In discussing the disappearance of entire civilizations and indigenous populations, I found it interesting the distinction Tai was trying to make between calling this a "collapse" and simply acknowledging that tribes such as the Hohokam simply disbanded. She mentioned that in her oppinion she thought a collapse in its truest form constituted failure. Though I am sure thier had to be some within these societies (most likely leaders) who thought they had failed in some regards, I also believe that the word collapse may be a misguided attempt at trying to understand the depth and consequence of these civilizations' demise.
This error in labeling might stem from one of the most tried and true obstacles to true historical study, a subjective and generalized point of view. Historians who had studied the "collapse" of many other great Western civilizations (Romans, Greeks, Carthaginians) tried to then translate this, without fully understanding the structure of Native American society, to explain the disappearance of such indigenous civilizations as the Hohokam. In the first two days of taking this class I have already realized how easy it is to want to compare these civilizations to others that flourished at roughly the same time, but how imperative it is that I not let my understanding of other Western societies influence my learning in regards to the Indigenous peoples. Thus, I thought Tai made a very good point when she stressed that these so-called collapses might not be just that, but rather mutual acknowledgements that it was time to pack-up and head down the road.
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
2 comments:
When i think of collapse I think of a society where its people all die out. I think the Distinction that Tai made was important because it showed there are many different variable that should be considered. There are several ways in which a society can end or change and I think it is important to look at all sides rather than simplifying it to a one word explanation. Saying that these societies collapsed gives only one side of the story. I think it is the white European side of the story which would suggest that these people didn't make a choice to disband based on intellectual reasoning. I guess I learned through this part of the lecture that we need to give the Native people more credit.
Just to take up a side and maybe create an argument, I do not think that collapse is necessarily a bad word to use. I do not think that collapse has to mean that a group failed or died out. It could simply mean that the structure of the group at that time was not the best to continue on with. For example, there is the idea that the Anasazi split up into smaller groups or joined with other tribes. So the original structure of this group did collapse because it disappeared. However, it doesn’t mean it failed, but maybe it simply adapted.
Post a Comment