Native Americans - bloodthirsty savages or peaceful tribes?

Aug 2018
40
Southern Indiana
#71
I honestly don't know if Native American ferocity to settlements has been exaggerated by Hollywood or glossed over by political correctness. I suspect that MOST Native Americans took captives in warfare ("Jumpin' Jehosophat! A WHITE woman was kidnapped by the red men!!!"), until their own experiences taught them to payback in kind. What's clear is that a good many white men treated them like animals.


My "specialty" if I can call it that, is the Ohio valley in the 1700's. All eastern woodland tribes had a long history of taking hostages for adoption, once adopted the former captives were treated as members of the tribe regardless of their past. Daniel Boone, Simon Kenton, Simon Girty and numerous others where adopted by tribes. Typically the prisoner was adopted by a woman who recently lost a son or daughter.
In regards to the ferocity, it has definitely been glossed over. The number of settlers killed by natives just in what is now called the Mid-west, numbered in the thousands. People really were burnt at the stake, infants were often killed in raids, but young children were often captured as they had a better chance of assimilating into the tribe. One notable thing is that rape of prisoners was a serious taboo by all the tribes.
 
Aug 2012
791
Washington State, USA.
#73
I think because there were no massive battles; few legendary native commanders, or revolutionary weapons in the New World, some people might presume that Native Americans were not that interested in war. When Columbus landed, the Arawaks were in the process of being wiped out by the cannibalistic Caribs, and even the Arawaks fought with each other despite being described as a peaceful tribe. When the Spaniards occupied the Aztec capital, they reported a massive rack that had tens of thousands of the skulls of their sacrifice victims.
Acknowledging that Europeans were wrong on many levels in taking the New World from the natives is fine, but some feel a need to falsify the record, and downplay not only the violence of the natives in the Indian Wars, but to obscure the facts that point to how violent the New World was before Columbus. It was very violent by any standard if we go by what we know and not what we imagine.
Even the true account of what happened at Wounded Knee is rejected by most people, as many are not prepared to say the Natives fired first, even if we admit that the US soldiers over-reacted in a terrible manner. This is a good measure of how bad the bias is on this issue.
 
Last edited:
Jul 2016
7,353
USA
#75
All of humanity are blood thirsty savages so why pick on Native Americans? If I was a Native American I would have butchered as many whites as possible. After all, they were stealing the Native American lands.
Nobody is picking on them. A false narrative started up in the 1960-70s that promoted the myth that Native Americans were peaceful tribes that were exterminated by evil white men. The reality is their societies were just as, if not more warlike then even the Conquistadors, they just weren't as technologically sophisticated. AKA, the Native Americans were butchering each other to steal each other's land long before whites ever showed up, and was happening while whites were showing up, and continued happening to the point their tribes were wiped out or relocated and their ability to make war/raid was removed.
 

martin76

Ad Honorem
Dec 2014
5,876
Spain
#76
I agree american natives from Patagones to Alaska were war-like societies.. very very aggresive...only from Sixties ... came the idea natives were a kind of hippies...I can´t imagine a Mapuche, an Aztec, an Apache or a Sioux as "a hippy"...

These were the "hippies" Cortes fought

 

Rodger

Ad Honorem
Jun 2014
4,987
US
#77
All of humanity are blood thirsty savages so why pick on Native Americans? If I was a Native American I would have butchered as many whites as possible. After all, they were stealing the Native American lands.
My thought too. They were, historically, similar to most groups of people. Of course, the Native Americans were also varied, just like ethnic groups in Europe, Asia and Africa. With this said, if they had the tactical edge, would they have treated the immigrating Europeans any differently?
 
May 2011
13,462
Navan, Ireland
#78
Nobody is picking on them. A false narrative started up in the 1960-70s that promoted the myth that Native Americans were peaceful tribes that were exterminated by evil white men..
History often tells us as much about the time it was written as the time period it is describing, so the historical revisionism of the history of the native Americans tells us a great deal about the 1960's and 70's

I'd also say that reflects in the 'popular' narrative of WWI


The reality is their societies were just as, if not more warlike then even the Conquistadors, they just weren't as technologically sophisticated. AKA, the Native Americans were butchering each other to steal each other's land long before whites ever showed up, and was happening while whites were showing up, and continued happening to the point their tribes were wiped out or relocated and their ability to make war/raid was removed.
Violence has always been around-- the peace loving eco-friendly, at one with nature early humans may well have been right 'bar stewards' to each other;-
Finding a hunter-gatherer massacre scene that may change history of human warfare
 

Ighayere

Ad Honorem
Jul 2012
2,414
Benin City, Nigeria
#79
History often tells us as much about the time it was written as the time period it is describing, so the historical revisionism of the history of the native Americans tells us a great deal about the 1960's and 70's
A Century of Dishonor was published in 1881. Because in fact some people had objected to the unjust treatment of Native Americans long before the 1960s and 1970s.

What is this historical revisionism of the history of native Americans from the 60s and 70s which says that they were not warlike at all, how extensive is it, and how much influence or how wide of a reach did it really get?
 
Jul 2016
7,353
USA
#80
A Century of Dishonor was published in 1881. Because in fact some people had objected to the unjust treatment of Native Americans long before the 1960s and 1970s.

What is this historical revisionism of the history of native Americans from the 60s and 70s which says that they were not warlike at all, how extensive is it, and how much influence or how wide of a reach did it really get?
In America its pervasive enough that its the dogma taught in K-12 school and college/university. Nonsense like "George Washington chopped down a cherry tree in between mistreating his slaves, and the evil white colonists conducted a holocaust against the peaceful Native Americans who had their land stolen." This is what the kids are taught. As soon as any real study is done, this myth crumbles, but they wont change it, its tied to numerous political movements and ideology.