Posted on 08/18/2013 4:48:36 PM PDT by Uncle Chip
But ... but ... “Dances With Wolves” ...! I thought it was the WHITE MAN who was the barbarian.
A truce assumes honor amongst both sides in a disagreement, not honor of criminal action. Once the kidnapped victim gave testimony of others still being held captive, those receiving the report were duty bound to act upon it, not to honor the criminal behavior of their adversaries.
With over 500 different tribes/nations of ‘native Americans’ throughout the continent, I haven’t found much in common between them other than perhaps most were pagan. It isn’t surprising for those who worship demons to also oppose anything Christian, even degenerating into cannibalism, but the relationships with settlers and colonials with Native Americans is as diverse as European History. Freedom and Liberty tended to follow the path of Christianity than any other substitute for a relationship with God.
You are quite correct that tribes varied greatly.
As an example, it appears rape was surprisingly rare for captives of the Iroquois, but routine and appalling by the Comanche.
Well stated.
I've had a pet peeve with some 'Native Americans' who might have 10% heritage of a mixed tribal background, who continually claim the White Man owes them (they're also 80% German/Anglo white) for stealing the North American Continent from them.
They also claim the 17th century Native Americans had cities with over 1 million inhabitants in the upper Northwest and throughout the US.
I can buy that perhaps 1/4mil lived throughout the North American Continent, generally in 40-4000 person groupings spread out around riverine communities, but I don't witness the Engineering support requisite for populations larger than 50,000, nor the archeological evidence as one finds in Europe.
One of the worst films in that regard was “Little Big Man” which painted a false picture of Custer and the Indians. Of course we should have expected nothing less than that from leftist Arthur Penn, who made the movie. The Sioux were warlike and took other Indian tribes’ land. Neither side was guiltless.
Even many of the American army generals like Custer, Sheridan, and other said that it was sad they were destroying the Indian way of life and that they couldn't fault the Indians for fighting back. Nevertheless, modern historians have tried to paint a false image of the noble Indian who didn't exist in reality. The Indians were like all the earth's peoples...some good some bad. Some tribes were peaceful and some were bloodthirsty, cruel, and warlike.
When we get down to the truth, the American Indians were a relatively small group of primitive people, who like all primitive peoples had to eventually give way to a stronger, superior culture. There's no way in the modern world the Indians, like all primitive peoples around the world, could keep living the same lives as they had for thousands of years. I don't blame the Indians for fighting back, I'd have done the same. But the life of wandering the plains and hunting the buffalo was doomed as soon as the first white settlers set foot on the continent. All primitive cultures either adapt to modernity or perish.
What the authors miss while being hung up on the warrior/raider aspects of the Comanche, along with their women's abilities at creative torture, is that regardless of what they did, they were damned good at it, whether that was adapting to using the horse, intimidating enemies, or functioning in "the white man's world".
They adapted successfully, whether we liked the results or not.
For all those who have some sort of TEOTWAWKI vision of peaceful folks taking on the occasional marauder, I'd suggest dusting off the plans for a death ray and maybe grinding out a few against the time when they'll be needed.
Chances are there will be groups every bit as fearsome as the Comanche of old, and for a while, the raiders will outnumber the peaceful folks--and perhaps prevail over them. The structural units are already in place in the wide variety of street gangs, drug cartels, and affiliated loose organizations present in North America even today.
Even now, while we claim to be civilized, we tolerate the existence of a feral element within our own society, and forcibly ignore it in our media.
Captured women commonly endured a period of slavery, often at the hands of the other women. Those who could not hack it remained slaves. Those who could, were often permitted to marry into the tribe and gain status. At the mercy of those who might see them as competitors for desirable men, the captured might be disfigured by those in control of them to take them out of the running.
Captured women, screened thus, added, via their children, to the gene pool. Slave women's children might not fare so well.
As far as producing children, well, all the women were pretty much expected to. It was a way to replace those lost to disease, hunger, and warfare.
As far as the women being the torture experts, that is no surprise. Women have a general capacity for vindictive acts far beyond what most men would exact. Men would just kill the SOB at some point and get on with the rest of their day.
now , yes, very mixed race
Actually, the whites displaced the Iroquois, who displaced the Ojibway, who displaced the Sioux from the northern lake country onto the plains. Then the Sioux got the horse and learned to fight.
It stems from two impulses. The first comes from the urge to romanticize and identify with the Indian lifestyle and bestow the exalted "victim" status upon them. This is largely caused by near-complete ignorance, coupled with a dash of self-righteousness. It also results from a desire to admire their enemies, a classic mistake. Back in the days of the Cold War, I respected Soviet capabilities but never admired or wanted to be like them as a nation or society.
The second comes from the classic Rousseauian concept of the "noble savage," people who lived in the original "state of nature" to which many Enlightenment "thinkers" aspired. It postulates that men originally lived in bliss, at one with nature and gentle and loving to their fellow creatures, human and animal. In fact, as Hobbes pointed out, life in the state of nature was solitary, poor, nasty, brutish and short.
The latter phenomena is currently manifested today as environmentalism. Liberal attitudes and arguments don't change -- just current circumstances.
“...Plenty of white conservative and Christians are buying it....”
Sadly, you are correct. But ... our job to wake them up.
“Little Big Man” made Custer look like an idiot.
When he and his command were killed, it was viewed as a National tragedy; he’d been a hero in the Civil War, and this country loved the guy.
There’s a very good book written some years ago called “Son Of The Morning Star” about Custer and the Little Bighorn. It also deals with the Indian side of the battle as well. It’s an excellent read, and it dispels a lot of the bullsh*t revisionist crap we get.
I always taught my kids - you read history that was written by the people who were there; not some 30-something Marxist Professor who was taught by another Marxist professor.
“...excusing the Islamist atrocities...”
Problem - for the left - is that the muzzies hate them as well and are using them for THEIR ends and purposes.
They’ll slaughter them as quickly as possible if they ever get control of the country. How many liberals do you see in Muzzie countries? Think they’ll be standing up for same-sex marriage???
Don’t count on it.
ping
But regarding his death, according to Utley, Custer's battle plans were not unsound. He simply didn't achieve the coordinating effect he wanted from Reno and Benteen. And to be fair, all the previous, similar battle plans had worked. But this time "Custer's luck" ran out. Custer was always a big risk taker, and fortunate to survive the Civil War. But if Benteen (who hated Custer) had not been slow and Reno not retreated at the first sign of difficulty, Custer might have won that engagement.
But regarding his death, according to Utley, Custer's battle plans were not unsound. He simply didn't achieve the coordinating effect he wanted from Reno and Benteen. And to be fair, all the previous, similar battle plans had worked. But this time "Custer's luck" ran out. Custer was always a big risk taker, and fortunate to survive the Civil War. But if Benteen (who hated Custer) had not been slow and Reno not retreated at the first sign of difficulty, Custer might have won that engagement.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.