5 ms·

> At issue was a part of it that referred to "merciless Indian savages". I mean.. not sure I disagree

zerr 8y ago
I'm pretty sure :)
hajile 8y ago
When a settler's cabin was attacked, the warriors would attack everyone -- armed men plus unarmed women and children. At the end of the attack, captured women and girls would often be raped then killed. The surviving men would be scalped and tortured to death over a couple of days. The injured would be hacked to death by the Indian women and children. You can debate how often this happened, but first-hand stories are relatively common in surviving military personnel diaries from the time. What would be our reaction today if a group of people attacked a family and did such things? We talk about the horror of mass shootings, but they don't even come close to that level of horrifying. All of this violated the rules of war and decent behavior. After seeing the remains of this horror show, what would you be inclined to do when you caught up with the perpetrators? Mens Rea If I sell you the Brooklyn Bridge and demand payment in Monopoly money, who's the real crook? I would be because I sold what I did not own and reaped a profit (however small) at your expense. If an Indian sold land they didn't believe they owned for what they believed to be valuable, who was the real thief? Consider scalping. While it is generally considered a method of trophy collecting, the meaning was deeper. A scalped warrior was denied access to the eternal hunting grounds. Literally, to their minds, scalping was a way of keeping someone from going to heaven. Doing this from the motive of hatred or payment by the French/British was still the ultimate condemnation (and in the case of payment, without even the excuse of honor). The re-writing of history to fit current politics doesn't do society any favors.
- deleted 8y ago
  [deleted]
- kthejoker2 8y ago
  I like how we begin your story in media res with the settler's cabin already established as if ordained by the laws of nature, disrupted from its idyllic divine creation by these warriors perpetrating violence. Who's rewriting what now?
  - hajile 8y ago
    I thought it axiomatic that squatting on someone else's property was not the same as butchering someones entire family. That aside, you cannot claim land cannot be owned then claim ownership over it. However, if ownership can be claimed, then who is the owner, the thief or the thief who steals from the first thief? Consider the Sioux. People think of the Sioux as the plains Indians, but they lived in the great lakes area. The Iroquois stole their land from them. In turn they fought to drive off the semi agrarian Pawnee Indians (who had good relations with the settlers -- probably because they were settling down themselves) winning a decisive victory by massacre. If you go farther back than that, there is tribe after tribe fighting and butchering the previous one. Going to Europe, you see the same pattern. Tribes butcher each other until they are conquered or a tribe survives long enough to settle and establish dominance. I don't hear about the land argument when discussing those indigenous peoples (and unlike the Indians, most of them believed land could be stolen).
- olavk 8y ago
  Are you saying it was worse when Indians scalped settlers than when settlers scalped Indians?
  - hajile 8y ago
    I believe two wrongs don't make things right and in the case of scalping both parties were evil. Torture and revenge are not justice. If a man raped, tortured, and killed a little girl then her mother hunted him down and tortured him to death the same way he made her daughter suffer, both acts would be the same action. Both would be evil. The motive and duress of the mother would lead to a different mens rea and different punishment because anyone except a psychopath would understand the difference in situation.

zerr 8y ago

I'm pretty sure :)

When a settler's cabin was attacked, the warriors would attack everyone -- armed men plus unarmed women and children. At the end of the attack, captured women and girls would often be raped then killed. The surviving men would be scalped and tortured to death over a couple of days. The injured would be hacked to death by the Indian women and children. You can debate how often this happened, but first-hand stories are relatively common in surviving military personnel diaries from the time. What would be our reaction today if a group of people attacked a family and did such things? We talk about the horror of mass shootings, but they don't even come close to that level of horrifying. All of this violated the rules of war and decent behavior. After seeing the remains of this horror show, what would you be inclined to do when you caught up with the perpetrators? Mens Rea If I sell you the Brooklyn Bridge and demand payment in Monopoly money, who's the real crook? I would be because I sold what I did not own and reaped a profit (however small) at your expense. If an Indian sold land they didn't believe they owned for what they believed to be valuable, who was the real thief? Consider scalping. While it is generally considered a method of trophy collecting, the meaning was deeper. A scalped warrior was denied access to the eternal hunting grounds. Literally, to their minds, scalping was a way of keeping someone from going to heaven. Doing this from the motive of hatred or payment by the French/British was still the ultimate condemnation (and in the case of payment, without even the excuse of honor). The re-writing of history to fit current politics doesn't do society any favors.

deleted 8y ago
[deleted]
kthejoker2 8y ago
I like how we begin your story in media res with the settler's cabin already established as if ordained by the laws of nature, disrupted from its idyllic divine creation by these warriors perpetrating violence. Who's rewriting what now?
- hajile 8y ago
  I thought it axiomatic that squatting on someone else's property was not the same as butchering someones entire family. That aside, you cannot claim land cannot be owned then claim ownership over it. However, if ownership can be claimed, then who is the owner, the thief or the thief who steals from the first thief? Consider the Sioux. People think of the Sioux as the plains Indians, but they lived in the great lakes area. The Iroquois stole their land from them. In turn they fought to drive off the semi agrarian Pawnee Indians (who had good relations with the settlers -- probably because they were settling down themselves) winning a decisive victory by massacre. If you go farther back than that, there is tribe after tribe fighting and butchering the previous one. Going to Europe, you see the same pattern. Tribes butcher each other until they are conquered or a tribe survives long enough to settle and establish dominance. I don't hear about the land argument when discussing those indigenous peoples (and unlike the Indians, most of them believed land could be stolen).
olavk 8y ago
Are you saying it was worse when Indians scalped settlers than when settlers scalped Indians?
- hajile 8y ago
  I believe two wrongs don't make things right and in the case of scalping both parties were evil. Torture and revenge are not justice. If a man raped, tortured, and killed a little girl then her mother hunted him down and tortured him to death the same way he made her daughter suffer, both acts would be the same action. Both would be evil. The motive and duress of the mother would lead to a different mens rea and different punishment because anyone except a psychopath would understand the difference in situation.