It started in the year 1900 with a trip to Montana to photograph the ritual Sun Dance of the Blackfoot Tribe, and ended with photographer Edward Curtis having photographed 100 Native American tribes, producing 2,200 photographs that would come to comprise a 20 volume anthology called "The North American Indian," bankrolled by investor J.P. Morgan to the tune of $75,000. In the article written by Elisabeth Sherman for All That Is Interesting, you can see 33 of his most stunning portraits.
The photographs show Indigenous people in traditionally styled portraits, often in ceremonial dress, but also include snapshots that give the viewer insight into the daily reality of a people whose way of life was quickly vanishing due to colonization, forced relocation, and re-education. In his introduction to the first volume of the series, Curtis communicated his desire to document the cultures before their way of life was lost.
Chief Garfield - Jicarilla
Edward Curtis
Jicarilla Maiden
Edward S Curtis
In addition to photographing the native people, Curtis also recorded tribal music, language, traditional foods, clothing, ceremonies, and the other aspects of daily life. The photos were produced on an 11x14-inch view camera and had to be processed and painted onto glass plates in the field, using chemicals that had to be protected from the elements and the dangers of travel, making the 30-year undertaking, and resulting imagery, a truly spectacular feat. The resulting images hold a power that transcends time and still manages to captivate, even a century later.
[via All That Is Interesting]
Thank you for bring this historical feat to our attention.
Our local museum had this collection on display this summer. It was truly incredible what Edward Curtis did, and his dedication to doing it. I can't believe that I had never heard of his story before. The story is just as incredible as the photographs. There is a documentary available on Amazon Video called "Coming to Light: The Edward S. Curtis Story". I haven't watched it yet, but they do have a Trailer you can watch.
That must have been incredible to see in person.
The only part of the U.S. population identified as "native" are the "American" Indians. Check your history!
Why you gotta play the race card like that dude...
Wrong definition, Bob.
I suggest you study the etymology of “American.” It was a term given to the indigenous populations of the American continent (as named by Vespucci). The original term “American” was identical in meaning to the modern “Native American,” that is, the first Americans were indeed the indigenous populations, both by popular consensus and by the strict lexical sense you prefer.
Ok, I just got home; sorry for the delay.
"Popular consensus" being the prevailing usage. While you may not agree with the usage of "Native American," that's how most people use it.
I do not deny people the right to say "native American." What I disagree with is its usage in a manner that deliberately clouds the distinction between that and "Native American," and let's be honest, that's almost always how it's used in this context. That stems from the fact that I disagree with the idea of the fundamental origin and proper usage of the terms "Native" and "American" as you define them. I think we both know we'll never agree on that, so let's agree to disagree and move on.
I don't believe in revisionist history whether it be from the left, right, whoever. Being an academic, my belief in the importance of factual information and logical discussion will always take priority over any political leanings I have, and I believe they should be the very basis of said leanings in combination with one's moral compass. I am not in the group of people that view the history of Indians as without flaw; I acknowledge that they were an imperfect people with subcultures of violence, as were the settlers, as were and are all groups of humans I can reasonably name. And while I think comparing atrocities is a fool's game, I do think that in terms of the larger picture, Indians were pushed off land that was rightfully theirs and subsequently put in a position below that of equality, particularly as the country established itself and grew in the 1800s and 1900s. Again, I do not choose to pretend that either side was free of wrongs, and I'm in agreement with you that to do so is wrong. I simply believe that when the dust settled, they had been moved off land that was rightfully theirs and they were subsequently oppressed, even if the actions of some individuals within them were morally wrong.
I'll answer your question again just to keep the linear response intact: I don't believe it's ok to use a word to deliberately cloud or subvert the meaning of another (or willfully, if not deliberately, allow that to happen). If "native American" could be used distinctly from "Native American" without invoking confusion, that would be a different discussion, but the simple fact is it can't. As another example, I had a high school teacher who tried to teach us the original meaning of the n-word on the same principles. He was extremely leftist, but I also think he was an insensitive idiot for attempting that, and I told him I would walk out of class if he tried to compel me to use it. No one gets a free pass (at least in my mind) simply because of their political affiliations; I know highly intelligent and morally strong people on the right with whom I disagree but respect for their logically considered opinions borne of their moral compasses. I know people on the left who simply parrot popular opinion without real thought and villainize anyone who dare disagree with them, and I have no respect for those people. In short, I don't think the usage of "Native" and "American" as I've advocated is discriminatory, but that's also because I have a different view of the state of affairs (and possibly history) than you do, which again, I think is the root of our disagreement, not the usage of a few words.
And here’s where “Indian(def 1)” leads.
Bob is correct by lexical standards. The adjective+noun “native American” does indicate anyone born in America. However, we’re talking about the compound proper noun “Native American” here, so while correct, what he’s saying is not really relevant to this article.
While we’re on the topic of Americans, the 16th century usage of “American” by the Europeans was specifically to refer to the indigenous populations of the American continent (“Native Americans”) and was wholly distinct from any self-identifiers, so any attempt to dilute the specificity of the captial letter term to include another group is itself an appropriation by said group.
"As for the photos, personally, I would have eliminated that awfully excessive yellow tint." It's called orotone, you boob, and it's a sight to behold when you see these portraits in person, as I was fortunate enough to do three weeks ago.
"I've also seen such photos in person before" No you haven't. Don't start lying now. Stick with the arrogant trolling .. that seems to work for you. Different tastes? Dude, you have no taste. You are a boob.
Did we forget the trigger warnings again?! Sorry
Oy. Could you be a little more defensive? There are different definitions of native and indigenous depending on context and usage. In the context of anthropological studies in Academia it has a very specific meaning. Being stubborn does nothing to change that.
And what you seem to forget is that anthropology is not an American discipline. It's international. So whether we are talking about Native Americans, Aborigines, Pygmies, or any of the other hundreds of indigenous and native peoples, the definitions of those words in this context have zero to do with politics.
Since we are linking, here's a quick one that may help: https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_indigenous_peoples.
This has nothing to do with right vs left and everything to do with terminology in an academic field of study. The person making this about race is you.
First of all, you do yourself no service by being belittling in your tone. You are not a benevolent sage bestowing your wisdom on the unwashed masses. You are railing against academia. The fact is that the terms indigenous and native are used in the anthroplogical discipline. All of your anecdotal wants, needs, and should-bes doesn't change that. Your ethnocentrism is absolutely clouding your perspective. As for my age, look at it this way: the N-word was also in common usage at one point in most of America. Does that make it correct by today's standards? How about the F-word in regards to homosexuals? I don't think most people are referring to a bundle of sticks when they use that word.
Language evolves. And even when it hasn't there are differing uses for the same words. You attributing "original" status to your preferred usage because you want it to be is just hard-headed. Maybe after anthropology you should start thinking about etymology.
Sigh. Ok, fine. Using the language of the present, you are an American, not a native American. You are applying an adjective to describe yourself that is not relevant using current academic, societal, and anthropological standards. But by all means if you want to continue referring to yourself as such, go for it. The only reason to call yourself a native American when you are not is to be contrary. And that's just fine. As Americans, we have the right to deny all evidence if it helps make us feel better.
Here's a question for you: is every American an African American since the human race originated there? Or does present day nomenclature actually matter?
Well far be it for me to contradict Mr. Freeman, spokesperson for black Americans. As for dictionary definitions: http://www.etymonline.com/index.php?term=native
https://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/native (have a look at definition 10)
As for capitalization, the usage in this case is capital.
Ugh...ok, sir. Beating a dead horse. Have a great day. Im sure we will meet on another article that Im dumb enough to respond to.
This is a photography forum/blog. You are all over these articles making many wonder if you even photograph anything since it seems your retirement time is spent pushing your White America agenda on here instead of actually creating something original. I can dream of many better things to do with retirement time instead of sitting for hours on end in front of a keyboard angrily ranting at the internet.
I agree.
http://www.straitstimes.com/singapore/im-not-in-hospice-to-die-but-to-ta...
No excuse to not go create something with meaning during your illness while in retiremen instead of wasting your retirement commenting on these boards. I, for one, want to leave this world the way this gentlemen is: photographing until my last breath because I love photography that much and it's a productive and constructive thing to do.
If you love arguing that much, then by all means, argue all you want. But do it some place where your argument is relevant. This was an article about photography and historical photography. Your argument has nothing to do with it.
Bye
Bob, I believe you've already exhausted your point about this on a previous article. Is there an additional point to be made by repeating the argument here?
Perhaps if you don't like what these articles have to say then don't read them.
Also you need to reconsider your tone as generally speaking you come across as quite belligerent regardless of the point you're making.
Well, I am an Indian....Asian Indian that is, but never lived in India...I would also like to think language plays a part in this particular context. English is an imported language not indigenous to the North American Continent. Unless I read my history all wrong.
The images are wonderful. What has gotten into people these days? This is about photography. For cripes sake give politics a rest
Let me get this straight. Just a couple of days ago I mentioned Christopher Columbus and his ship mates in this website and I was soon informed I knew very little about the way law works.
As i understand now, Andrew Jackson's Indian removal policy took place between 1838/39, and that would be nearly half a century after September 17, 1787. interesting....
Butchery of man, women and children is never acceptable in any century let alone this one.
The suggestion was, when CC traveled west, there was no law in place to protect the local inhabitant. I am just making an observation that in 1838 / 39, there was an active government in place to protect the rights of every native citizens.
Reference to untouchables, I have never been to India, and my view of life there is limited. However, there are acts of despicable nature taking place in India that are well reported in the media, just as there are gun violence again school children elsewhere in the world when they should be in a safe environment learning. Re: Dunblane school massacre.
We might live in the same planet, but history shows we progress at different speed and direction. When "Trails of Tears" were taking place in North America, the Indians in the sub continent were also heading towards a bloody confrontation with the British, ie Indian Mutiny.
I am great fan of Gandhi and I have a great deal of respect for his contribution as a human being especially towards my currents rights as an Asian, rights that Europeans enjoyed for centuries while we stood still and watched, without fully taking part in our own destiny.
Nothing said here by American contributors will change that aspect of our history.
"Without getting into that specific topic, the left would have everyone believe that all the land on the entire continent was inhabited by the Indians, when in fact the vast majority of it was actually uninhabited." Wrong. Your ignorance is only exceeded by your arrogance. Go and spew your nonsense over on Fox. It's disgusting how you've taken this photography forum and injected your politics into it. A sign of the times.
Because it's a PHOTOGRAPHY forum, you boob.
I was fortunate enough to see the largest ever collection of Curtis' photographs (over 700) in Muskegon, Michigan, just a few weeks ago. It was a stunning display. In one room was a wall filled with a grid of mid-shot portraits, like these, with perhaps 40 photographs in a grid. It was impossible not to feel directly connected with each and every one of them, the eyes staring straight back at Curtis, and us, over the ages. We spent over 2 hours looking at these, and at no time did "museum fatigue" set in. In fact, I still think about these amazing portraits daily.