Native Americans aren't the only ones that have a myth or legend about hairy men. I wasn't specifically speaking to them unless you want to keep the discussion about North America.
I disagree, the differences described are minimal at best. I think it's a universal archetype since hairy man legends are worldwide and stretch back since people started story telling.
The differences are not minimal, as I've gone to great length to explain in my earlier posts. The differences are absolutely what separates a "Bigfoot" from a "wild man." A wild man, as previously mentioned, spans everything from a description of a lower-class individual by the upper-class, something the Irish were depicted as being by the English, for instance, and a wild man was also a literal description of an "untamed" person, living beyond accepted society. Most European stories concerning wild men are generally embellished accounts of "uncouth savages." Embellishment is something people often overlook in old tales.
Take, for instance, the depictions of Jack the Ripper in the London press of the 19th century; he appeared as a phantom, a ghost, and a devil. These are clearly not things that people were serious about. Now, look at these supposed Australian, American, European, Asian "wild man" stories and ask yourself are they not more in line with shoddy newspaper sensation stories depicting people who are cast aside from accepted normality.
I can think of many examples where this is the case. Most of them appear in "Cryptozoology" books as supposed evidence of Bigfoot, especially the accounts concerning military personnel. Some soldiers find a wild man, hairy and dirty, he can't speak a word of their language, and he's subsequently imprisoned where he either dies in captivity after being "inspected" by the doctor, or escapes. These stories are all nonsense and many of them share literally the same details as I just described.
Wild man tales are nothing even remotely close to being similar to any Bigfoot tale. What people do is tweak those old tales to fit the modern idea of a Bigfoot.
Then you have basic tales of giants, usually half-clothed and again nothing at all like "ape-men," then you have things like Woodwoses, mythical forest beings that are absolutely nothing like Bigfoot.
In Europe, there was stories of men who were part animal, in France and Germany there were Werewolf stories, muddled with the reality of Berzerkers, who would wear the pelts of bears and wolves, spreading stories of "animal-men" murdering villagers. It goes on and on.
Like I said, when you believe in Bigfoot, you need to be able to point to its history in the world, and all of these totally unrelated pieces of fact, fiction, myth and legend serve as a fake history, tweaked to suit the needs of the believer.
Bigfoot as we know it, does not exist, therefore it has no actual history. It lends its history from the various histories of other legends.
Here's a common statement from believers: "
But in Asia they've talked about Ape-men for centuries..." No, they have not. The Yeti was never an ape-man until we made it one. The Yeti was a demon, a spirit, and you need only look at the ancient maps of Asia to see it. Likely a combination between their own superstitions about spirits, and the reality of dangerous animals such as bears.
People even throw Native American tales in with Bigfoot lore, but when you actually look at those native tales, they describe nothing even remotely similar to a Bigfoot.
Do hairy man tales exist pre-1950? Yes.
Are they in any way connected to Bigfoot tales post-1950? Not under scrutiny.
