Movie makers interested in Hannah Duston story

"Have you? If not, what qualifies you to judge her conduct as anything other than savage?"

Uhm, no. That's why I didn't judge her. I said that I hadn't been through it so I couldn't say that she was a savage for doing it. It's just interesting to me that someone who didn't live at that time and has no idea what she went through would stand up and say how they are so much better than her.

"The Indians who murdered her child were probably honored by their people at the time as well. So?"

Wow. The point is easily lost on you. I know that public school has tried to instill the idea that all cultures are equally good but it's not true.

The settlers of that time would have had similar values to ours, whereas these Indians would not have. This is seen in a cursory reading of history of that time period. That's why the opinion of the settlers is significant to us and the opinion of the Indians is not. We have much in common with the settlers and not much in common with Indian tribes like this one, although there were other tribes which had values closer to ours.

Uhm, no. That's why I didn't judge her. I said that I hadn't been through it so I couldn't say that she was a savage for doing it.

By saying so, you've made a judgement excusing her actions by saying that circumstances could arise in which the sadistic mutilation of human beings is justified and that hers may have been such a circumstance.

Wow. The point is easily lost on you.

I'm afraid I'd have to say the point has rather been lost by you, since you don't address it.

The settlers of that time would have had similar values to ours, whereas these Indians would not have.

If the values of the settlers of that time included approval of deliberate, unnecessary mutilation of enemies, the settlers were as savage as the Indians. Such values are not similar to mine, nor to those of most other people. It can be argued that it took a level of savagery and uncivilized behavior to tame this continent, and I won't argue with that. Attempting to portray such acts as somehow better than that of the Indians is illogical and ethically weak, however.

"By saying so, you've made a judgement excusing her actions by saying that circumstances could arise in which the sadistic mutilation of human beings is justified and that hers may have been such a circumstance."

Nope, I just said that I would leave it up to her contemporaries (and obviously, to God) to judge her, not me. Just because I don't know that I would do it doesn't automatically mean it is wrong, which is the opposite of what you are saying.

"I'm afraid I'd have to say the point has rather been lost by you, since you don't address it."

It's been addressed more than once, you just don't agree with the answer.

"Such values are not similar to mine, nor to those of most other people. It can be argued that it took a level of savagery and uncivilized behavior to tame this continent, and I won't argue with that. "

Read some history. The settlers didn't delight in the tortures like the Indians did. There is definitely a huge difference between the two groups if you take the time to find out.

"Attempting to portray such acts as somehow better than that of the Indians is illogical and ethically weak, however."

Anyone who claims to be on a higher moral plane based on a story like this is the one who is being illogical and ethically weak. Read some history from that time period, it might surprise you what they did to lawbreakers, much less savages, back then. You will find yourself even more at odds with the settlers and especially the founders of this country.

Metesky, Hanna my type of woman, I drive by her statue a couple of times a day.

During King Phillips war 40% of the population, English, were murdered by the peaceful, nature loving Indians and the frogs. I will admit that even as low a creature as a frog was disgusted by the native americans treatment of their captives.

Old Hanna reminds me of my Grand Mother who could nail a rabbit at 20 yards with a .22 at 73. She lost family during the Indian wars in the 1870's and didn't think well of them, or what was left of certain members of her family.

What ever happened to that Italian fellow, the Faux Indian, who shed a tear.

Nope, I just said that I would leave it up to her contemporaries (and obviously, to God) to judge her, not me.

I won't. Similarly, I won't leave it up to contemporaries of Genghis Khan or Napoleon or any other historical figure to judge their actions - judging the actions of figures from the past is one of the reasons for the study of history.

There is definitely a huge difference between the two groups if you take the time to find out.

Approval of scalping was obviously not one of these differences.

Read some history from that time period, it might surprise you what they did to lawbreakers, much less savages, back then. You will find yourself even more at odds with the settlers and especially the founders of this country.

Oh, no doubt. I'm already at odds with their decision to allow the enslavement of fellow human beings.

I grew up on the banks of the Merrimac river near the Methuen line. There is a monument at the spot where she came ashore after escaping that was erected in the early 1800's. The monument is about 100yds south of the rest area hidden by dense undergrowth on the river bank.

I'm trying to remember the place name for your section of town, IYAAYAS, and can't for the life of me. Seems to me it was the name of a stream that entered the Merrimac right around there.

I'm a Riverside lad myself, part of the notorious Tilton's Corner crew from the fifties and sixties. Tilton's Corner is the intersection where the Riverside Memorial Church and Hannah's Market are on Groveland Street. We were quite the "gang" what with our baseball and football teams, pimples, hot rods and teenage angst.

Sometimes I think I'm related to half the population of Riverside.

"I won't. Similarly, I won't leave it up to contemporaries of Genghis Khan or Napoleon or any other historical figure to judge their actions - judging the actions of figures from the past is one of the reasons for the study of history."

You crack me up. You forgot to compare her to Hitler, Pol Pot, Saddam Hussein, Mao, et. al. The list is long and distinguished and you wouldn't want to leave anyone out.

You forgot to compare her to Hitler, Pol Pot, Saddam Hussein, Mao, et. al. The list is long and distinguished and you wouldn't want to leave anyone out.

I didn't compare her to anyone. You did. I was simply pointing out that your scalping heroine is an historical figure and her actions can and should be judged by anyone interested in her history, as should those of any historical figure. Your "see-no-evil" views certainly don't apply to the Indians who murdered her baby - you have plenty of problems with them. You just choose not to see the problem with a woman who needlessly mutilated fellow human beings, and that would crack me up if it weren't so morally and ethically sad.

"You just choose not to see the problem with a woman who needlessly mutilated fellow human beings"

I thought she mutilated dead bodies, not "fellow human beings". She killed them (which was justifiable IMO but you may disagree with that, too) and then she scalped them. Presumably she scalpled them for a purpose as was mentioned in one of the stories about it, she didn't scalp them just for fun and sport like the savages did.

And, yes, I see a vast difference between what she did and what they did to her baby. Perhaps you should judge the difference between those two acts.

I thought she mutilated dead bodies, not "fellow human beings".

The article that started this thread doesn't make that clear - in one account, she befriended several of the Indians, got them drunk and then killed them. It's not clear if the scalping took place during the killings.

She killed them (which was justifiable IMO but you may disagree with that, too)

No, don't disagree - she probably had to kill them to escape.

and then she scalped them. Presumably she scalpled them for a purpose as was mentioned in one of the stories about it, she didn't scalp them just for fun and sport like the savages did.

What was this purpose?

And, yes, I see a vast difference between what she did and what they did to her baby.

I see a difference as well. That still doesn't make what she did any less savage.

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.