A tomahawk is a type of single-handed axe used by the many Indigenous peoples and nations of North America. It traditionally resembles a hatchet with a straight shaft. In pre-colonial times the head was made of stone, bone, or antler, and European settlers later introduced heads of iron and steel. The term came into the English language in the 17th century as an adaptation of the Powhatan (Virginian Algonquian) word.
Tomahawks were general-purpose tools used by Native Americans and later the European colonials with whom they traded, and often employed as a hand-to-hand weapon
Etymology
The name comes from Powhatan tamahaac, derived from the Proto-Algonquian root *temah- 'to cut off by tool'. Algonquian cognates include Lenape təmahikan, Malecite-Passamaquoddy tomhikon, and Abenaki demahigan, all of which mean 'axe'
History
The Algonquian people created the tomahawk. Before Europeans came to the continent, Native Americans would use stones, sharpened by a process of knapping and pecking, attached to wooden handles, secured with strips of rawhide. The tomahawk quickly spread from the Algonquian culture to the tribes of the South and the Great Plains.
Native Americans created a tomahawk’s poll, the side opposite the blade, which consisted of a hammer, spike or pipe. These became known as pipe tomahawks, which consisted of a bowl on the poll and a hollowed out shaft.
General Purpose Tool
Many Native Americans used tomahawks as general-purpose tools. Because they were small and light, they could be used with one hand. This made them ideal for such activities as hunting, chopping, and cutting. Both the Navajo and Cherokee peoples used them in this way. The development of metal-bladed tomahawks expanded their use even more. Most Native Americans had their own individual tomahawks, which they decorated to suit their personal taste. As Native American artwork shows, many of these were decorated with eagle feathers, which represented acts of bravery.
Megathreads and spaces to hang out:
- 📀 Come listen to music and Watch movies with your fellow Hexbears nerd, in Cy.tube
- 🔥 Read and talk about a current topics in the News Megathread
- ⚔ Come talk in the New Weekly PoC thread
- ✨ Talk with fellow Trans comrades in the New Weekly Trans thread
- 👊 Share your gains and goals with your comrades in the New Weekly Improvement thread
- 🧡 Disabled comm megathread
reminders:
- 💚 You nerds can join specific comms to see posts about all sorts of topics
- 💙 Hexbear’s algorithm prioritizes comments over upbears
- 💜 Sorting by new you nerd
- 🌈 If you ever want to make your own megathread, you can reserve a spot here nerd
- 🐶 Join the unofficial Hexbear-adjacent Mastodon instance toots.matapacos.dog
Links To Resources (Aid and Theory):
Aid:
Theory:
YouTube keeps recommending me that 3 hour video about why starship troopers is bad satire. So I caved. 41 minutes in and it's well researched and has a bibliography and stuff but seems to miss something thst can be really easily read from the film; it's an in universe propaganda film. It's not explicitly showing the downsides of fascism cause the idea is that it's for an already Sci fi fascist audience. The would you like to know more bits aren't family guy style cutaways. I thought it was obvious as hell this movie wasn't meant as a straight depiction of events, it's a fictional propaganda piece. Unless that's addressed than the whole premise kinds falls apart for me.
I feel like if the audience is smart, they should be able to just get the satire without needing to see any other side, or having something tell them what the point is? That's basically how good writing works.
So far I'm getting Everything Must be Didactic or the Fascists Win vibes. As someone who doesn't think we should compromise anything let alone art in the face of fascists even if you risk them totally not getting the point and liking it. They'll do it to whatever you make anyway. The last thing you should consider when making art is what fascists will think of it, hopefully they aren't your audience.
I'm playing f zero while listening and holy hell is this guy just brutally missing the most obvious thing about the movie. See my first post. Dude is taking 3 hours to elaborate on his fundamentally wrong premise. Gave up. I hate this kind of analysis SO much.