Nonexistent Natives

There’s a tendency to treat indigenous people in the Americas as almost always either in the past, nonexistent or imaginary. That actually not only robs them of their humanity and actuality, but also robs others of their reality as well (both the good and bad). Perhaps the tendency to treat indigenous people as oftentimes imaginary or nonexistent does contribute to both attempts at getting rid of them and also ignoring whatever problems they face in the real world, which’s why it can be this hard to bother empathising with them in any way. One such problem includes the persistence of colonialism and cultural assimilation, that’s the pressure to give up their indigenous cultures to better blend in with white people in this case.

While not unique to them in the Americas, it’s a very thorny problem as they got there first. Hence that’s why they’re called Native Americans in America and First Nations in Canada, with similar words likely showing up in the rest of the Americas. To make matters worse, some white people will even appropriate or co-opt indigenous customs, costumes and beliefs to make them sound more indigenous or more special than they really are. When it comes to totem animals, these are oftentimes hereditary passed down from parent to child either patrilineal or matrilineal. Among the Akans of Ghana and Cote d’Ivoire, various clans have a totem animal. Some families would be associated with the dog totem, which represents adroitness and thus cunning.

Some would have the leopard totem, which is associated with aggression. Should you marry an Akan woman, since Akan totems are passed down matrilineally it’s going to be fat chance since the person who will inherit the totem animal is the child, not the spouse who wishes to live vicariously through them. This is likely the same with some indigenous communities that have those, well at least essentially or practically so. No matter how many times a white person tries to claim a totem animal or something similar, if these animals don’t have the same meaning or significance as they do in some non-Western cultures it wouldn’t just come off as cultural appropriation.

It would also be preposterous, especially if (certain) animals didn’t play such a big role in some Western cultures to begin with. Well some cultures in general so to speak. The tendency to treat Native Americans and their ilk as oftentimes nonexistent or a mere fashion has made it this easy to appropriate their cultures and beliefs, though this could be applied to other people of colour (in the West and the like) to an extent as well. It’s also that easy to gloss over their rights and suffering, so there really needs more awareness of them as people. It already is to some extent among some people, but more work needs to be done to minimise such problems.

Religion and pet ownership rates

There is a study on the relationship between religion and pet ownership in America where based on what I’ve read, while Catholics were more likely to own cats those who attend church less frequently were more likely to own cats themselves but evangelicals were least likely to own pets in general. I think for evangelicals, that would be because even if they like animals they probably don’t prioritise them at the expense of God the way mainline Catholics and Protestants do.

Okay, that’s not always the case but it does make sense that when it comes to turning a pet into an idol maybe Evangelicals are less likely to obsess over animals and own animals because that might get in the way of worshiping God. Things would look pretty different if it were Russia and Greece, two Orthodox majority countries where save for certain cases dogs aren’t allowed to go to church and considered impure so would dog owners in these places be less likely to attend frequently?

It would be pretty similar in Muslim majority countries like Turkey, Indonesia and Morocco where if dogs are also held to be impure, then dog owners are less likely to attend mosques frequently. In the case with countries like Ghana and Uganda, this would play out similarly to America but with some churches (especially if they’re either Pentecostal or African Initiated) associating cats and dogs with witchcraft would they be less likely to attend often?

I could be wrong about that, but if some Pentecostal and African Initiated Churches associate these animals with witchcraft in one way or another then their followers would be also likely to not own pets that much either. Even if it’s not the case for other animals in other African countries as well as religious African pet owners, there is a possibility that if cats and dogs are associated with witchcraft in places like Cameroon and Ghana then devout believers are less likely to own them.

As for cat owners not frequently attending church in America, maybe it’s far likelier that upon knowing the church persecuted cats that might be another reason why they don’t attend church that often there. (Things would look different if it were Russia where cats are even permitted to enter churches while dogs aren’t.) I even have a nagging feeling this might be more of a cultural thing, given some countries do strongly associate pet animals with witchcraft or certain animals with impurity.

Okay, this isn’t always the case for all African countries and also not always the case with Orthodox majority countries like Greece and Russia but there’s a possible difference not found in America. Okay I spoke too soon about Greece, but the fact that pet ownership in Greece in general’s not as high as in America where around 70% of Americans own pets while 62% of Greeks don’t own pets. So there is a cultural difference between Greece and America, though both countries prefer dogs.

Canada, while America’s neighbour, has a higher rate of cat ownership. While this isn’t true for all Canadians or Americans, there’s a possible cultural difference between the two that manifests in other ways. While both Russia and Turkey prefer cats, they’re still different in some regards. Ghana and Uganda might be no different in some regards, despite being massively Pentecostal.

On the other hand, since there’s a strong belief in witchcraft in many African countries that the fear of witchcraft would put a dent on pet ownership for the more devout believers though depending on the animal and/or country. (To be fair, there was also a strong fear of witchcraft in Europe so that also would’ve put a dent on pet ownership.)

It does depend on the animal, so if cats are associated with witchcraft in let’s say Southern Nigeria it would be lower than in the North. If cats and dogs are both associated with witchcraft in Ghana, then the rate of ownership for both animals would be lower too. But it still proves my point that a fear of witchcraft would put a dent on pet ownership if animals are involved as either witch aides or witch guises.

Even if not all religious Africans are opposed to pets, a distrust of witchcraft would still play a role in pet ownership rates. I also think those in the West are impacted by secular thinking to a greater degree than in Africa, so this might impact their attitudes to animals though it’s not always so clear-cut. Since African Pentecostalism tends to be syncretic in nature, that is incorporating folk beliefs into any faith, attitudes to certain animals does vary between countries and communities.

Then again, I also think European Christianity would’ve been syncretic at some point when it comes to incorporating a degree of folk beliefs into either Lutheranism, Eastern Orthodox or Catholicism. According to one study in early modern Sweden, some of the beliefs could be a holdover from Norse religion when it comes to witches’ shapeshifting ability. That too, like African Pentecostalism, would’ve put a dent on pet ownership even if that’s not always the case for all believers.

While religion can affect one’s choice of pet, culture (in addition to personal preference and perhaps health convenience if they have allergies) can also influence it.

It’s not your land

When it comes to discussions about illegal immigration to North America, let’s not forget that white Americans and Canadians themselves are the scions and descendants of immigrants which makes some of their anti-immigrant rhetoric hypocritical in light of the indigenous populations there. Though it could be argued that indigenous North Americans are also descendants of immigrants since the Ice Age, but when they came here first and stayed in North America longer that’s when it gets thorny.

To put it this way, this is like claiming a house you’ve just stayed there as your house regardless if that’s actually somebody else’s house first. North America was settled by indigenous people first and longer than white people have ever done, therefore you must show more respect and understanding to these people. Unfortunately they’re subjected to prejudice and mistreatment, whether if it’s the phenomenon of missing indigenous women, children sent to boarding schools, indigenous women being raped and/or sterilised and the like.

As for the Sami in Finland, Norway and Sweden it is similar in that they came to these places first, ahead of their Nowegian, Finnish and Swedish counteprarts. They’ve even be othered a lot, even though they were here first. When it comes to indigenous people and immigrants, they can get along but when it comes to anti-immigrant rhetoric it becomes hypocritical to distrust immigrants as a descendant of immigrants. Especially if indigenous people came here first.

A nice thing to say about Canada

Canada has become one of my most favourite new world countries, right after Brazil in a way (I was fascinated with Brazil and still have a soft spot for this country). Canada’s the country behind the company Corus Entertainment (which’s in turn behind Nelvana and Kids Can Press), I recently got a book that’s published by the latter brand from a grocery store and it’s neat. It’s like America but also unlike it in some regards, not only in the way words are spelt but because it’s still ruled by Britain (it has a prime minister rather than a president) so culturally and geographically speaking, Canada would be between America and Britain.

That’s with a heaping of France thanks to Quebec, though it’s like the inverse of Cameroon because most of it’s French speaking (and colonised by France) with an Anglophone (and ex-British colony) enclave to the west. There has to be a reason why Canada’s not part of Latin America, even though French is a Romance language like Portuguese and Spanish are (though Cameroon is considered to be part of Latin Africa, despite having a considerable Anglophone minority). Not to mention, Canada does have interesting indigenous communities such as the Inuit.

They’re one of the first people to live in Canada or arguably the earliest arrivals and the first to be naturalised there, they have a tradition of using seals for food, clothing and oil for lighting lamps. (Some Canadian First Nations communities have a tradition of using animals for clothing, though it’s their fur and skin that’s being used.) Let’s not forget that they live in a harsh, cold environment so wearing fur’s necessary as it keeps them warm as well as giving them something better to do.

Another nice thing to say about Canada actually has more to do with children’s literature, most notably Franklin (which I have a book upstairs) and Anne of Green Gables. Both of them have spawned cartoon adaptations and Franklin’s actually the best-selling Canadian children’s book. Another Canadian children’s series to find success and actually get adapted for animation is Agent Binky, a cat astronaut. Bear in mind that Kids Can Press is owned by Nelvana and then Corus Entertainment so it’s something they can adapt in-house.

While Canada’s not as geographically diverse as America (though that’s because they’re not that close to the equator so America has subtropical forests and swamps while Canada’s either temperate or boreal all the way), it’s still a stunning country that has been used as a stand-in for some American cities in some productions for budget reasons.

What they did with fur

It’s not the most animal friendly topic so far, but there are communities, people and cultures who base their livelihoods off of using animals for their fur for clothing such as trousers, jackets, coats and parkas especially those who live in Northern Canada and Alaska where that’s part of their culture for centuries (going so far to be documented by European explorers in the early modern period). There are even animals who’re domesticated and farmed for their fur, most notably American minks and red foxes.

These animals would have to be fed and cared for before being euthanised for their fur, usually through gassing or electrocution in order to be skinned. As gruesome as it sounds, that’s how they use the animals for their fur. This has raised the ire of some people who even get fur farming banned for good in some countries such as Britain and Ireland for instance, even if that results in more invasive species (as in newly introduced species wrecking havoc on the environment they’re in).

Then they stretch the skins and have it be patched and sewn when made for clothing at all, which the numbers vary depending on the animal being used as well as how many hours it takes to sew such a garment that it takes 40-100 hours for a fur coat to be sewn but less if it were just cuffs and collars. For the Inuit and their habit of using seals for clothing and meat, this takes much longer as that involves softening the fur from chewing it constantly and continuously.

For sewing furs and possibly leather, a special needle is used which’s thin and strong enough to penetrate the flesh and have it be sewn to other patches of fur to make a garment which was the case before the invention of the sewing machine for a long time and still is so to some extent, possibly a great extent, today. It’s called a furrier’s needle, which’s the sort of needle used for sewing furs with and possibly leather when one considers this. Even today, some people use needles to sew fur with and even then it has to be done with a special technique.

Fur clothing has been around for a long time in whatever form, whether if it’s an entire pelt of fur, several pelts of fur stitched together to make a garment or patches of fur stitched onto woven garments.

Not so interchangeable Native Americans

Admittedly, I’m in the dark about this but if there are any differences they do exist on some level. Those in the North (and further South of South America, though I could be wrong about it) have a tradition of relying a lot on animal skins and fur for clothing (they would’ve figured out a way to sew furs by then) but this disappears in the tropics and those close to it where they have a tradition of weaving fabrics and fibres. Most notably the Navajo and Nahuatl, as far as I know about them.

Likewise, their attitudes to animals may also differ where some Native American communities may highly esteem the wolf but others like the Navajo associate wolves and coyotes with witchcraft hence why they don’t esteem them highly. There are even Native American cat owners just as there are Native American dog owners, as far as I know one who does. While I may not know much about Native Americans as much as I do with blacks and Africans but the differences do exist on some level.

It’s there to some extent, though greater than I would realise with regards to languages and cultures and even genetics where some Native Mexican tribes are this distantly related to one another. So in some regards, Native Americans should not be treated as interchangeable with one another especially in other contexts where some are Westernised but others aren’t.

Especially with regards to uncontacted tribes in Brazil, though their cultures may be endangered by now.

Conflicts between activists and Indigenous people

The conflict between animal rights activists and Inuit people (as well as Indigenous Canadian people in general to some extent) is well known as it’s practically a struggle between animal rights (as endorsed by a white or non-Inuit/non Indigenous majority populace) and a minority that’s reliant on fur for clothing and meat for survival. The Dene people for instance have a culture built on making fur and leather/animal hide clothing, that’s not to say they never relied on plants to make clothing but like with the Inuit the climate and geography they’re in isn’t favourable for mass production of plant fibres for clothing the way it would be in Mexico.

(The Aztecs for instance used maguey for commoners’ clothing and cotton for royalty.)

A good number of fur trappers in Canada are Aboriginal and Metis (mixed race Aboriginal and white European), so the use and production of fur garments is common to several if not all First Nations communities and cultures. Among the Ojibwe people, they believe that animals willingly themselves as presents to people so the use of fur, meat and leather plays into this. That turns the animal rights’ idea of animals as beings lacking agency on its head where what if animals consented to being used for meat and fur. There are also people, regardless of their ethnicity, who believe that animals can be humanely harvested for their fur and meat.

I think with wool, that’s meeting things halfway in my opinion as you’re using animal fur without skinning and killing the animal but in the context of indigenous Americans, that’s something the Navajo and Quecha people indulge in as they have a history of animal husbandry so they rear animals for their wool (sheep for Navajo, llama and alpaca for Quecha). These two live south of Canada and they come from environments that are favourable for grazing and cultivating plant fibres (if they use them at all). As far as I know about the Dene and Inuit, these are the indigenous people who’re heavily reliant on fur and leather for clothing.

I could say some of the same things about the Sami in Norway, Sweden and Finland where while some of them could’ve adopted the habit of goatherding, farming linen and shepherding from the Nordic Vikings others continued to harvest and rear reindeer for leather and fur, which some still do today so it does say a lot about the importance of reindeer to their cultures. You might argue that culture and cultural attitudes can and do change, which they do but for other cultures fur and animal hides are important to their cultures that taking away their livelihoods involves taking away their culture.

Not to mention some parts of Canada where the Inuit live have high rates of suicide and unemployment, so speaking from my own experience with unemployment and mental illness it’s better for them to have something better to do even if it’s not something animal rights activists like than to have them do little else and wallow in their pain. The fact that animal rights attitudes are practically neo-colonialist and indigenous cultures have been impacted by Westernisation, so it’s better to hold onto your culture and not kowtow to Westernisation much.

Indigenous people and Samis have been pressured to lose their languages and customs that it’s hurtful as it’s something they love and share in their cultures, not to mention it’s disrespectful. So respecting their cultures is important as much as preserving and sharing them do.

Of Canada and fur

If I’m not mistaken, according to an online lesson I took up (which got confirmed by later sources that I looked up on) Canada did have a thriving fur trade and still has a fur industry to this day especially in some parts of the country like Prince Edward Island where mink and foxes are raised for their fur. Not to mention this industry has a substantial number of First Nations/Aboriginal, Inuit and Metis/mixed race people working in as it was before. A good number of fur trappers in Canada are Aboriginal for instance.

For the Inuit, fur is a big part of their culture that they partake in subsistence hunting a lot to support themselves for money and to keep themselves preoccupied as much as they honour their ancestors a lot since their culture has been subjected to being silenced, censored (for want of a better word) and taken away by the white majority. Let’s not forget that the harsh climate and environment they’re in isn’t favourable for pastoralism (maybe except for the Swedish, Norwegian and Finnish Sami who managed to thrive and rear reindeer) so hunting and fishing are big parts of their culture.

While I may be squeamish about using animals for their fur at times, let’s not forget the craftsmanship that goes into making wonderful outfits that they have to be respected and lauded for their efforts as it takes a lot of time (40-100 hours) to complete a fur garment especially if it were big and nearly covers the whole body. For the Inuit, this would take even more time and effort as they bite into and scrape fat off of sealskin a lot to soften it and make it usable for clothing so that’s something to be respected.

That’s not to say Canadians never made use of plant and animal fibres for clothing, they do to some extent but the use of linen and wool only came with Western colonisers so this means Aboriginal Canadians would’ve resorted to animal skins and bark clothing a lot for their garments. (Let’s not forget that Montreal’s the fashion capital of Canada and Montreal’s also where fur garments are made.)

That’s not to say all Canadians and Canadian Aboriginals necessarily take part in the fur industry but a good number of them do to support themselves, their families and their communities enough to earn a decent living off of their labour.

Native Americans and Textiles

As with any human civilisation, many Native Americans do use and create textiles where they use them for things like bags, blankets and clothing though the textiles and fabrics they use and grow depend on the environment they are raised in and come from. Some like Mexico have a tradition of creating fabrics from plants such as yucca, palm and maguey with cotton reserved for aristocrats and royalty (as far as I know about it) and others like Peru and Bolivia have a history of using animal hair for woven textiles such as those of alpacas and llamas.

In Canada and to some extent, Alaska if not the rest of the United States (since my knowledge of Native Americans in that country isn’t so great) there’s a tradition of using animals for their fur to provide clothing given the climate and geography’s not that conductive to rearing plant crops for textiles. That only came with European colonisation even if plant crops used as textiles predated the Europeans if Mexico and possibly the Southern United States are any indication.

Bear in mind that much of Alaska and a big part of Canada are part of the Arctic Circle so fur-based clothing would’ve been a big cultural tradition and that the Metis and Metisse (half Native Canadian, half European) people are involved in the fur trade. Even today, Canada’s got an influential fur industry that’s used to cater to China and Russia and a good number of fur trappers in Canada are mixed Aboriginal. So in some sense, they are continuing what their ancestors did before them.

Conversely speaking, whilst not all of Mexico is suitable for growing plant crops a substantial portion of it is to grow and cultivate them for fabric and clothing which can also be said of the Southern United States hence the use of cotton in the slave trade. Whilst parts of South America already had wool-bearing animals such as llama and alpaca, the Spaniards introduced sheep to America where their wool has been used by the Navajo ever since. It’s been made into blankets, rugs and clothing.

As for cotton, it would’ve been imported from the Old World prior to Spanish colonisation if Mexico and Southern United States are any indication but that would’ve changed things once the Spanish came to power there. Not that maguey and palm are entirely disused but became less popular once the Spanish began introducing other crops to Mexico. In a strange twist of fate, cotton has become the fabric of the masses while maguey and palm are now niche luxury textiles.

For as long as people make textiles and use animals and plants to make clothing and other items, textiles will always play a big part in every culture and civilisation.

Interchangeable or not

It’s tempting to consider any country with a shared language interchangeable and certainly is to some extent when it comes to a shared language but they also have enough nuances and differences (especially cultural, historical and geographic) to be teased apart however if you look hard enough.

To wit, the Democratic Republic of Congo’s colonised by Belgium, is historically the Kingdom of Congo and is populated by Kongos, Lubas and a few other ethnicities that I forgot. Cameroon’s colonised by France, is practically a narrow strip of land and populated by Bamileke, Fula, Ewondo and Hausa.

Or Togo being predominately Ewe and Cote d’Ivoire and Ghana being mostly Akan despite linguistic differences (French and English), but that involves knowing them well enough. The same principle applies to Europe were Austria and Switzerland are both landlocked and closer to Italy than Germany is.

Belgium’s a narrow plot of low-lying land and possibly has more light-haired people (due to its proximity to Germany and Netherlands) than France does, which’s actually the most obvious difference as with Austria and Switzerland to Germany.

(Actually, Switzerland’s technically more officially recognised languages like Italian, French and German compared to Austria though it’s possibly not without its own minority languages as with Germany having Sorbian and East Frisian.)

For another matter, this goes for the Americas where Canada’s obviously near the Arctic Circle save for Alaska, America’s only Arctic outpost. Barbados is smaller than Jamaica, Cuba used to be communist and Puerto Rico (and a few others like Suriname) still have Taino populations.

As in the native people of the Caribbeans where only vestiges of them exist in those places at the very least, or for another matter where Bolivia and Peru are influenced by Incas and Chile and Argentina’s based on Mapuche folks. Logically, Brazil’s got a large Afro-descendant population.

And don’t forget that Mexico and Guatemala owe a lot to the Aztecs and Mayans respectively, as for Asia Taiwan’s got the Aboriginals which are similar to Philippine Ivatans. China’s got several other ethnicities ranging from Mosuo to Tibetan, Uighur and Manchu.

Malaysia and Indonesia are Muslim-majority, South Korea and Philippines have substantial Christian populations and that Japan’s home to the Ainu and Okinawans. Pakistan and Bangladesh are Muslim, but Nepal and India are Hindi-majority.