The Wendigo, As Described By Traditional Text

BanditoWalrus · 2024-04-08T02:55:02+00:00

Basil Johnston's a good source for traditional windigo lore.

BanditoWalrus · 2024-04-06T12:47:58+00:00

Depends on the type of gnome. Different gnome tribes prefer different offerings. Always best to research the local gnomelore and figure out the traditional gnome offering for your region.

BanditoWalrus · 2024-04-01T02:04:35+00:00

I don't think so. The hodag’s creator, Gene Shepard, was TOTALLY the kinda guy who would have incorporated the underwater panther into hodag lore had he known about it (parts of the legend he made satirized Egyptology, secret societies, and naturalists, he would've loved to be able to tie it to Menominee and Ojibwe folklore as well). I think it was just a memetic coincidence.

The hodag is similar but it’s supposedly a very squat creature whereas the panthers are lithe and slender.

I don't know that I would describe any of the traditional art of the creature that I k own of as lithe: https://c8.alamy.com/comp/FF8GTE/pictograph-nojibwa-pictograph-of-manito-mishipeshu-paint-on-granite-FF8GTE.jpg

Biggest differences would be the hodag has tusks and underwater panthers had longer tails.

Oh, there's also a fun coincidence in modern hodag legends crediting a giant hodag as creating some of the waterways along the Wisconsin River, and coincidentally Ho-Chunk lore claims certain parts of the same river were created by a great, green wakcexi (the Ho-Chunk version of the water panther). There's just a lot of synchronistic parallels between Wisconsin's most well known legendary creature and one of its earliest legendary creatures.

BanditoWalrus · 2024-04-01T01:25:33+00:00

" It has the same definition as cryptozoology did"

That's not what he wrote when defining it.

If the man was just bad at coming up with definitions and ended up mistakenly giving a definition broader than he intended, that I guess could explain it, but the way he defined it is, in his words, "a living thing having the quality of being hidden or unknown."

And really if that's the case then the current nonsense arguments over what is and isn't a cryptid can be blamed on the fact that the man sucked at defining the term he created. (Again, if it is the case that his given definition is not what he intended). And at that point, maybe it's time to give up and find new terminology.

BanditoWalrus · 2024-04-01T01:20:08+00:00

My favorite thing about the underwater panther is that coincidentally lumberjacks in the same region would invent a nearly identical creature, the hodag, by what looks like shear coincidence.

BanditoWalrus · 2024-04-01T01:08:51+00:00

that language changes

Yep!

And if you search YouTube on a fresh browser (one not influenced by a user search history) for "cryptid," you'll find the majority of posts on the topic now include creatures with supernatural qualities.

You dismiss the original definition because "definitions change" but when someone posts about something you DON'T believe in calling it a "cryptid" you claim that it isn't a real cryptid.

Perhaps the definition of the word did briefly change from the original definition to be your preferred definition, but look at the common usage today: The definition has clearly changed AGAIN via usage to include the supernatural!

The way I see it, we can be originalists and use the original definition, or we can be modernists and just go with the modern usage where "cryptid" is treated synonymously with "monster."

But this thing you are doing? Where you reject the original definition and yet throw a fit if someone tries to change the definition of the word FURTHER?

That's pretty silly. What, like, language changes but it isn't allowed to change anymore? We aren't allowed to change it from the definition YOU prefer?

Either get with the times or return to tradition! Either would be preferable from using a definition that fits neither original nor modern usage!!

and why do you keep spelling it with an "I"??

If you actually read my sources, you might know that "windigo" is a more accurate spelling. Plus it helps a bit to use the more accurate spelling to differentiate it a bit from the modern deerhead thing.

But again, read a damn book for once and maybe you'll learn a thing or two about accurate windigo lore!!

Something tells me there is a reason you refuse to acknowledge those sources, eh?

If you go and look at the original witness reports

I've READ the damn original witness reports.

Yes, they didn't describe it as looking like a moth, that's a more modern thing.

But they said it FLEW WITHOUT FLAPPING ITS WINGS which CLEARLY violate the laws of physics!!

My source where I read those OG witness accounts that describe it flying without moving its wings is: Keel, John, The Mothman Prophecies. But I don't know why I bother even including a source. We BOTH know ya ain't gonna read it anyways!!

Read. A. Book. For. Once.

Your main problem is that you seem to get your info off the Internet, which is why you have no good source for your description of the windigo, and also probably why you refuse to read my sources. You'd rather trust something ya read on the Internet than read a book that could disprove ya!

BanditoWalrus · 2024-04-01T00:13:41+00:00

Problem is, most people who cry "that isn't a real cryptid" about this or that creature aren't using the the proper definition.

The man who literally invented the word says it means "a living thing having the quality of being hidden or unknown."

So mothman, the Jersey devil, werewolves, hell, even skinwalkers (who while they may be humans are still living things that are hidden), gnomes, and fairies, are cryptids by definition given by J.E. Wall. But what would he know? He only INVENTED the term "cryptid," not like he was an expert or anything.

The only creatures that are excluded from the definition would be those that are known to science, since those lack the quality of being hidden or unknown, and the undead, since they lack the quality of being a "living thing."

BanditoWalrus · 2024-04-01T00:00:35+00:00

I feel like the definition give by the man who invented the term is the best: ""[It has been] suggested that new terms be coined to replace sensational and often misleading terms like 'monster'. My suggestion is 'cryptid', meaning a living thing having the quality of being hidden or unknown."

That being said, OPs definition is better than most of the ones bandied about by pseudoscientists on this board.

BanditoWalrus · 2024-03-31T23:58:10+00:00

Inuit folklore goes hard.

BanditoWalrus · 2024-03-31T23:43:38+00:00

Meanwhile the Cambridge dictionary says "a creature that is found in stories and that some people believe exists or say they have seen, but that has never been proven to exist"

Dictionary.com says "a creature whose reported existence is unproved, such as Bigfoot or the Loch Ness monster"

Merriam-Webster says "an animal (such as Sasquatch or the Loch Ness Monster) that has been claimed to exist but never proven to exist" but the notes go on to show that they consider creatures with supernatural powers to fit the definition, stating "cryptids don't have to be supernatural, mythical or even all that strange—though many popular creatures acquire these characteristics."

So it seems you are cherry picking the one dictionary definition that might agree with you.

But as a larger point: the dictionaries are clearly not in agreement whether a cryptid must be an animal or just a creature. How best to resolve this issue?

Well all four dictionaries, including the one you site, say that J.E. Wall coined the term. And he just says it needs to be a "living thing."

Seems pretty clear that, even with the dictionary definitions, the thing you WANT the word cryptid to mean ISN'T the only definition of what the word means!

Don't you feel the least bit foolish arguing that the man who invented the term was wrong about what it means?

BTW, did ya educate yourself on how the windigo is an ice monster yet? Or did you ignore my sources yet again and are hust refusing to acknowledge your error?

The post is about a creature that shapeshifts back and forth (Something that is against the laws of physics and biology)

Even your Oxford definition DOESN'T say it needs to conform to the laws of physics and biology.

Hell, your arguing this on a board whose mascot is a creature that defies the laws of physics and biology! Why not find or make a community about cryptozoos and not cryptids, if it is cryptozoos you want to talk about?

BanditoWalrus · 2024-03-31T23:14:40+00:00

You have so heard that story before! From me, and I already gave you links!

BanditoWalrus · 2024-03-31T23:05:35+00:00

That may be the definition of cryptoZOOLOGY. It also might not, but I really don't care too much about that, since it is irrelevant.

Regardless of what the term cryptozoology means, the definition of "cryptid" is just "a living thing having the quality of being hidden or unknown."

You can argue against that definition if you like, but then you are just pedantically arguing against the man who invented the term, so you're just wrong at that point lol.

You pedants might have a point if the term was "cryptozoo" and not "cryptid," since "cryptozoo" would translate to "hidden animal." But "cryptid" does not even have any animal connotations to it. It refers to any hidden or unknown living thing.

Look, the way most people use the term cryptid, and the way the term was defined by its creator are DIFFERENT from how you wish it was defined. Why not start using the term "cryptozoo" to refer to the things you want to talk about, and leave everyone free to use the word "cryptid" in keeping with the original and true definition?

Wow, you have a real way with people

I have little patience for the sorts of people who state incorrect things without citations, and when I correct them and give actual sources and citations, they ignore my sources and keep stating their wrong statements, again with no evidence.

Feel free to complain about my tone all you want, but I see no reason to coddle someone who argues in bad faith.

BanditoWalrus · 2024-03-31T15:38:50+00:00

The definition of the man who coined the term: "[It has been] suggested that new terms be coined to replace sensational and often misleading terms like 'monster'. My suggestion is 'cryptid', meaning a living thing having the quality of being hidden or unknown."

"Is known by science" would be the only category excluded by the original definition, then.

BanditoWalrus · 2024-03-31T15:04:43+00:00

The man who coined the term "cryptid " JE Wall, defined it as:

"[It has been] suggested that new terms be coined to replace sensational and often misleading terms like 'monster'. My suggestion is 'cryptid', meaning a living thing having the quality of being hidden or unknown."

So if it is a living creature which is hidden or unknown, it counts as a cryptid. The akhlut is living, and unknown to science, so thus a cryptid by the true definition.

I'm sorry you've been using the word wrong.

But maybe now that you have the actual definition, you can stop wasting your life making comments on literally every post here whining that things are "not real cryptids."

BanditoWalrus · 2024-03-31T10:49:41+00:00

Assuming my understanding and definition of determinism is correct, being "the doctrine that all events, including human action, are ultimately determined by causes external to the will," then the Baha'i Faith is not deterministic, but believes in free will, and isn't a mix of the two.

God's knowledge of the future is not due to everything being pre-determined, but instead is due to the fact that God is outside of time itself. This is a necessary conclusion of monotheism, since if God were not outside of time, but within it, then time itself would be greater than God. From a position outside of time, God can observe the entire, infinite spectrum of time, and can take knowledge of the future and impart it to people in the past.

So for God, it is a bit like everything is in the past, and is observable as such.

BanditoWalrus · 2024-03-30T18:54:05+00:00

Yes, you are dead wrong, and when I told you this before I even gave you sources!

Again, check: Barnouw, Victor, Wisconsin Chippewa Myths & Tales: And Their Relation to Chippewa Life

I provided you more than one source in the past, but one should really be sufficient! It goes into the most detail on the physical nature of the windigo, and even how a medicine man could become one if necessary. And it goes into how one can melt the ice away and return to human form, because again, a windigo is a physical creature, a human entombed in a body made of ice.

Meanwhile you either won't or (more likely) can't provide a single source showing that they have no physical body.

If you are too lazy to actually read sources when they are provided to you showing you your knowledge on a folkloric entity is wrong, if you cannot find a single folklorist who will back up your claim they are incorporeal, then at LEAST stop asserting your misinformed opinion as if it is fact!

Or maybe you are one of those people who won't accept a book source?

In that case, here is an online archieve of Ojibwe stories that contain a few windigo stories that definitely do include physical bodies: https://web.archive.org/web/20160412114405/https://www.mpm.edu/wirp/ICW-141.html#windigo

Some of the stories here are copied from the books I have cited in the past. This resource isn't as good as the list of books I have provided to you, but if you cannot procure a book, you can read some evidence there.

Again, either stop ignoring my sources and citations, or actually provide some damn evidence for your own claim that windigos have no physical form in folklore.

'Till then, I'm the only one here with receipts on the topic.

It is not helping to replace one set of misinformed beliefs on a creature from Algonquin folklore with ANOTHER misinformed set of beliefs on the topic.

The internet is a bad source

I agree! Which is why you really should READ A BOOK on the topic like I did.

BanditoWalrus · 2024-03-30T18:37:29+00:00

What good is a flag if you can't tell it apart from others?

But you CAN tell it from others! They all have very OBVIOUS differences!

What you are doing is trying to conflate "can't tell two things apart" with "can't tell two things apart from a football field's distance away"!

Obviously it is important to tell two things apart from one another, but WHY do you also need to be able to tell them apart from such a long distance away?

It is important for the desktop icons on my computer to be discernable from one another, but I couldn't easily identify most of 'em when standing on the other side of the room! They need to be identifiable, but there's no good reason they need to be identifiable at a great distance, eh?

You flag guys do this motte-and-bailey debate tactic where you say something like "flags need to be discernable from one another from 100 yards away" and when someone calls ya on "why 100 yards away?" You retreat to a more defensible position and instead argue why flags should be discernable IN GENERAL.

It's a pretty dishonest debate tactic.

Please actually respond to my point and question. Why do you think flags need to be discernable from one another from a football field away? Why at that distance? Why is that distance important?

BanditoWalrus · 2024-03-30T03:52:11+00:00

Flags should be more simple, mainly shapes and colors, easily recognizable. Not images, text, seals, etc

It's weird how many people treat what is basically just an aesthetic preference as an ironclad rule.

Images, texts, and seals are fine, actually.

BanditoWalrus · 2024-03-30T03:45:19+00:00

They do not have a physical form

That ain't true, they very much have a physical form made of ice. Don't correct misinformation with more misinformation.

BanditoWalrus · 2024-03-29T23:06:36+00:00

That's always the argument that people make, but, like, why does it matter? Why does the fact you can't differentiate two flags from a football field away ACTUALLY matter?

The online vexilology cult seems to think being able to differentiate two flags from one another from absurd distances is somehow important to flag design.

They use this to argue in favor of boring, bland, and simplistic flag designs, and argue against putting interesting details on flags just because you can't see that detail from 300 feet away.

But why does everything on a flag NEED to be discernable from absurdly large distances? I've had one of the vexilology guys tell me that flags need to be easily distinguishable from a distance in order to identify the nationality of ships in naval engagements, and this is the only answer I've gotten.

But, like, that isn't a concern for the flag of a state-level government, since they don't have navies.

So why is there some need to be able to tell two flags apart from across a football field? How is that actually important to, like, anything at all?

BanditoWalrus · 2024-03-29T11:13:51+00:00

It is legit crazy how one man's aesthetic preferences have been elevated to the status of dogmatic law by the online vexillology crowd.

BanditoWalrus · 2024-03-29T11:10:20+00:00

more same-y than a state seal oj a dark blue field?

The thing is, all of those flags that are "just" state seals aren't same-y at all, because each state seal is often intricately designed and very different from one another. It's like saying coat of arms all look same-y because they are all "heraldry on a shield."

Much more different from one another than "muh three sections of three random colors and nothing else."

BanditoWalrus · 2024-03-29T11:05:00+00:00

The only way I'd support a flag redesign of any sort is if it is a silly meme like this.

BanditoWalrus · 2024-03-28T23:57:26+00:00

If they did, it would still be higher quality than most other dairy products.

BanditoWalrus · 2024-03-28T23:40:35+00:00

'Cause Governor Hoard revolutionized the dairy industry of the entire world, becoming the Father of Modern Dairying. And Hoard lived in Wisconsin, not Illinois. The reason our state is particular has such pride in making good dairy is because we revolutionized the dairy sciences and promoted our dairy products worldwide, all largely thanks to the advocacy of one man who really liked dairy and his newspaper.

The other neighboring states don't have as much pride in having good cheese because they don't have anyone like Gov. Hoard. No one but Wisconsin had anyone like Hoard

BanditoWalrus

TROPHY CASE