The natives that lived here before

[CatholicKnight3]

The white man “discovered America.”

I have often wondered about them, and their style of living. That is with out a monetary system that is.

Bartering.

I am wondering if there is a certain harmony in that way of life that we will never know. I am wondering (I think this is obvious) how much more beneficial is that paradigm to the monetary system.

We are fairly sure there was a greater ecological balance. Especially when it came to the natural equilibrium between humans and wild life.

An example is how all of the animals here thrived and flourished. There was plenty of Buffalo, and there was far more symbiosis with the animals. Beaver were plentiful, and they certainly made the land fertile with their irrigation skills.

It did not even occur to an Indian Chief to wipe EVERY BUFFALO so that he can live in a 40 bedroom tepee on 100 acres of land for him his wife and his spoiled children.

They usually utilized all of the parts of the animals they did kill. Clothing, tools etc etc.

I know I read in Psalms that the law of God is written on the hearts of men.

The natives had marriages. They had laws against stealing. They honored their elders. They worshiped a deity.

I just find it interesting and their simplistic style of living imo is closer to how God had called us to be.

 

[18trouble]

I’m drawn to some of those thoughts myself. Currently reading a book about St. Kateri, very interesting.

 

[acarlson]

The white man “discovered America.”

I have often wondered about them, and their style of living. That is with out a monetary system that is.

Bartering.

I am wondering if there is a certain harmony in that way of life that we will never know. I am wondering (I think this is obvious) how much more beneficial is that paradigm to the monetary system.

We are fairly sure there was a greater ecological balance. Especially when it came to the natural equilibrium between humans and wild life.

An example is how all of the animals here thrived and flourished. There was plenty of Buffalo, and there was far more symbiosis with the animals. Beaver were plentiful, and they certainly made the land fertile with their irrigation skills.

It did not even occur to an Indian Chief to wipe EVERY BUFFALO so that he can live in a 40 bedroom tepee on 100 acres of land for him his wife and his spoiled children.

They usually utilized all of the parts of the animals they did kill. Clothing, tools etc etc.

I know I read in Psalms that the law of God is written on the hearts of men.

The natives had marriages. They had laws against stealing. They honored their elders. They worshiped a deity.

I just find it interesting and their simplistic style of living imo is closer to how God had called us to be.

But many Native cultures – at least those living in the New England region, which I’ve studied a bit in American history – also had elaborate torture rituals for captured enemies that were based on the preservation of honor. “Mourning wars” fought, essentially, in revenge for the death of a family member were common as well. Many also worshiped several deities, many based in nature, as opposed to a single omnipotent, “beyond our imaginations” sort of god.

So my point here is two-fold:

1. It’s true that there are basic truths that every human understands because they’re human, which don’t require a Christian background. But we cannot say that men can easily live a just, Christian life without it. Revenge killings and torture are against God’s law, but that’s not something inherently obvious to humans (even today we don’t really understand this). Were they really “closer” to how God calls us to be – or as your comment implies, following the whole of God’s will more fully?
2. I’d be careful in assuming that Native cultures were this people with a “simplistic style of living.” Just because they interacted with their environment in a different (read, better) way doesn’t mean their lives or cultures were any more or less simple. They have intricate beliefs, customs, traditions, problems, pariahs, injustices, etc. just like any world culture. Saying that they led “simple” lives makes it seem as if they have nothing worth noting in their MULTIPLICITY of cultures because it’s not what “we” consider to be “culture.”

:twocents:

But yes, Bl. Kateri is AWESOME.

 

[Ad_Orientem]

I think you’re romanticizing. Some years ago I read a well researched biography of the North American Martyrs, which described from their eyewitness accounts the daily lives of the American natives who had never been exposed to cultures outside their own. It was not pleasant. Apart from the squalor and unhealthy living conditions (inadequate ventilation, for one), they were quite immoral. Young people were promiscuous, couples were unfaithful, old people were treated like dirt, and in some cases they practiced cannibalism. To stop one of the missionaries from saying Mass, the natives chewed off his fingers. The Aztecs and Mayans practiced human sacrifice. Not a pretty picture.

 

[Marie5890]

But many Native cultures – at least those living in the New England region, which I’ve studied a bit in American history – .

Specifically which tribes of the New England areas have your studied?

 

[CatholicKnight3]

But many Native cultures – at least those living in the New England region, which I’ve studied a bit in American history – also had elaborate torture rituals for captured enemies that were based on the preservation of honor. “Mourning wars” fought, essentially, in revenge for the death of a family member were common as well. Many also worshiped several deities, many based in nature, as opposed to a single omnipotent, “beyond our imaginations” sort of god.

So my point here is two-fold:

1. It’s true that there are basic truths that every human understands because they’re human, which don’t require a Christian background. But we cannot say that men can easily live a just, Christian life without it. Revenge killings and torture are against God’s law, but that’s not something inherently obvious to humans (even today we don’t really understand this). Were they really “closer” to how God calls us to be – or as your comment implies, following the whole of God’s will more fully?
2. I’d be careful in assuming that Native cultures were this people with a “simplistic style of living.” Just because they interacted with their environment in a different (read, better) way doesn’t mean their lives or cultures were any more or less simple. They have intricate beliefs, customs, traditions, problems, pariahs, injustices, etc. just like any world culture. Saying that they led “simple” lives makes it seem as if they have nothing worth noting in their MULTIPLICITY of cultures because it’s not what “we” consider to be “culture.”

:twocents:

But yes, Bl. Kateri is AWESOME.

When I say simple life, I am not saying an easy life.

They would also be in need of forgiveness from God.

What I was referring to was the over all ecological balance that seemed to exist.

Like I said, there was a real balance that did exist. We know there were plenty of Buffalo, Beavers, wolves, and even Jaguars that thrived and flourished in North America.

Harmony does not mean with out struggle. Life is very much about struggle. At least that is what it is with every species on earth.

When Christ says to behold the lilies of the field or birds on the air, we can learn about different aspects of life just by oberving nature itself. A lot of the observations are difficult lessons.

I am speaking about our lives where we are inundated with commercialism, mass consumption, mass temptations hounding us. We see how greed and over consumption is destroying the planet. I am not a liberal person, but that is what is happening.

There is a total imbalance in our lives, and I wonder how that lifestyle would be. Not for us, and it would not be happier necessarily. It would however be better ecoligically for the planet.

I think. Do not get me wrong. Not saying there were these perfect people with out need of the sacrifice of Jesus or the Holy Spirit.

 

[Aelred_Minor]

There is a lot of scientific and sociological mythology here. Almost the first thing they teach you when you study ecology (even at an intensely environmentalist college like the one I attended) is that there is no ecological balance, no harmony to be found in or with nature, no “pristine” natural state which is only sullied by humans. The only constant in the ecosystem is change, and our own species is just (from a materialist perspective, anyway) a natural part of that relentless instability.

This was true in pre-Columbian America as well. While it remains a controversial subject, it is probably a safe bet that our species played a large role in the extinction of megafauna at the last Ice Age, presumably together with other environmental changes. That means the ancestors of today’s American Indians, together with the ancestors of modern Europeans, Asians, and Australian Aborigines, helped drive their most important game species to extinction.

The brutality of many American Indian cultures is also well documented. I think much of the attraction many Euro-Americans have to these cultures today is the way they combine the familiar (the land we ourselves call home) with the exotic (cultures very different from our own). Also there is the narrative that they were the helpless victims of our malicious ancestors that we all learned in grade-school (often very true, though of course reality was often more complicated), and above all our attraction to the beauty of nature and our pleasure in outdoor recreation, which we understandably but insensitively associate with cultures who to our modern eyes seem to have been perpetually living in campgrounds.

Something of the horror of savagery returns to us when we imagine what it would be like if something happened to our world that reduced its inhabitants to this kind of existence. The difference between ideas of romantic savagery and horrific savagery is that the idea of horrific savagery remembers that the people living in that state are human beings just like the rest of us.

That’s not to say that Americans Indians did not or do not possess good qualities less apparent in the our colonial European population or that there is no value in simple living. But our romantic myths about the wise and innocent “Native Americans” of the past or present are unrealistic.

 

[CatholicKnight3]

There is a lot of scientific and sociological mythology here. Almost the first thing they teach you when you study ecology (even at an intensely environmentalist college like the one I attended) is that there is no ecological balance, no harmony to be found in or with nature, no “pristine” natural state which is only sullied by humans. The only constant in the ecosystem is change, and our own species is just (from a materialist perspective, anyway) a natural part of that relentless instability.

This was true in pre-Columbian America as well. While it remains a controversial subject, it is probably a safe bet that our species played a large role in the extinction of megafauna at the last Ice Age, presumably together with other environmental changes. That means the ancestors of today’s American Indians, together with the ancestors of modern Europeans, Asians, and Australian Aborigines, helped drive their most important game species to extinction.

The brutality of many American Indian cultures is also well documented. I think much of the attraction many Euro-Americans have to these cultures today is the way they combine the familiar (the land we ourselves call home) with the exotic (cultures very different from our own). Also there is the narrative that they were the helpless victims of our malicious ancestors that we all learned in grade-school (often very true, though of course reality was often more complicated), and above all our attraction to the beauty of nature and our pleasure in outdoor recreation, which we understandably but insensitively associate with cultures who to our modern eyes seem to have been perpetually living in campgrounds.

Something of the horror of savagery returns to us when we imagine what it would be like if something happened to our world that reduced its inhabitants to this kind of existence. The difference between ideas of romantic savagery and horrific savagery is that the idea of horrific savagery remembers that the people living in that state are human beings just like the rest of us.

That’s not to say that Americans Indians did not or do not possess good qualities less apparent in the our colonial European population or that there is no value in simple living. But our romantic myths about the wise and innocent “Native Americans” of the past are unrealistic.

Are you suggesting that there is no savage behavior with our monetary system? You see what poachers do to whole herds of elephants? The Astors (one of the new worlds first billionaires) made their fortune from the fur trade and it was long before monopolies were illegal.

Through devilish greed, the buffalo were all but entirely wiped out. All for a lot more land than any one man would ever need. The American beaver were almost wiped out forever for their pelts. Along with species of ferret and minks. Wolves were almost destroyed and it had a devastating effect on the ecology here.

In fact a lot of the dust bowl was a direct effect of the lack of the millions of grazing buffalo that would graze and air-rate the soil all across the mid west and crucial areas. As a result of their absence, weeds over grew the area, killing of the grass lands. The prarie dog suffered greatly and mass problems continue to this day that we not even aware of.

The pure unintended consequences that result from our damn building etc is only barely known.

Almost all of these decisions are based on monetary considerations.

Now, were the natives these perfect people that sinless and with out blame? No. However, neither were Christians. That is for sure.

 

[aspirant]

I have often wondered about them, and their style of living.

You would probably enjoy reading 1491: New Revelations of the Americas Before Columbus by Charles C. Mann. It’s probably readily available at your public library, and it’s an interesting read. (“Revelation” is not being used in a religious sense here: it’s about discoveries made through science, history, and archaeology. And it’s not, strictly speaking, all new information-- I think the title was intended to mean “new to many, perhaps even most, readers.”)

 

[Charlemagne_II]

CatholicKnight

**The natives had marriages. They had laws against stealing. They honored their elders. They worshiped a deity.

I just find it interesting and their simplistic style of living imo is closer to how God had called us to be. **

They also had epidemic of disease that kept their populations down. They also had tribal wars all the time. They also had poverty and starvation, and had to move like nomads to stay alive.

Today they have Cadillacs and oil wells and their children can afford to attend the best universities if they like. They don’t fight each other any more. And they don’t fight the white folks anymore, except maybe at their hundreds of Casino tables.

 

[CatholicKnight3]

CatholicKnight

**The natives had marriages. They had laws against stealing. They honored their elders. They worshiped a deity.

I just find it interesting and their simplistic style of living imo is closer to how God had called us to be. **

They also had epidemic of disease that kept their populations down. They also had tribal wars all the time. They also had poverty and starvation, and had to move like nomads to stay alive.

Today they have Cadillacs and oil wells and their children can afford to attend the best universities if they like. They don’t fight each other any more. And they don’t fight the white folks anymore, except maybe at their hundreds of Casino tables.

Not for nothing, but we should probably talk about unintended consequences.

Many things we do or “discover” seem good. I know when I am sick I certainly want medicine.

Lets look at the fact that by artificially prolonging life, that we have caused a real imbalance between birth and death rates.

100 years ago for example, there was an estimated 1 billion people on earth. We just surpassed 7 billion last year. Consider this. Land is finite. We have already encroached on a lot of habitats that has cause extinctions or species to be endangered. We over consume natural resources. Less than 3% of all the water on the planet is suitable for human consumption.

It seems that there is a double edged sword to everything. The natives did not have a lifestyle where it was filled with rainbows and lollipops. Nor do I think they were not in need of enlightenment from the Holy Spirit or the love of Christ.

What I am saying, just from an ecological stand point, there seems to be a better way with out the monetary system and all of the temptations the monetary system generates.

 

[PeterGStanley]

I think you’re romanticizing. Some years ago I read a well researched biography of the North American Martyrs, which described from their eyewitness accounts the daily lives of the American natives who had never been exposed to cultures outside their own. It was not pleasant. Apart from the squalor and unhealthy living conditions (inadequate ventilation, for one), they were quite immoral. Young people were promiscuous, couples were unfaithful, old people were treated like dirt, and in some cases they practiced cannibalism. To stop one of the missionaries from saying Mass, the natives chewed off his fingers. The Aztecs and Mayans practiced human sacrifice. Not a pretty picture.

I highly doubt it was much better with any other culture at the time - the difference being others simply had more technology.Look at the immoral world we live in.

 

[Ridgerunner]

I think it is a great mistake to romanticize any past era, and particularly one about which there is so much popular romanticization. Would it have been preferable to live as a Frank during the much-maligned so-called “Dark Ages” of Europe dreading Viking raids, or as an Apache on the southern plains while the Comanches were driving them into the desert? As between the two, I think I would prefer to be the Frank. At least there were fortresses here and there in the Frankish kingdom and the Vikings didn’t roast their enemies alive.

There were indeed millions of buffalo on the open plains; about the same number as there are cattle now. Yet, before Columbus, very few Indians lived on the plains, and certainly not the tribes we think of as the classic “Plains Indians”. Few lived there because buffalo were very hard to kill and impossible to chase on foot. They only became an widely accessible food source when Indians gained access to horses. Then, more numerous tribes adjacent to the plains moved into the plains and decimated the few already living there. There was a boom in births and in health among the 19th Century buffalo-hunting Indians, made even greater when Indians got access to guns.

But it was an unsustainable life. Had white buffalo hunters not decimated the buffalo, the ever-increasing Indian tribes were bound to do it. They were on the road to it. Possibly they thought they were living in “harmony with nature”, but they weren’t. Would any buffalo have been preserved by their disparate and unorganized tribes? One can rightly doubt it. More likely they would have killed and eaten every last one on the plains, just as the Comanches largely did in the Southern Plains. Their hunter culture was not sustainable.

 

[CatholicKnight3]

I think it is a great mistake to romanticize any past era, and particularly one about which there is so much popular romanticization. Would it have been preferable to live as a Frank during the much-maligned so-called “Dark Ages” of Europe dreading Viking raids, or as an Apache on the southern plains while the Comanches were driving them into the desert? As between the two, I think I would prefer to be the Frank. At least there were fortresses here and there in the Frankish kingdom and the Vikings didn’t roast their enemies alive.

There were indeed millions of buffalo on the open plains; about the same number as there are cattle now. Yet, before Columbus, very few Indians lived on the plains, and certainly not the tribes we think of as the classic “Plains Indians”. Few lived there because buffalo were very hard to kill and impossible to chase on foot. They only became an widely accessible food source when Indians gained access to horses. Then, more numerous tribes adjacent to the plains moved into the plains and decimated the few already living there. There was a boom in births and in health among the 19th Century buffalo-hunting Indians, made even greater when Indians got access to guns.

But it was an unsustainable life. Had white buffalo hunters not decimated the buffalo, the ever-increasing Indian tribes were bound to do it. They were on the road to it. Possibly they thought they were living in “harmony with nature”, but they weren’t. Would any buffalo have been preserved by their disparate and unorganized tribes? One can rightly doubt it. More likely they would have killed and eaten every last one on the plains, just as the Comanches largely did in the Southern Plains. Their hunter culture was not sustainable.

Again, not romanticizing anything. We can see the perverse society that we live in as a direct result of the love of money. I know you know Christ said the love of money is the root of all evil.

Things that SEEM good, are not so good. They all really appear to be that way.

We are generally pretty spoiled. Most of us live in pure luxury.

However, there have been real barbaric incidents that are as insidious as any savage ways people lived here with no monetary system.

Again, there is no romanticizing of the the natives, and I was not saying they are these perpetual blameless beings.

I am pointing out the land of temptation we live in, and the main causes of the temptations that we are inundated with on a daily basis.

 

[Ridgerunner]

Again, not romanticizing anything. We can see the perverse society that we live in as a direct result of the love of money. I know you know Christ said the love of money is the root of all evil.

Things that SEEM good, are not so good. They all really appear to be that way.

We are generally pretty spoiled. Most of us live in pure luxury.

However, there have been real barbaric incidents that are as insidious as any savage ways people lived here with no monetary system.

Again, there is no romanticizing of the the natives, and I was not saying they are these perpetual blameless beings.

I am pointing out the land of temptation we live in, and the main causes of the temptations that we are inundated with on a daily basis.

I would certainly not argue against the proposition that the love of money was the root of all evil in Jesus’ time, and one can assume the same for ours. But i don’t know that He would have glorified barter, since it can be just as big an obsession and just as oppressive.
Would evil disappear if we used grains of wheat instead of bits of paper? I very much doubt it. In the part of the country where I live, there was no currency for a long time, and people used whiskey for money. I suppose at the time one could have said that “love if whiskey is the root of all evil”.

Your point is interesting, though, when one considers what “love of money” means. What is money, after all? It’s something that can be traded for what another produces. It’s potential goods and services, in reserve. Seems obvious to me that the appetite for goods and services is excessive today. Probably it has been since Adam and Eve.

It’s interesting to consider another aspect of money. It’s also power. I can get my neighbor to do my bidding if I give him money to do something he would not otherwise do. On a large scale, I can get all sorts of people to do my bidding if I have huge financial resoucres. It’s perverse that the seekers of money are ultimately seeking power while the seekers of power always seem ultimately to be seeking money. In a way, they’re interchangeable, but they share the characteristic that they are a means of bending another to my will.

But there’s a more positive aspect to it. St. Thomas Aquinas opined that the “fair price” of anything is paid when I value what I get more than I value what I give for it. When you think about it, that’s what we all do. I work “X” hours at “Y” dollars/hour, and I am willing to give so many dollars for “Z” because I want “Z” more than I value the hours I spent earning what I spend. Money, in that sense, is not evil at all, any more than a bushel of wheat equivalent would be.

Can that all get out of kilter. For sure. And we can certainly overvalue it. I think it’s fair to say that almost every one of us, at some point, makes an idol of money or the things money can get us, because we all are tempted to overvalue both.

 

[Deltadeliquent]

First of all, remember that you cannot make blanket statements about Indians ( their word). Each nation was different from the other. Some nations might have been more ecologically sound than others, some more spiritual than others.

They had their wars and displacements just like us white people. They just didn’t do as much damage because they didn’t have the technology to do so. Yet they did manage to put their stamp on the landscape like we do.

I used to be very into their spirituality. I studied the Navajo in particular. I have nothing but respect and admiration for their ways. But I went back to the Catholic Church because of a point I read several times. Native Americans will often point out that white people are stealing their religion, another theft in a long line of thefts. They say that the Creator gave them their religion, and He gave us ours.

Since I didn’t fit into their world, I decided to go back to mine. And I am very happy and content in the Church now. I wish it was more respectful of the rest of creation and of animals though. That’s what drove me away in the first place. I’m hoping the new pope can mitigate some of that arrogant mindset.

 

[Aelred_Minor]

Are you suggesting that there is no savage behavior with our monetary system? You see what poachers do to whole herds of elephants? The Astors (one of the new worlds first billionaires) made their fortune from the fur trade and it was long before monopolies were illegal.

Through devilish greed, the buffalo were all but entirely wiped out. All for a lot more land than any one man would ever need. The American beaver were almost wiped out forever for their pelts. Along with species of ferret and minks. Wolves were almost destroyed and it had a devastating effect on the ecology here.

In fact a lot of the dust bowl was a direct effect of the lack of the millions of grazing buffalo that would graze and air-rate the soil all across the mid west and crucial areas. As a result of their absence, weeds over grew the area, killing of the grass lands. The prarie dog suffered greatly and mass problems continue to this day that we not even aware of.

The pure unintended consequences that result from our damn building etc is only barely known.

Almost all of these decisions are based on monetary considerations.

Now, were the natives these perfect people that sinless and with out blame? No. However, neither were Christians. That is for sure.

Of course I am not minimizing any of the wrongs done by later Americans. My post was to attempt to cut through some of the modern mythology concerning the early history and cultures of the continent, and popular misconceptions about ecology.

 

[Ridgerunner]

Are you suggesting that there is no savage behavior with our monetary system? You see what poachers do to whole herds of elephants? The Astors (one of the new worlds first billionaires) made their fortune from the fur trade and it was long before monopolies were illegal.

Through devilish greed, the buffalo were all but entirely wiped out. All for a lot more land than any one man would ever need. The American beaver were almost wiped out forever for their pelts. Along with species of ferret and minks. Wolves were almost destroyed and it had a devastating effect on the ecology here.

In fact a lot of the dust bowl was a direct effect of the lack of the millions of grazing buffalo that would graze and air-rate the soil all across the mid west and crucial areas. As a result of their absence, weeds over grew the area, killing of the grass lands. The prarie dog suffered greatly and mass problems continue to this day that we not even aware of.

The pure unintended consequences that result from our damn building etc is only barely known.

Almost all of these decisions are based on monetary considerations.

Now, were the natives these perfect people that sinless and with out blame? No. However, neither were Christians. That is for sure.

You might be interested in googling Allen Savory. I found his information very interesting. He maintains that a good part of the world has been unncessarily desertified by people failing to follow the kinds of grazing pattern that hoofed animals normally have. Some of his “before” and “after” photos are astonishing. He has turned desert land into lush pasture simply by grazing it. Seems counter-intuitive until you listen to his whole thesis.

So, I agree in part with what you’re saying about buffalo grazing the land. However, since there are approximately as many cattle in the U.S. now as there once were buffalo, the same effect can be achieved with cattle. But you have to do grazing differently from the way many do. It’s of real interest to me because there are now recommendations coming out of the various universities suggesting ways of achieving the effect. I have done some of it myself, but it does require a certain level of initial investment to make it work properly.

Explaining briefly, grazing animals will normally graze an area very intensively by nature, then move on. In their path they leave hoofmarks, just as you said, lots of manure and urine that enriches the soil. They also trample the grass, which is perhaps the most important contribution they make, strangely enough. It keeps the ground cool and the moisture in. They will eat or trample the naturally occurring weeds if they graze in tight herds.

Mink, ferrets and even otters have returned to my part of the country, whereas there weren’t any when I was a kid. I think I know some of the reasons. Also bald eagles and white and blue herons are present again in significant numbers. This is a rural area, but it’s very heavily populated as rural areas go.

Beavers are a mixed blessing. They can be very destructive of stream banks because they strip them of every last tree and sprout, which is usually what is holding the banks together. They can cause “graveling and silting” of streams, eradication of fish through silting, and field erosion. I do not consider them a good thing in areas where streams are already vulnerable due to the lay of the land. Their dams and homes get wiped out anyway in narrow valleys surrounded by steep hills, which is what we have around here, because the annual floods are so voluminous and irresistable. There are undoubtedly places where their presence is not perilous or destructive. But in my opinion, not all areas can live with them. A beaver family set up shop on a stream on my land. I thought it was neat until I realized they were stripping the banks bare. I let it go even so, but a normal spring flood carried them, dam and home away anyway in one day, and they never returned. Frankly, I doubt they survived.

I can’t explain why the minks and otters remained. I suppose they go to high ground during floods, and maybe beavers don’t. Remarkably, the wild trout and other aquatic creatures survive as well. I suspect I know why, but I’m not sure. My guess is (and local lore suggests) that they manage to find quiet water among the rock outcroppings in even the most severe torrents.

 

[ett]

I was searching for a thread related to this so I wouldn’t have to start a new one.
I was interested in learning about Louis XV, so came across
this.

My attention is on 13:34 of this video, where again someone is saying (in some cases) the missionaries were brutal.

Is there a more descriptive story about this? I am making my way through the links from this link.

There are massive protests in North Dakota about the DAPL and I have roots in South Dakota and native Costa Rica, so this interests me. I have seen arguments that the Sioux were asked for (name removed by moderator)ut on the pipeline long before they started protesting and it isn’t fair for them to wait until all the plans were made and work started before they started their protest, but maybe I don’t know the whole story.