with the X anymore. Maybe they are gone, maybe just living somewhere else. But now you have some other new nasty neighbors. Are those maybe the same people your stories tell you about? Who knows. But if they are similar enough there is a good chance you start treating them as the same people. And in another couple of generations it will be told as if they are certainly the same people.

I mean, we know pretty well, how reliable oral tradition is. Because we have millenia of people with oral traditions living near people with written records or of cultures that had contact with writing or some own writing system but negligible literacy.
So we have many cases of written records of events and oral stories about those events and some good idea about how those stories change with time.

One of the most common problems is misidentification of persons (esp. people with the same name or the same title), peoples or places. Often very different events morph into the same thing. Another problem is that oral tradition is not good at handling contradictions. Ususally it comes to what the storytellers believe more, sometimes improvised explainations of contradiction get added.
Then there is the problem that groups of people, tribes, clans, whatever change in their composition. And that means that oral traditions merge. Which tends to distort the stories a lot because the result has to make sense.

 

[lil devils x]

SNIP

We actually had some of the issues you describe in people in the same culture being angry what someone else uses their land for, but I see that as having a basis for actually doing so rather than just people thinking they know "what someone else should be better than they do". For example, in the US, we had a number of issues as a direct result of forced assimilation. For a long time, the we have the long well documented history that US government literally kidnapped native american children and then would send them back to the reservation after they have essentially brainwashed them to be against their own culture.People thought this stopped but even in my childhood, as I mentioned before, they forced us into religious abuse schools where they tied me to a chair and made me read the bible aloud while they turned the pages and " beat" the devil out of us telling us that our tribes culture was blasphemy and evil and those who support it are spreading evil. This is what I went though and that was mild compared to what others went through at my same school. Hundreds were raped and abused in ways that their lives were forever ruined and they will never recover. People do not understand that sometimes, the people coming back to the reservation are no longer the same culture as those on the reservation due to essentially enhanced brainwashing techniques, rather than actually even still having the ability to form their own opinions anymore. Forced assimilation is seriously that messed up like they were literally making a cult. Some of the children who were raped came back and raped other children and thought that was " normal" some of the children who suffered the extreme torture started torturing people the way they were tortured. Many more just despised their own culture and saw it as evil as they were forced to do so for so many years and thought they needed to " save" others for Jesus just like the people who hurt us when we were kids.

None of the people who came back were given mental health services or counseling to deal with their trauma, they just stayed traumatized forever. Then these same people came back with the backing of the US government granting them authority over properties that were not their own with premade deals that they were not even given permission by the tribe itself to make. They were authorizing the use to uranium , coal and oil companies to do so on lands that they were not actually authorized by the tribe itself. They poisoned the land, water and air and many in the tribe became ill or developed birth defects or died due to this happening. They still have not cleaned up their mess and yet Trump is now trying to do it all over again after finally getting congress to previously make it stop.

Under our tribal laws and understanding of the earth, one person does not own the land and cannot choose to harm everyone else with it. That is not their permission to give. We do not actually own bits and pieces of the earth, instead we can only be given permission to use it. To be of a " tribe" is not a " blood right" or birthright, it is actually an agreement to a lifestyle and system of beliefs, if you do not share those beliefs you are free to leave the tribe and live elsewhere, but if you expect to live among the tribe, you are expected to respect all other members of the tribe and respect the earth and all that dwell upon it. That means if you wish to do something that could cause harm to the earth or the people living alongside you, this is not a decision you can make on your own. Instead, you make this decision along with the others that will be affected by your actions meaning you have to have the tribes support to do so. You meet with the members of the tribe and everyone voices their opinion. If it is decided that what you do is not harmful to those around you and the earth, they you may proceed. If it is decided, you may not proceed. Instead, if you are insistent on doing such a thing, you would have to leave the tribe and go on your own and do it elsewhere because they want to share no part in it. This is how the land on the reservation is viewed. We are free to leave, we do not have to live there. If we wish to do so, that means respecting the people there and the only pieces of this earth they have left to live on and follow what the tribe itself decided rather than doing whatever you want. In this way, I can understand that other aboriginal may have rights to voice opposition to what another aboriginal does on the aboriginal lands. I do not see that as the same risks and reasons as those from the outside doing so though.

After what the aboriginal and indigenous people of this earth have already experienced, they have learned they have to voice their concerns because if they do not horrific catastrophes like that that happened in the Americas and elsewhere will happen again again until there are no aboriginal or indigenous people even left in this world. I disagree with forcing their children to stay there and live as they do against their will. However, if those children wish to leave and live another lifestyle elsewhere that is their prerogative to do so, if they comeback however, they can expect to follow the lifestyle of that culture in their only lands left. It is sort of like when you live with your parents. When living under my roof, you live by my rules. When living under my parents roof, I follow theirs. Tribal land = tribal rules. It isn't like people can;t just leave. My family did. I wouldn't want to go back there and change everyone else though or expect them to change their traditions and rules for me either. I also understand why it is that way, because without it we have the people and land there destroyed and uninhabitable by not being respectful to the people, soil, air, and water the people there need to survive.

 

[lil devils x]

Another typical problem is misidentification.

Maybe you had some war against dome other group named X in the past and have stories about that. But for the last couple of generations you never had contact with the X anymore. Maybe they are gone, maybe just living somewhere else. But now you have some other new nasty neighbors. Are those maybe the same people your stories tell you about? Who knows. But if they are similar enough there is a good chance you start treating them as the same people. And in another couple of generations it will be told as if they are certainly the same people.

I mean, we know pretty well, how reliable oral tradition is. Because we have millenia of people with oral traditions living near people with written records or of cultures that had contact with writing or some own writing system but negligible literacy.
So we have many cases of written records of events and oral stories about those events and some good idea about how those stories change with time.

One of the most common problems is misidentification of persons (esp. people with the same name or the same title), peoples or places. Often very different events morph into the same thing. Another problem is that oral tradition is not good at handling contradictions. Ususally it comes to what the storytellers believe more, sometimes improvised explainations of contradiction get added.
Then there is the problem that groups of people, tribes, clans, whatever change in their composition. And that means that oral traditions merge. Which tends to distort the stories a lot because the result has to make sense.

The thing is though in these long kept oral histories, the details like that are far less significant and usually are not kept in the long history anyways. Individuals names are less important. It is about major events that happened over a long period of time instead. Names of tribes are of importance, but even more so than that is they usually also tie in the location of those tribes and people which is of greater significance. Like Ewok said above, the geographical and estimated time period when you correlate with the events gives our researchers now the information that is needed to figure out who they were actually talking about. It is like when our historian would tell us stories, he would use props as well sometimes, we would draw maps in the sand and we knew exactly where and what he was talking about. He would describe the region with such accuracy you would be able to go there and excavate the bones if you needed to and find out exactly what was there. The name was not the important detail. What happened , the time period and where it occurred are the important details.

When they talked about the time from before people set off for the "great migrations of humankind on this earth" the people lived as one. Our stories from this "prehistoric time" told us that all of the people of this earth are of one family, we are all related. That there were these " brothers" that set off in different directions to populate the earth with their families, their clan , group of people who were to populate different regions. That each group had their own beliefs and own " instructions" and it was not our place to decide what was best for them or how they should live and that all people's beliefs and lifestyles should be respected and that was what was expected and required of us for humankind to live on this world in peace and to prosper. The important details we were taught about mankind even before the Spaniards arrived and started slaughtering people, was that there were many different groups of people living on earth far from us on other continents with different lifestyles and beliefs and that was a taught as good thing. We knew about the other lands and people before we ourselves interacted with them. When they arrived, it was more of " wow we finally get to meet them" instead of Who are these strange aliens coming to OUR lands?! Like some other cultures tend to do.

If all cultures had at least retained that small amount in their oral traditions, it would have made interacting with others go a hell of a lot smoother than they way they acted instead. Their entire point of view of other people would be different entirely. Retaining even that much of our ancient history gave the people an more open minded viewpoint and outlook at the people in this world than anything else. It is the little bits and pieces that add up that make up such a huge difference in the whole picture over time though. the small details about names and exact dates matter so much less in the long run. Retaining this type of information allowed for a much more open minded and "modern" view of the world and our history than could have otherwise be obtained during the same time periods without it.

 

[Satinavian]

If all cultures had at least retained that small amount in their oral traditions, it would have made interacting with others go a hell of a lot smoother than they way they acted instead.

Pretty much all cultures have stories about where the humans come from because that needs explaining. Pretty much all cultures have stories about how other humans split from them because humans of other groups need explaining as well and if those did not split from the own group in the past there would be a need of another origin story of humans.

But that does not mean in the slightest that those stories are actually thousands of years old or describe actual events in the past other than by coincidence. Neither does it mean that those stories are actually the same stories just told in unbroken tradition in different groups.

That does not make those stories worth less. They are still culturally valuable. And they certainly might comtain important lectures or wisdoms. But they are not useful as historical records or for getting an unbiased idea about how our ancestors lived.

 

[lil devils x]

Pretty much all cultures have stories about where the humans come from because that needs explaining. Pretty much all cultures have stories about how other humans split from them because humans of other groups need explaining as well and if those did not split from the own group in the past there would be a need of another origin story of humans.
But that does not mean in the slightest that those stories are actually thousands of years old or describe actual events in the past other than by coincidence. Neither does it mean that those stories are actually the same stories just told in unbroken tradition in different groups.
That does not make those stories worth less. They are still culturally valuable. And they certainly might comtain important lectures or wisdoms. But they are not useful as historical records or for getting an unbiased idea about how our ancestors lived.

That isn't what I was told by my friends when I moved here. They pretty much told me they were taught the bible story, that is it. nothing else. In fact, they were instead taught that they were supposed to view all other cultures as against god and need to be "saved" Instead of accepting other cultures, they were taught that it was their duty to " preach to them and bring them to Jesus." they were taught to change other cultures rather than seeing it as being okay for them to be how they are. My clan, as I stated earlier, came from the Mayans, and we had this shared ancient history and respect for other cultures. They were taught the same things I was taught. but I also guess when the story is kept simple, it is easy to retain over long periods.

Look at our modern history, we have lost so much history over the years already due to damaged books, book recycling programs, library fires, wars, rotten film, and now damaged disks and hard drives.. lawsuits trying to erase the wayback machine. Even though we document as much as we can, so much more is also lost. In the end, it is always up to people to either remember it on their own, try to recreate the original before it is completely destroyed, try to rewrite it down from the few people alive who remember it and archive the story that way instead.. The reality is that we still struggle, even now to keep our history as well. That is why all our scifi future apocalyptic movies always have the history record all screwed up and lost. It actually happens so easily if we let our guard down at all. It reminds me, I had all these photos from my childhood from the reservation of elders and people who have died since then on this floppy disc" but when I finally found it in a bottom of a box, the disc was unreadable. Those are now just " gone" and will never be returned. No one in my family even knows if there were any other photographs of those elders in existence at all so who knows. It makes me wonder if we really have enough people keeping the records to be able to not forget them eventually. Some of these people who are forgotten have done great things and were important. I guess the only ones we get to learn about though are the ones who have people who care about those subjects enough to make sure the history is kept for future generations, otherwise everything else just winds up lost eventually.

 

[Satinavian]

That isn't what I was told by my friends when I moved here. They pretty much told me they were taught the bible story, that is it. nothing else. In fact, they were instead taught that they were supposed to view all other cultures as against god and need to be "saved" Instead of accepting other cultures, they were taught that it was their duty to " preach to them and bring them to Jesus." they were taught to change other cultures rather than seeing it as being okay for them to be how they are. My clan, as I stated earlier, came from the Mayans, and we had this shared ancient history and respect for other cultures. They were taught the same things I was taught. but I also guess when the story is kept simple, it is easy to retain over long periods.

Oh, bunch of American Christians who don't really know any other culture, are not interested in any other culture because those are deemed inferior anyway and who also believe to be justified by god. Somehow i am not really surprised. Not that it anything to do wih being American or Christian or both but this kind of ignorance seems to be common enough in that group that it is nowadays nearly a clichee.

Even early medieval missionaries tried to understand "heathen" cultures and assumed that there were lots of truths in those stories.


As for history-keeping, yes, lots of stuff gets lost. But there was never a time when people knew more about their past. More and more stuff gets documented and archieved and even with losses and degradation the amount of knowledge about our past gets more each year. The average time for things to be completely forgotten gets longer as well.