emi_j's review against another edition
challenging
informative
mysterious
medium-paced
4.25
This course was fascinating, and completely changed my understanding of the indigenous peoples of North America.
leyaruth42's review
5.0
To all the Goodreads reviewers who complain that this course is boring because it is all about archeology. What did you expect? Most educated Americans understand that most if not all of the Native American cultures of the US and Canada did not have writing. Therefore this series cannot be a "historical" overview of these cultures, as in the case with courses about Greece, Rome, Europe, etc. Anything dealing with anything "ancient" in this part of the world is necessarily going to be archeological. This is the same issue with people who don't like sci-fi, fantasy, or young adult, then read one of those books, and then complain that the book was "too sci-fi", "too fantasy", or "too teenaged angst". This is a series about native cultures of North America, most of whom did not have any sort of written language. This is a series presented by an Archeologist. Therefore, expect Archeological discussions about pottery, dig sites, theories (facts are hard to assert when you are looking at artifacts only), etc. If you don't like archeology, then don't read/listen/watch this course.
Next, to those reviewers who point out that this professor doesn't highlight the violence in some of these cultures. Do you criticize any professor for not highlighting the rampant violence in Europe or Asia when they do those courses? If you don't, then you are being extremely biased. All cultures throughout history have a history of violence at some point. The European wars of religion were EXTREMELY violent. Some of the Roman Emperors were despicably violent and ruthless (murdering children, etc). Ancient Carthage practiced child sacrifice. Spartans brutally "educated" their minor children to make them efficient warriors. So remember your biases when you disparage this professor.
Finally, to those rolling their eyes over the lecture about using respectful language. I actually found this a VERY important discussion to have. Many, many people in this country use disparaging words when speaking about native cultures. We are inherently biased to view only "civilized" people and histories as important and interesting. This professor highlights the issues with using terms like "mounds" versus "pyramids". Pyramids are more glamorous and make us think, oooh these are cool people. Mounds are more "primitive" so we think, these people are boring and savage barbarians. When in fact, the cultural complexity required to create the Cahokia and Chaco Canyon cultures is quite high and should be comparable to the more well known "civilized" cultures. This professor also makes the point that native peoples STILL EXIST today and have a right to control the language used in reference to their ancestral heritage. For those who roll their eyes, think of the current debates over reclaiming words like "queer" and the debate over "cultural appropriation". If it is ok for certain cultures to demand that their cultures shouldn't be appropriated, then it is ok for these native cultures to demand that terms like Anasazi and ruins not be used when discussing their heritage.
Next, to those reviewers who point out that this professor doesn't highlight the violence in some of these cultures. Do you criticize any professor for not highlighting the rampant violence in Europe or Asia when they do those courses? If you don't, then you are being extremely biased. All cultures throughout history have a history of violence at some point. The European wars of religion were EXTREMELY violent. Some of the Roman Emperors were despicably violent and ruthless (murdering children, etc). Ancient Carthage practiced child sacrifice. Spartans brutally "educated" their minor children to make them efficient warriors. So remember your biases when you disparage this professor.
Finally, to those rolling their eyes over the lecture about using respectful language. I actually found this a VERY important discussion to have. Many, many people in this country use disparaging words when speaking about native cultures. We are inherently biased to view only "civilized" people and histories as important and interesting. This professor highlights the issues with using terms like "mounds" versus "pyramids". Pyramids are more glamorous and make us think, oooh these are cool people. Mounds are more "primitive" so we think, these people are boring and savage barbarians. When in fact, the cultural complexity required to create the Cahokia and Chaco Canyon cultures is quite high and should be comparable to the more well known "civilized" cultures. This professor also makes the point that native peoples STILL EXIST today and have a right to control the language used in reference to their ancestral heritage. For those who roll their eyes, think of the current debates over reclaiming words like "queer" and the debate over "cultural appropriation". If it is ok for certain cultures to demand that their cultures shouldn't be appropriated, then it is ok for these native cultures to demand that terms like Anasazi and ruins not be used when discussing their heritage.
sjgochenour's review
4.0
Lots of detail about Mississippian and Ancestral Pueblo cultures. I thought the lecturer took a lot of care to be sensitive to current issues surrounding Native American archaeology, and I appreciated that. I would have liked more Great Plains history, especially because the horrifying story he told about the Pawnee took up proportionately far more space than similar upsetting stuff in the other sections.
nithuir's review
3.0
Very informative but I think it dragged on a little in places. Maybe needed a bit more spice but it is a lecture so I guess that's how it is.