|
|
Post by BlueAndGold on Jan 13, 2023 13:13:23 GMT
Trust me. There are plenty of cowboys still around. And Indians. And drunks, and crooks, and lawmen.
That is what makes the Longmire stories so appealing. They are believable, life-like dramas in the modern age, in a real place, with believable characters, not far from here and where I frequent.
|
|
|
|
Post by thunderguy on Jan 13, 2023 14:22:22 GMT
Again I cannot comment. I am not in to cowboy stories. I thought they ceased around the 1960s  You might be surprised. While set in the west, it's modern-day west, more of detective and drama. Stetsons, boots yes, some American Indians. No bar fights, cattle rustling, nights under the stars, or plates of beans. One of the stories takes place out east! Longmire is a great character, troubled, honest, determined. |
|
|
|
Post by And Kevin 2024 on Jan 13, 2023 19:09:17 GMT
Trust me. There are plenty of cowboys still around. And Indians. And drunks, and crooks, and lawmen. That is what makes the Longmire stories so appealing. They are believable, life-like dramas in the modern age, in a real place, with believable characters, not far from here and where I frequent.
All the same, there's not a lot of SF to do with cowboys. |
|
|
|
Post by And Kevin 2024 on Jan 13, 2023 19:18:36 GMT
You might be surprised. While set in the west, it's modern-day west, more of detective and drama. Stetsons, boots yes, some American Indians. No bar fights, cattle rustling, nights under the stars, or plates of beans. One of the stories takes place out east! Longmire is a great character, troubled, honest, determined.
I do recall that Mills & Boons used to publish a lot of cowboy novels. Strangely most were written by a bloke from Yorkshire. He wrote one a week! |
|
|
|
Post by BlueAndGold on Jan 13, 2023 19:47:36 GMT
Trust me. There are plenty of cowboys still around. And Indians. And drunks, and crooks, and lawmen. That is what makes the Longmire stories so appealing. They are believable, life-like dramas in the modern age, in a real place, with believable characters, not far from here and where I frequent.
Not here where they live, Kevin. You are thousands of miles from the reality.
Cowboys refer to themselves as Cowboys. The Indians I know tend to refer to themselves as either Indians or as members of their particular nation tribe (Crow, Lakota, Shoshone, etc. - even Aztec.)
"Native American" for the most part, as far as I can tell, is something made up by people not from around here.
However, it has become a defacto term for the politically hypersensitive to use. And, of course, like members of ANY group these days, many Indians are hypersensitive too. I'll leave it at that.
Whatever the creed, most of us just call ourselves "Americans", as it should be. Division and racism is stupid and destructive.
|
|
|
|
Post by Retread-Retired-Cameron on Jan 13, 2023 21:51:33 GMT
Apparently they are really called ranch hands and drovers. And are American Indians not called now called Native Americans?
Not here where they live, Kevin. You are thousands of miles from the reality.
Cowboys refer to themselves as Cowboys. The Indians I know tend to refer to themselves as either Indians or as members of their particular nation tribe (Crow, Lakota, Shoshone, etc. - even Aztec.)
"Native American" for the most part, as far as I can tell, is something made up by people not from around here.
However, it has become a defacto term for the politically hypersensitive to use. And, of course, like members of ANY group these days, many Indians are hypersensitive too. I'll leave it at that.
Whatever the creed, most of us just call ourselves "Americans", as it should be. Division and racism is stupid and destructive.
Yes cowboys still exist, and they still ride horses or mules often enough because there are plenty of places where the terrain is not conducive to wheeled or even track-laying vehicles. Ranch hands tend to have other primary jobs, whether farrier or some other set of duties.
Typically you would use the name of the tribe the person is affiliated with, but Native American first came into use by people who were aware Christopher Columbus was wrong in thinking he'd found India. americanindian.si.edu/nk360/faq/did-you-know |
|
|
|
Post by And Kevin 2024 on Jan 14, 2023 1:03:21 GMT
Apparently they are really called ranch hands and drovers. And are American Indians not called now called Native Americans?
Not here where they live, Kevin. You are thousands of miles from the reality.
Cowboys refer to themselves as Cowboys.
Strange. When being talked to in documentaries made by us English people, they insist they are not cows and not boys, but human men, so are not cowboys, they just look after steers. I don't actually recall in Bonanza and whatnot, they ever called themselves cowboys. In the UK, I don't no why, but the word cowboy is aimed at trades people who do shoddy work.
The Indians I know tend to refer to themselves as either Indians or as members of their particular nation tribe (Crow, Lakota, Shoshone, etc. - even Aztec.)
Well that makes sense. But they are not Indians. They are Americans. As I say, explorers were looking for an as the crow flies shortcut to India. But the Americas got in the way, but they did not realise it was not India or even the far east for quite a while. Perhaps the lack of tea was a clue.
"Native American" for the most part, as far as I can tell, is something made up by people not from around here.
It's used to say they are not natives of India, which is in Asia as I am sure you know. As you say, perhaps by people who need that separation. People not living in America.
However, it has become a defacto term for the politically hypersensitive to use. And, of course, like members of ANY group these days, many Indians are hypersensitive too. I'll leave it at that.
No. it's very logical. When most people outside of the USA say Indian, they are not expecting people with feathered headgear, but often turbans. So the term Native Americans came in to being. Although I would have thought that after many generations of immigration most people there are now Native Americans.
Whatever the creed, most of us just call ourselves "Americans", as it should be. Division and racism is stupid and destructive. It has it's uses. It's not racist to use valid descriptions when need be. It would be hard to write a cowboys and Indians story if both were called American  |
|
|
|
Post by And Kevin 2024 on Jan 14, 2023 1:14:24 GMT
Not here where they live, Kevin. You are thousands of miles from the reality.
Cowboys refer to themselves as Cowboys. The Indians I know tend to refer to themselves as either Indians or as members of their particular nation tribe (Crow, Lakota, Shoshone, etc. - even Aztec.)
"Native American" for the most part, as far as I can tell, is something made up by people not from around here.
However, it has become a defacto term for the politically hypersensitive to use. And, of course, like members of ANY group these days, many Indians are hypersensitive too. I'll leave it at that.
Whatever the creed, most of us just call ourselves "Americans", as it should be. Division and racism is stupid and destructive.
Yes cowboys still exist, and they still ride horses or mules often enough because there are plenty of places where the terrain is not conducive to wheeled or even track-laying vehicles. Ranch hands tend to have other primary jobs, whether farrier or some other set of duties.
Yes, horses can handle difficult terrain, and don't frighten herds like combustion engines can. And of course in days of yore it was all they had to cover a lot of ground. But nowadays they even use helicopters. Cowpilots? Some of those ranches are huge. A Scots chap I know, who bought a ranch in Texas, told me it took 3 days to cross his land. I told him I had a car like that once.
Typically you would use the name of the tribe the person is affiliated with, but Native American first came into use by people who were aware Christopher Columbus was wrong in thinking he'd found India. americanindian.si.edu/nk360/faq/did-you-knowIndeed, as I have said a few times above. Although the term Native American came in to use quite a long time after it was realised it was not Asia. But one does have to wonder, if the Americas had not been there, if they would have actually survived long enough to reach Asia. It's a long way as the crow flies in that direction. 15,000 miles? No where to stop to stretch your legs, or replenish water and food for a looooonnnngggg way. BTW. What did the Native Americans call the continent? or did they not realise it was one? |
|
|
|
Post by Mag2024 on Jan 15, 2023 2:05:43 GMT
Not here where they live, Kevin. You are thousands of miles from the reality.
Cowboys refer to themselves as Cowboys.
Strange. When being talked to in documentaries made by us English people, they insist they are not cows and not boys, but human men, so are not cowboys, they just look after steers. I don't actually recall in Bonanza and whatnot, they ever called themselves cowboys. In the UK, I don't no why, but the word cowboy is aimed at trades people who do shoddy work.
The Indians I know tend to refer to themselves as either Indians or as members of their particular nation tribe (Crow, Lakota, Shoshone, etc. - even Aztec.)
Well that makes sense. But they are not Indians. They are Americans. As I say, explorers were looking for an as the crow flies shortcut to India. But the Americas got in the way, but they did not realise it was not India or even the far east for quite a while. Perhaps the lack of tea was a clue.
"Native American" for the most part, as far as I can tell, is something made up by people not from around here.
It's used to say they are not natives of India, which is in Asia as I am sure you know. As you say, perhaps by people who need that separation. People not living in America.
However, it has become a defacto term for the politically hypersensitive to use. And, of course, like members of ANY group these days, many Indians are hypersensitive too. I'll leave it at that.
No. it's very logical. When most people outside of the USA say Indian, they are not expecting people with feathered headgear, but often turbans. So the term Native Americans came in to being. Although I would have thought that after many generations of immigration most people there are now Native Americans.
Whatever the creed, most of us just call ourselves "Americans", as it should be. Division and racism is stupid and destructive. It has it's uses. It's not racist to use valid descriptions when need be. It would be hard to write a cowboys and Indians story if both were called American In Toronto everyone says they're Canadian, even if they hardly speak English and wearing clearly foreign clothing. In Montreal people say, I'm Italian, I'm Indian, I'm Greek, I'm Venezuelan, etc. |
|
|
|
Post by BlueAndGold on Jan 15, 2023 2:30:26 GMT
Now, why did I suspect that about Montreal?  |
|
|
|
Post by Mag2024 on Jan 15, 2023 11:54:41 GMT
Now, why did I suspect that about Montreal? Colourful people. Btw, I'm reading three books simultaneously. One of them is Lord of the World. It's simply written and has some predictable thoughts but I've never been so horrified. Only half-way through so I don't know yet if it's worth recommending. But hold on to your rosary, and no euthanasia! |
|
|
|
Post by And Kevin 2024 on Jan 15, 2023 13:30:12 GMT
"In Toronto everyone says they're Canadian, even if they hardly speak English and wearing clearly foreign clothing.
Do you have to speak English to be Canadian then? I thought some believe they are French.
In Montreal people say, I'm Italian, I'm Indian, I'm Greek, I'm Venezuelan, etc."
Yes, that has always puzzled me. I would have thought that after a few generations they would class themselves as simply Canadian. (DNA aside.) I could perhaps class myself as Celt if not Anglo-Saxon (you have to be careful claiming that in the USA or some think you are in the KKK.)
|
|
|
|
Post by And Kevin 2024 on Jan 15, 2023 13:38:13 GMT
Now, why did I suspect that about Montreal? Colourful people. Btw, I'm reading three books simultaneously. Ermm. Why? Unless you are a book reviewer!One of them is Lord of the World. It's simply written and has some predictable thoughts but I've never been so horrified. Is that the one from 1907? Not too sure why it's horrific. It just sounds like parts of the world still behaves, projected on to the UK. Just watch the news!Only half-way through so I don't know yet if it's worth recommending. But hold on to your rosary, and no euthanasia! Not being religious I would not find it horrific. A lot of the story seems to be pretty much what went on in Europe in reality for 100s of years at the hands of the RCC. |
|
