I think about this -> "But the midwest is less scenic" every time I go to an incredibly scenic national park... and I really think our problem is that we have actually lost most of our very scenic land into farmland. I've always imagined how incredible a 10 mile midwest hike would be through a HUGE restored midwest prairie - I'm imagining long short rolling prairies filled with hundreds of different types of native flowers...symphonicpoet wrote: ↑Nov 26, 2021There's a few. Mesa Verde is probably the most famous, and it might be the only one that's a full blown park. But there are several other NPS administered cultural sites in the area. Canyon de Chelly and Montezuma's Castle, Newspaper Rock . . . The ancestral puebloans and related/entangled cultures in the four corners area probably get the lions share of NPS sited dedicated to Native Americans. There's also a few NPS administered battlefields, the Little Bighorn probably most prominent among them. The various mound building cultures are probably as important to Native American history as the Puebloan cultures, really. They covered an even wider geographic area and had larger cities and settlements. They have descendants who are still with us today. But the midwest is less "scenic" and there are more people here, so interpretation is more complicated. The NPS is pretty much run by scouts as far as I can tell, and we do like our hiking and camping, so less populous and more topographically dramatic sites will probably always win. Even if the less dramatic sites are equally or even more historically significant.KansasCitian wrote: ↑Nov 26, 2021Cahokia Mounds wouldn't be the prettiest national park, by far, but I think it has a ton of potential and its historical significance warrants more attention than the site presently garners.
How many national parks or forests actually honor Native Americans for their society and innovation as a primary focus? I can't imagine it is many, if any at all.
In this day and age when Columbus Day and Thanksgiving and other holidays are under some fire for their historical baggage, for how Americans are essentially celebrating on the graves of our indigenous peoples, you would think something like Cahokia Mounds becoming a national park could gain some traction.
- 2,051
- 6,117
^The trouble is that I think a lot of outdoorsy sorts want something fairly particular. They're usually looking for some place to hike, climb, float, fish, or maybe hunt. Large prairies don't make for great hiking, as it's not much fun to hike in full sun, and there's not enough relief to even reward it with a particularly good view. The hunting might be okay, but that's probably the bottom outdoor activity among the national park crowd. (It's generally not permitted in parks anyway.) We have some decent streams, but not terribly much of the dramatic whitewater the Colorado plateau is famous for. (Dramatic topography usually makes for dramatic water. And we're probably in the bottom tenth of states in terms of topographic relief. We have more than Florida and Kansas, but that's not saying much. Even Arkansas and Oklahoma have us beat.) Don't get me wrong. I love Missouri. The St. Francois mountains are lovely. The Mississippi is a sight to behold. It's transformative. But in terms of floating it's punishingly difficult without a mountain in site anywhere along its length. It's romance is more that of the railroads: you can take big things on it and use it to get somewhere far away. Very different kind of draw. There's a reason the Midwest isn't terribly wild and the Colorado plateau still is, even after people have lived on both for thousands of years. In an ideal world we're the last homely house before you get to the part of the map with trolls and dragons. And Cahokia is a piece of that history.
Anyone have any insight on how the new Federal regulations on displaying Native American artifacts may affect Cahokia Mounds?
https://www.yahoo.com/news/leading-muse ... 25697.html
https://www.yahoo.com/news/leading-muse ... 25697.html
Osage Nation takes some stewardship of Native American sites in the St. Louis area, notably buying Sugarloaf mound in 2009. As far as I've ever heard, no Native group or Nation makes direct claims on the St. Louis area sites but Osage Nation would have the strongest claim of lineage.framer wrote: ↑Jan 27, 2024Anyone have any insight on how the new Federal regulations on displaying Native American artifacts may affect Cahokia Mounds?
https://www.yahoo.com/news/leading-muse ... 25697.html
So any artifacts or works in the interpretative center from the site or Mississippian period are likely safe.