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

Hello Paulie and welcome to h2g2
I´m your sub, working on your Sioux entry, and a fantastic job it is too. I really like your entry and it tells me about stuff I´ve never even heard of before (I am not from USA or UK) so good job
One thing I need you to explain or verify is the two quotes you have in "" in the text. I need a source for these, I think, if you have one...
Then when I´ve done my part, I´ll update it, tell you where to find it, and ask for your approval/comments before I send it off to the italics. I´m only sorry for having taken so long to get to your entry, as it´s the most fun of my current batch.
cheers ismarah

hey there, great to see you and thanks for the positive comments. I hope you will fix my typo that dates the Fort Laramie Treaty in 1968 instead of 1868 as it should be. Also someone suggested I include more info about other tribes that hold the Black Hills sacred. If you think I should let me know and I'll see what I can find.

As for the quotes, sorry I didn't handle them in the proper fashion. Here are the sources.

"no person except those herein designated and authorized to do so shall ever be permitted to pass over, settle on, or reside in the territory..."

This comes from the Treaty, Article II. It looks like I left out a few words though, maybe you could add those.

http://www.yale.edu/lawweb/avalon/ntreaty/nt001.htm

"The proud quotes of the fore fathers, on how all men are created equal,"

from the Declaration of Independence, second paragraph

http://www.archives.gov/exhibit_hall/charters_of_freedom/declaration/declaration_transcription.html

"new form of liberty was entrusted to the Americans to make a reality"

this actually is paraphrased from a quote, but I don't seem to be able to find my source right now. I imagine those particular notes are somewhere under this pile on my desk though so I'll keep looking.

"Gutzon himself suggested, and" the wind and the rain alone shall wear them away."

there are many sources for this one, I'll include the two that seemed most reliable.

http://www.mtrushmore.net/

http://www.mountrushmoreinfo.com/

I'll keep looking for that other source, let me know if you need anything else. and thanks again

Of course I´ll add those words in...
How does the sentence read with the added words?

Could you clarify one point for me: In the second paragraph you mention "the coming of white men to this country". I´m presuming you´re talking about those that followed after Columbus, but strictly speaking, they weren´t the first white men to set foot on the Americas...

Also, everywhere you talk about "this country" I´ll have to do something with it, as the majority of your readers will probably not be american or in the USA

Did you ever consider splitting this entry in two, linking to the other one? This is rather long and a bit longer than the 'standard' for entries, they´re usually about 900 words or so. (Of course, I´m opposed to all length/height facism, I´m only 160cm )
I also think writing simply about the Sioux and then about Mt Rushmore might give you entries more focussed on both respectively.

I will be working on this today, and then do other stuff over the weekend, coming back to this next week.

cheers ismarah

Not all the tribes were in agreement, but many accepted the US's promise in the words of the treaty,

"... United States now solemnly agrees that no persons, except those herein designated and authorized so to do, and except such officers, agents, and employees of the government as may be authorized to enter upon Indian reservations in discharge of duties enjoined by law, shall ever be permitted to pass over, settle upon, or reside in the territory described in this article,..."

Well I'm not sure at all that works, what do you think?

"What is known today as the Sioux nation already existed as the Oceti Sakowin before the coming of white men to this country."

I mean before any white men, before or after Columbus. Now I am not all that informed on historical details, and somebody might point out some other "white man" could have been here thousands of years ago (as opposed to the hundreds we generally think of in historical terms, at least in so far as America is concerned) but unless I am mistaken it is commony accepted that the tribes existed here in this country a very long time before white man came in numbers and settled here. And the Oceti Sakowin date back to those tribes beginnings, at least in thier own accounts.

I can understand how it must be made clear early on that the country we are talking about is America. I don't see why it would be necessary in every instance though. It's rather like saying her or she when you refer to a woman whose name has already been made known. I think it will get very repetitive if you do that, as I think my own use of "this country" approaches that as it is.

I really don't like the idea of splitting it up, as the message I was going for was exactly how the two are related. I could do a very informative entry on Mount Rushmore, but it could only touch upon the issue with the Sioux Nation. The same is true of the entry that may result for The Sioux Nation. There would be so much to cover, the issue of Mount Rushmore could not be throroughly (sp?) explored within that scenario. I suppose it would be ideal if two such entries already existed, and I can promise to attempt that in the future. But I really would like this entry to exist as a connection between the two, one that few people American or otherwise are aware of. In fact my main purpose for doing the entry was to make that connection and to make it known. If it is just too long, and there are parts you think it could do without, I would rather explore that possibility.

There is an existing entry A586 on Mount Rushmore, but is very short and doesn't even mention the Black Hills or the Sioux. In fact I am surprised that an entry with so little information was accepted. Maybe we can do something to update that entry?

Then there is this entry A627275 George Custer and the Battle of Little Bighorn that offers a lot more detail on the Little Big Horn portion of the entry. It is the only guide entry I can find that even mentions the Sioux. Maybe you could link to it?

Ok, let´s not split it then...
I´ll get back to wo*k on this (as opposed to slacking off) and post it to you either today or monday something vaguely resembling a finished product...
cheers ismarah

obviously, when I said monday, I meant the coming one
I´ve been swamped at work, swamped at home and just generally in a rather damp state (from all the swamps)
I will finish this, possibly even today
cheers ismarah

I´ve updated this: A850006
Read it over when you can, I´ve changed quite a lot in the wording of things and added lots of links.
There´s one more thing I´d like to know and add to the entry- what was Mt Rushmore called before it was called Mt Rushmore? I´ve looked, but I can´t find it.
(Incidentally, you confused Chester A Arthur with Charles Rushmore)
cheers ismarah

sorry about that, don't know how I came up with Chester.

I can't find any info either about how Mount Rushmore was referred to before. I'll look around a little more and let you know if I find anything.

I think you did fine with it, I don't see how your change in wording changed the intent anywhere. There are a few things that seem a bit odd to me though.

"Inktomi, the spider. Prior to this the peoples lived below the earth, with no culture and no contact with the gods.
These first seven families account for the seven fires, as they are known today."

Did you mean for there to be a line break before the last sentence? if so shouldn't it be in a paragraph by itself?

"The Fort Laramie Treaty of 1868 withdrew troops from the Black Hills and created the Great Sioux Reservation. It also pledged to keep white people out of the territory. Not all the tribes were in agreement with the treaty, but many accepted the US's promise that no person except those listed in the treaty, designated and authorized to do so, shall ever be permitted to pass over, settle on, or reside in the territory...
This reservation included most of what is today the state of South Dakota."

same thing here, there is a line break but not a new paragraph.

"When attempts were made to arrest Sitting Bull for the part he played in the Ghost Dance myth spreading,"

I'm not sure why you added the word myth here. It was a dance, and he got in trouble because people were doing it, not just talking about it. It wasn't a myth at all.

"Five years before the Wounded Knee Massacre, one peak of the Black Hills acquired a new name. Mount Rushmore, it was called by Americans then and still is, named for Charles Rushmore, a lawyer investigating mining claims in the Black Hills in 1885."

this paragraph doesn't make much sense to me. I think mine made more. I don't mind the bit of added info about Charles, and do appreciate your correcting my error here. But I think your wording is unclear.

"At that point in history it was desirous of the Americans that monuments to their pride should be created across this great new country."

that is my version

"As the new century dawned it was a desire of the Americans to have monuments to their pride created across this great new country."

and that yours. I'm not sure what was wrong with mine?

"While this monument may not have had the expressed intent of intimidating the tribes, as a reminder to their defeat, arguably that is their perception. It served as a warning, a reminder: the opposition is huge and cannot be resisted."

I think you should leave out the second instance of "reminder" in this paragraph.

"could not have meant much to those it did not specifically apply to."

again I don't understand your addition of the word "specifically". the laws and ideas and dreams and all that drivle was supposed to have applied to everybody. So there was nobody it would not specifically apply to.

"was born out of the tribes' desperate need for an outlet for the rage and frustration felt for so long; many consider the AIM to be militant by nature, while others feel it is a much needed symbol of solidarity for the native peoples.
"

I think there should be a period after long and Many should start a new sentence.

Well actually I think your version is mostly just fine, I'm just not sure some of the changes weren't just for the sake of making changes. I don't have any real problems with it though, and I do appreciate your time.

Tried to find out about Mt Rushmore's former name and googled around the world for the last hour - nothing...

re- paragraph breaks- I wanted to put more emphasis on those sentences, but they belong with the rest of the text rather than in a separate paragraph.
re- charles rushmore- I wanted to emphasize just how the name grates- the man was a lawyer, who probably caused the people to lose their hills! I´ll see if I can make it clearer before I hand this in.
re myth- "A traditional, typically ancient story dealing with supernatural beings, ancestors, or heroes that serves as a fundamental type in the worldview of a people, as by explaining aspects of the natural world or delineating the psychology, customs, or ideals of society: the myth of Eros and Psyche; a creation myth." from dictionary.com. I think Ghost Dance qualifies... I wasn´t specifically referring to the dance so much, as to the whole vision the shaman had..
re- monuments. It wasn´t decided when the Ghost Dance was spreading to make the monument, and it wasn´t even started until 1927- therefore new age...
removing specifically.
Glad you approve for the most part
Pity about the name, it would have been a smashing point to have...
cheers ismarah

While we may both agree that the word "myth" adequately describes the Ghost Dance, I am not at all sure that the tribes that practiced it (or do practice it maybe) would agree with us. It would be like if they said Jesus was a myth.

You didn't address these points at all.

"While this monument may not have had the expressed intent of intimidating the tribes, as a reminder to their defeat, arguably that is their perception. It served as a warning, a reminder: the opposition is huge and cannot be resisted."

I think you should leave out the second instance of "reminder" in this paragraph.

"could not have meant much to those it did not specifically apply to."

again I don't understand your addition of the word "specifically". the laws and ideas and dreams and all that drivle was supposed to have applied to everybody. So there was nobody it would not specifically apply to.

"was born out of the tribes' desperate need for an outlet for the rage and frustration felt for so long; many consider the AIM to be militant by nature, while others feel it is a much needed symbol of solidarity for the native peoples."

I think there should be a period after long and Many should start a new sentence."

I'm assuming I'm over ruled on the rest of it, but I do wish you would reconsider your use of the word myth.

I´m sorry I didn´t see these comments until now, I would have answered sooner...
re- myth- jesus is a myth to many...
I removed 'specifically' from the entry like I said I would. I think you were right there
Entries are supposed to be written in British English, therefore ; will suffice, instead of a period and a new sentence.
cheers ismarah

even if I conceded that Jesus was a myth, I still would not agree that communion (for example) is. The actual physical act of communion is not a myth, nor was (is) the Ghost Dance. Even if the religion that spawned it was, even if the beliefs the dancers share are, the dance itself is a phyical thing and therefore not mythical at all.

I'm afraid I just don't understand your insistance on including this word here. Maybe you could explain to me why it is neccessary to define the Ghost Dance as a myth instead of leaving it the way I wrote it?