High Status Accorded Homosexuals In Native American Tribes Helps To Understand Their Fate

OMG Facts ^ | August 11, 2014 | Staff

[Vigilanteman]

It has been years since I've seen the movie, but I will comment briefly. The Sioux warrior society tolerated effeminate males because they found them amusing. As long as they didn't bother children or force their lifestyle on other unwilling members of the tribe, they were tolerated and even assigned tasks at which the normal macho male could not be trusted. These tasks ranged from the obvious (such as looking after female captives) to the less obvious (such as making repairs in clothing, tee-pees and moccasins where more delicate handwork was required).

So, yes, in that respect, they were more visible than their contemporary counterparts in white man's society. I think it would be a stretch to say they were respected. Certainly, if they behaved themselves within their prescribed limits, they were tolerated and even appreciated. Partly for the reasons mentioned and partly because the court jester type role was appreciated during the natural tensions when the tribe was at war or on an extended move.

You find a very similar role for homosexuals in the Japanese samurai code, circa 1600.

[onedoug]

This is nonsense.

Primitive? Yes. Yet the writer is more so.

[blueplum]

hogwash. Since when did ‘plains indians’ speak Arabic or Persian?

Bardaj (arabic) means ‘slave’ and Bardan (persian) means ‘prisoner’.

Indians had a habit of capturing and enslaving other tribes, both men and women. Some captured male slaves were dressed as, and treated as women - the ultimate humiliation for a warrior. Robbed of the identity of being a ‘man’, they were slaves for the women - never to be equal to the braves of the tribe - and far beneath women in social stature. So just above dog status for the most part. Sex with a slave is generally dominance-driven with little regard for the slaves pleasure. A few may have risen within the ranks of the tribe’s women to a social position, but even the article agrees none attained the status of ‘man’ again, even in death.

[GreenHornet]

OK, so the Washington Gay Warriors would be an honoring name. Cool.

...or they could call then the "Washington Smartly Accessorized and Looking Fab-U-Lous Redskins."

[Vigilanteman]

See my post #21. Our accounts pretty much coincide, don’t they?

[txrefugee]

This is the utter tripe that will be taught to your children as American History in a government school near you in the near future. The homosexual agenda is dependent on recruits.

[ansel12]

Yeah, there were some pretty depraved tribes who enjoyed killing, torture and human sacrifice (think the Aztecs and, to a much lesser extent, the Comanche)

Lots of them, it wasn't a rare exception that loved killing, slavery, torture, rape, it was normal.

[XRdsRev]

I can’t remember if it was Desalle or another early explorer but I do remember an account of a native man who dressed and acted as a woman. He was allowed to live as such but no mention was made of any special status or mystical power.

[RetiredTexasVet]

“... torture and human sacrifice (think the Aztecs and, to a much lesser extent, the Comanche), ...”

I think you will find that the Astecs were into human sacrifice big time and that the Comanches were the masters of torture to the extent that even the Apaches would kill themselves before becoming a captive.

[Vigilanteman]

I can name you a large number of tribes that weren't into all this wicked stuff. Our Sioux cousins, the Mandan, were quite peaceable farmers. So were the Sioux, at one time.

Trouble was, the peaceful tribes either got wiped out or moved out by the more aggressive tribes over time so they either moved, died or became nastier as time went on.

The Ohio Valley was the original home of the Siouxian tribes and probably the James River Valley of Virginia before that. The Mandans moved into North Dakota about the 15th century and we followed them after that simply because the harsh climate wasn't very desirable by our enemies.

The Comanche, on the other hand, originated in Wyoming as cousins of the Shoshone. They didn't become associated with what is now Texas until about the 17th century when the Spanish brought horses and they became adept at using them. It was then that they decided a warmer climate would be nice and they largely abandoned Wyoming. The Comanche became nastier as they moved south and east because the tribes already there (especially the Tonkawa) weren't keen on sharing the land.

The Pawnee, who were the great nation who served as the buffer territory between the Sioux and Comanche by the 18th century, were also a largely peaceful farming people. I think they were one of the few who actually asked to be located to a reservation because they got tired of being caught in the crossfire.

[Vigilanteman]

See my post #30. The Apache, at one time, were also peaceful farmers and ranchers. In fact, the only real difference between the Apache and Navajo is that the Apache were slower to return to this lifestyle.

Legend has it that they were one of the peaceful farming/ranching tribes which fled the murderous Aztec. When they arrived in the southwest, there was little way to eek out a living except for raiding the even more peaceful Pueblo tribes . . . the reason they built their cliff cities. The Navajo did the same but were quicker than their Aztec cousins to adapt to the farming/ranching techniques which their new harsh climate required.

The entire lesson of Native American history is what happens when you don't/can't/won't control immigration. There is a lesson in there for the white man.

[ansel12]

Throughout America, torture, rape, killing and slavery were the norm for Indians, the exceptions are the exception, not the rule.

From the Northwest to the Northeast, to the
Southwest, to the plains, from one century to the next.

[x]

Those are the "two-spirits" or berdaches. Some men in Indian tribes did women's work and lived in a sense as women, and some were seen as shamans, magicians or visionaries. That much is true.

Just how true the rest of it is, I don't know. There were a lot of different tribes. Generalizing, especially about things people didn't talk about and certainly didn't think about in the same way 21st century Westerners do, isn't likely to get us very far.

[B4Ranch]

If they were afforded such high status we would have heard about this long before now.

[B4Ranch]

The Washington Cornholers would be an accurate and honoring name also?

[vetvetdoug]

I guess Little Bear from the movie, Little Big Man was historically accurate.

[Dutch Boy]

Sounds like a Ward Churchill kind of fact.

[Moonman62]

Thanks for breaking my BS meter.

[CommerceComet]

The Pawnee, who were the great nation who served as the buffer territory between the Sioux and Comanche by the 18th century, were also a largely peaceful farming people. I think they were one of the few who actually asked to be located to a reservation because they got tired of being caught in the crossfire.

The Pawnee were generally peaceful with the whites, not so much with neighboring tribes. They were in an almost perpetual state of war with the nomadic buffalo hunters of the plains who would often range into the Pawnee hunting grounds in Nebraska and particularly the buffalo-rich plains of Kansas. Any incursion by the Comanche, Kiowa, Arapaho, Cheyenne, Sioux would be seen by the Pawnee as an aggressive act and responded to violently.

The Pawnee annually sacrificed a maiden in their fertility ceremony when the corn was planted. The young girl was usually a captive from some other tribe.

I don't think that most historians view the Pawnee as a particularly peaceful tribe. Any tribe who held large portions of the rich buffalo hunting grounds like the Pawnee did so by military might. The Pawnee had a reputation of being formidable fighters individually and because of the size of the tribe, it could form large war parties. Even the fierce Comanche were known to avoid a direct confrontation with the Pawnee.

[kaehurowing]

And here I thought they were called squaws and reviled. . . .