Replies

There is revisionism to a point; of course there are two sides to every issue. The Indians were here first and could be seen, rightly so, as defending their turf. Some of the tribes were friendly and peaceful, while others were fighting among themselves constantly, before and after the colonists came. Massacres by indians were still a threat in PA after 1750. I don't know the exact date when New England was made more secure, probably just before 1750. There are many forts still in existence. The purpose of those forts was as a lookout and shelter from indians. Often the settlers had to seek shelter in them. Fort #4 in Charlestown, NH on the Connecticut River comes to mind. There were many in PA as well.

The reason I know both sides is from having studied genealogy. One of my ancestors was killed while working in a field in PA and had his heart cut out and held in the air at knifepoint as a trophy. Another ancestor was hit with an arrow in CT in the 1600's near Fort Saybrook while burning off a field but he survived. He was wounded in the thigh. I could well not be here ;-) if the aim had been better!

There are several general newsgroups for New England genealogy at rootsweb where people have culled some of the accounts, mostly first-hand, from older publications. The archives can be searched.

Basically I believe it was a clash of civilizations and I concede that, at times, we treated them brutally, which I regret. I do resent the agendized presentation of history, however. My granddaughter learned the revisionist version in school. In choosing to refer to them as terrorists, they were certainly that in the eyes of many settlers although the phrase hadn't entered the English lexicon yet, at least in that context.