Talk:Cowboy/Archive 2

Cowboy origins discussion

(Because this page dated back to 2004 and some discussions have started up again, for clarity's sake, I created an archive of the old discussions and only kept what is currently being discussed. Feel free to restore anything from the archive that you think belongs here, just trying to not continue a discussion started by a vanished user somewhere in 2004...I think everything in the archive has been settled, only current stuff is here) Montanabw^(talk) 06:13, 5 May 2008 (UTC)

Southern tradition discussion

Sorry guy, the fact is, the American cowboy did in fact originate in what is now the US southwest, not "the South". The South was plantation land, and not suitable for ranching. Your "evidence" consists of Hollywood depictions, and that is largely what the Europeans make fun of. They know it's a stereotype of make believe. The first US American cowboys were in fact the vaqueros employed by the King Ranch in Texas. The lingo of the cowboy, the names of the equipment, so much comes straight from Mexican Spanish. Indeed, southern whites became cowboys, but only over time and certainly AFTER the ranchos and vaqueros had been going for some time. Tmangray (talk) 01:24, 16 April 2008 (UTC)

Tman, note that the last dated comment on this issue was posted in 2005...? (smile). No need to respond to long-dead arguments over long-superceded versions of an article, eh? (LOL!) Montanabw^(talk) 07:43, 16 April 2008 (UTC)

This is an interesting discussion above. I will be the first to admit I am no expert on the matter, so I hope my own two-cents worth on the topic at hand will be tolerated! LOL

Anyway, from what I have read and researched (which admittedly is not extensive) the original Texas cowboy IS, in fact, much more strongly rooted in the "Old South" drover traditions than Mexican vaqeros and the "tending and herding" tradition. This is NOT to say that the latter didn't have considerable influence, only that the Southern roots are much stronger.

This would seem to make good sense. After all, the true "cattle boom" in Texas began after the War Between the States (in fact, the reasons for it are directly traceable to the War...specifically, the fall of Vickburg in 1863). It was at that time that many displaced people from the southeast migrated to Texas looking to get a new start (which is one reason why Texas is essentially a Southern, not truly "western" state). Cheap land and untended cattle were commodities to take advantage of and, for the most part, the people who did it in Texas were ex-Confederate soldiers and their sons who would not have had "time to absorb" much of the Mexican vaqero culture.

James Michner's book "Texas" brings out some of this. True, it is a work of fiction, but it was extensively researched and based on solid facts about Texas history. And some of it may have been based on the book "Trails to Texas; Southern Roots of Western Cattle Ranching"

I haven't read it in its entirety yet, but intend to. From what I have gleaned though, it is based on solid historical evidence and fact. A few additions to the Texas Cowboy segment may be in order later to reflect more of this Southern tradition and roots. TexasReb (talk) 12:49, 27 April 2008 (UTC)

Hi Reb, the Bottom line is far simpler. There are multiple origins for the cowboy, not simply Texas. The cowboy traditions varied from place to place primarily due to geography (different clothing and different ways of herding and restraining cattle were influenced by climate, terrain, vegetation, etc...) and beyond geography, there was some influence by what ethnic groups of people came to various areas. The Spanish Mexicans lived in what today is the Southwestern United States from the early 1500's on, and when Texas became a state, there was considerable Hispanic influence already there--the saddles, the cattle, the breeding of a certain type of horse, the basic methods of handling cattle in that environment, etc... Further, as American settlers come into the area, some of the first actually did so with the blessings of the Mexican government, eager to populate certain areas (though, obviously, by the late 1840s, things had soured more than a bit!). From there, the Civil War wasn't a huge influence on the cowboy tradition directly, though the increased demand for beef afterwards definitely was a factor. But for Texas, the growth of railroads was probably the biggest shaping influence on the American cowboy -- the massive cattle drives north from Texas were to get herds to the rallheads in Kansas. While I admire good research, Michener isn't a verifiable source for wikipedia, and just because he researches doesn't mean that he doesn't also take some historical license (wink), And on the issue of Texas as a southern/western state, the state itself differs geographically from east to west, the 96th meridian (line of longitude) runs through it, and that line has long been recognized as a rough dividing point of the USA between the wetter eastern half and the drier west (the Mississippi isn't really a true dividing line in terms of either culture or climate). Essentially, east Texas has more in common with the south than the west, including population distribution, climate and culture; while west Texas clearly shares more characteristics with the rest of the southwest than the south. Anyway, hope this clarifies matters. Montanabw^(talk) 04:11, 28 April 2008 (UTC)

Thanks in turn for your interesting comments. Like I say, I am certainly no expert on the matter, but just for clarification, I wasn't suggesting that Michner's book be a source per se, only that his book was extensively researched in its content. Actually, the official source I was mentioning was Terry Jordan's "Trails to Texas: Southern roots of Western Cattle Ranching." This is the one which makes the case that the original Texas cowboy prototype was more influenced by the traditions and habits of the Southern cattle drover than the Mexican vaquero. You might want to check it out sometime, as this is an area you are obviously interested in. Just as a final note in passing, I would disagree a bit that west Texas is clearly more southwestern than Southern. Now, in a physical and topographical sense, this is certainly true. And so far as the trans-pecos goes, is true in all realms. However, most of West Texas settled by Southerners and, unlike the true SW states of New Mexico and Arizona, the Southern influence dominates in many ways. For instance, speech, religion (the Southern Baptist Church being the largest protestant denomination), and other areas much different than the other two states. West Texas might be better described as "Western South". That is, a place where Southern culture is blended with characteristics of the post-bellum West. On the other hand, New Mexico and Arizona are the "southern West" with nothing classically Southern about them. But anyway, that is getting a bit off topic! LOL Thanks again for your thoughts! :-) TexasReb (talk) 18:00, 28 April 2008 (UTC)

I agree as to Texas having a lot of southern cultural elements, particularly as compared to New Mexico and Arizona. I kind of like "Western South" (LOL) As a person from the northern Rockies, I get really tired of Montana cowboys portrayed in movies speaking with a Texas accent. (Arrgh!) Of course, you also omit mention that the hispanic influence on Texas is also considerable, and as far as "settled," I don't know how hispanic folks were treated in Texas, but in NM, they clearly had "settled" much of the region long before white folks showed up, lumped them in with Indians, said, "what land grant from the Mexican government?" and proceeded to appropriate most of the land...  ;-) I was speaking of topography, which to me is one of the primary influences on the cowboy (gotta do what you gotta do in the place you are at, geography is destiny! LOL!) But the only point I really want to make is that the cowboy wasn't invented just in Texas. I also don't think, absent a time machine, that a person can make a true assessment as to which influence was "more" pervasive, as, in my humble opinion, the geography and needs of the place itself becomes the "main" influence in short order and cowboys, if nothing else, were very practical people. Obviously, the differences between the "Texas" and the "California" traditions clearly show that there were all sorts of things added to the original vaquero culture, which itself was not uniform across either Spain or Mexico. ("California" style has more Native American and French fur trapper influences than they care to admit, too...LOL). Anyway, good chat. If you want to toss in some info on the southern influences on the Texas tradition, with footnotes to Jordan, feel free to whip up a paragraph and post it here, and we can figure out how to work it into the article (always remembering WP:UNDUE and keeping it balanced.) Montanabw^(talk) 17:43, 30 April 2008 (UTC)

Follow up: I'm sort of reviewing the article with an eye to adding additional references (it's a little short to be ideal) and noted that there is a brief mention of eastern (probably including southeastern) traditions influencing the Texas Tradition in the history section at Cowboy#Texas_tradition. May be the place to add any expansion on southern influences. Montanabw^(talk) 08:13, 5 May 2008 (UTC)

Hi Montana. I am looking forward to reading your possible additions to the article. Again, you might want to get hold of the work by Terry Jordon that I mentioned referring to at least a goodly part of the roots of the Texas cowboy being in the southeast. And on that topic -- and I say this in good humor of course -- please cut me a little slack here, ala' your statement in an earlier post where you said I "omit" mention of the Mexican vaquero influence in Texas. Actually, in my original post I did indeed note that such was considerable and well-entrenched long before anglo settlement from the United States. My main point was that the Texas cowboy and habits and lifestyle were, if not more, at least equally, decended from drover tradition of the Old South. Where most of the stock came from.

As I am sure you know, the origins of the Texas "cattle boom" era is traceable to the fall of Vickburg during the "Civil War." That town on the Mississippi River was called the "nailhead" of the Confederacy, holding the eastern and western sections together. It was there that Texas cattle were driven east to feed the Confederate armies. Once the yankees controlled it however, the market to the rest of the South was cut off and, with most Texas men off fighting the war, the untended herds multiplied and roamed wild. After the war though, because Texas emerged relatively unscathed physically, many southesterners migrated there to get a new start because of the cheap land. And sure enough, a commodity to be taken advantage of were the unowned herds of wild cattle. There was still no market in the South (having been devastated by war), so those early cattle barons (most of them former Confederate soldiers) drove them north to Kansas. Anyway, point being that it would seem to stand to reason that while certainly much of the Texas cowboy tradition was adopted from the already solidified vaquero presence, all in all, these men were Southerners and readily became cowboys by virtue of being familiar with the old Southern "drover" tradition.

Anyway, better stop rambling here! LOL Let me just say though that I am learning quite a bit myself from your posts! :-) TexasReb (talk) 14:14, 10 May 2008 (UTC)

Texasreb's facts are definitely right. The drover tradition dominated, particularly after the Civil War. This is reflected in the saddles used at the time. The Texian herders largely rode modified McClellan saddles initially, while their Tejano counterparts rode a more typical Mexican saddle. Once the Texians headed North, they were influenced heavily by the California-style stock saddle, which was fairly well established already, and was advertized in saddlery catalogs in Colorado. But this history is definitely part of the cowboy story. Getwood (talk) 01:54, 11 May 2008 (UTC)

LOL you guys! I do appreciate some more in-depth analysis that explains your thought process and info you want to use, and I'm not opposed to adding it, but DID you notice that I just added a TON of stuff just last night? (Note the article history - LOL!). I also did a bunch of rearranging and such, so there may be some sections that look dramatically different.

I did get more stuff in on the Kansas drives and the way that the building of meatpacking plants in Chicago started the postwar boom. But actually, the Vicksburg story was a new one to me as far as its influence on the cattle industry, (my personal interest is more in the California tradition and Pac NW stuff), the J Malone book never did explain WHY there were tons of feral cattle roaming around in Texas, so that's worth adding, for sure!. However, Reb, you may want to add the Jordan material yourself, because I had the Malone book sitting around for two freaking months before I got around to adding the stuff in it! (LOL) (Getwood knows I have been a little unduly distracted by some other matters that were sucking my will to wiki for a while! (grin)) I honestly have to admit that I don't have the time to get it and it would be better if someone who knows the material adds it, anyway.

J Malone was also fuzzy on all the reasons for the Texans to start moving cattle up into the northwest, mostly blaming it on population pressure and barbed wire. Seems sketchy to me...(In Montana, all we know is that they got here because we had lots of open range, with most of the big cattle outfits owned by eastern and European speculators who mostly went bust after the Winter of 1886-87.)

I am actually more than cool with adding stuff, it's appropriate as long as we avoid a "who had more influence" spat (Let's just say they are all influences and not get into ranking them, eh?) Getwood, if you have a source on your info on the saddles and the merging of the traditions, boy, please to toss that in too! I think that adding info on which parts of the Texas tradition came from the south, and anything about the drover/vaquero/Tejano amalgam is perfectly appropriate. Though, as you gents know more about the drover tradition than I do, so feel free to play with it and see what you can add. (but note Drover article sucks--the disambig goes to an Australian piece-- may need a new article on the Southeastern Drover with an American slant!)

The main thing is trying to keep stuff balanced with everything else in there. (Note we also have info on Florida and Hawaii that others besides me have added) The article is getting huge, though I am not sure there's much to be done about that, it may have to be huge. (Ideas for anything we could split off into another article, make suggestions, please!) but as I am in the early stages of cleaning up this article to prep it for a possible Good Article nomination, (which could take me months at the rate I've been working on GA stuff lately), it would be a kindness if you could provide proper footnotes and sourcing. I guess all I really have to say is that if you add stuff, please a) footnote it, b) try to make it flow nicely with what's there already, and c) not get too upset if I start wading in and wordsmithing your stuff (you can always complain and if I screwed up, I DO fix my messes, really I do. Usually, anyway). Or, toss a proposed section here if that's easier, and we can "sandbox" it until everyone thinks it's OK.

Getwood, if you are looking for additional adventures, take a gander at western saddle while you're at it. Montanabw^(talk) 02:44, 11 May 2008 (UTC)

Thanks, Montana. First of all though, I need to order the actual work by Jordan. I have read reviews of it and excerpts from it, but never the whole thing in entirety. Too, before I would add anything, I would definitely run it past y'all first. For one reason, my familiarity with the Texas cowboy and associated traditions, in an historical sense, is relatively limited (compared to you and Getwoods). That is, most of what I have read stems not so much from independent research on the cowboy per se, but as it ties into the larger framework of Texas/Southern history and culture. On a related tangent here, strange as this might sound to someone from the Northeast or industrial Midwest who believe that all Texans ride horses to work, the "cowboy and ranching culture" often associated with Texas (largely by virtue of the old Hollywood westerns) was not MY experience growing up in the state at all. Rather, like I dare say most whose family roots trace to migrating here after the "Civil War" (and I am a fourth generation native) it was more derived from the "Southern" lifestyle (i.e, cotton culture, fundamentalist religion, extended family, etc) than that of the individualistic and mythic "West"). That is to say -- if movies can serve as an example -- more like "Places In the Heart" than "Lonesome Dove" LOL

Another note before closing, I got a kick out of your mention of being a bit irritated by the fact many of these movies assign a "Texas accent" (or what passes for one in Hollywood! LOL) to Montana cowboys! Anyway, I am enjoying all this...and learning quite a bit! Thanks, y'all! TexasReb (talk) 12:10, 12 May 2008 (UTC)

The really painful accent one was casting Billy Ray Cyrus (wherever he is from) in that show as a Montana Doctor or something! =:-O But then, Far and Away used Montana as the setting for the Oklahoma Land Rush so maybe it all evens out! (Bad movie mistakes are yet another topic, eh?) LOL! (grin) And oh god, they only think you Texans ride horses to work? They think we Montanans don't even have indoor plumbing and central heating! I even actually had someone once ask me if we had TREES in Montana. (And replied with something smartass like it's North Dakota where there aren't any trees! LOL!) Of course, we sort of talk like a blend of California and Minnesota, but don't really want to admit that we DO know people who say things like "Margie, the Prowler needs a jump!". Montanabw^(talk) 22:33, 12 May 2008 (UTC)

LOL in turn, Montana. Yeah, Hollywood plays hell with the truth, don't they? I don't want to stray too far off topic, but one of the things that I always get both amused and irritated about as concerns Texas is the depiction of it being all desert and cactus (sorta like what you said of Montana stereotypes). Most the the Texas thing is very much rooted in those old Hollywood westerns...which were actually filmed in desert areas of Arizona and southern California. Don't get me wrong, I am a big fan of those flicks, but their popularity are largely responsible, in my honest opinion, of the false notions of Texas being one vast wasteland! LOL In fact, so well-entrenched is it in popular eastern mindset, that it lends to crazy stretches. For instance, I have seen productions in which the action took place across the state lines of various Southern states, but once the Louisiana border was crossed into Texas, the landscape changed instantaneously from thick pine forests to saguaro cactuses and buttes! LOL (In fact, there ARE no saquaro cactus in Texas...but there IS the largest Cypress tree forest in the world, at Caddo Lake in East Texas!). Another that comes to mind is in the old TV show "Walker, Texas Ranger." The "cowboy and Indian" association via the westerns I guess makes it that it would seem natural that there be an Indian reservation nearby. In fact, Texas has no true Indian reservations within its borders...that is in the sense of a place where the natives routinely dress in tribal garb, celebrate the old ways, and make turquoise jewelry, and etc.

Anyway, didn't mean to stray too much, just wanted to add a couple of things to your own observations concerning Montana! Am in the process of ordering the Jordan material, and will look it over, run it by you and Gatewood, and see if it works. How's that sound?  :-) TexasReb (talk) 15:01, 19 May 2008 (UTC)

Looking forward to the Jordan material. And indeed, Hollywood. Ever notice how even the alien planets in Star Trek bear an uncanny resemblance to certain parts of southern California? LOL! The only part of Texas I've been in was around Austin, which struck me as generally very hilly and green; much more humid climate than most of Montana. I have a friend living in east Texas, we trade weather reports from time to time. Humidity-- you can have it! (LOL) Had a cousin who once worked in the Midland area, now THAT looks pretty flat and dry. But indeed, the only Saquaros I have ever seen in the US of A were in Arizona. And yes, Montana has seven reservations but no turquoise vendors and the garb shows up mostly at Pow-wows. The NM/AZ area has lots of both reservations and turquoise (great pottery too), though I haven't checked out the powwow scene down there at all. But wasn't it actually the Texas Rangers who got their start running Native people out of Texas?? Montanabw^(talk) 03:21, 21 May 2008 (UTC)

Long Island Cowboys

No, I doubt this is true. This is supposed to be an encyclopedia so, if you are going to say "very true" or use "fact" - you should have some sort of reference. The term cowboy was being used before the Revolutionary War for ranchers on Long Island.[1] Claudius Smith was a leader of a gang called the cowboys. reniam January 17, 2008

I think the cowboys, with cattle drives, originated in the Long Island/New Jersey area sometime in the 18th century and continued into the 1930's. I remember reading about Claudius Smith the "Cowboy of the Ramapos" a crown supporter during the Revolutionary War.—Preceding unsigned comment added by Reniam (talk • contribs) 05:21, 17 February 2008 (UTC)

(Above comments from two earlier sections moved to archive)

That article says nothing about the specific usage "cowboy". It merely says there were cattle herders on Long Island, no big revelation. Whatever they actually called themselves, it's quite clear from the lingo, the geography and the origins of the actual earliest ranch hands (hands on the King Ranch of Texas who were overwhelmingly Mexican, and called vaqueros), that what we recognize as the American Cowboy had its origins in the US southwest, with a heavy input from the Mexican vaqueros. Tmangray (talk) 22:51, 13 April 2008 (UTC)

Vaquero is literally derived from vaca which is Spanish for "cow." Primarily young men did this work, many starting in their early to mid-teens. There were regional variations in the title, buckaroo, cowboy, cowpuncher, etc... I personally question the Long Island stuff, but can't find secondary sources in either direction, so see no real cause to remove it. As for the rest, cowboys were drawn from the lower social classes of young men of all races, Mexicans, Native Americans, African-Americans and poor whites. A "rancher" was and is the owner of the property, a cowboy (or ranch hand) the employee.

Tman, on an unrelated topic, would you object if I created an archive of these old discussions that were long dead? The article itself has been fairly stable for months and I see no reason to dredge up old stuff that isn't relevant to the article as it sits today (some of these debates are three years old!), so maybe just tuck away the old stuff for those who care to find if they wish, but otherwise, clean house for new discussions? Montanabw^(talk) 04:27, 28 April 2008 (UTC)

What the majority of people recognize as cowboys comes from Hollywood these last 60 years and is mostly fantasy. The first line of this article states: "A cowboy is an animal herder who tends livestock on ranches in North America and often performs a multitude of other ranch-related tasks." By that definition the herders on Long Island were cowboys. What they called themselves is irrelevant. If you must have use of the term cowboy, then there was a Tory gang called the Cowboys on Long Island before the Revolutionary War. After the Battle of Long Island they flopped alliance as profit dictated. There used to be a hanging tree in Manhattan known as the "Cowboy Oak[2]". This should be put in the history section since these are facts.

What the majority of people recognize as cowboys comes from Hollywood these last 60 years and is mostly fantasy. The first line of this article states: "A cowboy is an animal herder who tends livestock on ranches in North America and often performs a multitude of other ranch-related tasks." By that definition the herders on Long Island were cowboys. What they called themselves is irrelevant. If you must have use of the term cowboy, then there was a Tory gang called the Cowboys on Long Island before the Revolutionary War. After the Battle of Long Island they flopped alliance as profit dictated. There used to be a hanging tree in Manhattan known as the "Cowboy Oak[3]". This should be put in the history section since these are facts.

No argument that Hollywood isn't the epitome of accuracy, but one problem we have here is that there are a couple dozen different names for horseback-based cattle handlers worldwide (take Australian Stockmen, for example, or the Charro, the Huaso, etc..) most of these have their own articles. The New York cowboys, of whatever ilk, if they handled cattle, may belong in a subsection along with the Florida Cracker Cowboys and the Hawaiian Paiolo, or whatever. If they had a distinct cattle-handling tradition, that would be suitable. But what has not been made clear to me is the relevance of a Tory gang to this article, shouldn't they have their own article? There is room to tweak the lead paragraph, for sure, if that would calm things down. I guess I need to understand what the fuss is about. We don't have European cowherds in here, we are primarily dealing with horseback-mounted cattle handlers. Montanabw^(talk) 05:51, 5 May 2008 (UTC)

Follow up: I looked over your sources pretty carefully, Reniam (and by the way, remember to sign your posts, OK?) - thanks for providing them - and dug up some other material. There was enough there to add a couple of short bits, see Cowboy#other for some stuff on Long Island (but sorry, even the article admits the claim is dubious and what they called themselves, as well as how they lived IS relevant. These guys were, essentially, beef farmers) . And I added a bit on Smith at Cowboy#Negative_associations. Montanabw^(talk) 08:22, 5 May 2008 (UTC)

Cowboy action shooting?

Worth a mention most frontier Colts were .44-40s, not .45LCs (contrary to the myth)? (I just wish I could source it...) Trekphiler (talk) 01:47, 15 June 2008 (UTC)

Um, did you post this before reading and editing the guns section? Note that is just what the existing sources said! LOL! Montanabw^(talk) 06:42, 15 June 2008 (UTC)

Role in genocide

It certainly appears that people closely related to the "cowboy" stereotype - frontier ranchers and the like - were on the vanguard of the genocide program it took to cleanse the North American continent of its native population. (This appearance is based on the knowledge that it was done, and the consequent knowledge that someone had to do it, and knowledge that these people would be logical choices given their location, activities, and character, and the inference then that they were at least involved). In fact, given the whole "cowboy and Indian" business so closely tied in the culture to the "cowboy identity", there's a popular perception that they indeed did this. And because us, Americans and Canadians and Australians, live in indescribably and fanatically racist societies who have fond nostalgia for this genocide program, cowboys are in fact lauded and romanticized for doing this.

So when I see politicians at various photo ops awkwardly (or in some cases, less awkwardly) donning cowboy boots, denim, and those stupid hats, in the interests of wooing some of the more psychotic demographics of our continent, I'm left wondering what the differences would have been between this and a hypothetical Großdeutschland, properly ethnically cleansed of the Untermenschen, where uncomfortable but whorish German politicians, say 100 years from now (to account for the difference in dates), would have to suit up in SS uniforms, however silly they might feel, in order to pander to some of the crazier parts of a now properly Aryan Eastern Europe. The main difference I can see is that Hitler's ethnic cleansing program, which he explicitly, and he said this, modelled on that used in America in its questing after Manifest Destiny, didn't work as well as ours, though it did manage to kill millions nevertheless. --Jammoe (talk) 17:57, 19 July 2008 (UTC)

Please read our policies requiring verifiability from reliable sources, barring original research and maintaining a neutral point of view in articles. Your comments appear to fail all three policies, and we cannot use them in the article. -- Donald Albury 01:43, 20 July 2008 (UTC)

You confuse cowboys with the United States Army as far as fighting goes. Cowboys were not soldiers. By and large, cattle were driven thorough areas where there wasn't a lot of serious conflict going on...these were trade routes. "Cowboys and Indians" is something of a misnomer. As for the rest, like Dalbury says, this won't work in this article. Montanabw^(talk) 05:51, 21 July 2008 (UTC)

Yeah, I thought about noting that large scale killing of Indians was carried out by the Army, by Indian allies of one European/American government or another or by militia units. The tribes of North America were decimated by disease, by alcoholism, by loss of hunting grounds, by displacement from traditional homes and by becoming too dependent on European trade goods which became scarce when trade items such as beaver pelts and deer skins lost market value. Direct killing of large numbers of Indians was rarely a major element in that decline (the Creek and Seminole wars are major exceptions that I know of). The popular history of the American West is largely mythic, based on sensationalization and fictionalization of a few isolated incidents. The cowboy of the 19th century lived a rough life, but fighting Indians was not a part of it. -- Donald Albury 11:41, 21 July 2008 (UTC)

But the "loss of hunting grounds [and] displacement from traditional homes" was due in large part to frontier agricultural activity, and other more direct action was necessitated by it, and by the mentality that white settlers had a right to be there. Also there's the element that photo-op type activity, politics in general and American politics in particular, is based on mythology which of course is a poor representation of actual history. And this mythology, however representative, is sick but widespread. --Jammoe (talk) 05:48, 22 July 2008 (UTC)

Donald is essentially on track, but none of this is relevant to the cowboy article, so can we just discuss this elsewhere? Cowboys were just poor schmucks hired to herd cattle, many of whom were actually Mexicans and Indians as well as African-Americans - people from the lower social classes, willing to do hard work for crappy pay. But if you want to point fingers, look to the Eastern US and European industrial interests that backed the cattle and mining industries. Ordinary farmers and cowboys were not the problem (though farmers were sometimes used as the excuse) so much as was greed of the wealthy and powerful. Just to take one case, the discovery of gold in the Black Hills almost directly led to the Battle of the Little Bighorn. Settler pressure was there, but it wasn't usually the trigger - discovery of minerals like gold, silver, and later, oil, usually were. The Railroads also made massive land grabs, later selling land to settlers (who then were captive markets for the railroads) Actually, there also wasn't large-scale killing of Indian people by whites so much as a rather primitive form of biological warfare: mass killing of American bison that followed on the earlier, 200 year history of spread of diseases such as smallpox (both deliberately and inadvertently). Militarily, the Plains Indians would probably have never been defeated. It was the destruction of their livelihood. Read a book like Bury My Heart at Wounded Knee.

My only real point, though, is that this whole discussion belongs somewhere else than the cowboy article. Montanabw^(talk) 17:31, 22 July 2008 (UTC)

Homo-eroticism

I happy to accept that this section of text be improved and contextualised better, and that certain parts could be better phrased. I am not, however, willing to accept that the whole section be taken out on the basis that there is minimal referencing. There are at least 6 references - some of which are from reputable academic sources. Nor that this is some sort of 'urban legend'. It hasn't been written in a way as to even suggest that. Willing to have a constructive debate about how to make sure the text is watertight, without removing the issue altogether. Thanks. Contaldo80 (talk) 17:25, 21 January 2009 (UTC)

I am moving the text here until the issue can be discussed. In short, the primary reason this article is protected is due to vandalism regarding homosexuality and cowboys. The other issue on the material here is WP:FRINGE and WP:UNDUE. Please read those articles to see what they mean if you have not already seen them in the past. The material you inserted is a very long section, and some of the authors (particularly Kinsey) have long been discredited. The "farmers (ranchers, cowboys are ignorant fags" thing is a longstanding way that urban people insult rural people, and as such the material must be carefully phrased so as not to perpetuate a myth. The issue is not if some mention should be made that some cowboys in a macho culture might have been gay or bisexual, or engaged in homosexual behavior: the same is true of any male culture, from Ancient Greece to the modern prison. The issue is how much this is worth mentioning and where in the article. The material on men in the 1800s sharing beds, etc., as "proof" or disproof of homosexual behavior has also been examined by historians (I am particularly thinking about some of the studies on Abraham Lincoln that looked at the question, including Lincoln's Melancholy and the recent Giants.)and found not to be dispositive in either direction because people commonly shared space, and same-sex people shared beds, at a level of closeness that we do not today.

I propose a short paragraph be added somewhere later on in the article, such as the "popular culture" section that is carefully worded so as not to draw the attention of vandals, including every 6th grader who has learned what the word "gay" really means. Seriously, this article is a major vandalism target and unless you want to watchlist it for the next two years like I have for the last two years, we need to think this through. My proposed version immediately follows my signature, your version follows that. Feel free to propose another version. I'd really prefer we didn't waste bandwidth discussing Brokeback Mountain and the Village People. Montanabw^(talk) 00:00, 22 January 2009 (UTC)

Gender identity - new

Cowboy culture has long been viewed as a highly masculine world. Some men were drawn to the frontier because they were attracted to men. Other times, in a region where men significantly outnumbered women, even social events normally attended by both sexes were at times all male, and men could be found partnering up with one another for dances. Homosexual acts between young, unmarried men occurred, but cowboys culture itself was and remains deeply homophobic. (cite to Kinsey??)

Homo-eroticism- old

A strand of homoeroticism was present in cowboy society as early as the 19th century. The West provided extensive opportunities for male-male intimacy. Some men were drawn to the frontier because of their attractions to men. In 1882, the Texas Livestock Journal wrote that if the inner history of friendship among the rough and perhaps untutored cowboys could be written, it would be quite as unselfish and romantic as that of Damon and Pythia. Many circumstances contributed to personal closeness on the ranch and trail. Cowboys commonly bedded in pairs, sharing bedrolls with their 'bunkie'. Mention also needs to be made of the tradition of the all-male stag dance, where cowboys could be found entertaining themselves with polkas, waltzes and quicksteps.

Homosexual acts between young, unmarried cowboys, when they occurred, were euphemistically known as mutual solace. A 1948 study of rural homosexuality by Alfred Kinsey, noted that there is a fair amount of sexual contact among the older males in Western rural areas. His report added:

It is a type of homosexuality that was probably common among pioneers and outdoor men. Today it is found among ranchmen, cattlemen, prospectors, lumbermen and farming groups in general. These are men who . . . live on realities and on a minimum of theory. Such a background breeds the attitude that sex is sex, irrespective of the nature of the partner.

He also noted that these homosexual acts rarely interfered with heterosexual relationships and that the cowboys themselves were often deeply homophobic and quite without the argot, physical manifestations and other affectations often found in urban groups.

Although anti-sodomy laws were common in the Wild West, they were selectively enforced. In 1896 a man from El Paso called Marcelo Alviar was charged with sodomy and his bond was set at $500, the same as it would have been for murder.

Thanks - very constructive indeed. I agree with your approach and suggested text. Might we also include the end sentence on Marcelo Alviar to provide an example of an individual case? Otherwise completely happy to go with what you propose, and share concerns on minimising vandalism. Contaldo80 (talk) 10:14, 22 January 2009 (UTC)

My thinking is that the Alviiar example may reflect racism as much as homophobia. Maybe see if you can find out more about it -- For example, if it was a white guy, would there have even been an arrest? Or was the other party a child and they charged sodomy instead of pedophilia? Without knowing the whole case, we may be taking something out of context. Also when articles start getting long, the ancedotes are often the first things to be tossed, also. I guess I'm reluctant, but not completely opposed. Can you add the proper sources to the places fact tagged in my draft above and we can then at least put that bit in while discussing the rest? Montanabw^(talk) 19:18, 22 January 2009 (UTC)

Sorry - left this for a bit. Relaxed on leaving the Alviar reference out. Thanks again for adding into main body of text. Contaldo80 (talk) 17:37, 24 February 2009 (UTC)

What happened to the cowboys from the 1890s you ask?

add a referral to en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Eusebio_Kino as "First Cowboy"

Padre Eusebio Kino (1645-1711) in Pimeria Alta (Northwestern Mexico and Southwestern US in late 16th century)rode thousands of miles on horseback growing a herd of 20 imported cattle into 70,000 head. He was known as the "Padre on horseback" and clearly qualifies for consideration as the "First Cowboy." Mention of "Padre Eusebio Kino" as First Cowboy could be added to the entry at the end of the first paragraph of the "History" section with a referral to the entry http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Eusebio_Kino where I submitted mention of this.

Lee B Croft (talk) 02:41, 3 April 2009 (UTC)Lee B Croft

Your information is quite interesting, but we can't really prove a "first" like this and while we can call him the "Padre on horseback," I don't think we can really get away with calling him the "first" cowboy. There have been horses and cattle in the Americas since the 1500s. What could work is something like "an early documented example" or something. Keep in mind too, that some people will argue that a Colonial Spanish cattle herder, particularly a priest (Padre???), would be more of a vaquero than a "cowboy." I guess I'm open to further discussion, but I also have to express some reluctance to start getting into lists of famous cowboys, because a list of firsts, or a list of famous, or a list of whatever, could quickly expand to include dozens of people. If you do want to add a link to the "See also" section of the article that links to his biography, feel free to do so. Montanabw^(talk) 22:43, 3 April 2009 (UTC)

CATEGORIES —Preceding unsigned comment added by 216.65.217.61 (talk) 00:23, 29 July 2009 (UTC)

Categories got deleted at some point during editing, and need to be replaced. Current category makes no sense.