So Called "myth"

[Guest NWSquatcher]

Totem Poles In The Royal BC Museum

The Royal BC Museum has a interesting educational document available on Totem Poles for those who would like to read more about their history.

[Guest vilnoori]

Thanks, that's really interesting. Particularly since so much history and legend in this area was lost when so many people died of smallpox and other diseases early in the 20th century (and before). And I suppose it was actively suppressed also.

(waves to rocknkt)

Edited September 13, 2010 by vilnoori

[Guest alex]

Vilnoori - good to talk to you again!

As you know - masks and totems are very often hugely stylized in the First Nation's culture. Not sure if one can look at a very old mask today and state categorically that what our personal reference and belief tells us we see - is what the artist intended to convey.

On the old forum there was a lot of nonsense being bandied about trying to claim that a seal mask (IIRC) was sasquatch. Sort of like everybody having their own interpretations of songs or poems that make the writer roll their eyes and laugh (or cry )

The JREF forum has a great thread --- "Native American myths/traditions support Bigfoot? A critical look". There was a lot of in depth research (including contact with various FN tribes) done by a forum member and is definitely worth a look.

Since I'm not sure about linking to another forum from this forum - for those interested in a real solid research project regarding one of the cornerstones of what people refer to as "historical sasquatch evidence" - just google jref and go to the index and click on "General Skepticism and the Paranormal" section and find the thread referred to above.

I think your questions about the "Wild Woman" will be answered thoroughly with tons of references to back up any claims that are made by the writer.

So all Native American's were right on every other animal, just not sasquatch, because it can't possibly exist? Rockin, do you have any sources that claim that Indians viewed the bear and eagle as real animals in their legends?

[Guest rockinkt]

So all Native American's were right on every other animal, just not sasquatch, because it can't possibly exist? Rockin, do you have any sources that claim that Indians viewed the bear and eagle as real animals in their legends?

Sorry - but I do not understand your question.

[Guest alex]

Sorry - but I do not understand your question.

Do you believe that the Natives regarded bears and eagles as "just animals" in their folklore?

[Guest]

Sorry - but I do not understand your question.

Alex is, I think, pointing out a flaw in the common counter claim that depictions of sasquatch like beings in NA folklore are referencing purely spiritual beings as opposed to real animals. Alex is (round about) referencing the fact that NA spirituality and imagery commonly embraces the "duality" concept: NA "spirits" are both supernatural AND physical. There is Bear the spirit, and bear the animal. Nearly all NA spiritual iconography utilizes this concept.

[Guest rockinkt]

Neither I - nor anybody else can - claim to know all reasoning behind every NA Indian legend, myth, or story.

The Sto:lo have different interpretations of "Stone People" and how they came into existence depending on what part of the Sto:lo Nation you are in. 40 miles through their territory and the story changes.

Sometimes animals are just animals - with a little anthropomorphism thrown in. Coyote being a "trickster", "Raven" being a cunning thief, etc.

Sometimes the real animals are spoke about as being sentient with people's abilities to talk and reason and act and interact with humans in a perfectly "normal" way. (i.e.just like humans but with fur and fangs)

Other times - they are referred to as actively partaking in what we would call the supernatural or spiritual world. That is, interceding in mystical ways or controlling the forces of nature.

All I have to do to see any of the animals that have "duality" in any of the First Nations that I am familiar with is to visit the tribal areas. There will be real creatures to see and parts thereof in the local First Nations cultural and ceremonial collections.

It's pretty easy - if there are no physical parts of the animal in the tribe's collections - then there are no real animals being referred to. Period.

Regarding the duality of real animals - the physical presence of a pelt or claw or feather, or hoof, or tooth (or combination thereof) made the connection between the supernatural and the shaman.

Real animal parts were a central part of the dance and story telling culture as well .

People who killed 1,000 lb. grizzly bears that are sharp on all four corners would have had no trouble finding a killing a squatch or two. If there was really such a creature to hunt and kill. IMHO.

[Guest]

^ The fly in the ointment of that theory is that the NA legends make it clear that (depending on the tribe and location) that they DON'T hunt BF, either because he is considered too close to them as a creature (an almost man, and therefore not food) or because they fear him such that they avoid him. Those two facts are also in the "myths". The almost universal constant in BF symbology is NA traditions is to "leave him alone", for one of the two reasons above.

[Guest]

People who killed 1,000 lb. grizzly bears that are sharp on all four corners would have had no trouble finding a killing a squatch or two. If there was really such a creature to hunt and kill. IMHO.

Mine too. And "people" have been killing "people" since Adam and Eve's kids first squabbled over their place in the pecking order (i.e., since there have been people).

[Guest alex]

Some skeptics say that Natives viewed sasquatch as a spirit with powers, but they did that with every other real animal

[Guest]

And "people" have been killing "people" since Adam and Eve's kids first squabbled over their place in the pecking order (i.e., since there have been people).

So what?

The point is the NAs didn't hunt and kill things for their own sake. To argue that NAs MUST have sasquatch parts for spiritual use because they MUST have hunted sasquatch is 1) circular reasoning and 2) not consistent with NA beleifs and practices. NAs would take parts of animals for ceremonial purposes, yes, but only in the event they found a dead one and/or they had hunted and killed one (for food).

BF was not food, so they did not hunt it. Their spiritual practices told them that messing around with BF (for whatever reason) was a Very Bad Idea, so they avoided areas where BF was known to be, thus restricting the opportunity to find an already dead one.

Thus, no BF parts.

[Guest rockinkt]

So what?

The point is the NAs didn't hunt and kill things for their own sake. To argue that NAs MUST have sasquatch parts for spiritual use because they MUST have hunted sasquatch is 1) circular reasoning and 2) not consistent with NA beleifs and practices. NAs would take parts of animals for ceremonial purposes, yes, but only in the event they found a dead one and/or they had hunted and killed one (for food).

BF was not food, so they did not hunt it. Their spiritual practices told them that messing around with BF (for whatever reason) was a Very Bad Idea, so they avoided areas where BF was known to be, thus restricting the opportunity to find an already dead one.

Thus, no BF parts.

I don't want to get into a huge debate over this - but there is tons of evidence that many First Nations killed animals for sport and for ceremonial purposes. They also killed them for trade purposes to the point of the HBC having to make rules that certain areas not be trapped for a few seasons to preserve the species.

The deer populations on the East Coast were decimated by native people trading valuable skins to the Europeans.

Natives also killed more animals than they could eat due to some of their hunting practices - bison being a prime example. Buffalo jumps and the practice of setting grass fires encircling the buffalo herd caused a lot of unnecessary death and injury (from the buffalo's point of view).

Nope - the romantic view of First Nations being one with nature is just wishful thinking with a little propaganda thrown in.

[Guest]

I may be mistaken here, but it's always been my understanding that many tribes here in the PNW (Oregon-Wa-BC) simply considered the Sasquatch (used generically here) to be, well, Indians. Albeit a different kind of very shy Indian, but tribal in nature nonetheless. I don't recall, but to be an Indian and see or experience a Sasquatch was very special, and could mean good or bad times ahead for that individual, according to their particular beliefs. I don't recall ever reading about Indians attempting to harm them. I think that would be a no-no.

[Guest alex]

I don't want to get into a huge debate over this - but there is tons of evidence that many First Nations killed animals for sport and for ceremonial purposes. They also killed them for trade purposes to the point of the HBC having to make rules that certain areas not be trapped for a few seasons to preserve the species.

The deer populations on the East Coast were decimated by native people trading valuable skins to the Europeans.

Natives also killed more animals than they could eat due to some of their hunting practices - bison being a prime example. Buffalo jumps and the practice of setting grass fires encircling the buffalo herd caused a lot of unnecessary death and injury (from the buffalo's point of view).

Nope - the romantic view of First Nations being one with nature is just wishful thinking with a little propaganda thrown in.

Perhaps they regarded the PNW king of the forest as special, and since it was so human like, it would be manslaughter

[Guest]

Whatever they may or may not have done with animals, the NA traditions make it crystal clear that BF was to be left alone, either out of respect or out of fear. There was no reason therefore for NAs to hunt BF either for food, sport or ceremony.