Jump to content

Talk:Percy Fawcett

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

The New Yorker article by David Grann

[edit]

Page should be updated in light of David Grann's (most enjoyable) piece in the Sept. 19, 2005 issue of The New Yorker, "The Lost City of Z." Alas, I don't have it handy. userX 04:08, 29 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Ehi qualche buona anima lo traduca in italiano. Grazie

Yes, it should be updated - but let's keep it balanced. Fawcett was a racist who described Amazonian Indians like apes: "with exceptionally long arms, and with foreheads sloping back from pronounced eye ridges - men of a very primitive kind... great ape-like brutes". He was a decent army-trained surveyor, but a lousy explorer, mostly relying on boats supplied by rubber barons and mostly staying in comfortable rubber stations in Bolivia. When he went off on his own little ill-planned adventure it is no wonder he got lost and disappeared, probably starved to death. This guy is no hearo. Slrubenstein | Talk 19:01, 14 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Fawcett only described one tribe that way, the Maricoxis. Try actually reading his book before making such a sweeping - and inaccurate - statement. Further, he was trained as a surveyor by the Royal Geographic Society, not the army.Andrew G. Doe (talk) 19:29, 21 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
The Lost City of Z tells an entirely different story of Fawcett, someone who was over and over nonviolent in his interactions with Amazonian Indians, who befriended and learned smatterings of the languages of tribes commonly seen as antagonists to Europeans, and who unlike other explorers did not rely on boats but traveled across land, through harsh jungle. Instead you seem to be describing Alexander H. Rice, Jr.. zafiroblue05 | Talk 08:07, 19 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Hemming's remark about Fawcett being a "Nietzschean explorer" is quite inappropriate. While the intended criticism of Fawcett may in itself be fair, there is no basis at all for implying, as Hemming's words do, that Nietzsche (would have) regarded Brazilian indians as monkeys. Nor is there any reason to imply that Nietzsche was not "enlightened". Evidently neither Hemming nor the writer of the Wikipedia article is an authority on Nietzsche. It ought also to be added that attitudes such as those attributed to Fawcett were unfortunaetly extremely common in his day. Henryhearty (talk) 03:16, 15 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Did he say that they were monkeys or merely that they had simian characteristics?173.72.63.199 (talk) 00:06, 10 August 2012 (UTC)Hans Wurst[reply]

Chronology discrepancy

[edit]

"... stories of the "Lost City of Z" became the basis for [Doyle's] novel The Lost World." which was first serialised April 1912.

"Based on documentary research, Fawcett had formulated his ideas about a "Lost City of Z" in Brazil by the time of the outbreak of World War I" August 1914.

If his ideas about "The Lost City of Z" inspired The Lost World, then he must have been spreading them by the beginning of 1912.

My bet is that The Lost World (which doesn't really even have a lost city - it has a village of primitive ape-men about the same as a native South American village) was NOT based on Fawcett's theories. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 174.28.138.65 (talk) 07:19, 23 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

[edit]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 2 external links on Percy Fawcett. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 5 June 2024).

  • If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
  • If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 07:22, 1 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Use of the word "Indian" as derogatory.

[edit]

I don't see how the word "Indian" can be used outside of the scope of quoted statements without being offensive. The real question is what is gained by using "indian" (outside of quotes) when the term refers follows from colonial perspective in order to frame indigenous peoples as lesser than Europeans. The language here should be consistent with the title of the article "Indigenous peoples in Brazil", and the use of "indian" in that article should also match it's title. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Bdrbogart (talk • contribs) 17:10, 3 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Seconding this. I'm kinda shocked to see no one has attempted to change this, since this comment here. 104.189.5.96 (talk) 05:20, 13 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Bdrbogart As you will be aware, this change from "Indian" was attempted in 2017 and rejected then. The use of the word is mentioned in most books of the time and since. I see no point in trying to change or rewrite history to suit a current, possibily minority, view. David J Johnson (talk) 10:37, 13 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]
David J Johnson Translating outdated and derogatory language with the same meaning (but highly differing connotation) is in no way "changing" or "rewriting" history. The change is an attempt to strip the language of the negative connotation and does nothing to occlude or obfuscate the meaning of this article. My suggestion draws attention to racist perspective of the past, not hiding it. April 13th, 2019 (UTC)

Implausible references

[edit]

References attributed to Misha Williams and John Hemming both seem implausible personal opinions, unsupported or contradicted by other evidence. Williams' theory that Fawcett proposed to set up a religious cult of his son has the ring of the wilder type of conspiracy theory. Hemmings appears to be driven by personal malice, and his citation is unclear. Unless we are to assume that Fawcett was a Walter-Mitty fantasist, he established good relations with the indigenous peoples and carried out significant reliable mapping of Bolivia, Brazil and Peru. There is no evidence that he caused the deaths of many people, and he condemned the barbarity of Europeans towards indigenous Americans, an attitude enlightened for his day. Contrary to Hemming's innuendo, he did not make the claim that he was Britain's 'greatest explorer' (that title perhaps belongs best to H M Stanley), which was attached to him by a publicist.

OK, these are 'referenced sources', but nowadays anyone can publish anything on the internet, no matter how implausible, contradictory, biased or scurrilous and that seems to be good enough for Wikipedia to retail it on Chrismorey (talk) 13:20, 19 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Absolutely agree with Chrismorey's comments above. These two "authors" obviously have an axe to grind. Fawcett's relationship with indigenous people was enlightened and his mapping was backed by the South American governments. As for Misha's comments, it is unsourced by reliable secondary sources. Likewise John Hemming comments are textbook personal malice. Perhaps references to these two should be deleted? Further comments requested. David J Johnson (talk) 11:39, 20 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Fawcett's bones

[edit]

The section on Fawcett's bones states that the indigenous elder stated the bones originally found and claimed to be Fawcett's were not. The next sentence states there is no evidence for this. But the paragraph above that states that although the bones were originally assumed to be Fawcett's, subsequent analysis confirmed that they weren't. Am I misreading this, or does this article state that there's no evidence the bones weren't Fawcett's right after it states the bones weren't Fawcett's? I don't know if it's perhaps worded in a confusing manner or if I'm misreading, or if an edit needs to be made somewhere, but it seems contradictory. JackMeraxes (talk) 05:08, 26 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

?

[edit]

did anyone ever find percy? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 77.99.124.23 (talk) 17:04, 25 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Percy_Fawcett&oldid=1194954770"