"However, we can look up Bigfoot in the dictionary for the local language, Yup’ik (the dictionary is modern), and we find that there is an entry: arularaq, defined as “a legendary monster with three toes on each foot and six fingers on each hand.” Again, totally not Bigfoot — this is just the closest thing the cryptozoologists found to support their belief that the local indigenous have always known about Bigfoot..."
First off the above claim can be easily refuted and one doesn't even need to cite a cryptozoologist but rather one of Dunning's own confederates...
"Bigfoot tracks are not particularly consistent and show a wide range of variation. Some tracks have toes that are aligned, other show splayed toes. Most alleged Bigfoot tracks have five toes, but some casts show creatures with two, three, four, or even six toes." - Ben Radford, "Bigfoot at 50," Skeptical Inquirer Vol. 26 no. 02 (2002): 31
"...And they’ve made this argument in print often enough that it now appears in a Yup’ik dictionary; and the result is that there are now a generation of Alaska Natives growing up with the false notion that Bigfoot has long been known by their ancestors. No, they had other legends and spirits and characters from their folklore, and those traditions are now being replaced, thanks to the cryptozoologists [...] It’s a graffiti and a sabotage of the actual cultural traditions."
Wow, I sure hope the Yup’ik, and various other indigenous communities, are appreciative that a white dude from Santa Monica was able to step up and tell them what their cultural traditions do and don't contain.
"In no way can either nantiinaq or nant'ina be said to mean Bigfoot, who has never been said to steal children."
Also not true. See Joshua Cutchin's Thieves In The Night: A Brief History of Supernatural Child Abductions (Anomalist Books, 2018), Chapter 18: "Come Out To The Woods: Child Sasquatch Abduction."
As is typical of Scientific Skeptics this article is far too literal minded.
Joshua Cutchin has some woo beliefs no doubt, but he's a folklorist who has taken pains to distance himself from cryptozoology. He's been on MonsterTalk discussing how he thinks cryptozoology is pseudoscience.
Bigfoot was my childhood favorite woo (even more than UFOs,) and I still have my tattered copy of Rene Dahinden's and Don Hunter's mass market paperback, Sasquatch. If I were in Bend, I'd go to the museum. I didn't realize that actual native culture is being warped. That's sad.
"However, we can look up Bigfoot in the dictionary for the local language, Yup’ik (the dictionary is modern), and we find that there is an entry: arularaq, defined as “a legendary monster with three toes on each foot and six fingers on each hand.” Again, totally not Bigfoot — this is just the closest thing the cryptozoologists found to support their belief that the local indigenous have always known about Bigfoot..."
First off the above claim can be easily refuted and one doesn't even need to cite a cryptozoologist but rather one of Dunning's own confederates...
"Bigfoot tracks are not particularly consistent and show a wide range of variation. Some tracks have toes that are aligned, other show splayed toes. Most alleged Bigfoot tracks have five toes, but some casts show creatures with two, three, four, or even six toes." - Ben Radford, "Bigfoot at 50," Skeptical Inquirer Vol. 26 no. 02 (2002): 31
"...And they’ve made this argument in print often enough that it now appears in a Yup’ik dictionary; and the result is that there are now a generation of Alaska Natives growing up with the false notion that Bigfoot has long been known by their ancestors. No, they had other legends and spirits and characters from their folklore, and those traditions are now being replaced, thanks to the cryptozoologists [...] It’s a graffiti and a sabotage of the actual cultural traditions."
Wow, I sure hope the Yup’ik, and various other indigenous communities, are appreciative that a white dude from Santa Monica was able to step up and tell them what their cultural traditions do and don't contain.
"In no way can either nantiinaq or nant'ina be said to mean Bigfoot, who has never been said to steal children."
Also not true. See Joshua Cutchin's Thieves In The Night: A Brief History of Supernatural Child Abductions (Anomalist Books, 2018), Chapter 18: "Come Out To The Woods: Child Sasquatch Abduction."
As is typical of Scientific Skeptics this article is far too literal minded.
You are citing exactly the kind of modern cryptozoologist "invented indigenous history" I'm talking about.
Ben Radford is a cryptozoologist?
Joshua Cutchin has some woo beliefs no doubt, but he's a folklorist who has taken pains to distance himself from cryptozoology. He's been on MonsterTalk discussing how he thinks cryptozoology is pseudoscience.
Bigfoot was my childhood favorite woo (even more than UFOs,) and I still have my tattered copy of Rene Dahinden's and Don Hunter's mass market paperback, Sasquatch. If I were in Bend, I'd go to the museum. I didn't realize that actual native culture is being warped. That's sad.