Re: Compact histories - new try -- Talking Circle Alternative

[ Show ]

Support VoyForums

[ Shrink ]

VoyForums Announcement: Programming and providing support for this service has been a labor of love since 1997. We are one of the few services online who values our users' privacy, and have never sold your information. We have even fought hard to defend your privacy in legal cases; however, we've done it with almost no financial support -- paying out of pocket to continue providing the service. Due to the issues imposed on us by advertisers, we also stopped hosting most ads on the forums many years ago. We hope you appreciate our efforts.

Show your support by donating any amount. (Note: We are still technically a for-profit company, so your contribution is not tax-deductible.) PayPal Acct: Feedback:

Donate to VoyForums (PayPal):

[ Login ] [ Contact Forum Admin ] [ Main index ] [ Post a new message ] [ Search | Check update time | Archives: 1, [2], 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, 9, 10 ]

[ Next Thread | Previous Thread | Next Message | Previous Message ]

Date Posted: Wed, 10/ 1/03 5:30am
Author: Ylva
Subject: Re: Compact histories - new try
In reply to: john mohdom 's message, "Re: Compact histories - new try" on Tue, 09/30/03 9:30pm

First of all: Thank you for the input.

>actually, it is a Shawnee introductory site I've
>recommended myself. Shawnee will never all agree on
>our history or interpretation thereof so I don't
>expect all other Shawnee to agree.

Could it be that this (the disagreeing/different interpretations) has to do with oral tradition? Just comparing with part of my own medieval history where things were written down about 200-300 years after they happened. During those years, the stories had been kept alive by re-telling over and over again and stored in minds only. Now critical persons question how much of the content is fact and how much fiction (a little like asking a fisherman how big the fish was he caught and he spreads his arms out t- -h- -a- -t wide and still wishes he'd had telescopic arms :o).

>
>One drawback is it's dated. It doen't include current
>information after Federal recognition and gives too
>much credence to URB. But nothing is perfect.

That's right, nothing (or nobody...) is perfect. One good thing about the dickshovel.com site is that it says so in the introductory pages. It's admitted it may not be perfect, complete or whatever and if pupils, students or teachers in general want to quote anything, they're free to do so, but are also asked to just take it or leave it the way it's published on those sites. Very straight ("...get your minds out of the gutter"). Later, at least as to the compact histories, the person compiling them is open to constructive critic from appropriate persons to improve those historical texts. I think that is an alright attitude; being aware of limits and doing your best.

I haven't read very much yet, found the site while I was looking for a relevant text on Lenape history (which I did read; I also found "Point Pleasant" in the Shawnee text - I looked for it 'cause I wasn't sure if you were kidding me with some sort of sarcastic pun or not way down in the storm thread), so I haven't come across the abbreviation URB; hope you don't mind me asking: What does it stand for?

[ Next Thread | Previous Thread | Next Message | Previous Message ]

Replies:

Re: Compact histories - new try -- john mohdom, Wed, 10/ 1/03 10:58pm