So Called "myth"

[Guest vilnoori]

There would have been no need to hunt and kill a sasquatch for a sample for ceremonial purposes, just get a hair ball or strand from out of a bedding down area, same as so many researchers claim to have done.

[Guest]

^ Except for that "leave them alone" thing...can't find a bedding site without being in their territory.

[Guest]

But to claim something about "Native Americans'" (including First Nations') attitudes toward sasquatch is painting hundreds of cultures over thousands of years with a really broad brush. Do we really know that the people living in what is now Georgia had the same attitudes toward them as the people living in what is now Oregon?

The far more parsimonious explanation is that there never were any pieces of bigfoots to collect.

[Guest]

^ NAs are very careful about accurately transmitting their cultural histories, as cultures who rely primarily on oral traditions tend to be. And it's not "broad brushing" when the broad view across the spectrum seems to be the opinion that is being said to be broad brush.

The parsimonious position is to assume that NAs took their cultural taboos seriously and didn't seek out or collect BF parts, even where such could be obtained.

Edited September 18, 2010 by Mulder

[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.

All cultures from all walks of life have their "boogyman"

[Guest]

All cultures from all walks of life have their "boogyman"

And in this case, it takes the form of a large, bipedal, man-like hairy creature that the NAs shared (and apparently still do share) their environment with.

Your assertion that their religious practices would lead them to BREAK a taboo makes no sense.

[Guest]

And in this case, it takes the form of a large, bipedal, man-like hairy creature that the NAs shared (and apparently still do share) their environment with.

OK

Your assertion that their religious practices would lead them to BREAK a taboo makes no sense

HUH?

[Guest]

^ NAs are very careful about accurately transmitting their cultural histories, as cultures who rely primarily on oral traditions tend to be. And it's not "broad brushing" when the broad view across the spectrum seems to be the opinion that is being said to be broad brush.

The parsimonious position is to assume that NAs took their cultural taboos seriously and didn't seek out or collect BF parts, even where such could be obtained.

The point is not that the traditions are handed down in such a way that the intent is preserved over many generations. That's fine. My question concerns how you have broadly brushed "Native American" traditions by assuming that all the many cultures in North America have forever shared the taboo of touching or collecting a piece of sasquatch. It's akin to stating that "Africans" share the same cultural attitudes toward chimps, which we know to not be the case: In some African cultures, you forever get cooties if you touch a chimp; in others, chimps are viewed as exquisite with a light Hollandaise.

[Drew]

The parsimonious position is to assume that NAs took their cultural taboos seriously and didn't seek out or collect BF parts, even where such could be obtained.

The parsimonious position would be this:

Adult Native Americans told stories about the 'Cannibals on the Mountain' so their youth wouldn't wander into dangerous areas. Thus, there were no parts to obtain, because it was a story.

[Guest vilnoori]

Oh, ok, so NA peoples just invented boogymen and lied to their kids to control them. Is that something you would do? Doesn't sound like the down to earth people I know. What a nice way to think of them. Patronizing at best. Thumbs down on that idea. Besides, they had no need to invent boogymen, there were plenty of real dangers out there, like grizzlies and cougars. C'mon.

Edited September 20, 2010 by vilnoori

[Drew]

Oh, ok, so NA peoples just invented boogymen and lied to their kids to control them. Is that something you would do? Doesn't sound like the down to earth people I know. What a nice way to think of them. Patronizing at best. Thumbs down on that idea. Besides, they had no need to invent boogymen, there were plenty of real dangers out there, like grizzlies and cougars. C'mon.

Your lack of critical thinking betrays you.

The Boogeyman is a term for a story that protects children from the hazards they might encounter.

• It is not uncommon to mix traditional beliefs with present religion.

• Traditionally Passamaquoddies believed in spirits and supernatural powers.

• Supernatural beings served as agents of social control, premonition, or a source of

special power.

• The Boogeyman is a good example of social control; he keeps small children off

freshly formed ice in the fall or off unguarded beaches in the summer.

• A person having a spirit helper is “metewelenâ€; know today as a “witchâ€

http://www.usm.maine.edu/lac/ot/divman/passamaquoddy.pdf

[Guest]

I've actually been thinking about the "boogeyman hypothesis" a bit lately. Let's say you've got some reason to keep people away from a certain area. It doesn't have to be parents and kids, it could be "elders" handing down to all their people a superstition about a place based on an unfortunate event from generations earlier. If you're serious about keeping people away, what do you tell them?

1) "Don't go there." This will basically guarantee that everyone goes there.

2) "Don't go there because there are scary animals there." This will guarantee that any people who desire to display their bravery will go there.

3) "Don't go there because there are bad people there." This will guarantee that people trying to show bravery will go there, as well as people looking for mates outside their own.

4) "Don't go there because the most powerful creature of all lives there. He is huge and stealthy and stronger than a grizzly. He is smarter than you, and he will use his wits to capture you and skin you alive. He can appear and disappear whenever he wants so you cannot catch him. If you hear his screams, you are marked for death." OK, now you've got their full attention, whether child or adult.

[Drew]

4) "Don't go there because the most powerful creature of all lives there. He is huge and stealthy and stronger than a grizzly. He is smarter than you, and he will use his wits to capture you and skin you alive. He can appear and disappear whenever he wants so you cannot catch him. If you hear his screams, you are marked for death." OK, now you've got their full attention, whether child or adult.

A perfect tale to tell to traders passing through, keep them from even getting close to the area you don't want them to check out.

Accentuate it with a scary mask for effect.

Edited September 20, 2010 by Drew

[Guest rockinkt]

Oh, ok, so NA peoples just invented boogymen and lied to their kids to control them. Is that something you would do? Doesn't sound like the down to earth people I know. What a nice way to think of them. Patronizing at best. Thumbs down on that idea. Besides, they had no need to invent boogymen, there were plenty of real dangers out there, like grizzlies and cougars. C'mon.

Way off the mark. The cultures of the First Nations that I am familiar with use many stories to warn and teach both young and old lessons that they will never forget.

Try this one: (I'm not recounting the legend word for word because I am not a story teller in the Sto:lo tradition)

The Sto:lo believe that powerful beings visited three chiefs and gave them the knowledge of written language. The chiefs were given this knowledge to share with the people. When the powerful beings came back to see how well things were going - they found that the chiefs did not share the knowledge with the people and used it only for their own empowerment.

To punish them and to leave a permanent reminder that all knowledge must be shared and that the welfare of the people was more important than the self-serving interests of the few - the powerful beings turned the chiefs into a huge stone that can be seen until this day.

[Guest Kerchak]

If sasquatch is just a 'myth' then it's a pretty boring and mundane one. They don't seem to do much more than just look at you and then walk off never to be seen again.

We don't have the Baumanns or Ostmans or Becks or Harrys anymore.

It's not like ghost stories and UFO abductions. They are crazily exiting. Bigfoot as a myth is kind of dull and matter of fact and the 'myth' as we know it today doesn't come across as too different from normal 'animal' encounters.