has chuckles become a generic slur against native Americans?
- Thread starter Guy Gardener
- Start date
Yeah, I know - am originally from California, so I have one of those, too. I wish I didn't, but I do. There is such a thing as a distinctive SoCal accent, but although I really love regional accents - the more pronounced the better so long as it's genuine - I have to say that of all the accents in the world, that SoCal accent is my least favorite. Too familiar with it, I guess.
California coastal Indians fished some species to extinction. That's not exactly a "do no harm" scenario.
The "ecological Indian" is a myth.
But so is Chuckles.
I was watching Sliders the other day, and Maggie called some bloke "Chuckles" and i was watching Scrubs the day after and Sarah Chalk was calling some one else "Chuckles" too.
This word is more common than I thought, and rarely attached to native Americans it would seem.
Even the GI Joe character Chuckles was just another white dude.
I was watching Sliders the other day, and Maggie called some bloke "Chuckles" and i was watching Scrubs the day after and Sarah Chalk was calling some one else "Chuckles" too.
This word is more common than I thought, and rarely attached to native Americans it would seem.
Even the GI Joe character Chuckles was just another white dude.
That's not specific to Native Americans...
And some of the pre-Puebloan peoples drastically overfarmed their land - erosion of top soil and that kind of stuff. And there's some evidence that giant sloths and mammoths and so on ("megafauna," I've heard them called - cool word, eh?) were hunted to extinction shortly after the migration across the land bridge began instead of dying out, as many people used to assume. And there are other examples as well. I know.
Still, they tended to be a bit more respectful of the land than Europeans, if only because they had to be and also because it was unusual in the Americas for the indigenous peoples to live in densely populated masses - less density of population generally means less ecological damage. And there is (or so I understand) a strong reverence for the land implicit in many native religions. So I'd say it isn't a myth but it's just not nearly as universal nor as perfect as it is sometimes made out to be.
As I said before, there is no such thing as a Generic Native American. There's a lot more diversity than such generalizations lead one to believe.
Last edited:
Most American Indians are Christian. Granted, many (including myself) practice a syncretic faith, but we are Christian.
The biggest difference between Indians & Europeans when it comes to land is that Europeans believed in ownership. To Indians, because they had communal societies, individuals couldn't own land.
I'm aware, Teya, that most American Indians are Christian, but as you know, a number of them still hold to some traditional religious practices as well, combining them with Christianity.
I agree with you on communal ownership, but I also think the simple fact that, with some exceptions, they tended to not live in dense populations reduced their impact on the environment as well. But I'm getting OT, I know.
I agree with you on communal ownership, but I also think the simple fact that, with some exceptions, they tended to not live in dense populations reduced their impact on the environment as well. But I'm getting OT, I know.
That's what syncretism is.
^ I know! At least I thought I knew. That's why I was a bit puzzled that you were disagreeing with me. If some American Indians still follow some of their traditional practices, what does the addition Christianity have to do with the topic? If traditional practices involve - as I understand some of them did and do - a reverence for the land that isn't always present in other religions, and if some American Indians still follow those practices, how is that diluted by the addition of Christian beliefs?
I think we're actually almost in agreement here, which is why the apparent disagreement is puzzling me.
I think we're actually almost in agreement here, which is why the apparent disagreement is puzzling me.
I just hate hate hate hate hate romanticizing indigenous culture.
Reverence for the land is common to nature-based traditions, whether American or European or Asian or African. It's not unique to indigenous Americans, and it certainly wasn't uniformly followed (as we've already established
).
^ Oh, I see. ::whew:: Clears that right up!
Actually, so do I. A lot. In the U.S., the tendency has been to either demonize American Indians or to romanticize them, and neither one is fair to the individuals or to history. Or to reality, actually. Romanticising them makes them less...real - it almost turns them into characters or archtypes instead of people. That's not good, for a lot of reasons.
But for purposes of this discussion, which has gotten way off track and for that I do apologize, I was actually comparing American Indian beliefs to those of the Europeans they encountered, and and I believe there were some real differences there, even without rose-colored glasses. I didn't mean to imply that those beliefs were unique in the entire history of world religion, because of course they are not.
Well, I feel better. My apologies, VOYsters, for accidentally highjacking the thread.
Oh, so to bring it back kind of OT...that's what that whole Generic Native American thing did to the character of Chakotay. Romanticized him in a way that made him less real. And that is also not good, for a lot of reasons.
Actually, so do I. A lot. In the U.S., the tendency has been to either demonize American Indians or to romanticize them, and neither one is fair to the individuals or to history. Or to reality, actually. Romanticising them makes them less...real - it almost turns them into characters or archtypes instead of people. That's not good, for a lot of reasons.
But for purposes of this discussion, which has gotten way off track and for that I do apologize, I was actually comparing American Indian beliefs to those of the Europeans they encountered, and and I believe there were some real differences there, even without rose-colored glasses. I didn't mean to imply that those beliefs were unique in the entire history of world religion, because of course they are not.
Well, I feel better. My apologies, VOYsters, for accidentally highjacking the thread.
Oh, so to bring it back kind of OT...that's what that whole Generic Native American thing did to the character of Chakotay. Romanticized him in a way that made him less real. And that is also not good, for a lot of reasons.
Thank you, thank you, thank you!
I've been trying to explain this on this board for years.
Some folks seem to think that as long as a stereotype is positive, it's okay.
^ I agree with you that it's not OK. A stereotype is a stereotype. In the case of the U.S., the Noble Indian myth became prevalent after the various wars were over and the American Indians had of course lost. The net effects of the myth were, first, that it tinted the conquest of the continent with a patina of romance that left people who thought about it feeling sort of sad...but sad the way you are when you're reading a sad book instead of the way you feel when you're coming to terms with actual human suffering. It turned it into a romantic tragedy instead of real life. This is bad.
Second, what happens when someone who believes the Noble Indian myth comes in contact with an actual, real, flesh-and-blood person? And that person has strengths and weaknesses, just like anybody else? Disillusionment, that's what - which might not be a bad thing, except that sometimes disillusionment goes too far the other way. This is also bad.
Reality is a lot messier than romance.
Second, what happens when someone who believes the Noble Indian myth comes in contact with an actual, real, flesh-and-blood person? And that person has strengths and weaknesses, just like anybody else? Disillusionment, that's what - which might not be a bad thing, except that sometimes disillusionment goes too far the other way. This is also bad.
Reality is a lot messier than romance.
Hmmm?
Genetically how "pure" is Chakotay's family line?
I always got the feeling that when his pappy was telling him about how the tribe accepted the children of rape who were not ostracised at all by the native American gal's left behind after the fact to raise their half conquistador offspring that... Which is about the same almost as Janeway raising seven like her own daughter.
I pity the actual children that woman does have that they're not left at the side of the road as an inconv... O, that's exactly what happened.
Genetically how "pure" is Chakotay's family line?
I always got the feeling that when his pappy was telling him about how the tribe accepted the children of rape who were not ostracised at all by the native American gal's left behind after the fact to raise their half conquistador offspring that... Which is about the same almost as Janeway raising seven like her own daughter.
I pity the actual children that woman does have that they're not left at the side of the road as an inconv... O, that's exactly what happened.
When I was a kid, I read a book called "Warriors" by an author named Thomas A Marquis. The book was about the Cheyenne tribe during the 1860's-1890's when the conflict with the white (or European) led to war. My father, who was very interested in what we call the "Wild West" and had some knowledge about the different Indian tribes had bought that book once and now I have it in my bookshelf, I actually re-read it last year.
The book gives a good insight in the Cheyenne society, their daily life, different customs and religious beliefs. The fact is that there were all kind of people among them too. They did have their fair share of problems and conflicts among them too, like jealousy, fights over certain possesions (horses and such) and even murder and suicide (but maybe not in the same way as our society has today) and they had their laws and rules to handle such things.
When it came to war and conflits with other tribes, including the white immigrants, they could be cruel and ruthless as well in certain circumstances.
In short, they were people with good and bad sides, just like all of us. Their culture and way of life was just very different from the white or European society even if there were similarities too.
As for their religion, I see many similarities whith Christianity but some differences as well.