Indian Books gone wrong......
Printed From: History Community ~ All Empires
Category: Regional History or Period History
Forum Name: History of the Americas
Forum Discription: The Americas: History from pre-Colombian times to the present
URL: http://www.allempires.com/forum/forum_posts.asp?TID=27119
Printed Date: 04-May-2024 at 12:50
Software Version: Web Wiz Forums 9.56a - http://www.webwizforums.com
Topic: Indian Books gone wrong......
Posted By: The Canadian Guy
Subject: Indian Books gone wrong......
Date Posted: 28-Apr-2009 at 06:52
|
Ok, there is allot of books that talk bout Indians of the Americas, but allot of these books are racist and stereotypical. I noticed that these books are completely wrong in knowledge and are biased. So, if anyone out there find books bout my ancestors, they are written from the "whiteman"and I am not trying to offend anyone and I expect arguments, but my culture has no written documents and we tallk in stories and tales. We do not know much of our ancesterial past and the little we know is what we use in ceremonies and are not told outside of them. Our ceremonies are sacred and never told to anyone. P.S. This is only my expressions and complaints of these book, so please try to argue back and prove me wrong. I am open to debate. I know what I was taught by my elders and what I read are like water and fire, they just don't work together. ------------- Hate and anger is the fuel of war, while religion and politics is the foundation of it. |
Replies:
Posted By: Omar al Hashim
Date Posted: 28-Apr-2009 at 10:34
|
I know what you mean, books about Aboriginies are the same. They are based on a fairytale and heavily altered version of a telegraph operator's book about the Arrunta people (where Alice Springs is now). If there is any truth in it, it would only apply to the Arrunta. For that matter the same is true for books about Islam & the middle east (or all Orientalist material) written by "whitemen" they bear very little or only coincidental facts. You have to bear in mind that when this attitude was developed facts didn't need to be included in the book. Sensationalising and making other cultures conform to European stereotypes (ie, outright lying) was what made a successful book. Those books are now used as reference material, and so the educated masses get fed alot of crap, which they believe because of the references. Even in the case that the original researcher was an honest intelligent man, the secondary scholarship is often a load of crap. Misunderstandings are doubled by people totally removed from the original culture. Its the old saying, practice doesn't make perfect. Perfect practice makes perfect. Practice may enforce bad habits. No education is bad, but bad education is worse. ------------- |
Posted By: The Canadian Guy
Date Posted: 28-Apr-2009 at 14:59
|
It is an unfortunate reality. It is important that I can get people to realize that these books are a bunch of crap. I was taught by my elders one thing and when i read books bout what I was taught, the books made me sick and I threw a $50.00 book into the fire. It makes me sad and a bit annyed.
------------- Hate and anger is the fuel of war, while religion and politics is the foundation of it. |
Posted By: Guests
Date Posted: 28-Apr-2009 at 17:02
|
Depends on which Indian group. In my country, for instance, there are several books written by the Mapuches. One of them, "Testimony of a Mapuche Chief", by Pascual Coña, it is a full 400 pages, billingual Spanish Mapudungun, which describes very clearly how were the Mapuches of late 19th century and beginning of the 20th. All over Latin America we have cronicles written by Native Americans, in Spanish, in native languages, or both. We also have pre-Colombian documents, particularly Mayan, that goes back to the beginning of the christian age.
------------- |
Posted By: gcle2003
Date Posted: 28-Apr-2009 at 17:21
I can't believe you wrote that.
To try and get back on a serious track, what problems do either of you have with, say, Weston La Barre's The Ghost Dance?
Or, if you don't know that, which is the best treatment of (North) Amerindian religion I've come across, could you produce some more specific evidence to support an outrageous claim? ------------- |
Posted By: Guests
Date Posted: 28-Apr-2009 at 18:17
|
There is a lot of material that is not sound on North American indigenous populations. However, The Middle Ground was a decent attempt at getting to a sound academic piece on Native Americans years ago. Furthermore, there has been a lot of research with a heavy dose of credibility in recent years. One more recent example is Indian Women and French Men by Sleeper-Smith. To conclude I agree with you on the abundance of bad scholarship, but there is a strong movement for decades to amend that, too. ------------- |
Posted By: lirelou
Date Posted: 28-Apr-2009 at 23:00
|
Some of the best reading I found on Indians was in official after-action reports from the military. And Don Hickey's "Forty Miles a Day on Beans and Hay" gave a pretty good view of the Cavalry during the Indian Wars. Oliver LaFarge's name springs to mind as the author of a very good work on North American Indians some forty or more years ago. "Across the Wide Missouri" is a good look at the trapping Industry and Plains Indians during the 1820s to 50s. But if you're looking for polemic disguised as history, a la "Bury my Heart at Wounded Knee", then you're simply looking for entertainment that will make you feel good. That's surprising coming from a "Canuck". You can't get a better look at Indians than "Black Robe", and even Canadian television had a pretty realistic view of modern Indian life in "North of Sixty", something that U.S. television could never have produced.
------------- Phong trần mài một lưỡi gươm, Những loài giá áo túi cơm sá gì |
Posted By: Jams
Date Posted: 28-Apr-2009 at 23:40
Well, if it's secret then it won't be known by anyone but you, right? Why not write a book yourself, and clarify the situation? ------------- |
Posted By: The Canadian Guy
Date Posted: 29-Apr-2009 at 00:52
|
I can't just write a book, the ceremonies are not to be told outside of the sacred grounds. For example; There are male ceremonies just for men and same as go for females. We cannot know of each others ceremonies. I wish I could write a book, but it is disrespect for my ancestors.
------------- Hate and anger is the fuel of war, while religion and politics is the foundation of it. |
Posted By: Guests
Date Posted: 29-Apr-2009 at 01:12
|
But you could write a book about language, customs, legends, cousine, etc.. You don't need to reveal secret ceremonies to show the rest of mankind your people. ------------- |
Posted By: The Canadian Guy
Date Posted: 29-Apr-2009 at 01:14
|
I could, that doesn't seem unreasonable.
------------- Hate and anger is the fuel of war, while religion and politics is the foundation of it. |
Posted By: Guests
Date Posted: 29-Apr-2009 at 01:29
|
For instance, who is writing the books to learn the language? how to build a canoe, make a flute, follow prey tracks, make a flute and play it, and thousand of other cultural things that are valuable not only for your people, but to all the educated people of the world that appreciate the produce of mankind. ------------- |
Posted By: eaglecap
Date Posted: 29-Apr-2009 at 01:40
I think this would depend upon the tribe and even you stated Native American are made up of many cultures so the Hopi, Navajo or the Northwest Salish might all have different views about this from your tribe. There are a lot of good sources out there today, although, I agree in the past there was a lot of bias. When I worked at Old Mission State Park in Idaho I read the Roman Catholic catechism to missionaries who were going out west to convert natives. That was full of misconceptions, bias and used terms like "The Savage." Hopefully we have all learned from these past mistakes. I suggest reading; The History of the Coeur d' Alene by Chief Gary. Sarhah Winnemucca, in the 1800's, wrote about her tribe the Paiute in what is now the west side of Nevada State. I really suggest reading this one so there are Native American sources. ------------- Λοιπόν, αδελφοί και οι συμπολίτες και οι στρατιώτες, να θυμάστε αυτό ώστε μνημόσυνο σας, φήμη και ελευθερία σας θα ε |
Posted By: Omar al Hashim
Date Posted: 29-Apr-2009 at 08:40
As I said in the original post, there is often an initial author and researcher who has lived and asked the people who they are writing about in sufficent detail, and with the right attitude to write a good book. I have never read the ghost dance, and even if I had I have nothing to compare it to as I don't know anything about Native American religion, so I don't have any tools to judge it with.
With the telegraph operator I mentioned, from what I know about him I suspect that his actual work is probably fairly decent (although again I haven't read it), I know for sure however much of the secondly scholarship, and especially the popular understanding, which are based on his book are often highly misleading to say the least. The problem for all non-aboriginal people reading these books is we have no idea which parts are true, and which parts aren't.
From my experience of writings about cultures that I am intimately familar with the amount of total rubbish spread in academic work is mindboggling. Good orientalist work is the execption, not the rule. The rule I use is that unless I understand the background and work of a particular author, or they are a member of the ethnic group they are describing, I don't believe a word of what they write. I have found that books written about a culture when a person is there for a different reason are typically better, for example cookbooks are one of the best sources, academic work is just about the worst. I treat it as false until proven otherwise. Usually you'll learn more by using as a fire lighter than by reading it especially if its written before 1970 ------------- |
Posted By: gcle2003
Date Posted: 29-Apr-2009 at 12:00
|
But what makes you think that stuff written by "white men" is any worse than stuff written by anyone else? There is tons of rubbish written about the English by all sorts of people. ------------- |
Posted By: Omar al Hashim
Date Posted: 29-Apr-2009 at 12:15
I was just copying The Canadian Guy's phrase
I certainly don't mean to imply that documents written by Europeans are any worse or better than documents written by anyone else, rather that documents written by outsiders are on average worse than ones written by insiders.
In his scenario the outside is a "whiteman" but that's just coincidental, if we were talking about England it'd be the opposite. ------------- |
Posted By: Guests
Date Posted: 29-Apr-2009 at 13:47
Indeed. In Spanish, the best epic of the Conquist of the Americas, La Araucana (The Araucaniad) was written by a Spanish soldier, who painted Spaniards as the brutes they were and the Native as the victims and the most couragious warriors
 Ercilla, the author was very admired in Europe, and it also considered a truthful teller by the Natives themselves. ------------- |
Posted By: Seko
Date Posted: 29-Apr-2009 at 13:48
You are old! You convert the missionaries then they converted the Indians. I see!  (I would insert the word "about" between 'read' and 'the' in your sentence.) ------------- |
Posted By: Jams
Date Posted: 29-Apr-2009 at 14:08
Exactly - someone's got to do it, and it better be an insider, IMHO. Outsiders will always have some kind of tinted glasses which they view a culture with. They will never be neutral, even if they try to be. It is unavoidable that they use their own values and meanings to interpret whatever they may see.
If you're concerned about it, I think it would be a good idea. After all, someone's got to do it, if there's an interest in clarifying certain misunderstandings and misinformation. ------------- |
Posted By: gcle2003
Date Posted: 29-Apr-2009 at 15:49
But no-one sees a culture through more heavily tinted glasses than members of that culture themselves. If you wanted a good account of a Manchester United - Chelse game, would you pick a Chelsea or Manchester supporter? Or would you prefer one from Barcelona?
------------- |
Posted By: Guests
Date Posted: 29-Apr-2009 at 16:23
I don't agree. Biassed people can be found on both sides of the topic. An European could write a biassed or idealized book on Amerindians, and also an Amerindian could write a biassed book about its own people. However, given both are impartial writers -there are many cases as well- the Natives always will have the advantadge of an "insider" look to the topic.
Just imagine who may write the best book about freemasons. A catholic outsider or a great master degree 33. Or who could write the best book about Chinese literature and character painting: a British schollar with no knowledge of Chinese, or a Chinese school teacher.
------------- |
Posted By: hugoestr
Date Posted: 29-Apr-2009 at 17:29
|
I am going to make a subtle point here, so please read carefully.
Are outright biased books wrong and mostly useless? Yes, yes they are. And by those books I mean the ones that heavily characterize a group with adjectives such as "savage", "primitive", "infantile", etc. Also included in these are the ones who pretend to be in favor of the group by doing a mirror image, "pure", "noble", etc. That being said, let me make a few points. 1. Biased books are worthy of study. Not because what they say about the target culture is so good, but what it says about the observing culture. A great example of this is "Coming of Age in Samoa" by anthropology god Margaret Mead. Keep in mind that Mead was actually being careful not to be biased :P It is even more fun in those works where they don't even keep that in mind. 2. Outsiders must write about cultures. Why? Because often people within a culture will not see what is clearly seen by others. Examples of this is how every non Mexican who looks at a Mexican soap opera notices that most people in lead roles tend to be whiter and more European looking than the actors playing servants, who have darker skin. Most Mexicans in Mexico don't see this. This is why outsiders looking into a culture is necessary. 3. Of course, we do need insider explanations of a culture. On the other hand, the outsider will miss the meaning of many cultural practices, rituals, or even just aphorism. And outsiders will be at the mercy of the informers, and informers tend to have a wicked sense of humor. My favorite example on that is how a secretary in a record company mislead the NYT doing a story on grunge slang by making up bogus terms as a joke. In summary, when studying a culture, we need to have outsiders and insiders writing about it to get a better picture. ------------- |
Posted By: gcle2003
Date Posted: 29-Apr-2009 at 18:55
|
In general yes, especially about biassed books being worthy of study.
But sometimes there aren't only outsiders and insiders but two kinds of insiders and an outsider, as I tried to explain with the football analogy. Without wanting to name any specific instances, if the people of tribe A are at odds with those of tribe B, arguing about their ancestry, relative honesty and tolerance and whatever, are you going to believe what people from A say, what those from B say, or what someone from Z who couldn't care less about the quarrelling sides says?
Similarly, to take pinguin's example, neither a Roman Catholic nor a Freemason is going to be a reliable guide to Freemasonry, not as long as they stick to the two party lines anyway. The Roman Catholic would be OK as a source for the Roman Catholic view of Freemasonry, and the Freemason for the Freemasons' view of Freemasonry, but that's all, unless you start taking into accout the personal characteristics and objectives of the individual, including their training in observation and recording.
And why would anyone think that some descendant of a old tribe, anywhere in the world, having listened to tales that have been orally transmitted over several generations, is going to be a better source of factual information than someone who observed things first-hand and recorded them?
Who would you take as the better source of information with regard to Jacksonian New York, a modern Manhattanite picked at random or de Toqueville?
(The story about the secretary and the NYT just shows of course that the NYT hires some lousy reporters, though it also exemplifies that you cannot trust insiders.) ------------- |
Posted By: Guests
Date Posted: 29-Apr-2009 at 20:03
 I wonder how many Americans watch Mexican Soap Operas...
The fact is I can't see the difference between Mexicans either. The fact is 99% of the actors are mixed, no matter some have lighter skin than others. ------------- |
Posted By: hugoestr
Date Posted: 29-Apr-2009 at 21:26
|
Yes, I agree with most of the points that you are making.
In the case of a conflict, as with Masons and Catholics, one could consider them both insiders, not on a strict sense of the word, but because the conflict has a lot of baggage on how they see themselves. ------------- |
Posted By: pikeshot1600
Date Posted: 29-Apr-2009 at 23:03
So if only an insider can write from an objective point of view, I guess any history of the Roman Empire ever written *edit* in the last 1500 years, is a worthless waste of time. 
Come on. Such a position in itself is most subjective and suspect....as well as naive.
|
Posted By: hugoestr
Date Posted: 29-Apr-2009 at 23:28
You see? You prove my point.... ------------- |
Posted By: lirelou
Date Posted: 29-Apr-2009 at 23:33
|
"every non Mexican who looks at a Mexican soap opera notices that most
people in lead roles tend to be whiter and more European looking than
the actors playing servants, who have darker skin. Most Mexicans in
Mexico don't see this." Hugo, perhaps they don't "see" it because they accept that depiction as a reflection of the state of Mexico's culture. In other words; "Of course those in the lead roles tend to be whiter, they're playing upper class Mexicans. That's what upper class Mexicans look like." Of course, my impression may be superficial, but it was gained living in an upper class Mexican "privado" off of upper Reforma Ave for two and a half years, working and interfacing with Mexicans of all classes on a daily basis. (I cannot say "living with", because in my neighborhood I was the only one without a chaufeur, maids, or bodyguard.) Impartiality is not received at birth, nor usually imparted in anyone's nationalization process. It is usually the result of intimate knowledge of that particular country or group, combined with solid scholarship and rigorous testing of one's theses. Some of the very worst observers of various nations political and cultural life have been products of those very same nations. ------------- Phong trần mài một lưỡi gươm, Những loài giá áo túi cơm sá gì |
Posted By: lirelou
Date Posted: 29-Apr-2009 at 23:37
|
ooops, I replied to a reply to you, and not your original post. You obviously agree with my point. Not the first time I've done that, as Pinguino can attest, so I'd better get more "rigorous".
------------- Phong trần mài một lưỡi gươm, Những loài giá áo túi cơm sá gì |
Posted By: Guests
Date Posted: 29-Apr-2009 at 23:41
I repeat. How many Americans do see Mexican soap operas? How many times have you seen them? How many movies? Or do you form your oppinions from biassed opinion leaders in the US? Besides, Do you consider Victoria Principal and Rachel Welch "white" people? If so, I got it why you guys are so confussed ...  ------------- |
Posted By: lirelou
Date Posted: 30-Apr-2009 at 00:09
|
Answer 1: Probably several million Americans. Of course, the great majority of these are Hispanic Americans watching one of the various Spanish language U.S. networks. Then there are the 1 million estimated "North Americans" who reside in Mexico. Someone in their home will be watching, and Soap Operas are a tremendous tool for learning Spanish. Answer 2: How many people form their opinions based upon their "leaders"? More to the point, how many of those "leaders" have written anything about a) American Indians, or b) Mexico or Mexicans? My guess is close to zero. Answer 3: Do I consider Victoria Principal or Raquel Welch "white". I certainly took them for Hispanic Whites of Mexican descent. Obviously, their physical appearance evidences some Amerindian ancestry, but it is not dominant. I would be willing to bet that neither grew up speaking an indigenous language, living in an indigenous community, wearing indigneous clothing or hair styles, or practicing an indigenous form of Roman Catholocism. Thus, neither is Indian. White works for me, and that was how the U.S. Army classified Mexicans back when the Army was segregated. Oh, we're the ones who are confused?! Hey, one of my neighbors in Mexico's family name was Moctezuma. But I'd be willing to bet he had nearly as large a Caucasian cromozone count as myself. Speaking of confusion, why is it that Canadian Boy has never given us a listing of these racist, ignorant books, and the context within which Canadians are either obliged, or encouraged, to read them. I.e., are they School histories? If so, title and publisher, as well as the school district they are taught in, Please? ------------- Phong trần mài một lưỡi gươm, Những loài giá áo túi cơm sá gì |
Posted By: Guests
Date Posted: 30-Apr-2009 at 00:16
|
I see, at least from my point of view, you guys are confussed. The only "white" people is blond, blue eyed, pink skinned and tall. The rest are mixed. Either in Europe or in the Americas. You better solve your problems on definitions, before continue arguing, I guess. ------------- |
Posted By: edgewaters
Date Posted: 30-Apr-2009 at 00:58
|
Absolutely. In fact, it's very difficult to find a book on the subject that is unbiased. Most books tend to portray natives as either naieve innocents living in some sort of primordial, peaceful Eden, at one with nature; or as primitive savages. Those two views have been with us since Europeans arrived and seem to simply reinvent themselves over and over again. There's only a rare few books out there that just treat the history dispassionately and present it all without judgement, as one would expect from a book on, say, Roman Britain or ancient China or almost any other historical topic. The few that are like this are almost always devoted to urban civilizations in Mesoamerica or Peru. |
Posted By: eaglecap
Date Posted: 30-Apr-2009 at 01:01
I had to peek during my Greek studies- Seko- Mr 
Yes'em I was born in a log cabin and done learned to read by the fire place back in the 1800's. Ouch my old hickory bones sure yam hurting - yee haaw!!
I archived all the items in the museum from Native American artifacts to pioneer. They had an old, in storage, catehchism from the 1840's. I handled it carefully but I read portions of it but it was so biased against the Natives but it was a different world. ------------- Λοιπόν, αδελφοί και οι συμπολίτες και οι στρατιώτες, να θυμάστε αυτό ώστε μνημόσυνο σας, φήμη και ελευθερία σας θα ε |
Posted By: Guests
Date Posted: 30-Apr-2009 at 01:41
Perhaps that's the common pattern in English. In Spanish, the books about natives tend to be very realistic, showing both defect and virtues. And not only about natives, but of Europeans as well. ------------- |
Posted By: hugoestr
Date Posted: 30-Apr-2009 at 03:09
|
Hi, Pinguin,
I don't know how it is in Chile, but in Mexico they do tend to match the description that edgewaters gives: either total racist rants or noble savages. Sometimes you get them both at the same time. 
And I can name names!Specifically, Jose Vasconcelos, the man who single-handedly invented a national education system out of thin air, was a raving racist who praised the virtues of the Native American noble savage while using indio as an insult to his political enemies. And that still goes on today; after all, Subcomandante Marcos pretty much preaches a noble savage narrative. And this ambivalence exists to this day. Sure, Mexico has statues to great Native American historical figures, but at the same time the country discriminates so strongly against Native Americans that many of them choose to refuse to speak to their children in Nahuatl to prevent discrimination. And I know that you are making a genetic argument, and you are right about that. However, culturally, there is a distinction between the mostly Spanish and the mostly Native American in Mexico, and this distinction is clear to foreigners, yet elusive to Mexicans. ------------- |
Posted By: lirelou
Date Posted: 30-Apr-2009 at 03:27
|
"The only "white" people is blond, blue eyed, pink skinned and tall. The rest are mixed. Either in Europe or in the Americas." Wow! That's a rather Aryan-biased view. So Greeks, Italians, non-Norman or Flemish French, Serbians, Spanish (Except Catalunya, Romanian, and all those various and sundry other Europeans who are not "blond, blue eyed, pink skinned, and tall" are not Caucasians, i.e., "White". Mr. Penguin, me thinks that thou art the one who is confused. Perhaps you should look up the term "Caucasian" in an encyclopedia, or some reliable social science book. ------------- Phong trần mài một lưỡi gươm, Những loài giá áo túi cơm sá gì |
Posted By: Chilbudios
Date Posted: 30-Apr-2009 at 07:26
|
Posted By: Chilbudios
Date Posted: 30-Apr-2009 at 08:52
|
I've read your entire message, but I'll use this example and then I'll expand back to your point. I know nothing of Mexican soap-operas and too little about the culture, the stereotypes, the images of Otherness, etc. in modern Mexican society. However noticing or ignoring a skin-color difference can be a cultural constraint. For instance, it could be that certain complexions are markers of beauty in Mexican society, so the Mexicans perceive those actors in leading roles as handsome, beautiful, not necessarily whiter. It could be that the difference in color is actually noticed by many individuals but not made meaningful, not voiced (as I notice that - let's say - the brown of the drawers is lighter than the brown of the door, but I don't assign any meaning or importance to it, so if I'll be prompted to describe the room I'm in, probably I'll leave such detail out of my description). It could be that those uttering the difference in color actually do so because their own culture is hypersenstive about skin-color issues (racism). It could be that such a remark is actually a mirror of own society and culture, so we might miss to understand the Mexican society in such terms. Therefore the question of insideness vs outsideness can be actually be rephrased as the perspective of the inside culture vs the perspective of the inside culture reflected through an outside culture. What I don't like about several approaches in this thread is that the insiders are presented as part of a culture, while the outsiders as somewhat independent observers. The other becomes "savage", "primitive", "pure", "cruel", "noble", etc. mostly because of a cultural bias in the society of the observer, not only of the observer himself. This is a reason for why I agree with your call to read and study the books, no matter how biased they are. Even if we might not learn much about others, we might learn a lot about our societies. Also we prefer the outside view in cases when our access to the inside view is limited, either because the insiders are no longer in existence or because the cultural gap is too large to be easily bridged (a 21st century urban civilization vs a tribe in Amazonia, etc. - notice my cultural bias too). But if we're to look at societies like French and German, I think we'd prefer French scholars for most French issues and German scholars for most German issues. |
Posted By: Guests
Date Posted: 30-Apr-2009 at 10:02
Wow, I never knew I was a mestizo But in any case: yes, you are right, the average Mexican soap star is whiter than I am. ------------- |
Posted By: Guests
Date Posted: 30-Apr-2009 at 13:53
Actually, few Spaniards really qualified as "whites". That term is reserved, at least in Souther South America, for real white people, like a large part of Germans and Russians, and aren't applied to brown Italians, Spaniards or Greeks.
Do you know about Carlos Gardel, the French-born Argentinean Tango Singer? He was caucasian French but he was called the "moorish boy of the market" ------------- |
Posted By: Guests
Date Posted: 30-Apr-2009 at 13:54
Well, the extend of Mongolian and Turkish invasions was amazing  ------------- |
Posted By: Guests
Date Posted: 30-Apr-2009 at 14:01
That's true. But you shouldn't forget that even in pre-Columbian times, Aztecs and other civilized group discriminated against the nomadic peoples of the "hills".
The term "Indian" in Latin America is mainly cultural. And I agree with you that the Hispanic culture is very jellous and discriminate quite a bit against "primitive" cultures such as Amerindian. It is the communist and liberal ideologies of the "mestizo" who ofter have tried to "rescue" the Native cultures as an historical precedent. But they always choose the more developed civilization for that, the Aztecs for instance. Nobody identifies with the Indians of the hills, I am afraid..
 ------------- |
Posted By: lirelou
Date Posted: 30-Apr-2009 at 20:13
|
Penguin, some Spaniards are white? Apparently the Royal Spanish Academy, the premiere arbitrator of what words do and do not mean in the Spanish language, do not agree with you. "blanco, third meaning: Tratandose de la especie humana, dicese del color de la raza europea o caucasica, en contraposicion con el de las demas. Apl. a pers., u.t.c.s." (White, 3rd meaning, referring to the human species, said of the color of the European or Caucasian race, as distinguished from that of the others (races).) For Spaniards not to be "white", they'd have to not be European or Caucasian. (abbreviations mean, Applying to persons, also used as a noun.) Diccionario de la Lengua Espanola, Real Academia Espanola, 1970 Edition. ps: you don't need to reply to this Penguin. Nothing you can say will overrule the Royal Academy's definition of what words mean in Spanish. ------------- Phong trần mài một lưỡi gươm, Những loài giá áo túi cơm sá gì |
Posted By: Guests
Date Posted: 30-Apr-2009 at 20:50
|
I see, the "European race" or "Caucasian" is uniform looking. OK, if so, there is no more arguments. I am going to call "blanco" to any European, no matter a more realistic name for theirs color of skin, for many of them, could be "moorish" or even "negro" ------------- |
Posted By: gcle2003
Date Posted: 30-Apr-2009 at 21:14
|
I don't know whether the Spanish academy is recognised as an authority outside Spain on anything, but it certainly is no authority on what words mean in English, which is what we are talking.
Only the US as far as I know still mangles the word 'Caucasian' into a racial term (as opposed to meaning 'appertaining to the Caucasus', its natural meaning) at all, and US usage is no authority on English in general. 'White' like 'black' is meaningless as an ethnic or racial designation, though it's reasonable to use it for albinos. Not that some people ever stop saying things just because they are meaningless.
'Fair-skinned' and 'dark-skinned' and other variants I guess pass muster, just as 'tall' and 'short', and I suppose if you like you could use a light meter to quantify degrees of melaning content in individuals, but I still can't see any sane reason whatsoever for wanting to do so. If you're trying to establish paternity, for instance, DNA is a much more useful source of evidence. ------------- |
Posted By: The Canadian Guy
Date Posted: 30-Apr-2009 at 21:22
|
gcle2003, To my ancestors, they were whiter than us, thus we called them "or Paleface", "whiteman", "demon ghost". They were white to us, they were French and English, not Spanish or Portuguese.
------------- Hate and anger is the fuel of war, while religion and politics is the foundation of it. |
Posted By: lirelou
Date Posted: 01-May-2009 at 00:14
|
gcle2003: Penguin, a Spanish speaker, said that few Spanish were white, and that in the Southern Cone, white is reserved for "real white people", not Spanish, Italian, French, etc. I assure that the Royal Academy defines what is "white" in ethnic terms for Spanish speakers, and I would bet that the majority of those Spanish speakers living in the Southern Cone give higher credence to the Academy's definition, than they do to Penguin's. As for Canadian Guy, have you come up with that list of books yet? ------------- Phong trần mài một lưỡi gươm, Những loài giá áo túi cơm sá gì |
Posted By: Guests
Date Posted: 01-May-2009 at 01:55
You know, lirelou, the point is not whether the Spaniards or Italians are white or not. In fact, who cares?
The fact is that your people, the "Americans", are so obsesed with the term "white" that can't understand anything about ethnicity and genetics at all.
Being so confussed yourselves... what amazes me is how come you criticize Mexicans
Look at these actors of Mexican soap operas:
   Do you find they are white?
If so, either you need glasses or I am Swedish these are "gringos" (white) in my oppinion:
  ------------- |
Posted By: Guests
Date Posted: 01-May-2009 at 02:25
|
Let us get back on topic; which is, stereotypes and inaccuracies in books about Native Americans. No reason to waste any more time on the various skin colors of different popultions - it gets us nor this topic anywhere. ------------- |
Posted By: hugoestr
Date Posted: 01-May-2009 at 02:59
|
Pinguin,
I am sorry to tell you that I have seen plenty of people in Virginia that could be cousins of the actors that you posted. And keep in mind that most of the people here have Irish, English, and Scots ancestry (and maybe German, I am not sure about this one. :) Case in point: the last actress, if she didn't bleach her hair, woudn't look too different from the Mexican actors. And this is the point that I am making about people within a culture not seeing things: most Mexicans can't see what is wrong with the pictures that you posted. I didn't see it either until I was out of the country for years. And why is this? Because the society has a built-in discrimination against Native Americans. Ironically more Native American looking Mexicans get to play good roles in the U.S. than they do in Mexico. ------------- |
Posted By: Guests
Date Posted: 01-May-2009 at 03:25
So, does it means they are white?
You still doesn't see my point. For you, guys, "whites" are caucasians, Irish, English or whatever, by definition. You don't understand that in Latin America, white is a PHYSICAL DESCRIPTION of the ASPECT of the person; not a race.
So, it is a CONTRADICTION that people with brown skin (not redish, almost transparent) be white. White people has white color of skin, that's all. In Chile, at least, we call whites "crabs", because when they tan turn live red
... If you don't turn burn red when tan you are not white. Period.
Difficult, because MOST of the Mexicans actors I show there do have Amerindian admixture, and they show. The White actors I choose are not Americans. The man is Russian and the woman is German.
Many "White" Americans shows evident signs of Admixture, too. The problem is that you guys don't notice, but we do.
Most of the actors are Mestizo; Average in Latin America. So, what's the point. They aren't pure blood natives, and in that I agree. But you should know that in Latin America the largest majorities are Mestizo and not pure blood people.
I bet you couldn't distinguish a Native American from a Mestizo if you see one; at least they are wearing traditional customs
It is interesting that the "racial" analysis of Americans show a lot more about the U.S. than Mexico. ------------- |
Posted By: hugoestr
Date Posted: 01-May-2009 at 05:14
|
Hi, Pinguin,
The photos that you showed from Mexican actors show people who are predominantly European-looking if we contrast them with Mexican Native Americans. And it doesn't matter if they genetically have some connection with a Native American if most of their genetic material comes from Europe. Every single Mexican actor that you posted could come from somewhere from Europe. The ones that look the most like Native Americans are invisible as leading men and women. They do appear often as comic reliefs, thugs, poor people and servants. And just to make it clear, Mexican media often fills the scripts with many references about how ugly and dark skinned those people are. Coming back to the topic: Latin America does have negative narratives about Native Americans; if anything, the U.S. and Canada are probably more sensitive and respectful towards Native American cultures than modern Latin Americans are. And the fact that most Latin Americans have a cultural and genetic link Native Americans only makes the more shameful for Latin America. Yet many in Latin America can't "see" this ------------- |
Posted By: gcle2003
Date Posted: 01-May-2009 at 12:34
Agreed pinguin. And apart from albinos it's a lousy description of their aspect. Otherwise one would say of someone that they go 'white-faced' with shock or pain or anger. If they were white to begin with they couldn't go 'white-faced'.
No-one has white skin. Even if they have gone 'white with anger'. ------------- |
Posted By: Guests
Date Posted: 01-May-2009 at 12:52
About ten years ago, a group of French tourists were conducted to an indigenous Mapuche community in Souther Chile. They were received by a normal, average Mapuche family, which lived in an European-style house, dressed jeans, listen to rap music and saw soccer matches on TV.
The French were so dissapointed they left the community and argued they were cheated by actors!! As I say, it Amazes me that Americans and Europeans usually can't see obvious Amerindian features when people dress as high class or executives. They expect the native blood is so curious and calls so much the attention that when they see these Mexican actors they got convinced they are pure white.
But when the poor relatives of the same people jump the fence to the U.S. looking for work, they are obviously Indians...
It doesn't make sense to me.
That's obviously a generalization. First, you have to realize Mexican TV has a regional reach, not only Mexican. If you only put Aztec dances on TV, I bet the ranking they have would decrease close to zero outside Mexico.
In second place, go to see American TV and movies and tell me if the actors they play there represent American reality. They don't.
The refined american beauty of the movies is only find in the movies.
If you consider that to be "ugly" is a sign of Indigenous people, I bet you are wrong. Famous movie actress as Rachel Welch, Salma Hayek, Victoria Principal and Lynda Crystal had obviously Amerindian beauty on them.
When in Latin America you see round chins, slighly oriental faces, delicated skins, small noses and several other physical features in women, they are sign of "Asiatic" admixture. If you compare Spanish woman with Latin Americans you will see that beyond skin collor and other damn analysis, the main diference are: how long are the faces, how long are the noses, how crowded are the eyebrows, and if the woman has a moustache or not
Latin Americans are more realistic. We know Incas were a tyrany, for instance; we know Aztecs were bloody and ancient Mapuches were very rude people. In that everyones agree, including the natives. We also agree in that the first waves of "conquistadors" were a bunch of criminals. There is nothing to hide in those histories because they are the truth of what happened here. In both sides there were human beings, both criminals and saints, as always happens.
Besides, in Latin America we are interested in that poor people progress and improve theirs quality of life, and if that means some traditions or language reduce theirs size or dissapear, that's the cost of progress.
------------- |
Posted By: Jams
Date Posted: 01-May-2009 at 13:05
They may be biased, but it depends on what exactly they are describing. The ideal would be multiple sources, but that's more a concern with historical events. In this case, a description of a certain group´s traditions and beliefs, the info will have to come from the people in some way, and an outsider may misunderstand certain things, like concepts and words etc. They may also have to trust the people that inform them, which can be problematic if they are outsiders, especially if they are kind of thought of as untrustworthy.
There's also the problem of lumping people together that shouldn't be, creating untrue stereotypes etc.
Of course, sometimes outsiders will have the advantage of noticing things that are specific to other people, things that those people perhaps don't think about as specific to them and therefore forget to describe. ------------- |
Posted By: lirelou
Date Posted: 01-May-2009 at 17:02
Posted By: Guests
Date Posted: 01-May-2009 at 17:38
|
I suggest you see the thread "how latin americans look" and we continue arguing, and leave this thread on focus. But, of course I am talking about genetics and aspect: that's what Americans see on Mexican TV, physical features of people and associations with the American concept of race. Let's continue here
http://www.allempires.net/forum_posts.asp?TID=27133 - http://www.allempires.net/forum_posts.asp?TID=27133 ------------- |
Posted By: hugoestr
Date Posted: 01-May-2009 at 17:50
Oh, boy, I am forced to do this. I will have to show an actual Mexican show, very, very popular, by the way, depicting Native Americans. You don't need to know Spanish to get the full impact of this. Missing from this clip is when the red hero call the chief ugly. http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=lG8zfesf1gA - Mexican Racist Skit ------------- |
Posted By: Seko
Date Posted: 01-May-2009 at 18:06
|
This thread started out over the lack of diverse reading material from an Indian perspective. Eventually it generated into a beauty contest. Hugo is right with the later in that ethnocentricity does exist, though sometimes we aren't aware of it. Where doesn't it not exist anyway? Of course not all Mexicans (or any other ethnicity for that matter) does not have all the classic good looks of popular actors/actresses. Denying this is futile. So why does it appear we try to make it so?
As for eliminating bias when describing the culture of an 'Indian', Jams' multimodal approach makes sense. ------------- |
Posted By: Guests
Date Posted: 01-May-2009 at 18:18
|
What show?
Do you mean, Cantinflas? Here, acting as a poor Mexican
 Or here?
 Or do you mean the people of the last telenovela of Televisa? What's the difference?
 Now, this is Mexico. How do you expect actors to look? Like Willy Smith?
http://msnbcmedia4.msn.com/j/msnbc/Components/Photos/050826/sexy_will_smith.widec.jpg -
 ------------- |
Posted By: gcle2003
Date Posted: 01-May-2009 at 18:30
|
Me: I’d recommend you go down to your local morgue and ask those who deal with the dead. Dead Caucasians are “white”, dead East Asians are “yellow”, and dead Blacks are ashen colored. You’ve obviously also never seen any real fear on anyone’s face. I've seen dead bodies and don't have any idea why you should think I hadn't. Dead bodies, even of blue-eyed blondes aren't white (unless possibly they died of leprosy - I admit I've never seen a dead leper.
I've also been outside at night in a German blitz which is pretty frightening, so I don't know where you get your idea you can pontificate on what I've seen or haven't seen.
In fact the whole point of my post was that even when people are said to go 'white-faced' they don't. When they're supposed to go 'white with anger' they don't. And so on.
I'll grant you some people are yellowish, my (English-Welsh-Manx descent) wife has yellowish skin compared to my pinkish. But I never said they weren't.
What you have obviously never tried to do is paint a portrait. Or even look closely at one.
------------- |
Posted By: Guests
Date Posted: 01-May-2009 at 18:38
|
Pinguin, have you ever been to Mexico? All pictures you post of purportedly average looking Mexicans so far have been definately whiter than the average Mexican. It may be accurate for Chile (where there is indeed less indigenous admixture than in Mexico), but it definately isn't for Mexico. And have you actually watched the clip Hugo has posted? It doesn't have anything to do with Cantinflas. ------------- |
Posted By: Guests
Date Posted: 01-May-2009 at 18:55
|
Look at these indigenous people of Mexico,
   I haven't been to Mexico, but I have seen Mexicans of all condition of life, both at my country and in Canada.
The point is simple, what is so "white" with Mexican TV?
Look at these figures and actors. What's the difference
Ruben Sosa, who was humilliated in Cannes
 ( http://afp.google.com/article/ALeqM5h15fCnxbJHjlbZDv-LonybfNBDSQ - http://afp.google.com/article/ALeqM5h15fCnxbJHjlbZDv-LoNybfNBDSQ ) Or Maya Zapata? (All inclusive)
 ------------- |
Posted By: hugoestr
Date Posted: 01-May-2009 at 22:16
|
Did you watch the video that I posted? Your answers do not seem to address it. ------------- |
Posted By: lirelou
Date Posted: 01-May-2009 at 22:25
|
gcle: I wasn't talking about bodies which have been treated by an undertaker. Dead ones, drained of blood. For Whites, they are really white. Not the same color they had when they were alive, with blood coursing through their veins.
------------- Phong trần mài một lưỡi gươm, Những loài giá áo túi cơm sá gì |
Posted By: Guests
Date Posted: 02-May-2009 at 00:56
That funny show called ugly the actor that plays the Aztec in every single show for years.
Ramon Valdes, played the role of Don Ramon for years. He wasn't very attractive. Curiously he was paled and blue eyed.
 He passed away not long ago. He was a very beloved figure in Hispanic America because represented the "jack of all trades", or the poorest people of the region.
Second, they are despicting Aztecs, not just common Indians of the hills. And Aztecs used to kill people in human sacrifices as the show say. And Mexicans realize those ceremonies were brutal. Come on, the main reason why the Aztec failled was the opposition to those ceremonies among the people that surrounded the Aztecs!
Most of the word games goes around how funny does Nahuatl sounds to Spanish speaker hears. With names like Nahualcoyotl, Tenochtitlan, Chocolatl etc., it could be easy to figure it out that sounds as funny as an english speaker singing mariachi music
Now, the archeologist are Americans, not mexicans. That's why the actress, who is brunette, tinted her hair blond for the play. And the red guy with the ridiculous red dress represents.... Superman
... in a "third world" and coward version.Finally, the stereotype of the "dumb Indian" is show false with the gang about the American jumbo jet...
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=lG8zfesf1gA - http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=lG8zfesf1gA
Jesus, it is ridiculous to accusse Chespirito of racism. And less for this very funny show.
That show how difficult is the interpret things inside a culture looking from the outside.
This is the first part of the show...
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=8HqOPgtg-IU&feature=related - http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=8HqOPgtg-IU&feature=related
------------- |
Posted By: hugoestr
Date Posted: 02-May-2009 at 02:10
|
but Pinguin, that was my point: people from Latin America can't see what is an outright racist skit. And the one person who has the strongest Native American looks, As you said, is the one who is insulted for being "ugly". :) ------------- |
Posted By: Guests
Date Posted: 02-May-2009 at 02:35
Are you crazy? Don Ramon didn't look Indigenous. He had Italian ancestry by the father side. If anything he looked weird, with a "tortured" face as a boxer. In that show everybody was weird. Profesor Jirafales, for instance, was so tall that he got the nick that means "professor giraffe", Chapulin colorado means little insect, and it is the nick of the main actor and director of the show, who is very small
. There also was a lady, who was old, and that not even Don Ramon wanted as a girlfriend ...Other actor was very fat, and when fighted pushed the others with the belly ... It was just a fun game playing with human condition.More pictures from Don Ramon. I can't see how you could find him "indigenous".
As I said he was pale and blue eyed, and also have some very thick eyebrows... nothing similar to Moctezuma whatsoever. Here, playing Schartwzeneger  Here like Jim Morrison:
 Here, a closer look:
 And here, in real life:
![[Loco.jpg]](http://3.bp.blogspot.com/_5N5YitHLbn8/RrTCYNgU3bI/AAAAAAAAAWE/zqGlRGIMFeE/s1600/Loco.jpg "[Loco.jpg]") And as an actor during the golden age of Mexican movies:
 As I say, ask any spanish speaker and they would know this great comic actor that was Ramon Valdes. ------------- |
Posted By: Guests
Date Posted: 02-May-2009 at 03:08
|
Just watch this video. Here they make fun of Americans and Uncle Sam...
Listen as "super sam" (superman+uncle sam) talks.
Is that racism?
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=idUBDziA31I&NR=1 - http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=idUBDziA31I&NR=1
And this in the version in Portuguese for Brazil:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=WQ89fLTJNoM - http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=WQ89fLTJNoM
Anyways, that fight represents the conflicts between the U.S. and Latin America ------------- |
Posted By: edgewaters
Date Posted: 02-May-2009 at 07:35
|
Will there be any further discussion on history books about native Americans? Whether Latin American culture is, at the present time, racist or not just isn't a historical topic. However it arose, it is a discussion more suited to a thread in the Tavern or Current Affairs. |
Posted By: Guests
Date Posted: 02-May-2009 at 07:39
|
I opened a thread on that topic in this same section. Somehow we went out topic here. I believe the thread has a good point, though: that cultures need an inside look to be understand. Outsiders can reach that "inside" look only after a lot of effort, after years of study and living with the people of that culture. Otherwise, mistakes are made, like the ones that were presented in this same thread when critizicing an innocent Mexican comic program. ------------- |
Posted By: Constantine XI
Date Posted: 02-May-2009 at 14:44
|
I have been asked by the creator of this thread to close it. Instead, because this thread is active and is about a genuinely important topic, I remind participants that we should stick with the original topic. I think this is a fair request, as the thread has gone a long way from its purpose. So: *Let's discuss the topic of anthropology and ethnography, focusing especially on the subject what makes for a reliable ethnographic study and what some of the main problems are. Those wishing to discuss melanin levels in American people are welcome to do so in a new thread. ------------- |
Posted By: lirelou
Date Posted: 03-May-2009 at 20:27
|
"Ok, there is allot of books that talk bout Indians of the Americas, but
allot of these books are racist and stereotypical. I noticed that these
books are completely wrong in knowledge and are biased." I vote for closure. Canadian Guy has never given us any list or specific examples of such books. In short, he has failed to sustain his initial assertions that "allot of books that talk bout Indians...are racist and stereotypical." ------------- Phong trần mài một lưỡi gươm, Những loài giá áo túi cơm sá gì |
Posted By: Guests
Date Posted: 04-May-2009 at 01:13
|
what about the "Letter from the chief Seattle".
According to same sources, that was made up for a reporter, and it isn't really a legacy of the Chief Seattle.
I am interested on that topic ------------- |
Posted By: Constantine XI
Date Posted: 04-May-2009 at 01:45
|
Honestly I would like to see some examples of which books on Native Americans are so terribly inaccurate. It is hard to respond to vague criticism. Then, when we have those examples, it would be a good idea to examine how much of a proportion of anthropological works on Native Americans these books comprise. ------------- |
Posted By: hugoestr
Date Posted: 04-May-2009 at 05:05
|
Actually, a lot of works from the no so distant past depict Native Americans in an incorrect manner. One exercise in my anthropology class about 10 years ago was to go to the library and find racist or biased depictions of U.S. minorities, Native Americans included.
Unfortunately it was to easy. And most of the books were from the 60s to the present. As for books, the pioneering anthropologist Morgan Lewis Morgan got it really wrong, and it was very biased against Native Americans. And we must keep in mind that he was actually sympathetic to them ------------- |
Posted By: drgonzaga
Date Posted: 04-May-2009 at 21:14
| The topic has really divided itself into contradictory themes: 1) the indigenous and the media, as well as 2) the Academic and culture conflict. Pinguin moved into Cantinflas mode and yet forgot a more folkloric figure in the Mexican experience la India Maria. And with specific reference to Mexico, one must keep in mind that even today to call someone an Indio is an insult. Likewise for generations the Mexican media in advertising focused on the clearly "western" ethos. Nevertheless, I do not believe this direction is the topic intended. Instead, and here I will use Brazil as an excellent example, the theme seeks to explore the bias of the intellectual elite toward the "western model" as the preferable traits. The work of sociologists such as Gilberto Freire in the '30s through the '50s [e.g.Casa grande e Senzala] marvelously capture this foible. Chalk it up to the liberal mystique... |
Posted By: edgewaters
Date Posted: 04-May-2009 at 22:18
|
Actually there are loads of them. THE standard reference book for natives in Canada was, up until not very long ago, Diamond Jenness' 1932 work "The Indians of Canada". There are factual errors, but that's not really the problem - the problem was the interpretation, which presented native groups as completely passive, non-agents powerless before European agency. This just wasn't the case. It's actually astounding that it remained the standard reference right up until the late 90s, given Jenness' misguided predictions - stating, for instance, that the remaining native cultures would disappear within a generation (ie by the 50s or so). |
Posted By: Seko
Date Posted: 04-May-2009 at 22:28
|
I'm sure there exist books sympathetic to Indian culture. On the other hand it appears that our predominant bias has been degrading to Indians and have shaped our mindset. Starting from our inception as the 'United States', our Declaration of Independence more than hints of Indian degradation. Mentioned along the lines of Great Britain's repeated tyrannies, the Founding Fathers had wrote this:
He has excited domestic insurrections amongst us, and has endeavoured to bring on the inhabitants of our frontiers, the merciless Indian Savages, whose known rule of warfare, is an undistinguished destruction of all ages, sexes and conditions.
Then again, ethnocentricity never had left our collective conscience.
Our Savage Neighbors: How Indian War Transformed Early America
by http://search.barnesandnoble.com/booksearch/results.asp?ATH=Peter+Silver - Peter Silver
Savage Frontier 1835-1837: Rangers, Riflemen, and Indian Wars in Texas, Vol. 1 by http://search.barnesandnoble.com/booksearch/results.asp?ATH=Stephen+L%2E+Moore - Stephen L. Moore
Savage Abandon by http://search.barnesandnoble.com/booksearch/results.asp?ATH=Cassie+Edwards - Cassie Edwards
and so on and so on.... ------------- |
Posted By: Guests
Date Posted: 05-May-2009 at 01:57
)
Good input Mr. Seko  . Like it has been mentioned, there are plenty of good examples of bad academic works - from the "noble" savage concept, to the works that deem Native Americans as inferior. My academic work has been done mostly on the various groups in the present day United States, so my deductions will be mainly about books concering that area. However, in recent years - there have been a series of rathe good books on the Dine (Navajos), the intertwined relationships - and history of the Fur Trade, etc... One notable scholar in my mind is Professor Brian Hosmer, who also had headed the Native American studies at the Newberry Library and the University of Illinois at Chicago. (I also happen to know him personally, and have done papers with him and for him  ).------------- |
Posted By: The Canadian Guy
Date Posted: 05-May-2009 at 02:01
------------- Hate and anger is the fuel of war, while religion and politics is the foundation of it. |
Posted By: lirelou
Date Posted: 05-May-2009 at 02:25
|
And Holly Tomren's qualifications are? Ph.D.? M.A.? A librarian? The paper doesn't say. By the way, Mate, you're the first "Canuck" I've ever heard address anyone as "Mate". But, as I'm from Florida, or presently living in Florida, I must be biased, yeah? This thread is a joke and needs to be shut down. ------------- Phong trần mài một lưỡi gươm, Những loài giá áo túi cơm sá gì |
Posted By: Seko
Date Posted: 05-May-2009 at 02:30
|
Thank you for your concern lirelou. The thread had run into a snarl yet is doing fine now. It will stay open.
------------- |
Posted By: hugoestr
Date Posted: 05-May-2009 at 02:35
|
Yes, it should stay open. It is fun ------------- |
Posted By: lirelou
Date Posted: 05-May-2009 at 03:19
|
Seko, I take it you have read none of the books you cited, but simply made assumptions based upon the word “Savage” somewhere in the title. Below are excerpts from an Amazon customer review of “Our Savage Neighbors” by an actual reader. He rated it five stars, and 26 of 27 reviewers agreed with him. His comments incline me to believe that Pinguino would also rate this book highly. Perhaps even you yourself might agree with it. So where’s the ethnocentricity? “What this brilliant author and researcher tells us is that the white race has not been in existence for time immemorial (as the committed racists tell themselves - even claiming Greek and Roman history as part of a common "white heritage," and pedigree), but was invented in the aftermath of the "Seven Year War," by demagogues, and scam-artists, pamphleteers, and other peddlers of the print medium, whose tactics even today would make Madison Avenue "Ad Men" blush.” ”As the story is told here, during, and in the aftermath of the war between England and France, the disparate tribes on opposing sides of that war, for their own respective existential imperatives, found for the first time, ways to coalesce as groups in order to fight each other in that war. The Indian tribes, who literally had been fighting each other for centuries, came together for the first time to address the emerging and rapidly expanding existential threat of encroaching (rather than invading) hoards of "European Settlers," who the Indians (not Europeans) first gave the name "White men."” ”On the opposing side, were the European tribes: a disparate collection of Europe's ethnic underbelly. Most were thrown onto the North American shores to sink or swim as a last resort to their lowly European existence. As people, these European tribes were as unalike and as disconnected from each other as any group ever dumped onto the shores of a foreign land. For the most part they disliked and distrusted each other immensely, and did so for all the obvious reasons: They had fought each other on the European continent over customs, traditions, religions, politics, resources, etc. But in Europe they were at least protected from each other by national borders. In the new world even this final barrier was torn way. They were all thrown into the same American mixing bowl, left to their own devices, to sink or swim.” ”It was in fact these "pockets" of differentiated, unmixable and profoundly isolated ethnic European tribes that were strewn and strung vulnerable across the pre-American frontier. Each tribe it seems had in fact made a conscious effort to get as far away from other European tribes as was humanly possible. This cultural disaffinity and isolation among the white tribes, which even today remains an enduring fixture of the American cultural and geographic landscape, during the time of Seven Year War, became a decidedly serious military liability.” ”Both the French and their Indian allies were keenly aware of, and sought to exploit this vulnerability. The Indians used terrorist tactics (such as scalping their victims and leaving them in conspicuous places) to brilliant effect. By "picking off" the settlers one hamlet and fort at a time, the Indian raids raised to the breaking point the ante on fear and terror among the isolated settlers. The disparate white tribes now had no choice but to try to come together to fight a common and very effective and determined enemy. However, this proved easier said than done. The then "powers that be”, the landed gentry, secure on their estates, away from the outer perimeter of the frontier, could care less about those poor desperate bastards left isolated and vulnerable "out there" of the nation's periphery.” “A truly worthy contribution to American history and to historical scholarship.” I won’t bother with the other titles. My study of Texas history has left me convinced that “Savage Frontier” aptly describes the conditions of Texas in the years 1835-37. Indeed, Texas was the state that suffered the greatest property losses during the Civil War (1861-65), primarily to Comanche raids. And I’d be willing that the author of that book includes “savages” of several races, though I take his title to refer to the conditions of the Texas frontier. ================================================ edited to remove incompatible Word coding es_bih, 05-04-09 ------------- Phong trần mài một lưỡi gươm, Những loài giá áo túi cơm sá gì |
Posted By: The Canadian Guy
Date Posted: 05-May-2009 at 03:28
|
if you don't like this thread, then don't post on it mate. It is that simple. I am not saying you are biased, i am stating that the USA(especially the south) have books that are biased in the school library's. It is common in Canada as well. P.S I am from Newfoundland. ------------- Hate and anger is the fuel of war, while religion and politics is the foundation of it. |
Posted By: Guests
Date Posted: 05-May-2009 at 03:39
So far you've been the joke - and I don't see why you're insulting someone trying to get off an interesting thread to a good start. Just because you don't agree does not make it a bad thread either. There have been good examples posted in the thread so far. Your highness - ------------- |
Posted By: gcle2003
Date Posted: 05-May-2009 at 10:49
|
I don't think that people should assume that the word 'savage' either was or is necessarily derogatory, or even that it meant the same thing in the 18th century as it does now. ------------- |
Posted By: Seko
Date Posted: 05-May-2009 at 15:55
|
lirelou, not that I normally care to share my reasons for posting, for you I shall do so this time. I'm glad that you picked up on the meaning of 'white' as mentioned in the first reference provided. Since this term had been tossed about willy nilly in this thread, that particular book not only gives us a history of warfare during the Indian wars but also points us to the early usage of American racist stereotyping - The motley Europeans morphed into white people, defined in opposition to Indians. Whether you like the reference or not is your prerogative. Since you guessed that I haven't read those books I am assuming that you have. Whether that is the case or not is irrelevant since the point I have made shows some of the extent of how we previously viewed, and still do have a certain mentality towards Indians that permeates our thoughts. I have also noticed that your concern appears to deny any such stereotyping towards native Indians, as if you were on a crusade to correct us from percieved misguidance. I have no qualms sharing sentiments contrary to yours. In fact, I enjoy discovering your bias and marvel at how you try to deny us the right to prove that you have it. Thus, crying, that we close this thread because it is uncomfortable for you to stomach is of no concern to me. I relish in such thought. ------------- |
Posted By: Seko
Date Posted: 05-May-2009 at 16:00
gcle2003, now yours is 'sugar coating' of the most fanciful kind. 'Savage' may have certain connotations but we all know what it means, as did our founding fathers who used the phrase - Indian Savages. I certainly think people should assume precisely what it means and that it is derogatory. There shall be no doubt. Is there any other way to understand this? Maybe we could try some wordplay? By placing the antonym for the word 'savage' in a phrase or book title we get the word 'civil'/'civilized' and variations thereof. - Indian Civilians - Our Civilized Neighbors: How Indian War Transformed Early America- Civil Frontier... Sound less intimidating? Certainly not of savage caliber. Too bad the word 'civil' really wasn't used to describe Indians. ------------- |
Posted By: Seko
Date Posted: 05-May-2009 at 16:38
|
While we are currently onto the topic of this single word - savage, I came across a link that even differentiates among two types of savagery. There has existed a timely use of either 'Nobel' or 'Ignoble' savage as it pertained to Indians when they were either pacified or a treated as the 'Red Menace'. Our culture has played with such descriptions to the demeaning detriment of Indians. http://www.authentichistory.com/diversity/native/savage/index.html ------------- |
Posted By: Guests
Date Posted: 05-May-2009 at 16:53
|
Good point Seko. Savage changed in terminology, but has consistently been a term for an entity or individual of lesser values. Thus it is a criteria of judging what is below the social ladder of the dominating criteria. Wheter or not the word's meaning changed from one where it denotes someone as lesser in a polite way or to an impolite way has no consequence on the overall negative connotation that word brought and brings today as well. ------------- |
Posted By: edgewaters
Date Posted: 05-May-2009 at 17:06
|
I don't think the term has really changed that much - it meant violent and barbaric in the 18th century, too. According the Online Etymology Dictionary: Of persons, the meaning "reckless, ungovernable" is attested from c.1400l ... Implications of ferocity are attested from 1579, earlier of animals (1407). The noun meaning "wild person" is from 1588; the verb meaning "to tear with the teeth, maul" is from 1880. So, even in the 1700s, it meant an ungovernable person given to animal-like violence. Not to mention that the books mentioned by Seko were not written in the 1700s anyway. "Our Savage Neighbours", pub. 2007. "Savage Frontier 1835-1837", pub. 2007. "Savage Abandon", pub. 2008. |
Posted By: gcle2003
Date Posted: 05-May-2009 at 18:44
Indeed there is. The same applies to 'civilized' in your later comment. They are basically quite objectively references to specific states, which may or may not be seen as good or bad. 'Civilized' in fact is quite often used as a derogatory term, meaning something like 'effete' and 'weak', but its fundamental meaning is merely 'living in concentrated communities', whereas 'savage' fundamentally means merels the opposite.
Now, you may consider that 'living in the wild' and 'living in towns', with all that that implies is good or is bad, that's up to you. But not everyone shares the same views, anymore than 'godless' is necessarily viewed as derogatory, though it is often meant that way.
What is important is not whether the North American Indian (or anyone else) can or should correctly be called 'savage'. What's important is an objective assessment of his behaviour and practices and beliefs and so on. It's important that the description of it is accurate, not what it is called.
Or that the word 'theist' wasn't used to describe 'atheists'?
Were the Indians (or some of them) hunter-gatherers? If so they weren't civilized. And since in your view 'savage' is the antonym of 'civilized' (I'm happy with that too) they were in your vocabulary therefore savages, no matter how noble, kindly, peaceful and friendly they were.
I'd agree though that as a general principle the word has been so debased that it is better avoided, as is 'civilized'. ------------- |
Posted By: gcle2003
Date Posted: 05-May-2009 at 18:47
Nope. Only if you think that being a savage is a lesser thing to be, which may of course be your view. It isn't/wasn't everyone's.
Wherever you see 'savage' try reading 'hunter-gatherer'. Is a hunter-gatherer a 'lesser' person? Should we therefore not refer to hunter-gatherers? How should we describe them?
------------- |
Posted By: Guests
Date Posted: 05-May-2009 at 18:56
|
A better name than 'savage' form hunter-gatherer is 'tribal people', I guess, because the basic society form most of them is the tribe.
------------- |
Posted By: gcle2003
Date Posted: 05-May-2009 at 19:02
It's interesting that you took out a passage and replaced it with three dots. The missing quote says: "earlier in sense "indomitable, valiant" (c.1300)." You would have done better to leave it in.
Here's the whole definition:
The dictionary itself here emphasises as the original meaning the one that gives in Arthurian legend 'the Forest Sauvage' ('Savage' in Malory - also common of course as the French Foret Sauvage) where the meaning is simply 'Wild': not ferocious, but merely untamed, undomesticated.
It also, on the same theme gives:
which again indicates the basic meaning of 'unsettled'. Deer are not feral.
It could mean that, yes, just as it can be a derogatory word. However you're wrong about that being the root meaning, and certainly in claiming it is the only meaning.
I thought someone quoted the Declaration of Independence. That would be the 18th century one wouldn't it? ------------- |
Posted By: gcle2003
Date Posted: 05-May-2009 at 19:08
Except that there are plenty of settled and civilized cultures that are organised around tribes. ------------- |
Posted By: Seko
Date Posted: 05-May-2009 at 19:18
Now that we are going deeper into tangents let's frolic there for a moment. While shining contrary evidence to the doubting Thomas, we are aware that even descriptions of one single word has been challenged. The word 'Savage' has been a popular word towards dehumanizing native American Indians as shown in literature and other uses (see the link in a previous post of mine). If my words are too emotionally laden, which I have no intent on spicing up the word 'savage' with anything other than what it is, then bare with me.
Now we can take a general view of stereotypes and reach some conclusions.
http://www.deproverbio.com/DPjournal/DP,1,1,95/INDIAN.html - http://www.deproverbio.com/DPjournal/DP,1,1,95/INDIAN.html
The early concepts of the "good Indian" or "noble savage" quickly were replaced by reducing the native inhabitants to "wild savages" who were standing in the way of expansionism under the motto of "manifest destiny". http://www.deproverbio.com/DPjournal/DP,1,1,95/INDIAN.html#Note4 - 4 Little wonder that Roy Pearce in his valuable book with the telling title Savagism and Civilization: A Study of the Indian and the American Mind (1967) can quote a thrasonical toast recorded in the journal of Major James Norris in 1779 as having expressed the early frontier truth: "Civilization or death to all American savages." http://www.deproverbio.com/DPjournal/DP,1,1,95/INDIAN.html#Note5 - 5 That means, bluntly put, change your ways and assimilate the rules and life-style of the white conquerors and settlers or die. Anybody resisting this policy was "bad", and once the popular white attitude was geared towards the demonization of the Native Americans, the stage was set for killing thousands of them or driving the survivors onto inhuman reservations. The unpublished and little-known dissertation by Priscilla Shames with the title The Long Hope: A Study of American Indian Stereotypes in American Popular Fiction (1969) shows how this cruel treatment of the native population is described in literature, http://www.deproverbio.com/DPjournal/DP,1,1,95/INDIAN.html#Note6 - 6 while Dee Brown's best selling book Bury My Heart at Wounded Knee: An Indian History of the American West (1970) gives a more factual account. This latter book contains a telling chapter with the gruesome proverbial title "The Only Good Indian Is a Dead Indian", http://www.deproverbio.com/DPjournal/DP,1,1,95/INDIAN.html#Note7 - 7 the word "dead" meaning both literal death, and for those who survived the mass killings, a figurative death, i.e., a restricted life on the reservation with little freedom to continue the traditional life-style.
Even our word 'civilazation' has found its way into this proof.
Single terminology aside I will agree that our objective assessment of behaviour and practices and beliefs and so on...are important. So let's look at my next post and delve further.
------------- |