The first reference to the Tooth Fairy is from a Chicago area newspaper (from the Old Northwest, site of intense Indian wars across a meta-ethnic frontier), after the Civil War & Reconstruction period (1908).
There was no precedent for this practice in European or other world history. Superstitions relating to children's teeth are too vague -- the Tooth Fairy is specifically a diminutive fantastical creature that visits children when they're asleep, leaving a gift for the baby tooth that the child has already left under / near their pillow.
Grown Viking real-life men paying children, while the children are awake and away from their bed, to wear their baby teeth in a good luck necklace lacks all of these elements except the transactional exchange, so that is clearly not related.
The only correlate is a single short story for children by Spanish writer Luis Coloma, "Raton Perez", which has all the elements (only the fantastical small creature is a mouse, rather than a fairy). It was first published in a collection of stories in 1902 (Nuevas Lecturas), then in standalone form, with illustrations, in 1911.
Only the standalone version has a preface explaining the supposed origin as him being commissioned by the Queen to write a story to memorialize her royal son losing a baby tooth in 1894. Just-so embellishment later on, or true story? Either way, the story came out around the turn of the century.
Coloma's story also has far more narrative action, dialog, and a richer cast of characters than the simple Tooth Fairy folklore.
If we believe that ordinary Americans at the grassroots level somehow were influenced by Coloma's story, it had to have been almost instantaneous, across a major language barrier (few Spanish speakers in America, esp. the Midwest, at that time), and other cultural barriers (we were barely influenced by Spain).
Also, it would require that we not only altered the small detail of the creature being a rat or a fairy, but stripping out all the other richness of the narrative. Coloma's is a proper fairy tale, not just a simple folkloric practice. If American parents were in the mood of telling their children legends or tales, why wouldn't they keep the narrative, at least in part? There's no narrative to the Tooth Fairy, unlike Raton Perez.
So we did not get the Tooth Fairy from Spain. Another possibility is that Coloma independently came up with all the elements of the Tooth Fairy legend, at roughly the same time, and exerted his creative will to come up with this narrative because he was commissioned by the Queen, whose son was losing a tooth at the time.
The stark similarity and close timing rules out an independent origin. If he was commissioned, that would explain his greater narrative detail -- he wasn't just passing on an old wives' tale, but creating a work for his royal patron, deserving greater aesthetic detail.
Another possibility is they share a common ancestor. But there are no other children of this hypothetical ancestor -- only the American Tooth Fairy, and Raton Perez, both born circa 1900. Since Spain and America had been culturally closed off to each other at that point -- not sharing a greater sphere of cultural influence -- then the ancestor would have to go much further back, like Indo-European or something.
But then, it would have produced children in at least some of the other Indo-European cultures that still exist. And yet, no Tooth Fairy in any of them.
By 1900, the Spanish Empire had already been in the collapse stage of its lifespan for nearly a century, whereas the American Empire was ascendant -- both politically, as well as culturally.
As for the ease of acquiring the relevant information, it would be far easier for a single erudite scholar with royal patronage in Europe to learn about American folk customs, than for entire masses of ordinary Americans in the Midwest to learn of one specific recently published story embedded within a larger collection whose title does not indicate anything about it being children's stories, fairy tales, tooth fairy legends, etc.
Therefore, it's far more likely that -- through whatever links of transmission -- the arrow went from America to Spain, not the other way around.
And so, the Tooth Fairy is, like Santa, a uniquely American cultural creation, whose influence has spread around much of the world as the American Empire eclipsed all others, aside from Russia, over the course of the 20th C.
April 22, 2023
The Tooth Fairy and American ethnogenesis
Categories:
Books,
Geography,
Literature,
Mythology,
Pop culture
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
As a sidebar on the silliness of so much folklore studies, look over Wikipedia's review of the supposed counterparts in other cultures of the Tooth Fairy. None of them contain the key elements of the Tooth Fairy legend / ritual.
ReplyDeleteBut they do share one theme -- that the shed baby teeth can be a kind of good luck charm, if properly treated. I.e., thrown toward the sun in the Middle East. Or thrown straight down on the ground in Japan, to ensure the new adult teeth grow in straight rather than crooked. Or Vikings wearing them in a good luck necklace.
That theme of chance, good luck, and fortune in the future, is totally absent from the Tooth Fairy!
Instead, kids put the tooth under their pillow, and *that very same night* -- not in the vague future -- they will *deterministically* -- not through good luck -- get a benefit, i.e. the money or other gift left by the fairy. It's not a matter of chance -- the tooth under the pillow is like the bat signal, drawing the Tooth Fairy in with no choice, and without any question there will be something nice under the pillow in the morning.
And that explains why the tooth is *taken from* the child or other would-be bearer of its good luck. It's not lucky! If it were good luck, the child would want to keep it, or some other person like a Viking would offer compensation for the good luck charm.
Nor is it the Tooth Fairy who enjoys its good luck powers -- the Tooth Fairy is already an enchanted fantastical being, she doesn't need good luck! There's nothing in her lore about collecting children's baby teeth so that she can level up her LUCK stat.
What does she do with all those teeth, anyway? Who knows? It's not part of the legend. But she sure doesn't collect a huge benefit from them. She's not a transactional, quid pro quo, wheeler-and-dealer. She's a benevolent angelic figure who alleviates the pain and awkwardness of losing teeth -- the physical as well as psychological pain of growing up -- by taking away the material reminders, and giving the kids something nice as a present, to cheer them up while they're in a downer mood.
Folklore studies is one of the most retarded fields I've ever come across, and that's saying something. Not only do they all grasp at straws for the most flimsy and contradictory "correlates" of some legend or ritual, they always have to make it universal and timeless.
But that's not how culture works! We *don't* all speak the same language, and we have not spoken our current languages from time immemorial. We radically innovate and revolutionize, create something out of nothing, all the time!
Well, during intense periods of ethnogenesis, like when we're expanding as empires. But often enough to erase many of our earlier practices or beliefs.
Language is only one aspect of the entire cultural complex that marks one ethnic group apart from another -- ethnic meaning cultural distinction, not as a wimpy euphemism for genetic race.
Today's Turks are not "Ancient Greeks from Anatolia, who currently speak a Turkic language instead of an Indo-European language". They changed all sorts of things along with their language. And kept others from the past, of course. But you have to look at it and evaluate it, case by case, to see what's ancient and what's innovated.
It drives me crazy!
Mumeiii, I know you already know this deep down, but just want to remind you that your legions of adoring Hoomans appreciate this fact about you: your appeal isn't as the "cool and edgy" one, but as the wholesome, loyal, tender, overlooked cutie who understands us, as opposed to the salacious, mercurial, callous, overhyped Queen Bee of the school.
ReplyDeleteYou're the target audience for a One Direction song, or the self-insert in a Taylor Swift song, like, oh I dunno...
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=VuNIsY6JdUw
She also likes to watch through people's windows! ^_^ But out of genuine concern and interest, seeing what makes people tick, how she can help relate to them if they need relating to. Awww.
Or maybe the quirky creative girl in school, overlooked or teased by the blind masses, whose hidden potential is seen and nurtured by a Prince Charming, in a latter-day Cinderella story.
Cinderowlla? Hehe.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=uEaouwm3ebA
And while no single one of your Hoomans may be Prince Charming, collectively their combined interest and devotion and affection and gifts make up for it. Awww.
We can see through the vain, slutty, gold-digging kind of streamers out there. We'd rather go to the vtuber ball with Cinderowlla. :)
What kind of silver token do you leave behind, though...? A silver desk chair, whose seat indentations will only match those of the hunched-over-while-drawing-on-her-tablet owlshi. (I'll refrain from suggesting the seat indentations may also match the unique curves of your bubble buns.)
I know you know all this stuff already, but it's good to hear it from others, too, so you don't think you're crazy for thinking it. :)
Also, how has Mumei never sung "Kiss Me" by Sixpence None the Richer? It's right up her owlley! When her asthma clears up, of course.
ReplyDeleteGura, Fauna, Kiara, and Ame have sung it. So she'd be in good company.
Irys should sing it, too -- she's sung "You Belong With Me" several times, and those two are so similar. Plus being adorkable is part of her persona as well.
The Raton Perez story did seed the practice in many Latin American countries, but we know the mechanism there -- they were part of the Spanish Empire up till the early 1800s, and were still in its cultural sphere of influence during the early 20th C. when the story was published.
ReplyDeleteBut in those cases, they didn't really change the story. It's still a mouse, not some other creature. And its name, if it has a name, is left unchanged, Perez. Otherwise an appropriate generic name translating to "Tooth Mouse".
If Americans also derived the practice from Coloma's story, we would behave like the other cultures that did. But we didn't.
I don't think it's about Spain being totally foreign culturally. We, and our British ancestors, knew about the Inquisition, Torquemada, Don Quixote, Flamenco, bullfighting, the word "toro" for bull, the bullfighter being called "matador," and later learning about paella, flan, etc. We generally did not translate or even Anglicize the original Spanish words. So why would we have done so with Raton Perez?
Even if we had, it would've been something like "the rat Percy" or "Perry Mouse" or whatever. Not altering his species to a purely fantastical one (a fairy -- as opposed to an enchanted yet mundane species like a mouse), or dropping his name altogether.
Every way you look at it, the Tooth Fairy was an organic creation during American ethnogenesis, somehow it got picked up, embellished, and recorded by a Spaniard, and through that literate medium it went back to the New World, but only in the former colonies of the Spanish Empire (and perhaps to a lesser extent in the Philippines).
As I'm looking into other European ethnogenetic bursts, there is a very common retarded folklore studies practice of claiming that something has "pre-Christian / pagan" roots. In reality, all the references to it are from the 1500s at the earliest, and more like the 1600s -- example, Krampus and other bad cops who accompany Saint Nicholaus, the good cop, during "have children been naughty or nice?" season.
ReplyDeleteJust cuz it's a goat or demonic doesn't mean only ancient pagans could've dreamt it up. In fact, that species, with that demonic tone to it, was highly popular in portrayals of witches' dark masses, during the Witchcraft Trials of the Early Modern period.
Who says those Early Moderns didn't dream up Krampus? Americans of the 1980s dreamed up all kinds of horror-movie monsters -- Freddie Krueger, who kills you in your dreams, which is not an ancient figure, but a very new and invented figure.
And the "good cop, bad cop" team of Saint Nicholaus plus someone else, is mostly limited to the territories controlled or influenced by the Holy Roman Empire, which is neither an ancient nor a pagan polity.
And the HRE was multi-ethnic -- Slavic, Germanic, a bit Italic -- and the Krampus-esque practice does not include other branches of those families, who were outside the HRE. German, Swiss, and Austrian -- yes. But British and Norwegian? -- no. Czech and Slovak and Slovene -- yes. But Russian or Ukrainian? -- no.
I'm sure there is similar nonsense purporting the "pre-Islamic / pagan " origins of something that the Mamluke Sultanate invented.
We actually have that here in America, too -- something that was invented by Midwesterners in 1890 is Ackshually our adoption of a pre-Columbian contact Native American practice, which we learned from them. Uh-huh -- and we're all part-Cherokee genetically, too, right? Send in your spit, and it turns out you're 0.000001% Native American, just like Pocahontas Elizabeth Warren.
These myths about the ancient-ness of something is just a way to justify it as having withstood the test of time, a tradition that has survived cultural natural selection. We should not take these origin myths at face value.
Sometimes it really *is* ancient, pre-Christian, pre-civilization -- like the things shared by Indo-Europeans, or Saharo-Arabians. But typically those are the *least* discussed examples of ancient, pre-civilized, surprising / counter-intuitive similarities across vast distances. And they're the best established by evidence!
So much damn clever-silliness in these fields.
Owlloween
ReplyDeleteowlvulating
ReplyDeleteOh hi there,
ReplyDeleteThe idol in the software
The lurker back on page 10 of the board
The unintentional waifu
Our nest for when it's chilly
And we'll be your silly billies if you want
Where you can come confiding
And bring us partying in Minecraft
And when you're live, your heart can't hit unsend
Your heart can't hit unsend
I miss Moom, miss Moom
I miss Moom, miss Moom
Where are, Moom?
ReplyDeleteAnd we're so starving
We cannot feed on only meme-size bites
We need some babbling from oshi
This cringe, crazed LARPing
Starts rotting brains, every Moomless night
And as we scroll, we counted
The threads from all the schizos
Rrating things and chatting with AI's
Like indecision to draw Moom
And feel your bonk of "delete this"
Will Moom log on and notice us, senpai?
Notice us, senpai
Don't waste your likes on us
You're already our substitute for meds
Don't waste your likes on us
You're already our substitute for meds
We miss Moom, miss Moom
We miss Moom, miss Moom
And that's "We Miss Moom" by simp-182, which I'll just leave in the comments here, even though it's the full lyrics, instead of putting up a standalone post. Moom can get bashful about that much of a spotlight -- more of a voyeur than an exhibitionist, hehe.
ReplyDeleteThe original is one of her most-sung songs during karaoke, so hopefully this specific fan tribute will touch her more than some other that I could've done, to convince her of how lovable she is. ^_^
It'll never stop being bizarre how, due to helicopter parenting, girls like her can grow up insecure about their lovability, and they only discover it when they start creating content and suddenly have legions of suitors wanting to wife them up.
"WTF, I never got this much attention in high school?!?!?!!"
Yeah, cuz you weren't allowed to interact with anyone IRL, like from school. How could they have known what you were like?
But once your online persona fully blossoms, all sorts of people can learn about you and appreciate your talent and company.
:::Mooommm:::