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:
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.
Spending all that time researching and writing a script only to recreate a bad interpretation of the film from the 1980s. Like I’m pretty sure the critical reappraisal of the film would already contain counterpoints to the points this guy is making. Like is this take out of a time capsule?
Pretty much. It’s a WELL AKSHUALLY IT NEVER EXPLICITLY SAYS FASCISM IS BAD. Never mind that if you look at it just barely beyond face value it totally does. I got this in jr high
What if, instead of Everything Must be Didactic or the Fascists Win, we make more art like Sorry to Bother You that isn’t didactic but is still pretty impossible to misinterpret? Surely there’s a better way to make antifascist art than making the same thing a fascist would make but taken slightly too far.
I thought starship troopers was very on the nose
It is, and I think the majority of the fascists that misinterpret it probably realize that it’s not meant to be fascist propaganda. It’s just like how we sometimes look at anticommunist stuff that portrays us as extremely powerful and hot rebels and we embrace it. Not all fascists are media illiterate, and many are cynical enough to see the utility of signal boosting media that plays into the image that they unironically believe in.
What signal boost? If only fascists think it’s cool and good than it seems like it’s not great propaganda
People like Critical Drinker or that kind of chud promote it to their audiences.
A chud pr9moting a chud take to a chud audience isn’t really changing anything