buffalo hunting

These types of painting come up often.  They are usually used to depict native culture, usually in a critical way regarding the early settlers and the changing culture with the presence of European.

History is a hobby and I'm on museum boards and work for some local history societies.  Some one posted an ad for an H&K auto pistol with the caption "what is wrong with this picture?"

Well, if the diorama is to depict native ways prior to white man’s influence (and I don't know if the artist intended that), but most modern school children are probably taught that. 

Then the Diorama is wrong in the following:

1) The rifle is purely 100% European.

2) The horse is a European import; Indians didn't have horses until escapees from the Spanish stock became feral.

3) I see lots of cloth on the Indian’s clothing that was not indigenous to Native Americans, no fabric no looms.

4) It looks like a metal bit in the horse’s mouth; Indians were a primitive Stone Age people.

5) Looks like the Indian has a saddle..... European and a woven cloth blanket underneath, no cloth and no looms in NA until those pesky Europeans came.

6) I believe (I could be wrong) that leather fringe was an invention of early trappers (Europeans) to let the buckskin dry faster.

NOW don't get me wrong it is a beautiful scene.  But the man's head is turned away, he could be a European???????  I doubt that native americans would be so silly as to ride at a gallop that close to a bison herd unless they were using a spear.

Native American betrayals are often used to criticize how the Europeans have ruined the land of beauty that North America was before the folks landed at Plymouth.   A national campaign about pollution had a TV spot for years with a Native American crying at the Europeans level of pollution.  The Indian was seated on a horse with a lever action Winchester, metal bridle/bit, and lots of plastic and metal beads around his neck.  Just not the way it was.

Ron, I realize you are a professional historian.  I would greatly value your input.

BEAR

Ron,

My feeling is that society always wants to reinvent history.  I just watched a special on TV about Charlie Chaplin.  Made him sound like a hero.

In reality he was a European that never wanted citizenship.  He strongly supported Hitler.  An in 1938, when most intelligent people knew Hitler was nothing but bad, Charlie got a German metal/cross pinned on himself by Georing personally.

He was always a communist.  And condemned those who did not support Stalin, even into the 1950s when he went with his money to live in Switzerland.  True that INA was after him and cancelled his re-entry visa.  He couldn't have gotten back, even if he wanted without a hassle.  Yes he did live a scandalous, life with lots of underage girls (aka M. Jackson), and had some things for certain animals.

But he was not a hero.  And politically he knowingly supported some pretty bad people.  He had made lots of statements that in effect said that mass murder to achieve a "better" nation was justifiable.

But society wants him to be the lovable "little tramp".  And I seem to remember that Ronnie Ragan pardoned him and gave him a Presidential metal and dinner at the White House.  I'd have rather seen my federal food tax dollars go to a dinner for some Vietnam vets.

I think people just want to believe an easy story about famous people.  I don't think George Washington ever chopped down any cherry trees.

BEAR

bear - didn't have any time today to do any formal research, but i can offer some well-informed impressions. i'll take them point-by-point......

These types of painting come up often.  They are usually used to depict native culture, usually in a critical way regarding the early settlers and the changing culture with the presence of European.

critical? sometimes, but not always. when you get out here to montana, remember to stop in here at the museum. i can honestly say that cmr is definitely top 3, if not THE BEST in the world when it comes to the american west. his paintings and sculptures are rarely critical of either side, but do in fact portray the inevitability of the "taming" of the west without any judgement pro or con. an excellent example is FIREBOAT. somewhere on this board is a good "interpretation" of this. if you do a search it should pop right up.

Well, if the diorama is to depict native ways prior to white man’s influence (and I don't know if the artist intended that), but most modern school children are probably taught that. 

i can safely say that this painting is NOT meant to depict pre-contact native america. as you pointed out, there are WAY too many "anachronisms" for this to be. my guess is that it is meant to depict a metis looking to supplement his meat supply and his wallet. this would be just an assumption, but i am thinking that the painting is depicting a time period somewhere between 1845 and 1865.

1) The rifle is purely 100% European.

or american, but your point is well-taken

2) The horse is a European import; Indians didn't have horses until escapees from the Spanish stock became feral.

they also got quite a few horses the time-honored way....they stole them! assuming that this is from the northern plains or perhaps even central canada, it is also likely that the horse in this case was acquired through simple trade.

3) I see lots of cloth on the Indian’s clothing that was not indigenous to Native Americans, no fabric no looms.

on the plains this was true, but in the mississippi valley, southwest and central america, as well as possibly the southeast, weaving was quite widespread, and textiles were traded quite extensively. cotton was the most common, but not the only source of fabric.

4) It looks like a metal bit in the horse’s mouth; Indians were a primitive Stone Age people.

as with the gun and horse, i am assuming that this painting is taking place in the mid-1800s

5) Looks like the Indian has a saddle.....

ditto

6) I believe (I could be wrong) that leather fringe was an invention of early trappers (Europeans) to let the buckskin dry faster.

not sure about this one. if i was forced to guess, i would guess that the fringe could have evolved on both continents independently due to the function it serves and the fact that someone would have thought of it in the due course of events.

NOW don't get me wrong it is a beautiful scene.  But the man's head is turned away, he could be a European???????  I doubt that native americans would be so silly as to ride at a gallop that close to a bison herd unless they were using a spear.

i don't know about this one, but if this is supposed to depict a south-central canadian scene, and based on his clothing, i am still guessing that he is metis. as for his choice of weapon, it would all come down to what he had handy at the time, i guess!

Native American betrayals are often used to criticize how the Europeans have ruined the land of beauty that North America was before the folks landed at Plymouth.   A national campaign about pollution had a TV spot for years with a Native American crying at the Europeans level of pollution.  The Indian was seated on a horse with a lever action Winchester, metal bridle/bit, and lots of plastic and metal beads around his neck.  Just not the way it was.

i remember this commercial as well. i think the main thing to remember is that no one thinks that indians had this "stuff" before contact with the whites. it is more plausible that the indians we have come to know and love simply come from that period of history in which they were most famous (or infamous, depending on your view), which would be the 1860s, 70s and 80s.

waksupi, what do you think?

I guess since I've been working for museums for years, specializing in Native American materials, and am Metis, I will join in on this one.

This is definitely supposed to be a later period painting, that is appropriate to the Manitoba area.

The hunter is Metis, wearing a Metis hunting shirt, and half breed leggins. He's wearing an Assumption sash, and appears to be riding a pad saddle. The bridle is a war bridle, a loop around the lower jaw. The horse is appropriate for the time, as is the range for running buffalo with bow or firearm.

That is not a rifle. The gun is a Hudson's Bay smooth bore.

Woven fabric was made before European contact, mostly of the finger weaving type. Woven fabric of Euro influence goes back 500 years on this continent. And fringe was used on pre-Columbian items. There have been samples found in cliff dwellings in the Southwest.

WRONG    WRONG    WRONG

I was wrong in an earlier post and must correct my error.

I said   "Charlie got a German metal/cross pinned on himself by Georing personally."  This is incorrect I was confusing Charles Linberg with Charles Chapin.  Linberg got the metal from Georing in 1938.

Just want to set the record straight, I hate revisionary history.

BEAR