Electricity was discovered around 600 bc, electric eels weren’t discovered til the 1740s (named in 1766). Natives in South America likely interacted with them, but we don’t have any records of what they called them. Most likely though we would’ve named them something to do with lightning if we hadn’t figured out electricity when we found them.
https://a-z-animals.com/blog/discover-what-electric-eels-called-before-electricity/
Unfortunately, your article was pretty lazily written. IDK how they even got away with it. It took me about 5 seconds of googling to find that indigenous people in Venezuela called them “Arimna” or “something that deprives you of motion.”
https://www.theatlantic.com/science/archive/2019/09/electric-eel-three-species-what-a-shock/597709/
Are you suggesting a blog posted on a-z-animals.com is not a reliable source for facts??
Shocked. I’m absolutely shocked.
Right lol. This was more of a response pointing out that the other commenter in this thread who got down voted into oblivion was actually raising a good point.
I love how things aren’t “discovered” until white people see em. Even though like you pointed out, humans who actually lived in those regions were very well aware of them
Things are only discovered until documented and the information spread, it has nothing to do with race. In the same way Adam Savage said “the only difference between screwing around and science is writing it down”
Ah, so you must do things the white way in order for them to count. Got it. By the way, the Aztecs wrote a lot of shit down, Europeans just don’t want hear about it
The Spanish torched much of the cultural heritage of the Aztecs, sure, but the obvious implication of a thing being “discovered” is “when do we start having concrete evidence of this thing being known to our existence?”
So, when someone says “electric eels being discovered” they mean “electric eels becoming concretely documented by people in a way we can verify.”
Also, stuff in our past has been discovered and lost numerous times across the ages. We generally agree that finding the oldest instance of a thing is the “discovery” time of that thing.
I think you both have a point - From where we stand today, it’s the saved history that we now share together that we have to go off of. But it’s good to acknowledge that the history we have was written by the “winners” and there were plenty of discoveries from other civilizations that have been destroyed.
Indeed. The only way to rectify the errors that got us here is by sharing information and spreading awareness of what was changed/lost…and I don’t think being hostile towards the people who are taking an interest in a topic over their cultural history really helps that along…
Agreed, no need for hostility!
I’m Aztec pipil, we didn’t forget all of our history, we were told it as kids. We had all the knowledge, but only when the whites take interest does it become “discovered”. Makes me laugh/cry when I see an add for European chocolate and they say “the Belgians invented chocolate…”
Well that’s the problem isn’t it? If the knowledge exists but it isn’t as widespread as anything else, it is much more likely to become the accepted “discovery point” of something.
While I think its rather unlikely for the idea of Belgians being the inventors of chocolate becoming widely accepted as fact by the people who matter when ruling on discoveries, it isn’t that much of a stretch to see why it’s “whites” who are listed as the discoverers of things since they’re the ones who had the power to make it a reality.
I’m not advocating for the stance that “well, the Europeans won so they should get to be listed as discoverers of things,” but on a certain level that is the unfortunate reality of the situation for many things: Europeans conquered and smashed their way (whether on purpose or accidentally) into being listed as the discoverers of many things. If the records of X thing existing didn’t exist until the Europeans cataloged (stole) it, there isn’t much to be done in changing that reality without concerted efforts by people to change that.
Overall, I think we’ve taken a lot of steps in rectifying that situation, but its a difficult process to complete, especially when it comes to oral histories.
I will also note that the hostility isn’t really productive. I don’t think anyone who is interested in this topic is terribly likely to have some hatred of the natives who were likely aware of things before Europeans, so to immediately act with hostility only really serves to hurt the cause of spreading awareness about the discoveries of indigenous people.
Oddly enough the scientific community doesn’t color check properly recorded documents.
Hey everyone, check out this comment I discovered! It raises some good points! You’re welcome!
but we don’t have any records of what they called them
It’s quite likely they used to call them by a name similar to the one they call it now. It sounds nothing like “electric eel” though.
The German Zitteraale translates roughly to “{tremble/vibrate/shiver} eel”
Guy: Dude, that skinny fish just bit me!!
Friend: It didn’t even touch you, pussy.
Guy: I swear to God it got me.
Friend: Got you with what, its scary fish magic?
This /r/AskHistorians post has a nice discussion on it. While there’s little in the way of records for precolonial South American names for it, one person has found the example of arimna, “that which deprives of motion”.
Acoustic eels
Spicy water snakes
Electricity was actually named after the eels.
Electricity was named after amber. (Because it has a visible electrostatic effect when rubbed with a cloth.)
Pretty sure it was the eels.
Spicy noodles.
Tingly enemas
Zap logs.
Gyarados obviously
Ouchy boys
Snappy snakes
Danger eel
Gymnotus electricus
