Talk:Folklore of the United States
This is the talk page for discussing improvements to the Folklore of the United States article. This is not a forum for general discussion of the article's subject. |
Article policies
|
Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL |
Archives: 1Auto-archiving period: 12 months |
This article is rated C-class on Wikipedia's content assessment scale. It is of interest to the following WikiProjects: | |||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
|
Untitled
[edit]"Folklore" itself is a term rife with contradiction and confusion, and does little to accurately describe what it seeks to describe. Certainly, storytelling in its many guises (from jokes to parables to movies to the library story hour) in included, as are the rhymes and songs learned by ear on the playground or around the campfire. The best way to characterize American Folklore is to say that it is comprised of those secular tales which, while possibly religious in nature in some cases, mostly conerned themselves with making mythic the mundane beliefs of an itinerant people. American Folklore is particularly interested in manufacturing a ready-made national identity for its disparate, multi-lingual, multi-cultural society. It seeks to create a big picture for the nation to rally around. It uses many tools, including false history, magical realism, satire and an almost maniacal obsession with the exoticism of "local color." Those tools can be deployed as a means of appealing to the "better angels" of the American conscience. But just as often, they can be abused for the agrandizement of a few at the expense of key groups within the whole. In many cases, both uses coexist in an interesting, beautiful, sickening and deadly "melting pot" of intentions.
I removed this paragraph to talk, because I see some serious NPOV issues here. It fairly reeks of postmodern condescension, and strikes me as inappropriately focused on identity politics. Questioning the validity of folklore as a meaningful category or a subject for study probably belongs on the folklore page itself, rather in any case. The history credits most of this text to the ever-prolific Conversion Script. What say ye? -- IHCOYC 14:30 Apr 24, 2003 (UTC)
Pocahontas a Savage?
[edit]Surely some of the European settlers felt that Native Americans were savages, but should we really list Geronimo, Pocahontas, Squanto and Hiawatha under "Animals and Savages" as if there were no disputing that they were no more civilized than bigfoot? So I'm just going to remove them from that category, and if anyone feels they should be in this article, perhaps they can insert them somewhere not so demeaning. --Misfit 03:44, 8 Aug 2003 (UTC)
Is the 2020 presidential election "folklore"
[edit]It says that the 2020 presidential election is folklore. I find that hard to believe. We should remove it. PythonicWikier (talk) 01:56, 1 May 2023 (UTC)
- I assume the logic is that there was a ton of 'mythology' around the election. Hoaxes of voter fraud and pseudo-religious nonsense in favor of Trump absolutely garnered a mythic cycle around the event that can very well be considered 'folklore'. And I mean, several pieces of American folklore are just political upheaval given a folklorical bend--Amelia-the-comic-geek (talk) 23:08, 27 November 2023 (UTC)
Banastre Tarleton ?
[edit]I was going to add Tarleton add to the list but he’s not a hero as the paragraph say. Yet Benedict Arnold is included. Could Tarleton be an anti-hero? Or under some other category? There are certainly plenty of stories about him. What comes to mind are the tales of women dropping their babies and nannies frightening children by mentioning his name. Maybe there should be a section entitled “Villains”! In addition to Tarleton, it could include Butler, Brant, and Wemyss. You could even throw in King George III ! What do you think? Humphrey Tribble (talk) 06:59, 4 November 2023 (UTC)
- Perhaps they were the folk devils of their era. Dimadick (talk) 22:39, 4 November 2023 (UTC)
- I wasn’t familiar with that concept. Thank you for pointing out the article Dimadick (talk · contribs). Tarleton was certainly demonized. The persecution of Tories might also fit. I suppose the way Patriots described “The British” as a kind of evil symbol qualifies them as folk devils. I will do at least a quick search to see if the concept has been applied to the revolution in any way. Humphrey Tribble (talk) 23:47, 4 November 2023 (UTC)
Weezer?
[edit]Here, it says that this page links Weezer. Where does this occur in the page? Or am I just misunderstanding the tool? Omega9872 (talk) 19:11, 28 December 2023 (UTC)
- @Omega9872, they're linked in the Shaker music template box next to the Shaker music section. Woodroar (talk) 19:34, 28 December 2023 (UTC)
- Thank you. Omega9872 (talk) 20:18, 28 December 2023 (UTC)
- C-Class Folklore articles
- Mid-importance Folklore articles
- WikiProject Folklore articles
- C-Class United States articles
- Mid-importance United States articles
- C-Class United States articles of Mid-importance
- C-Class American Old West articles
- Mid-importance American Old West articles
- WikiProject American Old West articles
- C-Class United States History articles
- Mid-importance United States History articles
- WikiProject United States History articles
- WikiProject United States articles
- C-Class Literature articles
- Mid-importance Literature articles
- C-Class Religion articles
- Mid-importance Religion articles
- WikiProject Religion articles
- C-Class sociology articles
- Mid-importance sociology articles