Question: much of what you're saying seems to apply to all the Anglo colonial societies (Canada, Australia, NZ,...). e.g. I once read a historical quote by a Maori man, saying that being asked to assimilate into pakeha (i.e. white) society was like being asked to assimilate into a cultural nothingness. Do you have any thoughts on the similarities and differences between the USA, and that wider Anglo colonial world?
About Louisiana, (European descended) people here really think of France as the cultural father of the area. It doesn't manifest in much more than a vague idea that our culture is French-descended, and it definitely is not filtered through a pronounced focus on French history. But people do feel that way, and really no one here ever thinks about England (the probable cultural parent for the east coast) at all in the slightest. Also importantly, New Orleans is in many ways more Spanish than French. The Spanish really built the city and it's culture. It wasn't until white Haitian French slaveowners immigrated here following the Haitian revolution that these recently-arrived French creoles started trying to erase the Spanish creole history throughout the 19th century. You can check out John Eugene Rodriguez’s Spanish New Orleans for a recent history book about this
@@Syzygy_Bliss and why should it be pride? We have concentration camps that turned into museums. German history (the real one) is taught over and over in our schools. Be humble. Every country fucked up big time. Why can't you do that?
@@TomRauhe Really, I think it’s all about avoiding paying reparations. Most people are clever enough to understand what you’re saying. But they’re also clever enough to understand that, “if I have benefited unduly from the h a r m to another, then to make it right, I am morally obligated to unduly benefit that other to make up the difference”. Of course, not many haves (aka: rich) want to do that; partially because they want to believe that they live in an egalitarian society so they can believe that they achieved success through their betterness rather than by good-enoughness to profit from a lucky situation. So the haves are incentivized to pretend not to know or understand the issues, and to offer “advice” rather than “most of their wealth” towards fixing social inequities. It’s just like how businesses are incentivized to lobby against regulations to make money NOW, even if those very regulations suppress competition and prevent companies from ruining their reputations and growth potential with dangerous products. In this case, it’s because executive compensation is protected by the limited liability structure, so the incentive is make as much as possible unsustainably fast, and then let the next guy deal with the fallout.
@@TomRauhe Really, I think it’s all about avoiding paying reparations. Most people are clever enough to understand what you’re saying. But they’re also clever enough to understand that, “if I have benefited unduly from the h a r m to another, then to make it right, I am morally obligated to unduly benefit that other to make up the difference”. Of course, not many haves (aka: rich) want to do that; partially because they want to believe that they live in an egalitarian society so they can believe that they achieved success through their betterness rather than by good-enoughness to profit from a lucky situation. So the haves are incentivized to pretend not to know or understand the issues, and to offer “advice” rather than “most of their wealth” towards fixing social inequities. That’s despite the fact that, if you’re rich, you’re better off living in a happy, equitable society where more people are happy and productive and creative, because they produce more art and tech for your benefit and less strife to your detriment. In a phrase, it’s game theory.
To begin, thank you Wes. Your lectures have opened my heart and mind to many ideas and perspectives (I started with your language series years ago). And I have even read primary source philosophy too (a few Platonic dialogues and Boethius)! As a historically-lacking American, I find myself asking “How would I feel or see the world differently if I had some of this distance history (or culture)?”
Are you familiar with "American Nations: A History of the Eleven Rival Regional Cultures of North America" by Colin Woodard? His exposition seems to blend with your new series.
Finding native american artifacts is often controversial, any discovery could rewrite major things. I think people should be open minded. Have you heard of the megalithic structure in lake michigan?
@@israelgarcia7801 There are huge possibilities that the Americas were not wholly seeded by people crossing the bering land bridge. It's pretty narrow minded to think this is the only way the Americas became populated. That would shatter all of world history.
I think we should make a modern / historical distinction here, in the past people ignored things based on premises of survival. Shit was fucking real when you didn't have HVAC and electricity. In the modern era, people ignore things out of shame. There is I think a major psychological difference here, despite the similar outcome of ignorance.
The myth of Prince Madoc is quite interesting, I think a lot of people think it's just simply impossible to figure out the timeline of the Americas. I think it's quite common for native americans to as well have a limit to their knowledge of the history of the Americas. In their oral traditions, it's common for them to only have a few hundred years.
Part of that might also be because of how we culturally think about time. In some of Dr. Cecil's previous lectures, especially around Egypt, they similarly considered now to be the only time that effectively mattered such that when a new Pharaoh was crowned, the old Pharaoh's name would be "erased" from the monuments and the new Pharaoh's name carved in its place. Now, especially in the digital age, we think everything must be timestamped, collated, collected, and processed. Contemporary life doesn't happen in space, it happens in spacetime (to bastardize a term from physics).
@@chemistrymickey I watched that lecture as well. I enjoy Mr.Cecil's lectures a lot. Yes, lots of records would be rewritten but generally for tribal oral traditions all over the world these are thought to be as accurate as they can possibly be. We do not question their multi-hundred year accounts, or multi-thousand year accounts.
@@NoName-lq7kt Oh indeed. Even ancient written tradition is often wrong. Without archeological proof, none of it, written or spoken, should be believed too strongly.
I remember a BBC show, many moons ago featuring Sting travelling through New York in a car. I think it had to do with his Quentin Crisp phase. Anyhow, he made the observation of just how many Irish(Irish American) bars there were. He asked the interviewer, ' why are there no English(English American) bars. The interviewer didn't respond, in order not to embarrass Sting about the truth about American history, i.e. English American = American. I think you're being dishonest, when you say the history of America USA is vexed. To be an unquestionable American is to be White Anglo Protestant. Everyone knows of the Plymouth brethren and the founding fathers, amongst other famous American people in history and they all had English surnames. 🎉
Lol there is more then a few Caucasian complexities in plenty of Native American tribes that can trace their ancestry to natives and practice the culture. For natives you should actually follow linguistic patterns and artifacts. There is a shared culture with them. Not in all tribes and all states but most definitely in the southwest and Florida and other parts of the south.
This makes it so much weirder with the whole MAGA thing (which assumes that there actually is a shared past, which was GREAT). In addition... the only answer I've seen anyone come up with in regards to the "What is it you're proud of, what makes you American" is this that they refer to this assembly of a few lavish white dudes from 250 yeears ago, who wrote something the country is based upon which is (like the bible) completely and utterly outdated. Truly bizarre.
11 of my family members died in the American Revolution, I had grandparents that lived in a house made out of sod in North Dakota. I could list 100 other things that make me proud of my history.
I think the canonical answer is that the US’s ability to create the first a long-term and sustainable constitutional democracy is what makes us great. Since our democracy is currently acting like a de facto aristocracy (for example, because because ~90% of elections are won by the candidate with the most campaign money and because policies with majority support are less likely to pass than ones with support from billionaires), we lack that greatness. That’s not to say we ever really had it, just that right now we certainly don’t. Though, our economic prosperity in the 20th century is what most modern people think of, since it raised our standard of living to the highest in the world for a good few decades there (not evenly, but still impressive given the sheer size that the middle class swelled to). Since the middle class is shrinking and wealth disparity is increasing, we’re again no longer great in that way.
To be fair the native americans called America "turtle island" so we talk about American history which would be accurate, and pre-colonial would be turtle island history.
Wth are you talking about? Even if the settlers got along with the natives and integrated the two cultures in some way the settlers would still have no ancestral connection to the natives. Their history would still begin 1607. This makes no sense. The Irish said hey look we found one of our ancestors because they are literally the direct descendants of that person. That would never be true for the descendant of the englishman who came over to America in 1607 if we found some 2000 year old native body unless he actually had a half native child when he came over which almost nobody would. Unless your saying you somehow think the current entire american population would native dna right now if only we got along with them which is dumb considering we had a massive influx of European immigrants again in the 20th century.
Solutrean hypothesis, one of many. People are now starting to accept that perhaps not 100% of the ancient american is rooted from the crossing of the bering straight.
So Super Stoked that you are still publishing lectures!!!
Love your work Wes
🙏😀💜
Question: much of what you're saying seems to apply to all the Anglo colonial societies (Canada, Australia, NZ,...). e.g. I once read a historical quote by a Maori man, saying that being asked to assimilate into pakeha (i.e. white) society was like being asked to assimilate into a cultural nothingness.
Do you have any thoughts on the similarities and differences between the USA, and that wider Anglo colonial world?
About Louisiana, (European descended) people here really think of France as the cultural father of the area. It doesn't manifest in much more than a vague idea that our culture is French-descended, and it definitely is not filtered through a pronounced focus on French history. But people do feel that way, and really no one here ever thinks about England (the probable cultural parent for the east coast) at all in the slightest.
Also importantly, New Orleans is in many ways more Spanish than French. The Spanish really built the city and it's culture. It wasn't until white Haitian French slaveowners immigrated here following the Haitian revolution that these recently-arrived French creoles started trying to erase the Spanish creole history throughout the 19th century.
You can check out John Eugene Rodriguez’s Spanish New Orleans for a recent history book about this
Once again, Dr. Cecil, you enlighten us like none other!!!
Thank you so much, beloved maestro!!!
Im swedish and never heard about New Sweden before! Didnt expect to learn new things about my own country hehe.
how did i not get a notification for this one? youtube why you not recommending this one? got your feelings hurt? ill listen to it tomorrow at work
The shoulders of giants aren’t the only things we stand on, but the other things are a bit too macabre to mention with pride.
@@Syzygy_Bliss and why should it be pride? We have concentration camps that turned into museums. German history (the real one) is taught over and over in our schools. Be humble. Every country fucked up big time. Why can't you do that?
@@TomRauhe Really, I think it’s all about avoiding paying reparations. Most people are clever enough to understand what you’re saying. But they’re also clever enough to understand that, “if I have benefited unduly from the h a r m to another, then to make it right, I am morally obligated to unduly benefit that other to make up the difference”.
Of course, not many haves (aka: rich) want to do that; partially because they want to believe that they live in an egalitarian society so they can believe that they achieved success through their betterness rather than by good-enoughness to profit from a lucky situation.
So the haves are incentivized to pretend not to know or understand the issues, and to offer “advice” rather than “most of their wealth” towards fixing social inequities.
It’s just like how businesses are incentivized to lobby against regulations to make money NOW, even if those very regulations suppress competition and prevent companies from ruining their reputations and growth potential with dangerous products. In this case, it’s because executive compensation is protected by the limited liability structure, so the incentive is make as much as possible unsustainably fast, and then let the next guy deal with the fallout.
@@TomRauhe Really, I think it’s all about avoiding paying reparations. Most people are clever enough to understand what you’re saying. But they’re also clever enough to understand that, “if I have benefited unduly from the h a r m to another, then to make it right, I am morally obligated to unduly benefit that other to make up the difference”.
Of course, not many haves (aka: rich) want to do that; partially because they want to believe that they live in an egalitarian society so they can believe that they achieved success through their betterness rather than by good-enoughness to profit from a lucky situation.
So the haves are incentivized to pretend not to know or understand the issues, and to offer “advice” rather than “most of their wealth” towards fixing social inequities. That’s despite the fact that, if you’re rich, you’re better off living in a happy, equitable society where more people are happy and productive and creative, because they produce more art and tech for your benefit and less strife to your detriment. In a phrase, it’s game theory.
To begin, thank you Wes. Your lectures have opened my heart and mind to many ideas and perspectives (I started with your language series years ago). And I have even read primary source philosophy too (a few Platonic dialogues and Boethius)!
As a historically-lacking American, I find myself asking “How would I feel or see the world differently if I had some of this distance history (or culture)?”
REAL TALK with Tim and Phoebe channel here on TH-cam tells some additional history. Peace.
The Smithsonian is a major problem, the amount of artifacts they have "lost" is absolutely preposterous
Are you familiar with "American Nations: A History of the Eleven Rival Regional Cultures of North America" by Colin Woodard? His exposition seems to blend with your new series.
Finding native american artifacts is often controversial, any discovery could rewrite major things. I think people should be open minded. Have you heard of the megalithic structure in lake michigan?
How much do you think would change? Or what would change at all. I’m truly curious. What difference would any new discoveries make?
@@israelgarcia7801 There are huge possibilities that the Americas were not wholly seeded by people crossing the bering land bridge. It's pretty narrow minded to think this is the only way the Americas became populated. That would shatter all of world history.
Do you think that the lack of history in America contributes to alienation and social strife?
No. That has been experienced since the birth of poetry.
I think we should make a modern / historical distinction here, in the past people ignored things based on premises of survival. Shit was fucking real when you didn't have HVAC and electricity. In the modern era, people ignore things out of shame. There is I think a major psychological difference here, despite the similar outcome of ignorance.
The myth of Prince Madoc is quite interesting, I think a lot of people think it's just simply impossible to figure out the timeline of the Americas. I think it's quite common for native americans to as well have a limit to their knowledge of the history of the Americas. In their oral traditions, it's common for them to only have a few hundred years.
Part of that might also be because of how we culturally think about time.
In some of Dr. Cecil's previous lectures, especially around Egypt, they similarly considered now to be the only time that effectively mattered such that when a new Pharaoh was crowned, the old Pharaoh's name would be "erased" from the monuments and the new Pharaoh's name carved in its place.
Now, especially in the digital age, we think everything must be timestamped, collated, collected, and processed. Contemporary life doesn't happen in space, it happens in spacetime (to bastardize a term from physics).
@@chemistrymickey I watched that lecture as well. I enjoy Mr.Cecil's lectures a lot. Yes, lots of records would be rewritten but generally for tribal oral traditions all over the world these are thought to be as accurate as they can possibly be. We do not question their multi-hundred year accounts, or multi-thousand year accounts.
@@NoName-lq7kt Oh indeed. Even ancient written tradition is often wrong. Without archeological proof, none of it, written or spoken, should be believed too strongly.
Hegel comes to mind
I remember a BBC show, many moons ago featuring Sting travelling through New York in a car. I think it had to do with his Quentin Crisp phase. Anyhow, he made the observation of just how many Irish(Irish American) bars there were. He asked the interviewer, ' why are there no English(English American) bars. The interviewer didn't respond, in order not to embarrass Sting about the truth about American history, i.e. English American = American.
I think you're being dishonest, when you say the history of America USA is vexed. To be an unquestionable American is to be White Anglo Protestant. Everyone knows of the Plymouth brethren and the founding fathers, amongst other famous American people in history and they all had English surnames. 🎉
Lol there is more then a few Caucasian complexities in plenty of Native American tribes that can trace their ancestry to natives and practice the culture. For natives you should actually follow linguistic patterns and artifacts. There is a shared culture with them. Not in all tribes and all states but most definitely in the southwest and Florida and other parts of the south.
This makes it so much weirder with the whole MAGA thing (which assumes that there actually is a shared past, which was GREAT). In addition... the only answer I've seen anyone come up with in regards to the "What is it you're proud of, what makes you American" is this that they refer to this assembly of a few lavish white dudes from 250 yeears ago, who wrote something the country is based upon which is (like the bible) completely and utterly outdated. Truly bizarre.
11 of my family members died in the American Revolution, I had grandparents that lived in a house made out of sod in North Dakota. I could list 100 other things that make me proud of my history.
@@NoName-lq7kt but the American Revolution IS the thing from 250 years ago I am talking about....?
@@TomRauhe It wasn't as lavish as you imagine, and there were far more than 250 participants in the American Revolution.
I think the canonical answer is that the US’s ability to create the first a long-term and sustainable constitutional democracy is what makes us great. Since our democracy is currently acting like a de facto aristocracy (for example, because because ~90% of elections are won by the candidate with the most campaign money and because policies with majority support are less likely to pass than ones with support from billionaires), we lack that greatness. That’s not to say we ever really had it, just that right now we certainly don’t.
Though, our economic prosperity in the 20th century is what most modern people think of, since it raised our standard of living to the highest in the world for a good few decades there (not evenly, but still impressive given the sheer size that the middle class swelled to). Since the middle class is shrinking and wealth disparity is increasing, we’re again no longer great in that way.
To be fair the native americans called America "turtle island" so we talk about American history which would be accurate, and pre-colonial would be turtle island history.
Wth are you talking about? Even if the settlers got along with the natives and integrated the two cultures in some way the settlers would still have no ancestral connection to the natives. Their history would still begin 1607. This makes no sense.
The Irish said hey look we found one of our ancestors because they are literally the direct descendants of that person. That would never be true for the descendant of the englishman who came over to America in 1607 if we found some 2000 year old native body unless he actually had a half native child when he came over which almost nobody would.
Unless your saying you somehow think the current entire american population would native dna right now if only we got along with them which is dumb considering we had a massive influx of European immigrants again in the 20th century.
Solutrean hypothesis, one of many. People are now starting to accept that perhaps not 100% of the ancient american is rooted from the crossing of the bering straight.