In article , DSK
wrote:

gonefishiing wrote:
i did a search on amazon.com and came up empty
anyone have an isbn number
katie?
dsk?

They've got it... although fewer (12) than I would have thought. I may
pick up a copy myself.


http://www.amazon.com/exec/obidos/tg...1540-4819333?v
=glance

One of the changes in the U.S. that I like the least is the fading of
pioneer spirit & values... after 3 generations raised by TV and having
consumer culture rammed down our throats... for that matter who even
reads books any more?

Me, my wife & my kids. Of the 3 places we own, only one has a TV.

PDW

Let's ask alt.native about Hanta Yo, though I'm pretty sure of the
response.

"katysails" wrote in message ...
It was a book written in tandem about the Lakota...the author wrote the
basic story, then went to the Lakota and had it translated into their
language and then went back and translated that into English so that it
would be truly representative of their history.

In particular, in archaic English. Her Lakota glossary is all wrong too.
(In fact, "hanta yo" best translates as "Scram!", and it implies only one
listener, usually a child.) Her knowledge of Lakota culture is even worse;
here are some of the worst offenses:

*The gratuitous sex scenes. Between ritualized fellatio and sodomizing
captives, to quote that hoochie in Smoke Signals, "That was a fine example
of the oral tradition." Seriously, though, I am Lakota, and I've never
heard of ritualized fellatio. And war was a time of celibacy, much like
how athletes avoid sex before the big game.
*The incorrect assumption that two generations of Dakota consciously
changed their dialect. The idea that language can change so rapidly is
dubious.
*The equally incorrect assumption that bifurcate merging kin terms are a
conscious choice; one could argue something far more convincingly about
lineal kin terms in English, which originally had a bifurcate collateral
system, much like Arabic or Chinese. (In fact, in the surviving Indian
languages, bifurcate merging seems to be the rule, not the exception.)
*The assertion that the Sun Dance was originally a woodlands ceremony,
which certainly explains why there's no evidence of anyone west of the
Mississippi doing it, but a lot of peoples on the plains do.
*The indefensible statement that words such as "admit", "assume", etc.
Apparently tokis, chuke, and a host of other words which translate
directly as words Hill said didn't exist, don't count.
*"The American Indian, even before Columbus, was the remnant of a very old
race in its final stage, a race that had attained perhaps the highest
working concept of individualism ever practiced." Between the 19th-century
bias obvious by the use of the word 'race' and the complete ignorance of
the nature of the Lakota economy, it's clear she's thinking with Ayn Rand
now.
*Her views of Lakota marriage. Her presentation of relationships between
co-wives is completely inaccurate, and she perpetuates the stereotype of
Indian men beating their wives. The thing is, Lakota women owned basically
all the property in the family, and if she wanted a divorce, she'd just
leave what things were his outside the tipi.
*"Archaic" Sioux. A secret language used before the white man came,
apparently now dead. How the hell do you speak a dead language which was
never written down?
*The claim that the Santee were the sole keepers of ancient traditions,
thus infurating the Itazipaco of the Cheyenne River reserve, where the
sacred pipe's really kept.

It is a great book. If you
are interested in the history of the Sioux nation, it is probably one of the
best.
"gonefishiing" wrote in message
...
no i have not
what is this book?
gf.

"katysails" wrote in message
...
Have you read _Honta Yo_? It's one of the best books I've ever read....

... for that matter who even
reads books any more?


Peter Wiley wrote:
Me, my wife & my kids. Of the 3 places we own, only one has a TV.

Yes, but then, you also answer those rhetorical questions...

DSK

the book is piece of white mythical bull**** trash.......

MIB529 wrote:

Let's ask alt.native about Hanta Yo, though I'm pretty sure of the
response.

"katysails" wrote in message ...


It was a book written in tandem about the Lakota...the author wrote the
basic story, then went to the Lakota and had it translated into their
language and then went back and translated that into English so that it
would be truly representative of their history.



In particular, in archaic English. Her Lakota glossary is all wrong too.
(In fact, "hanta yo" best translates as "Scram!", and it implies only one
listener, usually a child.) Her knowledge of Lakota culture is even worse;
here are some of the worst offenses:

*The gratuitous sex scenes. Between ritualized fellatio and sodomizing
captives, to quote that hoochie in Smoke Signals, "That was a fine example
of the oral tradition." Seriously, though, I am Lakota, and I've never
heard of ritualized fellatio. And war was a time of celibacy, much like
how athletes avoid sex before the big game.
*The incorrect assumption that two generations of Dakota consciously
changed their dialect. The idea that language can change so rapidly is
dubious.
*The equally incorrect assumption that bifurcate merging kin terms are a
conscious choice; one could argue something far more convincingly about
lineal kin terms in English, which originally had a bifurcate collateral
system, much like Arabic or Chinese. (In fact, in the surviving Indian
languages, bifurcate merging seems to be the rule, not the exception.)
*The assertion that the Sun Dance was originally a woodlands ceremony,
which certainly explains why there's no evidence of anyone west of the
Mississippi doing it, but a lot of peoples on the plains do.
*The indefensible statement that words such as "admit", "assume", etc.
Apparently tokis, chuke, and a host of other words which translate
directly as words Hill said didn't exist, don't count.
*"The American Indian, even before Columbus, was the remnant of a very old
race in its final stage, a race that had attained perhaps the highest
working concept of individualism ever practiced." Between the 19th-century
bias obvious by the use of the word 'race' and the complete ignorance of
the nature of the Lakota economy, it's clear she's thinking with Ayn Rand
now.
*Her views of Lakota marriage. Her presentation of relationships between
co-wives is completely inaccurate, and she perpetuates the stereotype of
Indian men beating their wives. The thing is, Lakota women owned basically
all the property in the family, and if she wanted a divorce, she'd just
leave what things were his outside the tipi.
*"Archaic" Sioux. A secret language used before the white man came,
apparently now dead. How the hell do you speak a dead language which was
never written down?
*The claim that the Santee were the sole keepers of ancient traditions,
thus infurating the Itazipaco of the Cheyenne River reserve, where the
sacred pipe's really kept.



It is a great book. If you
are interested in the history of the Sioux nation, it is probably one of the
best.
"gonefishiing" wrote in message
...


no i have not
what is this book?
gf.

"katysails" wrote in message
...


Have you read _Honta Yo_? It's one of the best books I've ever read....

DSK wrote in message news:1Zthd.26687

Agreed... a must for anybody interested in American culture and history.

DSK

Total fiction BS DSK. Ask any injun.

Joe

tlagiloi wrote in message ...
the book is piece of white mythical bull**** trash.......

That's what I was getting at. It's all Ayn Rand in the end,
though her characters were 100% hetero.