Free Republic
Browse · Search
News/Activism
Topics · Post Article

To: 1010RD
True, but it depends on what you define as great.

The Comanche, for instance, moved from being a backwater tribe who couldn't do anything well, circa 1650, into being the dominant tribe in what roughly covers 2/3rds of west Texas, western Oklahoma and Kansas, large swaths of northern Mexico plus 2/3rds of eastern New Mexico and Colorado for the next two centuries.

They were avid polygamists as were most Native American tribes who lost a large part of their male population through constant warfare. It was a matter of necessity more than sexual gratification.

The Comanche were not very nice, to say the least, but most of the American southwest belongs to us and not Mexico because they kept the Spanish at bay for more than 150 years.

All of the generations of Jewish patriarchs from Abraham through Solomon's sons were also polygamists and the Bible isn't really clear on when the practice ended.

Not that I'm advocating it, just pointing out the the "wise Latina" at least has the sense to question where this grand experiment with marriage is going to end.

65 posted on 03/27/2013 2:20:23 PM PDT by Vigilanteman (Obama: Fake black man. Fake Messiah. Fake American. How many fakes can you fit in one Zer0?)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 53 | View Replies ]


To: Vigilanteman

We are in agreement and your example of the Commanche is a very good one. I didn’t know that about them. What I mean is that polygamy as a word means married to many. Polygyny simply means a man married to more than one women. That’s the universal pattern. You don’t find oddball relationships like a woman married to more than one man, etc.


135 posted on 03/27/2013 7:48:30 PM PDT by 1010RD (First, Do No Harm)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 65 | View Replies ]

Free Republic
Browse · Search
News/Activism
Topics · Post Article


FreeRepublic, LLC, PO BOX 9771, FRESNO, CA 93794
FreeRepublic.com is powered by software copyright 2000-2008 John Robinson