StannisTheMannis said: "Smaller, fringe tribes may've been war mongering (no similar to gangs or outlaws during the Wild West days, even today for that matter) but that doesn't change the fact that the vast majority were peaceful indian tribes who lived in harmony with nature and had a beautiful and rich culture that was subsequently destroyed under the banner of fur trade."
Um... The largest, most powerful tribes were the most warlike. Do some research on the Sioux (Lakota), Iroquois, Comanche, Blackfoot, Apache. You will find that the biggest tribes that held the largest amounts of territory were ALWAYS the most warlike. They were merciless to their enemies and drove entire tribes off their lands and forced them to move far away. Warfare was an integral part of most tribes' cultures, especially the powerful ones. War was how a man advanced his station in life. War was the business of the Indian tribes.
The historical truth was basically the exact opposite of what you said. Sorry, but it's ridiculous to debate someone with such a basic misunderstanding of the subject.
And how can you see some poor white pioneer family trying to carve out a living on the vast, open plains by honest hard work, who gets slaughtered by painted warriors out for scalps and loot as "evil"?
Here is part of the account of Rachel Plummer, who was captured by the Comanche at a time when Whites were basically isolated, powerless settlers on the Texas plains with little or no military might to back them up:
" During the horrendous northern trek, Rachel never had anything to wear on her feet, and snow covered the ground. They made her work most of the night, and with very little sleep, was forced to continue the trek during the day.
In October, she gave birth to her second child--she was pregnant when captured. The Indians had become less hostile and allowed her to keep her baby with her. However, when the baby was about six weeks old, the Indians decided he took too much of her work time, and so one morning they entered her hut and snatched him from her arms.
One large male caught hold of him by the throat and holding him out so his little body dangled, he squeezed until the little one appeared to be dead.
"I tried with all my feeble strength to retrieve him, but others held me down. They threw the babe up into the air and let him fall on the frozen ground, apparently dead. They gave him back to me, and I saw a small sign of life. I washed the blood from his face, but when they saw that he had a little life left, they took him again."
In essence, they tied a rope around the child's neck and drew its naked body through the prickly pears. To shorten the details, I will conclude this part by saying they did this repeatedly until his little body was torn to shreds. They brought his body and threw it in Rachel's lap.
It was then that she gave her captives a miniscule amount of silent praise, because they left her alone long enough to grieve a while, dig a hole, and bury her baby. By this time, she had no tears left.
"I sat down and gazed with joy upon the resting place of my infant. I rejoiced that it had passed from the sufferings and sorrows of this world."
http://sweetheartsofthewest.blogspot.com/2014/05/rachel-parker-plummer-tragic-comanche.html
reply
share