georgerm Posted May 28, 2016 Author Posted May 28, 2016 My comment was a little off base. The point is, the Native Americans saw bigfoot as a creature with obvious human qualities. They wouldn't be fooled by a monkey or gorilla in my opinion. It's not worth getting too wound up about. Just a miscommunication. Some Native Americans got along with bigfoot and others didn't. Are there any examples of this? Why did some claim BF was really bad.
norseman Posted May 28, 2016 Admin Posted May 28, 2016 (edited) In my opinion they would ascribe the same human qualities to a Gorilla or Chimp or Orangutan. They call Bears their "Brothers". The fact of the matter is that their culture has no real demarcation line between Man and Animal. Which while its a wonderful philosophy to have? Has no real value in physical anthropology which is looking for ever minute detail that sets one hominid species apart from another. Edited May 28, 2016 by norseman
MIB Posted May 28, 2016 Moderator Posted May 28, 2016 Some Native Americans got along with bigfoot and others didn't. Are there any examples of this? Why did some claim BF was really bad. There's no way to know why at this point, just guesses and theories. My guess is it stems from the "flavor" of first contact which got incorporated in tribal lore. Some of the adjacent Nor. Cal. tribes have very opposite lore, opposite beliefs about the nature of bigfoot. They are so close it is likely they saw the same bigfoots over years and yet believe completely different things about them. It could be that some hot-head in one tribe flung an arrow at the first BF he saw and triggered a response .. doesn't have to have been something the bigfoot "started". Examples ... the best write-up I've seen is in one of Paulides' books, either The Hoopa Project or Tribal Bigfoot. MIB
guyzonthropus Posted May 28, 2016 Posted May 28, 2016 Ahem...it's erroneous to refer to "the NA culture" as there are a multitude of them. I would think that while the initial contact or encounter might well influence a tribe's perspective on BF's, wouldn't that lend to a near universal take on them amongst the tribes? One of "Ahhhhhhhhhhhh! Dang that thing is really really really big!" were it based on first impressions. More long term experience and interaction would form the tribes approach with them, as you're less apt to like em much when they're snatching your daughters, but should they bring deer meat to trade in winter(not for daughters...)they might not seem so bad, and all that would depend on the natures of both specific groups involved (vegetarian BF's, ugly daughters, etc.) As every group has its own ways, dysfunctions, and idiosyncrasies, so each "pairing" of a given BF group with a given tribe will have its own quirks and interpretations on both sides. If any such pairings attain effective forms of communication, no matter how rudimentary, aside from just akillin' each other, I'd think that would better the relationship and interactions between the two groups. But MIB makes a very valid point in that shooting at a neighbor on day one,be it arrow, bullet, or spitwad, rarely proves a good start, and is a fine howdya-do when making friends.
Guest Cryptic Megafauna Posted May 29, 2016 Posted May 29, 2016 I wouldn't make any generalizations about Native beliefs, it's called stereotyping. Sort of like generalizing about "white guys". Depends on the guy, no? Source material is the best way to get what people were thinking and they are in archives of the church, foreign governments who sent colonists, etc. Paulides would be the opposite of source material or almost anything on the internet. Especially "Indian Stories". Most often it was a colonist that made up that story and if it was after first contact it is unlikely that there is not a European cultural influence, especially if the Natives are speaking English, spanish, French, etc. There are archives in Spain that go all the way back to the 1300's Look for priests who could speak the native tongue, for instance, and then filed a report with the church, look in archives in the Holy Roman See. Depends, though, because most here probably just want the latest internet fantasy. Of course I enjoy the usual fare as well. I just would not make a scientific or comprehensive judgement on it. Unless you know your sources. Same rule as in journalism.
norseman Posted May 29, 2016 Admin Posted May 29, 2016 Its not erroneous in reference to what I'm talking about. There are absolutely philosophical links between tribes that are not shared with the European settlers who came in contact with them.
TritonTr196 Posted May 29, 2016 Posted May 29, 2016 (edited) Different tribes had different beliefs about Bigfoot. They all weren't nice and cuddly. We'll never know what really happened as their stories concerning this have been embellished in historic times. I'm more interested in the years before the historic tribes came to be that we will never have any info on concerning Bigfoot. There are ancient cave drawings of Bigfoot in NA that predates any historic tribe known or named. Old Native stories are nice for a read but unless they are current reports made within the last few years of sightings and other encounters like everyone else's, they have no place in current research as they provide no evidence of anything. Edited May 29, 2016 by TritonTr196
georgerm Posted May 29, 2016 Author Posted May 29, 2016 Some Native Americans got along with bigfoot and others didn't. Are there any examples of this? Why did some claim BF was really bad. There's no way to know why at this point, just guesses and theories. My guess is it stems from the "flavor" of first contact which got incorporated in tribal lore. Some of the adjacent Nor. Cal. tribes have very opposite lore, opposite beliefs about the nature of bigfoot. They are so close it is likely they saw the same bigfoots over years and yet believe completely different things about them. It could be that some hot-head in one tribe flung an arrow at the first BF he saw and triggered a response .. doesn't have to have been something the bigfoot "started". Examples ... the best write-up I've seen is in one of Paulides' books, either The Hoopa Project or Tribal Bigfoot. MIB Exactly. Both books are good reads and provides some inside BF viewpoints handed down from ancestors. Ahem...it's erroneous to refer to "the NA culture" as there are a multitude of them. I would think that while the initial contact or encounter might well influence a tribe's perspective on BF's, wouldn't that lend to a near universal take on them amongst the tribes? One of "Ahhhhhhhhhhhh! Dang that thing is really really really big!" were it based on first impressions. More long term experience and interaction would form the tribes approach with them, as you're less apt to like em much when they're snatching your daughters, but should they bring deer meat to trade in winter(not for daughters...)they might not seem so bad, and all that would depend on the natures of both specific groups involved (vegetarian BF's, ugly daughters, etc.) As every group has its own ways, dysfunctions, and idiosyncrasies, so each "pairing" of a given BF group with a given tribe will have its own quirks and interpretations on both sides. If any such pairings attain effective forms of communication, no matter how rudimentary, aside from just akillin' each other, I'd think that would better the relationship and interactions between the two groups. But MIB makes a very valid point in that shooting at a neighbor on day one,be it arrow, bullet, or spitwad, rarely proves a good start, and is a fine howdya-do when making friends. This seemed to be a real problem. Possibly as gross as it sounds, bigfoot may have taken a 'shine' to Indian women. There are some stories in Paulides books and elsewhere. I wouldn't make any generalizations about Native beliefs, it's called stereotyping. What about when Native American people provide the facts and reasons? Later someone simply puts it together and reports. Sort of like generalizing about "white guys". Depends on the guy, no? Source material is the best way to get what people were thinking and they are in archives of the church, foreign governments who sent colonists, etc. This seems ideal but way too difficult for us. You may be the one to do this for us. Paulides would be the opposite of source material or almost anything on the internet. Especially "Indian Stories". Seems like Paulides did his homework and stayed along the Klamath River a long time and was finally accepted by the Indians. They gave him lots of interviews and historical accounts. Have you read either book? If not, you will find them interesting. Most often it was a colonist that made up that story and if it was after first contact it is unlikely that there is not a European cultural influence, especially if the Natives are speaking English, spanish, French, etc. Ideal There are archives in Spain that go all the way back to the 1300's Look for priests who could speak the native tongue, for instance, and then filed a report with the church, look in archives in the Holy Roman See. Depends, though, because most here probably just want the latest internet fantasy. The same can be said for ancient manuscripts ......................... depends on the writers slant or lack of truth to cover up screw ups. Of course I enjoy the usual fare as well. I just would not make a scientific or comprehensive judgement on it. Unless you know your sources. Same rule as in journalism. I really enjoy your posts on ancient hominids. Keep it up.
Guest Cryptic Megafauna Posted May 29, 2016 Posted May 29, 2016 (edited) I wouldn't make any generalizations about Native beliefs, it's called stereotyping. What about when Native American people provide the facts and reasons? Later someone simply puts it together and reports. Sort of like generalizing about "white guys". Depends on the guy, no? Source material is the best way to get what people were thinking and they are in archives of the church, foreign governments who sent colonists, etc. This seems ideal but way too difficult for us. You may be the one to do this for us. Paulides would be the opposite of source material or almost anything on the internet. Especially "Indian Stories". Seems like Paulides did his homework and stayed along the Klamath River a long time and was finally accepted by the Indians. They gave him lots of interviews and historical accounts. Have you read either book? If not, you will find them interesting. Most often it was a colonist that made up that story and if it was after first contact it is unlikely that there is not a European cultural influence, especially if the Natives are speaking English, spanish, French, etc. Ideal There are archives in Spain that go all the way back to the 1300's Look for priests who could speak the native tongue, for instance, and then filed a report with the church, look in archives in the Holy Roman See. Depends, though, because most here probably just want the latest internet fantasy. The same can be said for ancient manuscripts ......................... depends on the writers slant or lack of truth to cover up screw ups. Of course I enjoy the usual fare as well. I just would not make a scientific or comprehensive judgement on it. Unless you know your sources. Same rule as in journalism. I really enjoy your posts on ancient hominids. Keep it up. I would never insult my intelligence by reading Paulides, he is a fear troll talking out of his hat. "What about when Native American people provide the facts and reasons? Later someone simply puts it together and reports." The facts? The Natives didn't and don't need someone else to "put it down for them". ​Those who write the history create the history and unless directly quoting sources are inventing and interpreting to a European cultural narrative. As long as you know the bias. Kind of like what is being said about Natives thinking sasquatch is an Indian... Pre contact you have no idea, you are using your own idea of "Indian" from a story written by a Euro American who has his own idea of "indian" and his own idea of what the story is really saying. Like I said, know your bias, or go find an Elder and give him a gift of tobacco, and then you have a right to ask a question but he has the right to refuse to answer. (silence is the golden rule) Likely they meant "tribe" as in group. It's pretty obvious that Bigfoot is man like but not a man. The bias among early settlers who wrote this down is that Indians were not fully human either. So the story of a Indian bigfoot supports a Euro American bias for ascribing non human status non human missing links to both "Indians" by making them equal to each other. One was just bigger and hairier than the other, but both were "primitives". (and godless heathens to boot. IS Bigfoot evil??) Perhaps Bigfoot thinks Indians are Bigfoot? Makes as much sense. Edited May 29, 2016 by Cryptic Megafauna
Guest WesT Posted May 29, 2016 Posted May 29, 2016 My comment was a little off base. The point is, the Native Americans saw bigfoot as a creature with obvious human qualities. They wouldn't be fooled by a monkey or gorilla in my opinion. It's not worth getting too wound up about. Just a miscommunication. Some Native Americans got along with bigfoot and others didn't. Are there any examples of this? Why did some claim BF was really bad. I know there's no way for you to know this, but I'd never intentionally insult my ancestors. I just meant they wouldn't have a point of reference. I'd say depending on the tribe, and how the only chance to make a first impression went down, you'd get all kinds of different names for them.
Recommended Posts