In search of pre-Columbian dogs

I feel when it comes to seeking out pre-Columbian dogs in the Americas, if this were somewhere in Canada, people are far better off looking for this in rez dogs instead. These are free-roaming owned dogs that hang out in reservations, places where Native Americans are relegated to whereas white European settlers took over most of their territory, which means Europeans and their Americanised descendants may have imposed their understandings (of dogs) onto them. There’s no doubt that bad ownership’s to blame when it comes to certain problems, but at the same time it’s possible large swathes of pre-Columbian DNA survives in rez dogs due to isolation. It’s kind of telling when a lot of European Americans can afford to get pedigree dogs, but Native Americans being a good deal poorer are often stuck with what others would call mongrels makes you wonder if there’s a kind of split between the two. A split between white settler society and indigenous society, the latter being marginalised and relegated to reservations. Not all Native Americans live in reservations, let alone for long especially if they’re looking for job opportunities elsewhere, but it’s likely rez dogs might be the direct descendants of pre-Columbian dogs.

Likewise the original St John dogs might survive in some indigenous reservations in some parts of Canada, or at least rez dogs with some admixture from them, that could tell us about certain cultural exchanges between the two demographics. It’s also likely that rez dogs might have some European admixture, but if a good number of them have pre-Columbian DNA then it’s a chance that they did survive European colonisation. But they’re just as marginalised as their human counterparts are, especially if/when European descendants not only prefer pedigree dogs, but can also afford to look after them. It’s not that Native Americans don’t care for dogs at all, well a good number of them do, but technically many of them are poorer than their European counterparts are. So the typical dog to them is a rez mongrel, it’s the kind of dog they’re more used to loitering around the reservation.

The dogs white people either suspect or pity. But to Native Americans that’s the sort of dog they’re more used to, that’s the dog they tend to have because that’s what’s readily available in their areas. As for St John water dogs, these dogs are suspected of being the forerunners to Labrador and Golden Retrievers, but it would be rather strange to think their genes survive in some Rez dogs. But that would mean Native Americans may have gotten St John dogs themselves at some point from their nice white neighbours, most likely as presents in search of dogs that can do the job well enough. This would mean the history of rez dogs parallel that of their owners, to the extent that they may be closely entwined with the European colonisation of what is now Canada and possibly the Americas in general. Rez dogs could be the direct descendants of both pre-Columbian dogs and to an extent, settlers’ dogs.

If this is true for some rez dogs in eastern Canada, regarding the possibility of some St John dog DNA in them, then this is going to be entwined with the colonisation of Canada really. Now as for the extinction of the Fuegian ‘dog’, which is descended from another canid altogether, it’s more of a tragic example of settler colonialism in the Southern Cone. If the domestic dog is unmistakably regarded as an invasive species in the Southern Cone, it is also unmistakably the animal of European colonisers, the same people who’re out to wipe out any sign of indigenous peoples there. To the extent of even wiping out the area’s resident domesticated carnivore, which is a tragic instance of settler colonialism wrecking havoc on indigenous peoples and cultures alike. So settler colonialism’s ability to obliterate indigenous peoples doesn’t just extend to their cultures, but also their domesticants.

Even if settler colonialism doesn’t succeed in obliterating indigenous peoples and their cultures, it could marginalise them by relegating them to certain areas, whereas white settlers can live anywhere they will to. This is also true for rez dogs where they could be mostly the descendants of pre-Columbian dogs but are relegated to reservations, whereas the settlers’ dogs thrive wherever their owners go. Very much like their human counterparts, to the extent that their survival’s based on the latter’s own.

Will it be socially acceptable again?

When it comes to the subject of fur farming in a Russianised Canada, I feel it would take time for it to be socially acceptable again, but mostly due to Canada being this close to America that despite having the potential to be more similar to Russia, it didn’t turn out that way for long because of America exerting a bigger influence on it just by sharing borders together. Canada even has many of the same geographical conditions that make it just as amenable to fur farming as Russia is and it actually was for years, though one would wonder if it takes time for fur farming to be socially acceptable again there, who’s going to be willing to work in such an industry this time? That’s not to say there aren’t any Native American vegans out there, they certainly do exist just as there are those who have made clothing out of plant fibres for years.

But the difference has to do with geography where in the case with precolonial Mexico, though there certainly were people who wore fur clothing in any way that it can be considered as such, but the average Aztec/Nahuatl citizen were wont to wear clothes out of maguey instead. Maguey being one of those plants used to make clothing there, though those living close to the Arctic (i.e. Inuit, Cree, Ojibwe) were likelier to wear animal skins instead due to the colder climate. Not to mention that even if indigenous people do care about animals and have the same pets as white people do (even cats, I know those who own them online), it seems to be more of a European descendant thing to get really sentimental over animals (from the indigenous North American standpoint). Given it’s not uncommon for indigenous North Americans to work with animal skins in any way, they’ll gravitate to fur farming more.

Especially if they’re this desperate for any income/salary to support themselves and their families as well as keeping their cultural practises alive after being marginalised and ostracised by white settlers for long, so their attitude towards both hunting and animal husbandry would take on a peculiar character. I remember reading an article saying that when it comes to the indigenous North American attitude to hunting, it’s depicted as reciprocal where the hunted animal consents to being hunted by people. It’s not obvious at first but it does defy both popular western strains of thought regarding hunting where on one hand, you have the strong hunting is cruel mentality. And on the other hand, you have people having a dominion mentality where animals exist for their convenience. Not so much where the hunted animal exists in a reciprocal relationship with humanity.

I suspect a number of Native Americans already do work in fur farming themselves, both to preserve their cultures and it’s kind of socially unacceptable for white people to do this, but it does make wonder if white people do this as they really don’t see nonwhite people as human in any way. Not necessarily dehumanised in the conventional sense, but sometimes treated as afterthoughts compared to animals (where they’re much more into). Like even if some white people do care about nonwhite people, but when they care a lot more about or obsess over animals than they do with nonwestern and nonwhite cultures, you get the impression that the latter are easily afterthoughts to them. A kind of lukewarm racism where it’s not outright contempt or fetishisation, but that nonwhite peoples and cultures are afterthoughts and deemed less interesting than say animals.

Practically nobodies because I think it’s easier for white people to project humanity onto animals, making them more than what they actually are, than to show interest in nonwhite and nonwestern cultures with the possibility that the latter could undermine or upend their understanding of things. Maybe not necessarily as there are people who do care for dogs and make their dogs hunt rodents in China, the Philippines, Indonesia and Vietnam just like their counterparts in the west. Or people caring for cats and making them hunt the same in Cameroon, Ghana, Cote D’Ivoire and Kenya, but I feel you’re more likely to find a white person who’s a lot more into animals than being into both animals and nonwestern cultures. Not helped by that many of them don’t actively seek out non-western language websites, let alone for a sustained period of time and for this often.

Although it’s possible not all African Americans condone wearing fur clothing, eating meat and the like, as a good number of them are vegans really, but for others wearing fur is a sign that they’ve made it. Especially given how and why there are socioeconomic barriers that keep most African Americans from living the same lifestyles and having the same salaries as their white counterparts do, that fur clothing is a sign of opulence among them. The fact that it’s socially unacceptable for white people to not only partake in fur farming themselves, but also wear fur garments just the same that these interrelated practises have gotten more racialised these days. That doesn’t mean Native Americans and African Americans alike can’t be vegans, but it’s a kind of white flight where once something’s deemed socially unacceptable that white people flee away from it.

So in the case with Canada joining Russia as one of its many protectorates and the only surviving North American property once America disappears, if you believe Celestial (who’s one of some who say that America is Mystery Babylon, the nation-state said to corrupt the world in the Bible), then it would be a particularly awkward situation that once Mystery Babylon/America disappears as prophesised that a good chunk of the North American landmass has disappeared. Leaving behind the Caribbean, Canada, Mexico and Central America as the survivors, and if America is Mystery Babylon then it shouldn’t be surprising that even if it didn’t originate some of these ideologies, it would play a lending hand in popularising them a lot more than their originators ever did. Perhaps one would wonder why America even has a number of places called Babylon to begin with.

Whilst Cush/Ethiopia and Egypt are both west of Babylon/Iraq, but since neither of them became global superpowers and so did the Ashanti Empire/Ghana and Senegal (also west of West Asia), this leaves the Americas as the likeliest place to find Mystery Babylon in. But then again neither Canada nor Mexico became global superpowers and so do all the Caribbean and Central American countries, Brazil has come close but never quite near the scope America enjoys, so America is the likeliest candidate for Mystery Babylon then. Whatever ideology that got popularised by America is at odds with many Christians, including the more politically right wing among them in the Americas, that it truly is deserving of the moniker of Mystery Babylon. So it will disappear for good, never to be seen again.

At any point where Canada becomes the only North American property of Russia once America disappears and one of two Russian satellites/protectorates/colonies in the Americas before America disappears, given it would take time for white Canadians to warm up to fur farming and the like that it’s practically up to Native Americans to take up the challenge that nobody else wants. I even said that Native Americans might be among those people willing to partake in fur farming themselves, since it’s deemed socially unacceptable by white people, that if no other demographic wants that job then Native Americans will gravitate to it. Maybe not all Native Americans just as not all white North Americans are averse to fur farming themselves, but I feel the former are far likelier to gravitate to it. Fur farming is so stigmatised that it’ll be mostly stigmatised people that’ll gravitate to it.

Especially Native North Americans but given their own communities and cultural practises involve a good deal of using and cultivating animal skins for centuries, that fur farming will be a walk in the park for them. One might speculate about a future that at any point when Canada consents to joining Russia is when Native Americans will eagerly breed Arctic foxes, red foxes, wolves, muskrats, American mink, chinchillas and even ferrets for fur, it’s like that in Russia where some Russian farmers do breed and use ferrets for fur like they do with their relatives like wolverines and American mink. There are indigenous North American communities that have experience with the latter two, so it would be business as usual if they started breeding wolverines and American mink for fur in earnest, well in a way. Even then, if Canada does join Russia at all, that this will lead to profound exchanges that concern the Arctic.

It is speculative for now but highly plausible given how and why Native Americans seem less squeamish towards using animal skins for clothing than white people do, not that it makes them any more desclined towards veganism or animal welfare, but it’s got to do with a kind of white flight where once fur farming’s deemed socially unacceptable for white people to partake that many, if not most, Native Americans would be one of those peoples who’ll be put up with its nature at all. One of those peoples who’ll even partake in fur farming in any way that kind of deters white people from it, though it would be really controversial in Canada if they ever use ferrets for fur farming. Given there are others who keep them as pets and even use them for hunting, and it’s more common than with mink, so using them for fur farming will be precluded altogether.

Whilst there are people who do keep American mink, chinchillas, rabbits and red foxes as pets in Canada, fewer still have Arctic foxes as pets and given how long Canada has been Americanised, despite its potential to become even more like Russia, it would be pretty awkward for Canada to warm up to fur farming again and be amenable to even breeding red foxes for their pelts in years. So I feel Native Americans would inevitably and plausibly gravitate to this more, as it’s socially unacceptable for white people to partake in it in any way, speaking from my experience it’s Native Americans (irrespective of gender) who’re less squeamish towards skinning animals for clothing. Let’s not forget that unemployment among them can be pretty high, not helped by that they’re often precluded from the things they love working on.

Thus giving them nothing better to do in life, speaking as somebody who’s endured unemployment for long, having something better to do and getting paid for it is a better and kinder option. Especially when this person wants to wean themselves from doing something wrong (I’m speaking from my own experiences here), that it would be wiser to immediately support them than to leave them to their own devices but with no real direction in sight. That wouldn’t excuse others from animal abuse but when it comes to those who do want (to have) something better to do in life, that perhaps consistent employment and salaries are preferable to having nothing better to do in life at all. Though I feel this is something many animal rights activists miss out on, since they don’t really know what’s like to be both deprived of your culture and be unemployed for long, as to seek out less productive means in life.

Especially if you’re Native American that it becomes a damned if you do, damned if you don’t whenever these guys are around, torn between wanting to preserve one’s culture through one’s occupation of choice and having to assimilate into settler society by doing whatever they’re made to do against their will. It might not be unique to them but it’s a vexing situation to end up in where you feel the need to find a way to hold onto your culture as much as you can, but you’re eventually deprived of it again and again because people think you’re evil or something. Either that or some animal rights activists don’t see the world in greyscale, though I’m sometimes like this in a way as well (hard for me to admit). Though at times they don’t understand what’s like to be unemployed and not supported by others when you want to work on something.

This is something that I’ve experienced when it came to soapmaking because I wanted to have something better to do because I was addicted to something bad, though my grandmother didn’t allow me to even when it could’ve given me some income early on. There are likely some ARAs and vegans who do get this but I’m afraid it’s easier to be hung up on an ideology that promotes a strong black and white mindset that makes it harder to understand why other people do these things, especially if they really want a consistent income and something better to do in life. Depriving them of these things gives them little else to do in life, nothing more productive to do to get them by. Quite inevitably if fur farming ever becomes fashionable in Canada again, it would take time for Canadians to adjust to this new reality after being socialised to find it unacceptable.

And of all the Canadian nationals who’ll end up partaking it anyways would be indigenous people, who by then partake in small scale fur farming. Fur farming in a Russianised Canada wouldn’t be as big as it was before, but certainly more present than it ever was in the recent past. It would be more of a cottage industry where a select handful of people, but most notably indigenous Canadians at that, who’d willingly raise foxes, mink, wolverines and the like for fur both to preserve their cultures and to have any consistent income in any way they need and like. Their most likely clients are Russians who live in a world where Canada and all of Europe are Russian protectorates, so they learn to go with Russia’s orders every now and then. In the case with the Inuit people, it’s like this with seals for quite a while. Earning money from fur farming would be the near-default for a number of indigenous Canadians by then.

Since it would take time for Canada to warm up to fur farming again in years that it would take Native Americans to willingly make a living from a rather stigmatised agricultural discipline, that when fur farming does become socially acceptable again in Canada it would be a glorified cottage industry for many Native Americans working for their Russian clients, whilst seeking that happy middle ground when it comes to preserving their own folkways for long. It might have already been something of a cottage industry for them before, assuming if they worked in fur farming beforehand, but the resurgence of fur farming in Canada due to a Russian influence would have a lot of Native Americans willingly gravitating to it, because their white counterparts remain socialised to reject it.

It could change though I still think Native Americans would be one of the only peoples to partake in fur farming, if it does become fashionable again in the future when Canada does join Russia at all.

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.

Erasure of indigenous people

When it comes to indigenous people, there’s often a tendency to erase them. This is either accomplished through genocide or by destroying their culture through appropriation and ignorance, but regardless of the method being used this hurts actual indigenous people a lot. People like L Frank Baum don’t just advocate killing them outright, one can disrespect indigenous people through cultural appropriation.

Things like claiming to have a totem animal, even though your culture doesn’t have one can be damaging to those who hold totem animals truly sacrosanct to those who have them. If your culture has a sacred animal, the only people who can receive them are those born into those communities or have received them with the spirit’s blessing. As far as I understand and recall.

While it’s true not all indigenous people have sacred spirit animals, it shouldn’t be taken so lightly to cultures that have these at all as these are important to them. As far as I know about African cultures, the only African cultures I can think of that have totem animals are the Cameroonian Bamilekes and the Ghanaian and Ivorian Akans. With the former, the animals associated with royalty are the elephant and the leopard but only the leopard’s the chieftaincy’s totem animal.

I could be wrong, but anybody who isn’t Bamileke or Akan claiming to have the leopard as their totem animal is taking their culture and beliefs very lightly. Similar things can be said about dogs and it should be noted that among the Akan, leopards are associated with aggression and dogs are associated with adroitness. Even then, these are totems that can only be inherited within certain Akan families from mother to child.

Any indigenous community with totem animals wouldn’t take these animals lightly and these are only passed down from relative to relative. Claiming to have a totem animal can and will erase cultures that rightfully claim to have these at all, it shouldn’t be taken out of context and so lightly. Likewise, even if not all indigenous Americans don feathered regalia but because it’s so important to certain Plains communities that it ought not to be taken lightly either.

I think that’s the problem with cultural appropriation, not only does it lack authenticity in terms of borrowing and appreciation for a foreign culture but also how appropriation takes certain cultural artefacts and beliefs too lightly. If it’s something that’s very important to their cultures, it shouldn’t be taken so lightly and the only way one can use these at all if there’s either cultural appreciation or if their culture gets influenced by that one.

For instance, in order for the Philippines to do more Chinese customs it has to be more strongly influenced by China. This would be the best situation for the Philippines to get away with doing these things, if because it’s now influenced by China a lot. Likewise, a popstar who stayed in Iran for a long time would do and get Iranian culture better than anybody who barely has any experience with it while appropriating it at the same time.

It seems if this were true, whatever attempts at appropriating indigenous cultures (or any other, often nonwhite) culture stem from insincerity. They may admire the culture, but only to an extent as they appropriate only the cool stuff but not the inner workings and they neither show respect to the people either. It’s like how many Evangelicals are tone-deaf to Jews who say they appropriate and bastardise Jewish practices like seder and Passover.

(No Christian, to my knowledge, has ever bothered learning Aramaic and Yiddish which makes one wonder if their interest in Judaism is more superficial than one realises.)

It seems to me, when it comes to people appropriating indigenous people’s cultures it feels very superficial and hollow as they only go for the cool stuff but not the inner workings and the deeper philosophy. To put it this way, this would be like only dressing up in Plains clothing but never standing up for Plains Indians’ rights, never hanging out among them for long and never learning their languages.

(This is where learning a language to know what’s actually going on elsewhere has over merely using the language one knows since childhood.)

It’s fairly not uncommon to see fancy dress that stereotypes indigenous people a lot, whether if it’s the Pocahotties or the warriors which not only appropriate indigenous fashions but also perpetuates harmful beliefs about them. In the sense it’s really just what they wear and not what the outfit means to them, especially if it gets sold to non-indigenous people and never profit from actual indigenous talent.

Those living in the North, especially in the circumpolar regions, wear buckskin and fur because it’s widely available and not so much as a fashion statement beyond what they can do with limited resources like these. These came about because the world they live in isn’t conductive to agriculture, though they do farming to a degree some of them are hunter-gatherers constrained by limited resources. The only plant-based clothing they wore was bark clothing.

Most Europeans, by contrast, came from a place with climate mild enough to cultivate and farm plants with so that’s why they wear linen clothing. (As for white Russians and Yakuts, a similar pattern follows to an extent since there are parts of Russia that have very mild climates like in Sochi for instance.) It wouldn’t be any better if there are plant-based indigenous costumes that are appropriated by non-indigenous people, but this goes to show you the problem with the extent of cultural appropriation taking place.

Another form of erasure is through stereotypes and misrepresentation, which not only generalises Indigenous peoples and cultures but also risks telling something harmful about them. Pocahontas, for instance, is a real person but the way she’s represented in the media is something that’s hurtful and demeaning to many Native American and First Nations women.

Though she was a young girl, she never fell in love with either John Rolfe or John Smith. But perpetuating the story that she fell in love with John Smith, alongside sexualisation of them, puts Native women at increased risk of violence from non-Native people. The fact that Missing, Murdered Indigenous Women as a hashtag was created to raise awareness of this should point out something. It’s even said that Pocahontas was the first MMIW, due to being kidnapped and raped by the English.

Ali Nahdee had to make a test to see if fictional Native women can escape certain cliches that harm their real life counterparts a lot, it goes like this: does the indigenous woman not fall in love with a white man, does the indigenous woman not get raped or murdered and is the indigenous woman the main character of the story? There aren’t that many stories that pass this test, which makes one wonder if they really care about the well-being of indigenous women at all.

Pocahontas doesn’t pass the test, which is saying when it comes to the way an actual historical figure’s portrayed. The fact that the protagonist was aged up to seemingly get away with interacting with John Smith makes you wonder whether if they see indigenous children as they really are. Instead of portraying them as mini-adults, which’s also the case with how some people see black diaspora children as.

It seems when it comes to indigenous representation in the media, I don’t think I’ve ever encountered an indigenous geek the way I do in the real world (online encounters included). Black nerds and black people involved in STEM like Baxter Stockman, Lunella Lafayette, Shuri and Riri Williams are well-represented in fiction, not so much for indigenous geeks and those in STEM even though they exist. Likewise, indigenous cat owners don’t exist in pop culture either.

Even though they do in the real world, not just in academic studies but also outside of it like ordinary blogs for instance. I could also say that black cat owners also exist, if it seems surprising to some people that black and indigenous people own cats as well as Asian people caring for dogs make me wonder whether if they actually knew such people or are too biased to see anything else.

It’s unfortunately easy to forget these characters exist. That’s why representation matters, where it’s like if you always show black people only doing sports that’s going to ignore black people who do other things like science and art. That would alienate black people who don’t fit the stereotype, or if one wills always thinking that or portraying black men with large penises ignoring those who might not be that well-endowed.

In the case with indigenous women, it’s like if they’re portrayed as either subservient/adjacent to white men or as wise sages and princesses wouldn’t that alienate indigenous women who don’t fit into these stereotypes? If you keep on portraying Asians as abusing animals, that would alienate those who genuinely like and take care of them. That’s why representation matters, especially if such portrayals are either stereotypical or offensive.

Even both. I think even the most well-meaning white people will turn to racial stereotypes, regardless of how long they’ve been with blacks or Asians because I think on some level they see them as other. Not quite like them, which is racist in that it kind of dehumanises them if one were to stereotype them at all. A certain white person may say they stand up for blacks, but if they appropriate the beliefs of certain black people like claiming to have a totem animal it can risk being insincere.

In the sense of being unaware of how important totem animals are to certain black cultures such leopards for Bamileke chieftains or dogs and vultures for certain Akan clans that they might as well be taking it lightly. I even think intersectionality’s the best thing to happen to social justice in that it addresses things that are unique to certain groups that those of the majority demographic don’t face.

Especially if they intersect, such as how racism and sexism intersect for many women of colour especially in the West. While women of colour face racism, some of these problems are unique to their own communities and ethnicities. Black women are frequently denied of their vulnerability and humanity, since they’re expected to be strong regardless if they have legitimate mental health problems.

It can be said that if some black women aren’t that strong, especially if they have mental health issues so this is a good argument for taking their vulnerability seriously. Some black women aren’t physically strong either, but there’s an unfortunate tendency to regard blacks as invulnerable to pain which dehumanises them and denies the help they really need.

Expecting black women to be mentally strong ignores their trauma, anguish and pain. Likewise, expecting Asian women to be demure and submissive ignores the more strong-willed, assertive and brash among them. Expecting Asians to be good at math ignores those who struggle at it (I’m Asian and I struggle with math), it also ignores those who might be better at say rugby (Eddie Jones at some point).

In the case with indigenous women and to an extent indigenous people in general, when they appear at all they often appear as stereotypes that paint them as either sexualised, primitive or abused. I’m not saying it shouldn’t be addressed at all, but the fact that there’s not a single indigenous geek appearing in fictional stories (as far as I know) says a lot about ignoring indigenous people and who they really are.

If indigenous people are proven to be marginalised by immigrants through hard data, they can also be marginalised by not appearing much in fictional media as well. If indigenous portrayals tend to be stereotypical, this would be disappointing to any indigenous person seeking representation at all. Indigenous people aren’t just physically exterminated, they’re also ignored if they don’t fit stereotypes.

If true, there must be something done about it.

Indigeneity and totem animals

While the idea of having a power, clan, totem or associated animal is not unique to North American indigenous people as the Ghanaian and Ivorian Akan people have this too, nevertheless if they view spirit animals as important to their respective clans and families it should be honoured as such and not appropriated by those who never grew up in that culture. True, not all indigenous people of the Americas necessarily believe in and have spirit animals, but if certain tribes have totem animals that should be respected and not appropriated by others.

The Anishinaabe have a belief in totem or clan animals, that is an animal associated with a family or clan which they hold dearly to. The Akan people also have this, but in common with the Anishinaabe you need to be born in that clan to receive such a spirit animal. There were around 21 Ojibwe animal totems as recorded by prior ethnographers, some of these include marten, raccoon, fox, mink and skunk for the little paws subdivision of the Bimaawidaasi group. Not to mention, this group was and probably still is in charge of hunting and gathering.

These animals are sacred or important to these groups that they ought not to be appropriated by anybody who were and are never born into them and the only way to get a totem animal is to be born into those people. That’s why claiming to have a spirit animal trivialises their importance to some indigenous people, especially if it’s something they were born into. It’s not necessarily wrong to have an animal or animal symbol for one’s family, but it’s something only some cultures have and that’s why it’s cultural appropriation if you’re not born into 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.

An interesting consequence of colonisation

The Americas or the New World as they’re sometimes called, are continents affected by Western and Old World (Africa and Eurasia) colonisation. This sometimes has bad consequences for indigenous people where they have high rates of suicide and being raped due to being perceived as hypersexual. They also get targeted for sterilisation, though to the detriment of some of their communities and cultures which do value fertility and children a lot. Not to mention the tendency for some indigenous women to go missing gets glossed over, which’s unfortunate that there’s a lot we can learn about and find them if at all.

In the case with the New World as well as Australia and New Zealand, there’s a tendency for Old Worlders to bring along what they miss or want from home. Some of them have become invasive species when it comes to their negative impact on the environment, whether if it’s cat predation (and arguably dog predation) or horses eroding soils through grazing. This has to led to a rather interesting consequence of colonisation where some indigenous people have taken to these well, whether if it’s Navajo people using sheep for wool or the odd fact that some indigenous people have or like cats.

I have read a study about how some Amazonian indigenous communities have cats around and I do know one Native American woman who likes cats herself, so this is two examples of the rather interesting (or odd) consequence of colonisation. Likewise, sheep have become a big part of Navajo culture that without them we wouldn’t get those Navajo wool rugs. Or for another matter, the trading communities composed of Europeans, Aboriginals and Metis in Canada.

A good example would be Mexico where both genetically and culturally, it owes as much to its indigenous heritage as it does to Spain. (Though unfortunately, Nahuatl isn’t that as commonly spoken as Spanish is.) Like their Anglophone counterparts, because of colonisation there are now Mexican cat owners and I do know one myself. Those in Asia and Africa are different, while also subjected to Western colonisation the trajectory of sheep, cats and goats turned out otherwise.

In the sense that their arrivals predated Westernisation. If cats were domesticated twice, first in Anatolia and the second in Egypt so African cat ownership would’ve predated Western colonisation. The same can be said of horses, sheep, cows and goats where if they ever made it to Africa they’d have to come from the Levant and Arabian peninsula first. If you believe Antonio Pigafetta’s accounts, cats were already there in the Philippines when Ferdinand Magellan came.

So cat ownership predates Westernisation in the Philippines (and the rest of Southeast Asia) as well. When it comes to colonisation, it can lead to rather strange or amusing consequences such as the existence of indigenous cat owners.

Indigenous misrepresentations

When it comes to Pocahontas, she’s commonly (mis)represented as being in love with John Smith even though in reality that wouldn’t have happened even if she were older and she was married to Kocoum with a child even. Not to mention she was younger than traditionally presented as, which makes one wonder if some people see black people as less infantilised and more sexualised than white people are would some of the same things be said about Native Americans who are also subjected to this?

It’s like if somebody made a movie about Anne Frank falling in love with somebody despite being a victim of the Holocaust, a lot of Jews will find this disrespectful to her memory and the fact that she got killed and never fell in love with her captors. That’s the situation Pocahontas is in, and it is damning why the Disney animators knew she was really a young girl at the time decided to reimagine her as an adult falling in love with a man she never was infatuated with in reality.

Likewise there’s a tendency to misrepresent indigenous folk beliefs, usually as something to be appropriated by white people regardless of the intense importance it has to some indigenous people and that not all indigenous people as necessarily this spiritual. The 1990s programme The Sentinel is one example of this phenomenon that not only has a white character appropriate the beliefs of an indigenous group but also misrepresents what indigenous Amazonians believe in.

There’s also a tendency to treat indigenous people as homogeneous (which’s also the same for Africans and Asians to varying degrees), for instance not all Native Americans highly esteem dogs. It could be personal opinion and experience, but it could also be a cultural phenomenon as with the Guaja foragers where they value monkeys over dogs a lot. Likewise, the Navajo people greatly fear wolves and coyotes as they associate them with witchcraft though not all Native American tribes share this sentiment.

When it comes to indigenous misrepresentations, it could be ignorance but also a possible ingrained stereotypical expectation that even if they’ve met and encountered Native Americans they still have stereotypical expectations of them. I do know somebody who despite being meeting and observing black people had stereotypes of them, so this might be a barrier to overcoming stereotypes about Native Americans and anybody else in general.

If there are blacks who object this to stereotypes about them in bed (this is true for any gay black man, I observed this online), there are Native Americans who object to similar things as well. They’re not necessarily promiscuous, easy or seductive despite not always being pure and clean themselves. (Actually this other Native American I know doesn’t do a lot of porny fan art as far as I know about it.) It’s not just enough to observe them, but to be this close to them to know what they object to and why they do this.

That’s necessary for not only getting over racist stereotypes, but also to understanding them as a people and to stop misrepresenting them and anybody else at all.

Cultural misinterpretation

The tendency to misinterpret what a certain culture does or believes in, this is common for people and even myself at some point or another to misinterpret a culture based on certain things we discover or like. To put it this way, this is like thinking some communities and cultures are irresponsible for having stray dogs around when in reality these pets are actually owned they’re allowed to roam at will and lead semi-independent lives.

This might be part of their culture, sometimes motivated by beliefs and attitudes that dogs are dirty so they’re kept outside to roam if they will it. Likewise, some people don’t feed their cats and dogs much since they believe they should continue hunting animals as that’s how they’re used for. Another culture that gets misinterpreted a lot by foreigners is Japan.

Japan’s sometimes misinterpreted as the land of wacky people, even though in reality most of them are normal just like you and me and sometimes seen as the land of anime even though not all Japanese necessarily watch or like anime. Then again, that could be me reading up on translated Japanese reports on stray dogs which made me realise that not all Japanese care about anime.

If there are Japanese people who don’t care about anime in any way, it’s not that anime isn’t any less a part of Japanese culture it’s just one facet of it but one that gets magnified by foreigners even if it’s something not all Japanese necessarily care about (there are Japanese who care about sports, animals and the environment when it comes to invasive species).

One example of cultural misinterpretation in fiction would be The Sentinel where an anthropologist named Blair Sandberg convinces a police officer (Jim Ellison) to use his powers in the same way a shaman or sentinel does with their heightened senses, along with the spirit animal thing. When it comes to actual Amazonian indigenous communities, they never believed in it. They never have an idea of it.

The Guatemalan and Mexican Mayans do know recognise the importance of animals in their cultures but they never have a spirit animal, neither do the Navajo and that the Navajo associate coyotes with witchcraft due to a belief they have. Spirit animals seem like a gross misinterpretation of indigenous and non-Western attitudes to animals, some of them aren’t even the same.

I even said on my blog that since Africans aren’t that culturally homogenous, they’d have different attitudes to animals as well within their respective cultures. Some African cultures, communities and countries associate dogs with witchcraft, some don’t and some associate cats with witchcraft, some don’t. This is what you get for looking up on the different African communities and countries.

This is also probably the same with Native Americans (I’m using this to encompass those who live south of the border and beyond) where they may not even have the same attitude towards the same animal depending on the community and country they come from as well as the sort of person they are. There’s one Oneida Iroquois story that has a dog witch, which does indicate an association of dogs with witchcraft.

But for others, dogs are seen as tools against witches (though that could be me knowing African cultures, but this could be applied to indigenous cultures as well). The use of spirit animals by non-indigenous people, while amusing, is a gross misinterpretation of the varying indigenous attitudes to and beliefs about animals (or rather certain animals) and why it can be anti-indigenous.

That’s why I think cultural misinterpretation is bad, in the sense that it twists what certain aspects of a certain culture to fit a certain lens. Western anime fandom’s real bad with this, believing that all Japanese like anime regardless of the Japanese people who care about other things like stray dogs, hunting, bullying in football and invasive species in general.

Likewise, The Sentinel’s bad with indigenous cultures especially when it comes to what Amazonian indigenous communities believe in. While there’s some talk about how bad the Western romanticisation of Japan is and gets, not much is written about The Sentinel’s racism. (Though it could be said that these fans are too distracted by the two white men pairing, the near lack of talk about indigenous people makes one wonder if fans actually knew about them.)

Cultural misinterpretation is bad because it distorts what a culture believes in and does, that’s why it’s problematic when it comes to approaching a culture different from one’s own and why people need to be more informed about and exposed to different cultures to better understand them as they are.

Misinterpreting indigenousness

There’s a tendency to misinterpret non-Western, non-white cultures or any culture not familiar even I myself am guilty of this practice on a few occasions. For instance, there’s a tendency for people to regard Africa as one culture, one country disregarding that Africa has several countries and many cultures as well as having had many kingdoms and empires before (Hausa, Coptic, Ghana, Mali, Yoruba, Akan/Ashanti and Igbo). Even attitudes to animals differ from culture to culture, some African countries and cultures tolerate cats some don’t.

This is also true for indigenous cultures the world over but especially in the New World where there’s a tendency to regard them as things of the past, sexualised, owners of casinos, living in the countryside or reservations and primitive. In actuality, there’s room for indigenous Americans (both North and South) who’re up to date with modern things (there’s one Cree athlete who sews clothes and I do know two Native Americans who are geeks), live in cities and stuff. And there’s the tendency to equate Native Americans with all things mystical, but this doesn’t just misinterpret their beliefs.

It also disregards Native Americans who aren’t into those things, in fact some of them are even Christians. One example of a pop culture artefact that misinterprets indigenous and tribal beliefs is The Sentinel; this programme has a cult following that was more prominent in the mid 1990s up to the early 2000s and it centres on a police officer with heightened senses and an anthropologist who points out that tribes believe in a sentinel or somebody with heightened senses. From what I remember reading, there’s not much of a conception of such.

From what I remember reading up on the various Amazonian communities and tribes, they don’t have much of a conception of it either. While I should forgive those fans and writers for not knowing any better, the fact that this misinterprets indigenous beliefs is telling. Not only do they not do the research, they also never encountered any indigenous person who believes in it. Yet this isn’t talked about that much, to the point where it may’ve been hand waved by fans.

Suspension of disbelief is one thing, misinterpreting a culture’s another matter. This is like thinking all Japanese like anime, but it disregards the Japanese who don’t like it and a larger number who simply don’t care anyways. (I went to Japanese language websites to look up on stray dogs, so this coloured my perception and made think realise not all Japanese care about anime.) This is racist in that it simplifies an entire culture to just a few parts which may not be a thing for all people.

Misinterpreting cultures is bad because while this is naive and uninformed at best, it risks misinforming people about what a country or culture is like and that some people of that community, country or culture may not necessarily do all things. That’s like saying all Chinese eat dogs when in fact there are Chinese who don’t and some who do care deeply about them. Or all black people listen to hip hop, disregarding those who don’t and that there are black people who play guitars.

There goes the problem with what I call cultural misinterpretation, which misinterprets what a culture does, what the people do and what they believe in.