h2g2 The Hitchhiker's Guide to the Galaxy: Earth Edition

Entry: Monumental Arrogance - A840403
Author: paulie - U203440

Well I have thought about it, re-written it I don't know how many times, and basically confused the heck out of myself. I think it is finished though, except for maybe some references that I am still not sure how to go about. If I'm mistaken, and it's not finished after all, perhaps someone would be kind enough to point out what is missing so that I can fix it. To be honest, I have no idea if I am going about this the right way or not. It is my first attempt at this, not that I expect anybody to try to be accomodating for that reason, just so you know I honestly don't know how I am supposed to proceed.

I've read through it. I was surprised to see some mention of the Trail of Tears just about the same time I posted something about it[A840331].

There's some potential here, but it needs some work. The timeline here is jumbled and not clear. I'd include some dates. I would also simplify the sentences.

First of all, the title doesn't uniquely identify the content of the entry. I saw it and assumed that it had something to do with the United States, but I had no idea that it also had to do with American Indians. You might want to call it something like The Oppression of the American Indians or something like that.

I'd probably include something waggish in the opening paragraph like: Without realizing it, Columbus discovered the New World. This surpriesed the American Indians who had been in the new world for thousands of years. - Maybe I'm trying too hard.

>Columbus spent the next decade of his life looking for the mainland and a path to Asia through the western hemisphere, neither of which he ever found.

This is a bit confusing. It doesn't make it clear that Columbus never realized that he thought that he found America. He always believed that he found outlying islands of Asia.

>The colonization of the new world began in earnest with the arrival of the Leyton Puritans in Plymouth Harbor, December of 1620.

The colonization of the New World began almost immediatly after Columbus landed. As I recall he was governor of a colony for a while. The Spainsh founded the city of Saint Augustine in 1565. They were well established by the time the 1607.

>As the century progressed, and the incoming settlers multiplied

Do you mean century or country? If you mean centruy, I would say which one.

>Between the time of the Revolutionary war and America's civil war, the settlers were unwilling to brave the Appalachian Mountains and dense forest, not to mention hostile natives that lay just beyond the explored territory, but they did not hesitate to force the Indians of the eastern continent to relocate there.

This sentence is way to long. It's not that accurate either. There was a lot of exploration of the west by the time of the Civil War. California and Oregon were states during the Civil War.

>The Creek Indians had been completely removed from their native Georgia and plans were under way to relocate the great Cherokee Nation that stood between the new government and the gold that had been discovered there.

You don't specify when the Creek were removed and when the plans were made for the Cherokee removal. You seem to be referring to the late 1820s and the 18030s, but you don't specify. I would probably reword it as something like: The Creek Indians were removed from the native Georgia. When gold was discovered in Dahlonaga, the Cherokees were forced to move to make way for the naiton's first gold rush.

>Americans had by this time adopted the practice of owning black people captured from their native lands and sold into slavery.

This is out of order. Slavery was practiced back in colonial times. As a matter of fact, both the Cherokee and the Creek owned black slaves.

I'm skipping the bit about the Gold Rushes.

>Five years before the Wounded Knee Massacre, the Black Hills being now in the possession of the American Fur Co., Chester Rushmore enquired of a local what the name was of a particular peak.

Is this really related to the Battle at Wounded Knee? If so, I'd make it more explicit.

>The intention, according to Gutzon...

His real intention was to attract tourism.

>The elders of the tribes held on to the ancient knowledge of their people, but passing it down to this new, white man modified, generation was a difficult endeavor.

Which generation?

AIM

As I recall, AIM is damn near a terrorist orgainzation. Accoridng to their web site, they occupied Alcatraz and they mention Wounded Knee '71 an 'occupation and battle with the US. armed forces.' I don't know if we want to present their operational goals here.

I don't know enough about the subject to agree or disagree with anything in it or with Two-bit's post (apart from changing the title), but it's certainly a very moving tale and one which belongs on h2g2.

Coincidentally, I saw something in a news report just a few days ago about erosion problems at Mt Rushmore. It seems like they're going to go ahead and patch it up anyway.

Thank you for taking the time to such a thorough critique, and also for doing it so politely. You are very good at this I see

I have read your entry as well, but I'm afraid I don't have near enough confindence in my own opinion as it fits with this environment to offer you any constructive criticism just yet. Perhaps by the time I have witnessed my own piece in review and hung around a bit longer, I will be of more use.

Let's see now, as for your points-

"The timeline here is jumbled and not clear. I'd include some dates. I would also simplify the sentences."

okay, if it appears unclear to you then it must be so I will work on the timeline as it progresses in the aritcle. and the sentences, that is one of my weaknesses, sentences that go on forever. I did try to whittle them down a bit, which may be how it got somewhat disjointed in spots.

"the title doesn't uniquely identify the content of the entry"

true, I guess I was looking more for catchy than descriptive. I'll try to think of something different.

"It doesn't make it clear that Columbus never realized that he thought that he found America. He always believed that he found outlying islands of Asia."

okay, I'll have to reword that part and make it clearer.

"The colonization of the New World began almost immediatly after Columbus landed."

which is why I tried to qualify the statement with the preposition "in earnest". Maybe it requires some further descriptive qualifier, but what I meant was the country we have here now found it's beginnings with those settlers of Plymouth.

"Do you mean century or country?"

I mean century, the 18th, I will clarify that.

"This sentence is way to long. It's not that accurate either. There was a lot of exploration of the west by the time of the Civil War. California and Oregon were states during the Civil War."

I'll shorten it then, but I think that the average, less adventurous settler was still unwilling to risk the dangers of the trip west. My intentions were at any rate to demonstrate that the Colonists sent the natives to the undesirable land they did not want. I will think about how I can reword it to make it more accurate.

"You don't specify when the Creek were removed and when the plans were made for the Cherokee removal."

I can add dates then, I guess I was afraid of including too many particulars and having the piece stretch too far and the technical details blur what the message I was trying to send is.

"Slavery was practiced back in colonial times. As a matter of fact, both the Cherokee and the Creek owned black slaves."

Maybe what I should say is Americans were well into the practice of slavery then. Again my intention was not to chronicle the history of slavery in America, but rather to show the dishonerable behavior of the "proud" new country.

"Is this really related to the Battle at Wounded Knee? If so, I'd make it more explicit."

It is related to how Mount Rushmore got it's name. Wounded Knee came about as a direct result of the theft of that same mountain. As it was now refered to as Mount Rushmore, I thought I should include how it came to be known as that. Perhaps the wording is unclear, I'll work on that part too.

"His real intention was to attract tourism."

not according to him, that is why I said "according to Gutzon"

"Which generation?"

the one that exist now, in the modern world, or more exactly the one that evolved as a result of the forced white man schooling. If it's unclear though, I'll think about that part as well.

"As I recall, AIM is damn near a terrorist orgainzation. Accoridng to their web site, they occupied Alcatraz and they mention Wounded Knee '71 an 'occupation and battle with the US. armed forces.' I don't know if we want to present their operational goals here."

I would not call them terrorists. They did occupy Alcatraz and Wounded Knee, but they did so with good cause. They have been known to be violent, but what else could they be with such violence perpetrated against them? I am quite sure we don't wish to present their operational goals here, nor would they desire for us to do so I would guess. I only include mention of them at all to show that the spirit of the Indians has not diminished only taken on a new aura. We as white people have to take the blame for the nature of that aura, and I believe promote a better understanding of how it came to be what it is. I am not quite sure how I can modify this part so that the AIM can retain the place of importance I believe they deserve and not appear to be sympathetic to their cause. In fact it is sympathy with their cause that prompts me to write this stuff in the first place. I'm afraid if that has to be taken away, there is no point in this at all.

thanks again for your feed back and I will post a note as soon as I have done some revisions.

thank you Researcher Gosho, I certainly hope I can make it fit well enough to have it included. But if nothing comes of it other than a few people think about some things a bit more, well it was worth the time then anyway

"If nothing comes of it"

Whether or not it is accepted for the edited section of h2g2 paulie, it will always be a part of h2g2 unless you delete it. Anyone who does a search on, for instance 'Cherokee', will have your entry come up in the search results

well that's a plus then already, I shall do my best to clean it up as soon as possible. By the way I guess I didn't really mean the 18th century in that other post, but the 1800's, which I suppose would be the 17th century then, right? I guess it would be simpler to just use a digital date rather than to refer to centuries when I obviously don't understand the concept very well myself. Guess it wasn't as ready as I thought. The next draft will be better.

what! I can't edit my posts?! Well it would be the 19th century, I am quite sure now, I think. agh! too many numbers, my brain can't take it

Editing tends to be where my writing gets confused as well.

I think this needs some organization. I would suggest that you put a year with each paragraph to keep everything in order. There might be some oter organization that you can make work. It's your entry though, not mine. I'm just making suggestions.

Monumental Arrogance might be a good subtitle.

>I'll shorten it then, but I think that the average, less adventurous settler was still unwilling to risk the dangers of the trip west.

I'm not really sure what the major causes of westward migration were. Just that there are some substantial people west of the Appalachins.

The time frame of the Rushmore bit was a bt confusing to me. In one bit you were talking about 1895, then you were talking about the carving of Mt. Rushmore. I recall that happened in the 1940s. I was recalling something that I saw on TV about the reason Mt. Rushmore was carved.

I am not interested in modern Indian movements. I don't know if there's a more socially acceptable group working for Indian rights. I wouldn't use an extremist group like AIM. I think we can note past wrongs without needing to push a group like this. I can acknowlege that 40 years ago Israel forced some Palestians off of their land, but I don't have to say anything about the PLO.

You can edit your entries until they are accepted for inclusion into the Edited Guide. You can't edited posts.

I had a thought. 'Monumental Arrogance' would be a great header for the section on Mount Rushmore.

Hi Paulie, hi all,

I just read this; great content but I agree it needs some work.

>>
Between the years of 1607 and 1624 some 14,000 people came to America,
<<

And yet you say one line earlier that the key date for the beginning of colonisation is 1620. ???

I have quite a bit more to say, but must shoot out now.

One important point that goes unmentioned: The virtual extermination of the buffalo by the railroad companies. As I understand it this was a key factor in the decline of the plains Indians.

Whilst the Indians had been hunting buffalo for centuries using every last bit for something useful (be it food, clothing, tools or whatever) the railroad cos needed to get rid of buffalo herds for their own reasons. Not hunting, just culling. And in huge numbers.

As I understand it, this culling had a devastating effect on the Indian tribes that followed the herds.

more soon
spiff

Hi Paulie,

I have read the article and the comments and very interesting it was. I don’t know enough about the subject to be able to comment on the historical aspect, Two Bit, Gosho and Spiff seem to be doing a very good job of that. However, I do know enough about the subject to realize it’s a story that needs to be told, and not the Hollywood version.

However, one small comment. You mention the Sioux. Sioux is a word of French origin meaning “cut throat”. Would it not be better to use their proper name of Lacota?

Keep it up, don’t let the enthusiasm waver.

Best wishes

Stuart

Hi, great Entry as far as I can tell.

Re-titleing seems to be necessary. Try to find out what this Entry deals with really: The colonization of *North America*. Things went totally different for example in Brazil, or in Argentina.

Apart from that, the format seems adequate and informative. As I mentioned I cannot comment on contents itself as I am not much of an expert.

Cheers,

HELL

We need to recognize who the Sioux are, so I would use one term, and then put the other one in a footnote.

I would make it cear that this is dealing soley with the United States. Canada had an entirely different relationship with its Indian population.

I have rewritten and encorporated many of the suggested changes. I read through it a dozen times but still it seems I missed some typos. I really gotta feed my gang now so I will have to fix them later. I do apprecaite all feed back. Also Two Bit, would you mind if I were to include you as a researcher on this entry?

If you like, I'm not really adding all that much. I'm just making some suggestions. That's what we're supposed to do here.

I really don't know all that much about the subject. My wife and I go to state parks and read all the historical markers and pamphlets. We've just finished going to all the Georgia state parks that deal with the Cherokee. We bought a book on the Cherokee Nation last weekend. I also watch some specials on the History Channel or A&E. I have studied some of the history of the Indians Wars as it relates to my old unit, the 5th United States Infantry which attained a lot of glory during the Indian Wars.

I'm really just a dilettante.

The new title is a lot better...

HELL

Hi again,

I have read through some of your changes. Some improvements; that first line wants checking through and correcting though.

Now to come to a point that struck me yesterday, but I didn't have the time...

The Ghost Dance. you say:

>>
The Indians looked to their ancient teachings for comfort. The "Ghost Dance" that found new popularity embodied a hope they all yearned for. Perhaps it was that hope in the Indians the white people found so threatening. The practice of the "Ghost Dance" brought a huge price to be paid. Incidents related to suppressing the Indians and their native dance led to the Wounded Knee Massacre in 1890.
<<

What is the Ghost Dance? Who was performing it? Where? What was involved? What was its significance to the Indian populations? Why did it frighten the white population so much? etc.

Lots of questions, sorry.

yes Two Bit, they were just suggestions, but the suggestions you made basically spanned the whole article and since I based most of my changes on your first suggestions, well I just thought I would like to give you credit for having helped so much. To be quite honest, I don't know much about this subject myself. Well not details at any rate, like dates and time lines. History really never was one of my best subjects. The events that took place are mind boggling enough in themselves. To remember dates is just beyond me I'm afraid. In the last few years I have come to know a few Indians though, and lately I just feel like the least I need to do is talk about it. I may not always get my details straight, but thankfully nobody expects me to be perfect, and with a little help, hopefully I can get them in line.

Spaceman I am not sure what you mean about the first line needing correcting. Is it inaccurate then? At any rate you are right about the Ghost Dance. I think I will add a section that can explain it a little better.

Thank you all for your help.

Well, a typo: nar*r*ative.

but still, I'm not sure 'narrative' is really the right word here...

'accounting' - I think just 'account' would be better. Also, I'm not sure as an intro it quite works... perhaps a little clearer exposition of *exactly* what it is that this piece deals with.

Taking that idea a step further, I think this piece would be better if considerably tightened up. Either you want a complete and (as close as possible to) definitive history of the oppression of the Native North American Indians, OR a general piece that talks about the modern (1900 onwards) situation, with a reduced historical background.

I spose what I am thinking is that 'The controversy over the Mt Rushmore Monument, and the rightful claim of the (tribes?) NA Indians to The Black Hills (?)'

Do you see what i mean. I feel that the focus has been lost in giving the history of the European colonisation of the continent. There are at least two fully-fledged entries to be gleaned from this. The advantage being that each would be more focused; especially the Mt Rushmore question, which is more than worthy of a complete entry in its own right.

Indeed, reading this, it is easy to lose the essentially modern point that you are making, because the balance is really weighing down on the pre-1900 history (quite naturally in historical terms, but distracting from what I think is your main point here (or originally was your main point - ie the condition of the modern Indians in the USA and specifically the Black Hills/Mt Rushmore affair.

Just my thoughts, of course. Whaddaya think?

cya
spiff