Talk:Comancheria

Wiki Education Foundation-supported course assignment

This article was the subject of a Wiki Education Foundation-supported course assignment, between 5 September 2018 and 18 December 2018. Further details are available on the course page. Student editor(s): Taylor Kay-Green. Peer reviewers: Taylor Kay-Green.

Above undated message substituted from Template:Dashboard.wikiedu.org assignment by PrimeBOT (talk) 18:05, 16 January 2022 (UTC)

Accent

Should this not be "Comanchería", as in Spanish? 216.8.154.254 (talk) 12:36, 19 February 2013 (UTC)

No. It's used in English without the accent. --Taivo (talk) 12:48, 19 February 2013 (UTC)

Removal of sourced content

TaivoLinguist, if you want to dispute the view of Comancheria as an empire, you can do that by citing academics who disagree with the concept. We could even include a section "Dispute about classification as an empire". What you cannot do is simply delete information cited to academic journals and the Oxford World History of Empire, claiming that these represent fringe views, without presenting a source for this claim. Applodion (talk) 11:54, 16 January 2022 (UTC)

@TaivoLinguist: I just wanted to say that it is great that you tried to find an actual source for those disagreeing with the empire thesis. However, Kathryn Pewenofkit Bryner is a language expert, not a historian. As far as I can see, she has also never written a single published scientific article (at least none appear on Google Scholar). Three articles appear on Academia, but these seem to have never been widely published or peer-reviewed. I don't want to sound mean, but basically having a Comanche background, speaking Comanche, and being an advisor on the newest Predator film does not make an individual automatically qualified as a source for Wikipedia. Especially if it is written like she represents all native experts who opposed to non-natives, a suggestion which seems quite inaccurate (considering that Hämäläinen himself cites tons of native sources to support his empire thesis). Either way, Bryner seems not to be the right person to position as the representative of a counter-argument against well-regarded historians who have published well-received books and articles with university publishers and peer-reviewed journals. Plus, the source was a popular podcast on Hollywood culture, not anything directly related to academia. Applodion (talk) 10:18, 11 August 2022 (UTC)

Your arguments are misplaced since you don't seem to be familiar with the Comanche community. Dr. Bryner is extremely well-placed to know the academic community of Comanche members. But you also mistake the difference in Hamalainen's work between Comanche sources for X, Y, or Z point (of which there are some) and Comanche sources which support the empire hypothesis as a whole (of which there are none). Since you, yourself, are not a Comanche, you approach the topic as a settler-colonizer with the attitude that settler-colonizer POVs are superior just because they are filled with footnotes. It's important to note that my comment in the text is not about the quality of the theory, but only about its acceptance within the Comanche community, for which Dr. Bryner is a perfectly acceptable source since she is a well-placed academic within a very small academic community of Comanche scholars. Dr. Bryner is the director of the Comanche Language and Culture Committee, so she is very well placed to know Comanche academics in a variety of fields. --TaivoLinguist (Taivo) (talk) 14:40, 11 August 2022 (UTC)

I restored the comment because it is not a "rebuttal" but a statement of Comanche POV, which must be considered. If you still disagree with the Comanche objection sentence, then at least the "non-Comanche academics" must be retained because this is demonstrably true and without that charification, the assumption on the readers' part is that the theory is somehow acceptable to the subjects of the study. --TaivoLinguist (Taivo) (talk) 14:52, 11 August 2022 (UTC)

@TaivoLinguist: Frankly, I find your comment a tad disturbing. Just because Hämäläinen is not a native does not make his statements any less correct or qualified than those of Comanche heritage. If we were to apply this principle, it would lead to all kinds of racist insanity. For example, in which way are modern Comanche better placed to talk about the imperialism of their distant ancestors than an academic who actually consulted great numbers of Comanche and non-Comanche sources? I would not claim to understand how Germans in the 1600s thought just because I am descended from some of them and know members of the German academic community. That's not to say that descent and environment do not have an impact on viewpoints; of course they do, and modern Comanche can certainly impart unique insights into their people's history. However, the same could be said about modern Apaches, Texans, Mexicans, etc. whose ancestors fought against the Comanche.
I would contend, however, that no one alive can actually understand what Comanches in the 1600s, 1700s, and 1800s really felt and thought, just as no modern person could fully understand what other people belonging to other ethinc groups of that time period thought. Their world was so different from ours that all of us, regardless of origin, will approach past individuals with a certain degree of disconnect.
Also, um, "filled with footnotes" is actually the one thing that matters on Wikipedia. If a book is put out with lots of evidence by an academic publisher, Wikipedia's rules clearly state that this book is a better source than some podcast. Also, where is the proof that Bryner is a "well-placed academic within a very small academic community of Comanche scholars"? I ask this in all honesty, as I did not find evidence for this statement. As of now, it is not a "statement of Comanche POV" but one academic making a comment on a podcast. Applodion (talk) 15:56, 11 August 2022 (UTC)

I have adjusted the lede to reflect by concerns. Perhaps this version is acceptable to you. I would still ask you to provide more proof of Bryner's influence within Comanche academia, however, as this might also lead us to other Comanche academics and their view on this entire matter. Applodion (talk) 16:22, 11 August 2022 (UTC)

We've been misspelling Dr. Briner's name. I probably misspelled it first. Here is a link to her biography and academic credentials and her academic position within the tribe: Comanche Nation Language Department Website. You'll note here that the tribe itself does not recognize or accept the "Empire" label: Here is the official version of Comanche history where "empire" is not mentioned. Google searches are tricky because there's no clear way to distinguish Comanche thought from non-Comanche thought (other than statements from academics who are Comanche and know the small circle of Comanche academics--like Briner). Daniel Gelo, a Comanche linguist, doesn't really give the "Empire" notion any support in a neutrally-written review [1] that focuses on the shortcomings of PH's understanding of the language. But the "Empire" concept is certainly not universal ([2], [3]). --TaivoLinguist (Taivo) (talk) 17:07, 11 August 2022 (UTC)

@TaivoLinguist: (1) Just because something is not mentioned does not mean that it is not accepted, so the tribe's site does not really support either view.
(2) As I explained above, I am highly critical of trying to make any kind division of "Comanche thought from non-Comanche thought" for a topic like this, as in my opinion it veers into highly problematic territories (personally, I view it a pathway toward ethnic discrimination; for the same reason, please stop using this "settler-colonizer" label. It is insulting, especially if one considers that you have used it to describe an ethnic Finn - a people that was, if anything, the victim, not the agent of colonialism). Accordingly, I have again removed the ethnic label from the article. Even if I do not think that Briner's input is all that great, we should rather include her views than stuff these labels into the article.
(3) It is great that you found Gelo's critical review! However, it is behind a paywall, so could you kindly say how exactly Gelo criticizes the empire thesis?
(4) I will put Mapp's criticsm inrto the article tomorrow. DeLay, however, seems not to disagree with the empire proposal, but Hämäläinen's claim that the Comanche raids effectively destroyed the Mexican control over its northern territories. Applodion (talk) 18:53, 11 August 2022 (UTC)

As a note to the "settler-colonizer" label. I suspect that you do not mean it as an insult, as I know that there are quite a few people in the United States who use it to generally describe whites. However, where I live (Germany) it usually only used to describe people actually engage in settle-colonialism, i.e. people in the 19th century who dispossessed others around the world. As far as I can see, aside of the zionism as settler colonialism debate, those who use it in Germany to describe contemporaries largely belong to two groups: Leftist extremists (who are often antisemites) and a smaller number of Nazi nutjobs. In this context, you might understand why I disagree with using the term "settler-colonizer" to describe Hämäläinen. Applodion (talk) 19:30, 11 August 2022 (UTC)

Let me just say that your understanding of the term "settler-colonizer" in the Americas is wrong. It bears a closer relationship to the use of "Gentile" to mean "non-Jewish". "Settler-colonizer" is especially common when referring to academic ideas that aren't developed by or in partnership with Native Americans, yet attempt to achieve some kind of primacy in the academic world. Hamalainen's empire notion is certainly in that category. He is a non-Comanche who has profited from publishing his interpretation of Comanche history. That's what "settler-colonizer" means. "Settler-colonizer" isn't appropriate for the article text because it's rather non-technical, but "non-Comanche" is certainly appropriate. Indeed, this article, as currently written, is completely settler-colonizer. --TaivoLinguist (Taivo) (talk) 21:38, 11 August 2022 (UTC)

DeLay's criticism of the "Empire" concept is that the Empire concept requires conscious planning and decision-making while DeLay considers the actions that Hamalainen uses to illustrate empire-building as not the result of conscious planning and decision-making, but as the natural opportunistic decisions made by nomadic people on the edge of massive cultural shift. You have to read the details to see it because there's no one single quote that says, "I disagree with the Empire hypothesis", but it's there, especially in the concluding paragraphs, where he rejects the determinism of the Empire hypothesis in favor of the opportunism of nomadism. --TaivoLinguist (Taivo) (talk) 21:50, 11 August 2022 (UTC)

Gelo's review is more along the lines of "if you can't say something nice then say nothing at all" in his very brief and neutral description of Hamalainen's point of view. Gelo then transitions to a detailed criticism of his understanding of the Comanche language and points out a number of places where he got the Comanche wrong. (Gelo has a very good understanding of Comanche having written the trilingual dictionary that takes Rejon's 1865 vocabulary as a base.) --TaivoLinguist (Taivo) (talk) 22:05, 11 August 2022 (UTC)

Comanche Empire

For anyone interested in researching or filling out this page, I recently finished The Comanche Empire. This is a fantastic book which is readily available online and goes deep into every aspect of the Empire. It uses very clear and well-written detail. There is an audiobook available as well, which is how I listened to it.

The Comanche Empire by Pekka Hämäläinen Poketama (talk) 04:38, 5 July 2022 (UTC)

McMurtry review of Hämäläinen

From McMurtry's review of Pekka Hämäläinen's book:

"How can the Comanche empire be centralized and multilevel on one page while lacking a central authority on the next? ....The Comanches lived in disposable dwellings and left no architecture...a particularly repugnant practice being the public gang rape of captive women who were to be sold as slaves...one reason Comanche social organization has been little studied is because it was so loose as to barely make a Comanche society. they lived short, hard lives and were so frequently on the move that they had no time to make pots or weave blankets. They lived in bands but were gregarious and felt free to change bands if they felt the urge. Decisions about where to trade or when to move camp were usually arrived at by consensus...The Comanches were not particularly interested in their own genealogy; it has been suggested that they liked having no history and no available folk memory. They appeared, they carried war to their enemies, their power waned, and when at the end a few white scholars came to ask them questions they did not have much to say."

https://www.nybooks.com/articles/2008/05/29/the-conquering-indians/

It's a testament to the absolute uncritical enthusiasm for anything non-European, that this nomadic, decentralized society which lacked all of the most basic elements of civilization can be seriously called an "empire," while its author receives adulatory, uncritical coverage in the NY Times:

https://www.nytimes.com/2022/09/20/arts/indigenous-continent-pekka-hamalainen.html AvidReader11663 (talk) 16:52, 21 October 2022 (UTC)

I would argue that the review rather suggests that McMurtry did not properly read Hämäläinen's book, as his statements contradict what Hämäläinen actually says in his work. Applodion (talk) 17:41, 21 October 2022 (UTC)