☘Misericordia☘ ⚡ϟ⚡⛈⚡☁ ❇️❤❣'s Reviews > These Truths: A History of the United States

Oh boy I love me some let's learn about Columbus part 109403484088245078429048590!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

"The US came to be the only currently existing state built on ashes of indigenous peoples annihilated on a continent-wide scale genocide." What about Australia?

Tim wrote: ""The US came to be the only currently existing state built on ashes of indigenous peoples annihilated on a continent-wide scale genocide." What about Australia?" Point taken, Still, I don't think in Australia they exactly destroyed, like, 3 civilizations: Mayan, Incan & Aztec. There weren't this many deeveloped civilizations in there. Tribes yes. Which doesn't make it any better. of course, just different.

Another thing is, i don't think in Australia they used forced sterilization programs for the Natives or other horrible stuff... At least, not that i know of.

Misericordia. Any suggestions for s good historical read?

I don't think you can blame the United states for destroying the Maya, the Inca and the Aztec.

The Australian government kidnapped a huge number of First Nations children.

Tim wrote: "I don't think you can blame the United states for destroying the Maya, the Inca and the Aztec.

The Australian government kidnapped a huge number of First Nations children."
I'm not blaming anyone of anything, I was speaking of different things.

Any sources on that? Plus, mind it that Australia is not the topic of this book, so this discussion is sort of pointless.

Deb wrote: "Misericordia. Any suggestions for s good historical read?"

Those are rare gems, one has always to look out for things that are misrepresented. Off the top of my head, I do remember I found these ones informative:
A History of Rome
Medieval Civilization 400-1500
The Birth of Europe
A People's History of the United States
Lies My Teacher Told Me: Everything Your American History Textbook Got Wrong
Plutarch's Lives: Volume I
Plutarch's Lives: Volume II, for example

You asked:
"- What about all the Mayan and Incan and Aztecs? Were they officially worthless? Is it not enough to just destroy them, do we need to forget them, as well? From this one we mostly learn that they all died. Well, we sort of guessed it from the beginning."

Hmmm... The title of the book is These Truths: A History of the United States, and a quick check in Wikipedia (not the best of sources, but it confirmed my previous knowledge of the three cultures/empires) revealed:

The Maya civilization developed within the Mesoamerican cultural area, which covers a region that spreads from northern Mexico southwards into Central America.

The Inca Empire, at its largest, joined Peru, southwest Ecuador, western and south central Bolivia, northwest Argentina, northern Chile and a small part of southwest Colombia.

The Aztecs were a Mesoamerican culture that flourished in central Mexico in the post-classic period from 1300 to 1521.

So, my question to you is:
- What about all the Mayan and Incan and Aztecs? What were you expecting Jill Lepore to write about those three cultures that were not even located within the borders of the U.S.A.?

You wrote: "One won't learn from this 'story' just how the US came to be the only currently existing state built on ashes of indigenous peoples (other than Australian tribal woes) annihilated on a continent-wide scale genocide."

There are actually many countries/territories on the North American continent, not just the U.S.A.

Is it really only the US that "came to be the only currently existing state built on ashes of indigenous peoples annihilated on a continent-wide scale genocide"? Just looking at the list of countries/territories, it appears that a number of countries/territories were built on the "ashes of indigenous peoples."

(Source: Wikipedia)
Anguilla
Antigua and Barbuda
Aruba
The Bahamas
Barbados
Belize
Bermuda
Bonaire
British Virgin Islands
Canada
Cayman Islands
Clipperton Island
Costa Rica
Cuba
Curaçao
Dominica
Dominican Republic
El Salvador
Federal Dependencies of Venezuela
Greenland (Though physiographically a part of the continent of North America, Greenland has been politically and culturally associated with Europe)
Grenada
Guadeloupe
Guatemala
Haiti
Honduras
Jamaica
Martinique
Mexico
Montserrat
Navassa Island
Nicaragua
Nueva Esparta
Panama
Puerto Rico
Saba
San Andrés and Providencia
Saint Barthélemy
Saint Kitts and Nevis
Saint Lucia
Saint Martin
Saint Pierre and Miquelon
Saint Vincent and the Grenadines
Sint Eustatius
Sint Maarten
Trinidad and Tobago
Turks and Caicos Islands
United States
United States Virgin Islands

Marist Brothers International School Library's Faculty and Staff wrote: "You wrote: "One won't learn from this 'story' just how the US came to be..."
You do realise that this book is not about all these post-colonial or currently colonial (think '5000 troops to Venezuela!') countries but about the US? What part of 'annihilated on a continent-wide scale genocide' you didn't get?
Latin America doesn't count since there are lots of countries on that continent and none of those are responsible for the larger part of it. Canada is largely North and occupies territories which haven't been as densely populated as the US ones, so its share is a lot less significant and definiely not at a continent-wide scale. Saint Pierre and Micquelon? Seriously? Its' 'a self-governing territorial overseas collectivity of France'! I wouldn't call it independent. Greenland? Indians lived in Greenland? What a discovery! Did you make it up on the spot? Trinidad and Tobago and Virgin Islands and all of that island sorry bunch occupy large parts of continents? How good for them.

You are illustrating my point. No one wants to accept responsibility for destroying the indigenous populations. Instead of owning up to past misdeeds, people are like 'oh, Saint Vincent and the Grenadines and Saint Lucia did it as well, so it must be all right!' You know what? It isn't.

I never said "it must be all right." In fact, I believe it's unbelievably horrible.

I'm just trying to get clarification on the "facts" you've presented.

For example, are you inferring that the U.S.A. had something to do with the destruction of Mayans, Incans, and the Aztecs when you ask "What about all the Mayan and Incan and Aztecs?"?

I'm not quite understanding why you added those cultures into your critique.

For example, in your comment exchange with Tim you mentioned the destruction of "3 civilizations: Mayan, Incan & Aztec" in reference to Tim's question about your comment about the US being the "only currently existing state built on ashes of indigenous peoples annihilated on a continent-wide scale genocide.":

Tim wrote: ""The US came to be the only currently existing state built on ashes of indigenous peoples annihilated on a continent-wide scale genocide." What about Australia?" Point taken, Still, I don't think in Australia they exactly destroyed, like, 3 civilizations: Mayan, Incan & Aztec. There weren't this many deeveloped civilizations in there. Tribes yes. Which doesn't make it any better. of course, just different.

I found it a bit confusing.

Marist Brothers International School Library's Faculty and Staff wrote: "I never said "it must be all right." In fact, I believe it's unbelievably horrible.

I'm just trying to get clarification on the "facts" you've presented.

For example, are you inferring that the..."

Marist Brothers International School Library's Faculty and Staff wrote: "Still, I don't think in Australia they exactly destroyed, like, 3 civilizations: Mayan, Incan & Aztec" Dear Marist, you might want to discuss Australia with Tim not with me. Aboriginal destinies have not been covered in my review or in this book but maybe between the 2 of you, you could come up with smth interesting.

What I meant responding to him is that in Australia a continent-wide drastic cultural changes unfavourable for the indigenous populations HAVE happened, which is why I marginally (!) agree with him, after stipulating that Australia is not the topic in here and that it hasn't gone anywhere close to the North American phenomenon scale.

Once again, I can't agree with you ANYONE saying OR BELIEVING that tribes are worse than civilizations. Indian tribes were worthy in their own way, Australian aboriginal tribes as well. They might have been less 'developed' culturally than Mayans or Incans but this doesn't mean they are not worthy of seeing daylight or of being treated as human. So do forgive me for taking this leap but this logic is precisely what has driven for centuries the slavery trend: Africans were being taken and enslaved because they were considered as less than human due to their tribal 'uncivilized' ways...

Basically, I referred to geographical scale of destruction. There aren't that many places where they have taken a continent, wiped it clean by what? 80%? 90%? of the original settlers and started another state on this place. All taking part on a large part of a continent. Many nations, states, armies and even civilizations have been conquered at various points in human history. But taking apart everything that had been on a continent up to a point is, well, newish... Even Cyrus or Alexander the Great or Genghis Khan didn't get up to that. They had their wars, still they haven't wiped off everything from Eurasia or from Africa, have they? They always left something in place. Here, something of a different scale happened. And it is a very telling thing. It shows that the founding of the state did not get it that other nations, countries, tribes, cultures, even civilizations are of intrinsic value that doesn't need to be proven to anyone and that they cannot be just wiped off if they happen to be inconvenient. In my opinion, this should have been addressed at least to some extent in this historical review.

I'm not blame-spreading or guilt-bashing or whatever. There are 0 countries with 100% fluffy track record. I just believe that history should be shown multifaceted, just as it was.
Keeping mum about disconcerting things is not doing anyone any favors. The result is not an account of history but a fairy tale, a comforting story that is not allowing modern readers to realize the extent of controvercy here, or to make educated opinions or to be able to maybe learn smth from mistakes of the generations long gone... Like, maybe, 'we have just 1 planet at our disposal and maybe we should learn to coexist peacefully instead of killing each other, since it gets ugly... fast'...?

Once again, this review is not covering all the World History and the general Geography of the world and is not all-encompassing. My reviews are predominantly my notes to self, what I thought while and after reading a book. So, you are totally entitled to forming a differing opinion on the book or its subject. Ok?

Marist Brothers International School Library's Faculty and Staff wrote: "I'm not quite understanding why you added those cultures into your critique. " Well, we are 2 frustrated readers then.
I was wondering why Columbus was added in this book as some point of the US history. If he is pointed out, than the background of the continent should be also accounted for. He didn't find the continent empty, you know? And if the continent's history is not properly addressed, then Columbus shouldn't be as well and maybe the book should have started with smth else. Maybe with the actual founding of the US? Baffling, right?

....

Say what?

You stated:
“Once again, I can't agree with you saying that tribes are worse than civilizations.”

Where did I ever say that? Are you referring to the section where I quoted you and Tim? I’ve never mentioned “tribes” in any of my comments. Only you have used the term “tribes” in the comments section, and you’re mistaking a direct quote of your own words for mine.

“So, you are totally entitled to forming a differing opinion on the book or its subject. Ok?”

I agree. Thank you for taking the time to explain your position.

Marist Brothers International School Library's Faculty and Staff wrote: "Where did I ever say that? Are you referring to the section where I quoted you and Tim? I’ve never mentioned “tribes” in any of my comments”

Where did I ever say that? Are you referring to the section where I quoted you ..."

Point taken, you didn't say that they are worse. So see my correction above. Yep?

Quoting sometimes gets messy when one doesn't use the button 'some html' or 'reply' button above :) Anyway, I think at this point I have illustrated my POV on the value of human life well enough for it to be clear and come across in a nonconfusing way. Right?

Marist Brothers International School Library's Faculty and Staff wrote: I agree. Thank you for taking the time to explain your position. " You're welcome.

Yes, Spain.
Sí, España.

Instead, we have a rambling account, which starts (as tradition dictates!) at Columbus. Of all things.

Of all things? To the extent that history is a scholarly endeavour, it begins with the advent of an extant writing system.

The Maya script is generally considered to be the most fully developed Mesoamerican writing system, mostly because of its extraordinary aesthetics and because it has been partially deciphered. In Maya writing, logograms and syllable signs are combined. Around 700 different glyphs have been documented, with some 75% having been deciphered. Around 7000 texts in Maya script have been documented.

All we need is some intrepid archaeologist to dig up 30,000 lines of the Mayan Iliad and the Mayan Odyssey (almost certainly sufficient to finish decoding most of the other 25%) and then future historic treatments of the American continents can all begin there, and somebody double-woke can materialize out of the post-modernist smoke to say "oh, bother!" all over again.

Because even Gǔn of the semi-mythical Xia dynasty—as far back as 2000 BCE—was surely standing on somebody's neck (if only we still had the written records available to litigate their grievances with woke incense).

Allan wrote: "Of all things? To the extent that history is a scholarly endeavour, it begins with the advent of an extant writing system. " Actually, no. If we would have the history of, for example, France, or maybe wine, there would be no need to start at the 'extant writing system'. Neither would be wise to place the start of the history of Swiss cheese at the beginning of China. In all cases, it would be wise to not ramble and to go with the subject of your research, not with your morning menu of yesterday or that lovely dress you bought at that trashy boutique.... So, going with all things is a bad idea.

Anyway, I wasn't speaking about the salad of all stuff. I meant that she could've started elsewhere and come across better. I questioned her starting point, since, imho, certain pre- and post- Columbus points could've been better. And if we start at Columbus, the account should involve something besides him and his efforts. But also some contemporary background.

Allan wrote: "All we need is some intrepid archaeologist to dig up 30,000 lines of the Mayan Iliad and the Mayan Odyssey"Well, considering that there is plenty to be told about paleolythic settlements basing on pure archeology, there isn't a shortage of the material on Maya.
I also didn't quite get your point on 'Mayan Iliad' and 'Odyssey'. What precisely are you implying?
- That we have found no Mayan writings? - There are many of them known. See below.
- That we can't read Mayan languages? - We actually can, many of them. From what I remember, same methods as Champolion used for the Egyptian scripts were employed for Mayan, with decent results.
- That Maya left no grand masterpieces to transcend time and space and inform us of grand battles and civilization-breaking events, etc? - What if they were peaceful and had no oversized battles over some wandering beauty? Is it such a bad thing? Besides, they left plenty of materials, incl the Dresden and Madrid and Paris Codes, as well as the Grolye's Code. It's just that lots of their historical archives (which they seem to have had) had been destroyed by the inveterate conquistadors and, well, things need to be researched. Still, there is lots of research already done on this all and it's really sad to see it all overlooked.

Anyway, Iliad and Odyssey aren't entirely historical, even though their literary value is undisputed. (Who would have doubted that, considering that most of our modern civilizations are of Greek-Judaic cultural origins. And the Mayan civilization's descendants are, well, mostly dead. Even if they seem to be contemporaries of the 'semi-mythic Xia, since they also sort of date roughly to 2000 BCE).

Allan wrote: " even Gǔn of the semi-mythical Xia dynasty—as far back as 2000 BCE—was surely standing on somebody's neck" Exactly.
Everyone's standing on someone's neck up to the earliest settlements of prehumans.
So, it's not too much to ask of a historian to pay attention to the continuity and not place the modern immature states into sanitized vacuum. Right? It's their job, after all.

We shouldn't just learn the convenient truths and ignore the rest of them... What I'm saying is that ancient civilizations are usually overlooked and it's not either fair or objective. There's plenty of materials available on them (including archeological data), even with all the barbarian treatment they got.

Elyse wrote: "You mean I don't need to read this? I'll write you next week --or soon -- love love love you!!
damn --this book was an under-taking!!!!
go rest!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!! lol xoxoxo" Well, I gave it 3 stars after all. Who knows, maybe you could enjoy it more than I did?

I really liked the book you mentioned, "Lies My Teacher Told Me:..."

I see the newest Time Magazine has a brief interview with Jill Lepore. Unfortunately they also have Trump on the cover. Anything to sell magazines, I guess.