"Evil Indians?" Topic

Reading the history of the west, it becomes obvious that the most famous leaders who ended up with a blood-thirsty reputation had actually exercised great patience with the whites and only went on the warpath after severe provocation/being backed into a corner. (Even the fictitious Maugua has a tomahawk to grind) On the other hand there lots of foul natured whites like Chivington & Custer.

However, I can't believe all native Americans were so noble. Can anyone identify native individuals who seem to have started out treacherous, sadistic or psychotic?

Treacherous, sadistic or psychotic can be used for both sides, broken treaties killing wives and children and torture were common.

Have a look at 'Cannibalism, Headhunting and Human Sacrifice in North America: A History Forgotten" by George Franklin Feldman.
A revealing book that shows the bad in both sides.

Certain Apache leaders were considered eveil/cruel just for the pleasure of it.

Thanks,

John

Like everywhere else in the world there were good and bad people on all sides of the conflict.

For a counter point to what you have been reading try "Scalp Dance", "Indian Depredations in Texas", and "The Wild Frontier" for starters.

Custer was hardly "foul natured" and even Chivington and his crew had considerable provocation for descending into barbarism.

When cultures as opposed to nations clash, the fight usually becomes pretty ugly pretty fast.

Bob

If you read about the Seven Years War (French & Indian War) the Hurons and Iroquois had a very savage reputation

Mind you, so did Roger's Rangers and the coureur de bois

The Indians were a very primitive, basically stone age culture at the time in question. Another good read is "A Fate Worse Than Death" by Greg and Sue Michno.

Given the fact that the industrial revolution was expanding westward into an area occupied by a stone age culture that needed thousands of acres per capita to support a nomadic hunting lifestyle, probably most Indian leaders could be said to have some provocation for fighting. However, this land grabing was not confined to whites. The plains Indians were always driving each other from their hunting grounds.

Today the Sioux want the return of the Black Hills. Well, they took it from the Kiowa.

Most people do not realize that Custer's fight on the Little Big Horn actually was fought on the Crow reservation. The Crow had always been pushed around by the stronger Sioux. That is probably the reason the Crow were generally friendly to the whites and our allies.

The problem is that the old time plains Indian society condoned rape, brutal captivity, torture, and the purposeful killing of noncombatants. While some whitemen certainly did some of that, white society as a whole found it reprehensible.

Tom

1950's Cowboy movie slant = evil indians.
2000+ History Channel etc. , slant = rapcious whites.
As we all know, there has been a continued shift towards this point of view. I find the 50's at best mildly entertaining and the current homogenized view annoying. The actual actions of both sides (facts), as many of you have listed are much more interesting.

Blue Duck.

But wasn't Blue Duck just a half-mexican / half-indian outlaw? Or am I not recalling my McMurtry canon correctly?

I notice people aren't throwing out many individual names here…

I once read an apocryphal story about a raid which illustrated the cultural clash between the Settlers & the Indians. During the Republic of Texas era, a few Comanches raided an isolated farm, killing the father & son & raping the wife. The Braves found the man's whisky & got drunk enough that the woman could escape. She made her way to the closest neighbors & raised the alarm but when the Settlers' posse arrived the Indians were long gone, having taken livestock & all else they wanted, then burning the house & barn. A few days later, 2 of the Braves rode into the nearest town hoping to trade 1 of the stolen horses for whisky & ammo; the victim of their assault recognized them & they were arrested. The Indians admitted the depredation, but when told that they'd be hung protested that they'd "had their warpaint on" at the time & so punishing them wasn't fair.

>I notice people aren't throwing out many individual names here…

The Sioux who nailed a baby to the door post of his parent's cabin during the 1862 Sioux uprising failed to leave his calling card.

Terror was the most effective weapon that the indians had – a tradestore rifle against gattling guns and cannon are not that effective.

All native North American societies that I'm aware of understood and practised the concept of total war. So killing 'non combatants' and the ritual practice of torture and mutilation were the norm. Take over of a weaker enemies land was also common. Rape of captured women was routine. None of this makes Native Americans intrinsicaly evil it just demonstrates the huge cultural gap between 'Indian' norms and American ones.

If you want chapter and verse on incidents read Son of the Morning Star, Commanches or Geronimo (Sorry no authors as I'm not at home but Amazon would do it for you).

On the other hand opposition to the use of exactly the same methods by Americans was directly proportionate to distance from the Frontier and the length of time since the locality was cleared of 'Indians'. White society on the Frontier was passionatley in favour of extirmination.

…and the ritual practice of torture and mutilation were the norm.

Well what else are you going to do when you don't have Cable TV?

Hi

To add to the concept of distance from the frontier changing the narrative, you can add "historical distance". The further we recede from the events, the more we revise the story.

I remember a passage written by Donald Hamilton observing that only in america could an apache delighting in skinning an enemy alive and leaving his bloody body flopping in the dust till he died as entertainmen be ignored with time to lead to "the noble savage".

In fact, the myth of the noble savage starts in colonial times. Perhaps earlier, but I don't off hand remember reading it.

We often too much focus on the "american" experience. But the franciscans whose sole interest was saving souls has been revised to become religous nuts and ignoring how often they were willing to die horribly in their efforts to save souls.

"stealing land from the noble savage" is just as wrong as all the other stereotypes.

Rocky

Kicks-Dogs-Often and Pulls-Wings-Off-Flies were two of the worst.

On the other hand I recently read, that the "tradition" of taking a scalp (sp?) was introduced by white settlers. They would collect the scalp to receive bounty for killed natives. Sorry, I can not provide the source for this on the spot.

phil

I've heard that. Mind you it was from NEMESIS THE WARLOCK In 2000AD so not a hugely reliable source

Talking of missionaries I heard some charmers in South America christened indian babies then killed them to minimise theirchances of going to hell. The Missions where Apaches where forcibly worked & starved worse than concentration camp inmates sound like another great advert for the Church…

Actually phil that is also a falsehood spread abundantly since the 1960's.

Yes scalp bounties were paid (in fact Quebec may still have one on the books), but that is not the origin of scalping in the Americas.

Also not every native tribe was engaged in scalping. The Apache certainly were not but that didn't mean they were any kinder to their enemies.

Bob

Individual names?

In later life Geronimo admitted that he was sad that he used to bounce captured babies up in the air until they were happy and then impale them on his knife when they came down.

That Native atrocities happened is well documented. Unlike white atrocities these were not newsworthy censurable events and the Indian media didn't always record the names of the guilty.

Bob

"Scalping and Torture, Warfare Practices Among North American Indians" published by Iroqrafts LTD…

Oh …how does "All native North American societies that I'm aware of understood and practised the concept of total war." square with the concept of counting coup?

As far as my tribe was concerned this kind of absolute statement is patently wrong.

Regarding Apaches a lot of raids credited to them seem to have been carried out by Commanches. No one thought the Commanche could range so far. AFAIK the Commanches fairly hammered the Apache at every opportunity.

What sort of nastiness would indians see as censurable then?

"What sort of nastiness would indians see as censurable then?"

Any actions their enemies took against them from what I've read.

This would spawn a revenge raid much like Chivington's on a smaller scale…smaller scale vs. whites because only occasionally were native bands strong enough to attack a town rather than an isolated settlement. Vs. other tribes there were frequent very bloody raids between say the Lakota and the Crow.

A scalp was a scalp and all races sexes and ages provided them.

Again speaking in generalities with all the pitfalls that entails.

Bob

Quote – "Oh Bleeped text…how does "All native North American societies that I'm aware of understood and practised the concept of total war." square with the concept of counting coup?"

Beshkno – Counting Coup was not so much about not killing the enemy as it was showing your own bravery and contempt for the enemy's ability to hurt you. Counting coup squares very well with total war, especially when viewed as a practice to whip up the courage courage of your troops and demoralize your opponent, at the beginning of a fight.

Counting Coup showed your courage. You got up close. It was more of an achievement than killing from afar. It was also Big Medicine and that was very important. It was not a substitute for killing. It usually happened as part of the engagement. You could also count Coup on a corpse and more than on person could count coup on the same body living or dead. Diffent tribes had different rules on this.

Apparently their word was, individualy, their bond breaking your word was shockingly wrong to them. Hospitality was usualy observed too. You can already see how broken treaties or trading store massacres must have seemed to them.

This discussion displays so much ignorance I don't know where to start. For those of you in the states, if this is a subject that is of interest, go talk to some real Indians.

For the rest of you, don't believe 70% of what you read.

mjc

Is your implication then that oral history is more accurate than the written word?

Or do you equally not belieive 70% of what you hear?

Serious question.

Bob

>For those of you in the states, if this is a subject that is of interest, go talk to some real Indians.

I don't have the money to go to Calcutta…

"For those of you in the states, if this is a subject that is of interest, go talk to some real Indians."

Because, as we all know, the concept of revisionist history is unknown to them.

Of course, you wouldn't think that if you listened to the tribes claiming previously unsuspected "ancestral lands" in the quest to establish new Native American casinos…

Allen

Bob,

You are close to hitting the nail on the head. I live in the west. I grew up with Indians (that is what they call themselves by the way -- not Native Americans).

When did the Nez Pierce attempt to move to Canada? 1876 – 1877.

When did Custer entertain Sitting Bull and Crazy Horse? 1876.

These events are much more recent than the ACW. Further, exactly how many book writing reporters were present at the Little Big Horn or at Bannock? Ever wonder where all that information that appears in the books came from?

Indian oral traditions are not to be discounted. Very often you can find verification for what they are talking about. I recently watched a documentary on the Great Lakes. A bunch of scientists went to a lot of trouble to prove lake levels were much lower during the 'little ice age'. Turns out local Indian oral histories described not only the lower lake levels but also the event that lead to the higher water levels!

You see the same thing in Africa. Stories are a big deal in some societies. Dunno about your folks but I listened to all kinds of stories told in my family. Some dating back well into the old west. My mother got a reel to reel and interviewed by great grandfather before he died in the 60's. IIRC he was pushing 100 or maybe a little older. He had all kinds of stories about the gold rush days, cleaning out mines as a child. Driving horses to Alaska. Even described a hastily built cabin with a very low chimney. They woke up one morning to a puma that had crawled in through the chimney -- some rather tense moments before someone shot the cat. I've hiked that gulch. The cabin is long gone, but the short stone chimney is still there today.

Some of this stuff has found it's way into books and some of it hasn't. In another 100 years, what should we believe? The book or the tapes?

Personally, I find a lot of stuff based on Ramses II's propaganda less believable than other contemporary sources. But if you are a Rameses fan, there's a lot of books out there that will cite this stuff as proof positive. After all if you put it in some of the most stupendous temples ever built, it can't be wrong -- can it?

My personal opinion is that books are written for a purpose and what goes into a book is seldom as objective as many would later believe. Almost every book ever written contains material support the author's point of view -- which may or may not be right.

Oral histories? Are these any better or any worse.

Go listen to some tribal elders before you sell this kind of resource short.

mjc

Well despite a night out with two Lakota in Newcastle and hosting a Cherokee delegation in London most of what I understand about this topic comes from books. I do take your point about objectivity and I have a very healthy respect for the histiographical applications of oral tradition. You have obviously had a great deal of access to the latter. Care to share on this topic?

>Go listen to some tribal elders before you sell this kind of resource short.

I wouldn't place them higher than primary sources from the time period in question.

This discussion displays so much ignorance I don't know where to start. For those of you in the states, if this is a subject that is of interest, go talk to some real Indians.

Asking contemporary Native Americans with Cherokee heritage about Huron practices circa 1750 is not going to do me a whole lot of good.

And before you get all angry with me, let me state that I am not in complete disagreement with you about oral history traditions.

My point is that discussing "Indian" practices is way overly vague and general from ANY source. Even if confined to the beginning of interaction with Europeans, the period runs from 1500-1890's (or the present), covers a continent and its accompanying islands and deals with countless societies with unique issues regarding lifestyle, survival concerns, and language.

Getting to the meat of my point: Interactions and conflict with "Indians" (European or other Indian) was extremely circumstantial and situationally driven. Within even one conflict, Pontiac's Rebellion for example, the whole range of noble conflict vs. atrocity fest can be found.

There were no "Indian" practices. Just "What did the Ottawa and Huron Warbands raiding into western Pennsylvania do in 1763?" or "What was Geronimo's real objective when he was negotiating with Miles to come back to the reservation, sincere or set-up?"

So, quidveritas, the Indians you have lived with and spoken with are aquainted with a particular lineage of bloodline and geography, and as accurate as they may be for those circumstances, they are limited by the same.

According to Francis Parkman in "History Of New France in Florida" (I think the title is correct) the first recorded account of scalping was from a Spanish source in the 1530's.

Having read first person accounts,white, black, and Indian, and then having read later testimony on the same event by some of the same people, I can't say I share your faith in oral traditions.

The further removed from an event the less a recounting jibe with what was recorded directly after the event. It's a bit like the childeren's game of telephone.

That is not to say that oral tradition is without merit. It's a source that must be weighed against other sources not discounted out of hand.

That having been said, Indian testimony is also often biased for the very good reason that the warrior reporting events to the whites didn't want to say anything that would get him hung, or have repercussions on his tribe. An entirely sensible approach but one that leads to lack of veracity.

First person and photographic evidence clearly shows mutilation of victims, whether while still living or as the warriors are apt to report only on the already dead/only done by the women is a certainty.

Bob

Edited for grammar.

Hi

Quid…..your post is just as bad as the others! You are who you complain about.

Our problem is that most people want a clean distinction between the good guys and the bad guys. Instead, what we have are humans with complex motives making history for their own reasons.

My best friend growing up was navajo and his mom, besides deciding I didn't eat enough, loved to tell me the navajo version of history. And,not surprisingly, the navajo were the good guys, the clever folk, mostly women, who tricked apache!

One of her ideas was that navajo were so numerous because, way back when, the women realized they could trick the white guys into killing their enemies for them.

And this is a continuing thread in some histories out there. Fred Anderson holds that the French and Indian war was engineered by the Iraquois who hoped the Brits and French would wipe each other out…and involve killing a lot of enemy indians.

The modern concept of "us and them" meaning "indian and white" doesn't quite stand up in detail. In general, indians just saw white guys as another force to be used or faught, and white guys usually didn't see "indian bad" rather, "good indians I join with versus bad indians we both want to kill".

or as in Custer had Crow helping.

R

FINE. . . your primitive NORTH AMERICAN INDIAN cultural sanctions the concept of murder, rape, tortute, mutilation as a part of total warfare among the tribes as well as against the EURO-DEWDS, early and later AMERICANS.

WELL, my EURO-DEWD, early and later frontier AMERICAN culture sanctions payback is a bitch, and is also very familiar with the concept of total warfare, too.

SOOOO, there are folks enough on both sides who are more than ready and willing to do the atrocities on both sides of the wars.

DAWGIE

Bob,

Again you are nearly 100% correct. The Indians feared reprisals. That is why there was so little information to be had on the Indian side of things.

This does not mean the Indians did not discuss the matters among themselves. These stories heard by children and grand children were not told to glorify or denigrate. Some of the reasons for the telling are entirely different than we might suspect.

Does that make them 100% credible. Nope. I'm just suggesting they might be more believable than Caesar's Chronicles.

mjc

mjc,

I suspect we are in agreement on principle with each of us applying more weight in one way than the other ; )

Yes, all sources must be questioned and cross checked where possible and so much of this particular subject is beyond certainty at this point.

As posted earlier there were good and bad individuals on both sides and enough provocation to go around in buckets for each….the usual sad outcome of culture rather than national clashes.

Bob

An interesting discussion, fraught with the usual high tempers.

To answer the original question, I would suggest reading about the life of the so-called The Apache Kid (Haskay-bay-nay-natyl).

Wikipedia's article on it is very biased FOR the kid: link

Note how it only gives a short paragraph covering his crimes. However, many of the other books and articles I've read about him set him off to be a living example of what you were asking about. I strongly suggest you look up some articles on him and see what you think.

I like his original name, both in sound & meaning!