Indians speaking like Tarzan

Apr 2017
102
Cologne
#51
You should have more interest in researching the issue,
Maybe. But I just rely on my RL-experience with these animals over everything some forest-man on that planet tells me about his.

because you're making speculations out of air.
What tells me that you did not even grew up with a pack of dogs, specifcally big dogs and to 100% not wolf-mixes or wolfs and have never been more than 5 minutes with them. Something you should be totally aware about, before projecting your lack of education on that matter onto others.

There're lot of examples coming from Europe, one of the most recent was Marcos Rodríguez Pantoja, born in 1946, he was left in the forest of southern Spain in 1954, where he grew up among wolves to 1965, becoming one of the pack, eating like them, behaving like them. When he was found, the guy was total savage and behaved like a wolf. And he is STILL alive, and remember everything perfectly (in fact, he never was used to live with humans again)
Yes. As I said: This is all Uri Geller.
This guy is still alive too and claims he can bend spoons with his supernatural human powers.

And this is just one among many in a long series of European children risen by wolves, as far back as the mythological Romulus and Remo.
Except that I would never claim that nor would anybody of my siblings or cousins and I do not know any ranger, zoo-keeper, wild-life protector or whatever children that believe that crap. Maybe that is because if you deal with nature you run on science and not magic and science is based on knowledge and not believe.

Do NOT apply conclusions among human and chimpazee interactions to human and wolves. Chimps and humans can't live well together; packs of wolves and humans can get together finely on the other hand.
It is amazing to me - how you can even dare to give advices onto the topic, while displaying so fundamentally that all you know is based on hear-saying.
Nobody - absolutely nobody who even keeps wolf-mixes would say that. Period. Because they do know what kind of problems you do have to endure to keep that animals, specifically in a human world.

Here he explain, in Spanish, the very first time he entered the pack. He discovered a cave with all the cubs, where he took refuge; the she-wolf gave him a piece of raw meat which he ate badly. The she-wolf at very first threat him roughly, but after giving the meat and Marcos eating it, she licked his face and allowed the guy to stay with the pack
Have you ever seen in any documentary or read in a book or whatever keeps your interest into wolfs, as I do know you never was close to a wolf-pack or equal for a day – that somebody somewhere ever said – that this is wolf behavior for welcome you into the pack?

That story of that guy looked like that in reality:

He won the lottery to even find a wolf den. The circumstances I do leave aside now.
And while he should actually know – that this is a stupid situation, because these are young of an animal – he decided to stay.

And just by doing that he forced the wolfs into three options:
They wait till he leaves. And they can wait that out for days.
They decide, because they are hunted by humans to abandon the young.
They consider the life of the young worth fighting for. And if you are in this confrontation – you can even have a hunting gun – no chance.

So while being Jack from the woods - that guy claimed he ignored something every person who even spends free-time in nature – knows: If there is offspring – eat them or walk off?

But he claimed he did not do that – something absolutely strange happened: The wolfs did not know he was there. This is brillant already. They were the most incompetent wolfs that ever lived, but why not. Mabye the Southern Spanish wolf is a little more stupid than his counterparts more north.

The wolfs decided to barf in front of his feet.
That is how they transport the meal for their young. They do not bring some steak with them.
They carry their food in their body and barf it out.

So I truly hope that this is what he said in Spanish – there was a wolf coming to me and vomited the food that was meant for its young in front of my feet...

That is the story he claims has happened and if you believe that... I can seriously not help you, except suggesting – go more where the wolfs are.

This is why I gave you – so that you do not have to long to read and study wolfs, the most obvious reason – why that does not work:

The bowel of every meat-eater is three times longer than yours.
This is why we cook meat. You can not digest uncooked meat. If you would live from that – you will not only have horrible belly pain, you will die in one month in agony.
It is a torture method around the globe.
You do not have the hardware to eat what every predator eats.
That is something every butcher, every cook knows and even every musher and guy who lives with dogs, if they depend on them. This is why they cook for their dogs.

That is already the problem with all that children growing up with wolfs. They do not have the hardware to digest what wolfs can digest or lions or whatever.
And if you would have grown up yourself with big dogs (plural) or wolfs or similar – you would know that they remind you 24/7 that you are a human.
What I can say, because I saw first hand – and I have never heard otherwise from anybody else – I still do deal with people who are into wild-life protection or zoos or whatever – how four generations of children grew up in daily contact with wolfs, wolf-dogs and dogs of the same size.

So how cute that story of that guy is – he spiced that up.

I tell you only this - as I do not like that attitude of 'I am running on i-net knowledge so I know what I am talking about and if something contradictory comes cross my desk - this must be BS' - otherwise I could tell you a lot of red-flags – that 50% of what the average person thinks wolfs do – they do not and only dogs do this.
Everybody – even people who do have wolf-mixes – do know this, because they witness this 24/7 of their lives and the stories of this guy (or people) are totally contradictory to that, what everybody can tell who deals with such animals.
 

royal744

Ad Honorem
Jul 2013
9,804
San Antonio, Tx
#52
I'm sure you all know how Native Americans speak in movies - using the 3rd person and infinitive verb forms all the time, describing white man's contraptions too complicated for them to understand with frases like "fire stick" for guns or "fire water" for whiskey and so on. Basically, they all seem to speak like Winnetou. Running deer live on land for many moons before white man come and stuff like that. For some reason this reminds me of Tarzan ...

Is this something Karl May made up and everyone else adopted because they thought it was true or did Natives really speak English like that? I'd think the ones who did could speak English either well, broken or not at all but probably wouldn't speak in this stereotypical way.2 From what I gather they'd really make hand signs while speaking because this was an actual sign language used for trade and would be helpful when dealing with people from different tribes. Would they use it when speaking to Europeans/Americans too?
Karl May has no following whatsoever in America and, as far as I know, has never had one here. When I was very young and still a native Dutch speaker, we had a couple of books by Karl May (in Dutch). Later I learned that May didn’t really know much of anything about American Indians.
 
Likes: Shtajerc

Bart Dale

Ad Honorem
Dec 2009
7,051
#53
Well, you don't want your Natives speaking perfect English, or some one like Tarzan growing up in a jungle either, so how do you present that?

1. Simplify the grammar. A person who is unfamilar with the language will use simpler grammar, and not always use the proper case. "Me" when they should be using "I", that kind of thing.

2. You would assume that non native speaker wouldn't know all the proper words for things, and so they would make up words using simpler words to convey the meaning.

For example, you might suspect that the native would not know the word train, or locomotive, so it might be logical.to assume they would create a word or phrase like "iron horse", since the train functioned like a horse (provide transportation), and it was made of iron. A native might not know the word for sword, so call it a "long knife". If you had the native use their own native words, then unless you explained what the native word meant, the reader wouldn't know what the character was talking about.

Let's face it, you don't want Tarzan or your native talking like an Oxford professor, do you? You have to do something to convey their incomplete grasp of the language, so I am curious how someone would approach it other than the Tarzan approach?
 
Oct 2018
1,209
Adelaide south Australia
#54
How accurate was the Lakota spoken in ' Dances with wolves? '

I've alway seen that movie is rather smug and patronising of the Lokata, not mention some [ perhaps] unconscious racism.

I have a book somewhere called "HANTA YO!" ("Clear the way???) The book was written by Ruth Beebe Hill, supposedly written first in Teton or Lakota, I don't remember which, then translated into English.The story is fiction, about two Teton families, covering the period from about 1700 to the 1830's. Be grateful for any information about this book.

It 's over 25 year since I read it. All I can really remember is that I liked it, a lot. The notion of a book being written in an indigenous tongue, then translated into english, was very novel to me. I'm afraid I may have read it uncritically.
 
Aug 2011
83
The Castle Anthrax
#55
Perhaps it's already been mentioned, but one thing to consider is who the natives were learning English from, i.e. trappers, enlisted soldiers, and the like. Not exactly scholars. I think it is totally believable that they spoke poor and broken English. Not because of any intellectual deficit on their behalf. Quite the contrary, due to the intellectual deficits of the English speakers with whom they mingled. One of my favorite stories is retold by Dee Brown in "Bury My Heart at Wounded Knee." I don't have the book in front of me but it goes something like this; Custer was notorious among the Northern Plains Indians even before he became a general. He was known as a tireless horseman. Consequently, they called him Hard Backsides. One time in particular when Custer was tasked to negotiate with the local Indians, they, the Indian negotiators wanted to impress Hard Backsides with their abilities to speak English. They greeted Custer with a warm and hardy "Heap big son of a bitch!" Hanging around a bunch of lower enlisted cavalrymen, they had probably heard this many times, perhaps they were even mockingly greeted in the same manner.
 
Oct 2018
1,209
Adelaide south Australia
#56
Good point.

Sounds reasonable. Hollywood may have gotten it right by accident. The impression I've always had of most westerns was that the portrayal of indians was based on ignorance and racism and an innate sense of superiority.

Among the thousands of westerns made, only a tiny minority treat American first nations people with any dignity or respect. They are almost invariably portrayed as ignorant, savage AND inferior. OR with some weird, dumbed-down version of 'The noble savage', which comes across as painfully patronising.

"The Searchers" is one of the best John Wayne westerns I've seen; acting is good, story has some emotional nuance and photography is stunning. But, its portrayal of the Indians is two dimensional ; marauding savages who torture and kill innocent farmers, rape and murder women and kidnap and sell younger children. The leader of the Indians, "Scar" is shown as a beast.The movie also shows how it is just dandy to desecrate indian graves and mutilate the bodies.

Off hand, I can think of only three movies in which an effort was made to show Indians in some kind of balanced way: 'A man called Horse',(1970) starring Richard Harris. "Little Big Man' (1970) starring Dustin Hoffman, and of course Kevin Costner's probably well intentioned 'Dances with wolves' (1990) It's been over 20 years since I've seen the first two. I suspect they may not have aged well.'
 

Shtajerc

Ad Honorem
Jul 2014
6,355
Lower Styria, Slovenia
#57
Good point.

Sounds reasonable. Hollywood may have gotten it right by accident. The impression I've always had of most westerns was that the portrayal of indians was based on ignorance and racism and an innate sense of superiority.

Among the thousands of westerns made, only a tiny minority treat American first nations people with any dignity or respect. They are almost invariably portrayed as ignorant, savage AND inferior. OR with some weird, dumbed-down version of 'The noble savage', which comes across as painfully patronising.

"The Searchers" is one of the best John Wayne westerns I've seen; acting is good, story has some emotional nuance and photography is stunning. But, its portrayal of the Indians is two dimensional ; marauding savages who torture and kill innocent farmers, rape and murder women and kidnap and sell younger children. The leader of the Indians, "Scar" is shown as a beast.The movie also shows how it is just dandy to desecrate indian graves and mutilate the bodies.

Off hand, I can think of only three movies in which an effort was made to show Indians in some kind of balanced way: 'A man called Horse',(1970) starring Richard Harris. "Little Big Man' (1970) starring Dustin Hoffman, and of course Kevin Costner's probably well intentioned 'Dances with wolves' (1990) It's been over 20 years since I've seen the first two. I suspect they may not have aged well.'
Little Big Man has aged very well, imo, I liked it a lot and I'm in my 20s.

You're right, the movie portrayal of Natives is bad. They're either shown as savages who deserve to be killed and their land taken and cultivated, or as naive little souls, who need the white man's guidance to become civilised and with it proper humans. I've seen positive portrayals of individual Indians in old westerns, also in the tv series Bonanza. But it's always over the top, for example they have a terribly strong feeling for honour or mean well, but sometimes get jealous and so on. I guess it's part of the genre in wome weird way, like white hats of the good guys and black hats of vilains were "essential" to black and white westerns.
 
Likes: bboomer

Similar History Discussions