This article’s purpose is not to define what constitutes “primitive” in languages. There is, however, a great difference between modern and tribal languages. The languages of tribal peoples reveal they do not think in abstract. There is no such thing as “classifications” to them. The Baikiri of the Amazon are a classic example. They have a name for every type of parrot and palm tree there is. But they have no name for the genus parrot or the genus palm. There simply is no classifying. They have far more words than we do, but no words that reflect classification. The most “primitive” languages are incredibly complex, but they are descriptive, not abstract.
White Man pops up and notices this. He classifies the lack of thinking in abstract as more primitive. But it is a truth than when it comes to descriptive, modern advanced languages are not as complex. Language reflects thought. We don’t think in details. Perhaps we think too much in abstract?
Anyway, the point here is something quite serious for Bigfooters. Yes, sorry True Crime guys, but I pursue the truth here even in this topic. Recasting Bigfoot put much in order supporting the Indian tribal statements regarding two tribes of Sasquatch Men. Those who just read titles and only classify were aghast I wrote about this topic. Figure the verb “recasting” in there and you’ll understand why I am The Most Hated Man in Bigfootery.
In any case, one thing I didn’t touch on in Recasting Bigfoot was the attitude of tribal people NOT to classify. Logic and comparative analysis of many journals and sightings underscored the truth of what the Indians had told the Whites. But most Whites, especially those Bigfooters who came later, did not understand the attitude of such people and how it expresses itself in the mechanism of language.
The Indian tribes of the Pacific Northwest, despite being very international in outlook, did not think in abstract. They thought in descriptives. When every tribe spoke of different types of people and animal-like humans in the forests, they meant it. And they were more qualified than the Whites, who tended to classify. They noticed more distinctions, since they thought along the complex lines of describing everything as distinct and unique.
When the Salis Indians told J.W. Burns, the Indian agent, of the “Sasquatch Man” they were careful to say there were two tribes. For them to say this meant a lot. This meant that there were two distinctly different kinds of Sasquatch men, but they were very similar. One could speak something akin to Douglas. One was more animalistic and could not speak. Both were around 6.5 feet tall.
This was Sasquatch Man. They existed amongst other strange hairy men and animals in the forest.
But J.W. Burns was a White Man. He tended to classify. He took “Saskahaua George” (pronounced Saskahaua Chotch) and reduced it to Sasquatch. Fascinated by the stories he told, more Whites took interest. Soon Sasquatch was the sole species out there, the giant hairy Indian turned into a charming folklore. Over time Whites reclassified and Sasquatch became Bigfoot, a giant bipedal North American Ape.
Yet none of this was based on the meticulous descriptive minds of the Indians. There were two tribes of Sasquatch and one was human. Dividing them, they seem to be a human and an anthropoid very similar. Indian artwork bears this out. The Indians also described the Dsonoqua, which was not a Sasquatch; Skoocoom, too, appears to be different. I’m not going to go over the thesis of Recasting Bigfoot here.
The point is that when Indians made such careful distinctions they were reflecting the dominant trait in all tribal languages: a complex ability to divide and describe between minutiae. It is something that developed languages don’t display, though some vary. For instance, English is much better describing tenses of action than French, but French is far superior at describing shades of color. In like manner, the ancient Indians and other peoples were very good at describing all details of distinction.
When they divided between Sasquatch and Skoocoom, Dsonoqua, and barbaric, primitive tribes of hairy men, they meant it; and far more than Whites they were capable of making the distinction.
This makes that human tribe of Sasquatch very intriguing. It is so akin to some anthropoid that both were actually classified, even by the Indians, as something very similar in appearance but still different in character.
Our image of Bigfoot.
White Man and not Indians have sired the modern folklore of the single-o Gigantopithicus Bigfoot. It is a classification that wiped out the details of more than one type of anthropoid and even humans existing in the deep forests and mountains of the Pacific Northwest. The generation of Indians that still remembered has sadly died off. Their descendants have begun to think along White Man’s ways of classification. Fortunately, the tribal art of their ancestors still preserves their complex ability to describe and differentiate in details. We can still collate this art with the old stories to reveal how accurate much of the stories were.
We still do not have Bigfoot captured because we seek a classification so far out that it is folklore. We are looking for a giant in the wrong place (they ain’t in Philadelphia), when we should have been looking for more than one thing, much shorter, one much more human and one much more intriguing.
* * *
Since 1990 Gian J. Quasar has investigated a broad range of mysterious subjects, from strange disappearances to serial murders, earning in that time the unique distinction of being likened to “the real life Kolchak.” However, he is much more at home with being called The Quester or Q Man. “He’s bloody eccentric, an historian with no qualifications who sticks his nose into affairs and gets results.” He is the author of several books, one of which inspired a Resolution in Congress.