- Posts: 4394
Am I allowed to call myself a Jedi in this Temple if I...?
-
Topic Author
- Visitor
-
15 Feb 2020 11:05 #349790
by
If you don't intend to give someone the chance to live their life, then why waste the resources on a life sentence? If they're truly deserving of such a sentence, then free up the cell, food, and money that goes into keeping someone like that alive. Sure, they can absolutely detain someone that long, but securely is a different matter entirely. Most of the people who are in that jail or prison have one of two things on their mind: survivaland escape. Escapes happen. 20 is a long time for sure, but I'd rather it be that than 25, 30, or even higher of people like what we've been discussing looking fora way out.
Replied by on topic Am I allowed to call myself a Jedi in this Temple if I...?
Br. John wrote:
I believe taking a life is necessary when it is done to someone who has proven that they are not interested in redemption, who is so undeniably vile that their actions would contradict when they say they want to change. There's a point where it doesn't add up to let those who are incapable of goodness go free, and there is a point where that incapability is undisguisable.
Why would they go free? Life without parole means they never get out of prison. Someone sentenced to death routinely spends 20 or more years in prison before being executed. If they can be held securely for that long, why can't they be held until they die? 25% of Death Row inmates die before they're executed now.
If you don't intend to give someone the chance to live their life, then why waste the resources on a life sentence? If they're truly deserving of such a sentence, then free up the cell, food, and money that goes into keeping someone like that alive. Sure, they can absolutely detain someone that long, but securely is a different matter entirely. Most of the people who are in that jail or prison have one of two things on their mind: survivaland escape. Escapes happen. 20 is a long time for sure, but I'd rather it be that than 25, 30, or even higher of people like what we've been discussing looking fora way out.
Please Log in to join the conversation.
-
Topic Author
- Visitor
-
15 Feb 2020 11:12 #349791
by
I don't believe it's our job to hunt people like this down either, but what if they don't repent? If they decide not to reflect, or they do and choose to continue? They fool the system into thinking they've changed and come out and take their "hobby" back up? Someone like that Learns just as much from living at that point as they do from dying, and I prefer the road that has the potential to keep innocents safer.
Replied by on topic Am I allowed to call myself a Jedi in this Temple if I...?
Eleven wrote: Life is sacred. But take ones life is not ours to take or we ourselves are murderers. Let them sit in prison and study and reflect on their wrongs in life and hope they’ve converted and repented their ways...killing them teaches nothing the dark side...they’ll not learn anything from this.
I don't believe it's our job to hunt people like this down either, but what if they don't repent? If they decide not to reflect, or they do and choose to continue? They fool the system into thinking they've changed and come out and take their "hobby" back up? Someone like that Learns just as much from living at that point as they do from dying, and I prefer the road that has the potential to keep innocents safer.
Please Log in to join the conversation.
-
Topic Author
- Visitor
-
15 Feb 2020 11:15 #349792
by
So then, could the execution of a serial offender be considered self-defense from the system itself rather than an independent people/person?
Replied by on topic Am I allowed to call myself a Jedi in this Temple if I...?
CaesarEJW wrote: Killing for vengeance, even in the name of justice, is killing out of hate, born from fear and anger, which makes one no better than the offender, and is, as we all know, a path to the Dark Side.
You drop down to the offender's level if you abandon mercy.
Killing could be acceptable in self-defense, but only in the direst of circumstances.
If the offender is already incapacitated or captured, then executing them in cold-blood is unacceptable.
So then, could the execution of a serial offender be considered self-defense from the system itself rather than an independent people/person?
Please Log in to join the conversation.
-
- Visitor
-
15 Feb 2020 18:43 #349794
by
But as a jedi, if you lived in those times, would you have supported westward expansion? We killed horse thieves as you say, but we also killed thousands of American Indians, all innocent so we could steal their land, we almost made extinct the bison as well. How many innocent people were killed on top of the horse thief? If we hadn't killed them then those thieves would still be alive as well as thousands of other human and animal lives.
Replied by on topic Am I allowed to call myself a Jedi in this Temple if I...?
Snow Wolf wrote: Thank you for posting this, OP. This is a question I took into account before registering, yet will not be an obstacle to me applying to be a member and working through the path. I'll begin my response by paraphrasing what my late grandfather used to tell me regarding capital punishment: "If we hadn't hung horse thieves, this country would've never gotten west of the Mississippi."
For context, I was born, raised in, and reside in, the United States. My grandfather's words are in reference to the country's westward expansion. In those days, if someone's horse (or anything they depended upon for their daily lives) was stolen, their livelihood was stolen, and it was viewed as equal to severely damaging (or even taking) the theft victim's life. However, it's also said that "an eye for an eye makes the whole world blind".
In theory, I support the existence of capital punishment. I think it should be an option to use for what I consider the most heinous of criminals who take or damage multiple lives. I consider these crimes to be:However, other commenters have raised the issue of executing the innocent, keeping the condemned for many many years before execution, etc. The criminal justice system has absolutely unfair elements to it.
- mass murder
- serial murder
- serial sex offenders (think child molestation, human trafficking, etc.)
- serial rape
- terrorist acts where multiple lives are claimed or multiple people are severely maimed
- treason where the traitor's actions genuinely put the lives of their countrymen at risk
In conclusion, I think so long as the penalty is applied fairly, I think it should be a hypothetical sanction available (as a last resort!) for use by a legitimate and fair authority. As a man raised to be a soldier, I believe those with the capacity and authority to use force should be prepared to "take a life to save a life" or ideally, take a life to save many others.
But as a jedi, if you lived in those times, would you have supported westward expansion? We killed horse thieves as you say, but we also killed thousands of American Indians, all innocent so we could steal their land, we almost made extinct the bison as well. How many innocent people were killed on top of the horse thief? If we hadn't killed them then those thieves would still be alive as well as thousands of other human and animal lives.
Please Log in to join the conversation.
-
- Visitor
-
15 Feb 2020 19:00 #349795
by
Replied by on topic Am I allowed to call myself a Jedi in this Temple if I...?
I have a feeling that you stopped reading after my second paragraph, and consequently, vastly missed my point. If you'd like to re-read my full response and engage in an intellectual conversation about the ethics of the usage of capital punishment in today's times, I would welcome that discussion. I will not, however, respond to further emotionally charged question begging.Fyxe wrote: But as a jedi, if you lived in those times, would you have supported westward expansion? We killed horse thieves as you say, but we also killed thousands of American Indians, all innocent so we could steal their land, we almost made extinct the bison as well. How many innocent people were killed on top of the horse thief? If we hadn't killed them then those thieves would still be alive as well as thousands of other human and animal lives.
Please Log in to join the conversation.
-
- Visitor
-
15 Feb 2020 19:07 #349796
by
I did read your entire statement and I responded respectfully with an honest response. No emotion and no lack of reading as you want to claim.
Replied by on topic Am I allowed to call myself a Jedi in this Temple if I...?
Snow Wolf wrote:
I have a feeling that you stopped reading after my second paragraph, and consequently, vastly missed my point. If you'd like to re-read my full response and engage in an intellectual conversation about the ethics of the usage of capital punishment in today's times, I would welcome that discussion. I will not, however, respond to further emotionally charged question begging.Fyxe wrote: But as a jedi, if you lived in those times, would you have supported westward expansion? We killed horse thieves as you say, but we also killed thousands of American Indians, all innocent so we could steal their land, we almost made extinct the bison as well. How many innocent people were killed on top of the horse thief? If we hadn't killed them then those thieves would still be alive as well as thousands of other human and animal lives.
I did read your entire statement and I responded respectfully with an honest response. No emotion and no lack of reading as you want to claim.
Please Log in to join the conversation.
-
- Visitor
-
15 Feb 2020 19:16 #349797
by
Replied by on topic Am I allowed to call myself a Jedi in this Temple if I...?
Your response did not reflect a complete reading and understanding of my position, but I won't challenge you on it.Fyxe wrote: I did read your entire statement and I responded respectfully with an honest response. No emotion and no lack of reading as you want to claim.
Please Log in to join the conversation.
- OB1Shinobi
-
- Offline
- Banned
-
Less
More
15 Feb 2020 20:21 - 15 Feb 2020 21:14 #349798
by OB1Shinobi
What do you mean “we”? WE weren't born yet when those things happened.
Also, Native Americans were not the loving, magical elves that modern people seem to think.
The Most Violent Era In America Was Before Europeans Arrived
By News Staff | August 3rd 2014 11:34 PM
https://www.science20.com/news_articles/the_most_violent_era_in_america_was_before_europeans_arrived-141847
There's a mythology about the native Americans, that they were all peaceful and in harmony with nature - it's easy to create narratives when there is no written record.
But archeology keeps its own history and a new paper finds that the 20th century, with its hundreds of millions dead in wars and, in the case of Germany, China, Russia and other dictatorships, genocide, was not the most violent - on a per-capita basis that honor may belong to the central Mesa Verde of southwest Colorado and the Pueblo Indians.
Writing in the journal American Antiquity, Washington State University archaeologist Tim Kohler and colleagues document how nearly 90 percent of human remains from that period had trauma from blows to either their heads or parts of their arms.
"If we're identifying that much trauma, many were dying a violent death," said Kohler. The study also offers new clues to the mysterious depopulation of the northern Southwest, from a population of about 40,000 people in the mid-1200s to 0 in 30 years.
From the days they first arrived in the Southwest in the 1800s, most anthropologists and archaeologists have downplayed evidence of violent conflict among native Americans.
"Archaeologists with one or two exceptions have not tried to develop an objective metric of levels of violence through time," said Kohler. "They've looked at a mix of various things like burned structures, defensive site locations and so forth, but it's very difficult to distill an estimate of levels of violence from such things. We've concentrated on one thing, and that is trauma, especially to the head and portions of the arms. That's allowed us to look at levels of violence through time in a comparative way."
It wasn't just violent deaths that poke holes in the harmony with the land and each other myth. A paper in June in the Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences found that the Southwest also had a baby boom between 500 and 1300 that likely exceeded any population spurt on earth today. The northern Rio Grande also experienced population booms but the central Mesa Verde got more violent while the northern Rio Grande was less so.
Kohler has conjectures on why. Social structures among people in the northern Rio Grande changed so that they identified less with their kin and more with the larger pueblo and specific organizations that span many pueblos, such as medicine societies. The Rio Grande also had more commercial exchanges where craft specialists provided people both in the pueblo, and outsiders, specific things they needed, such as obsidian arrow points.
But in the central Mesa Verde, there was less specialization.
"When you don't have specialization in societies, there's a sense in which everybody is a competitor because everybody is doing the same thing," said Kohler. But with specialization, people are more dependent on each other and more reluctant to do harm.
If that sounds like rationalization based on Harvard psychologist Steven Pinker's The Better Angels of Our Nature: Why Violence Has Declined, it is.
"Pinker thought that what he called 'gentle commerce' was very important in the pacification of the world over the last 5,000 years," said Kohler. "That seems to work pretty well in our record as well."
The episode of conflict in Southwest Colorado seems to have begun when people in the Chaco culture, halfway between central Mesa Verde and northern Rio Grande, attempted to spread into Southwest Colorado.
From 1080 to 1130, the Chaco-influenced people in Southwest Colorado did well. In the mid-1100s, there was a severe drought and the core of Chaco culture fell apart. Much of the area around Chaco lost population, and in 1160, violence in the central Mesa Verde peaked. Slightly more than a century later, everyone left that area, too.
"In the Mesa Verde there could be a haves-versus-have-nots dynamic towards the very end," said Kohler. "The people who stayed the longest were probably the people who were located in the very best spots. But those pueblos too were likely losing population. And it might have been the older folks who stuck around, who weren't so anxious to move as the young folks who thought, 'We could make a better living elsewhere.'" Older, or with too few people to marshal a good defense, the remaining people in the Mesa Verde pueblos were particularly vulnerable to raids.
At least two of the last-surviving large pueblos in the central Mesa Verde were attacked as the region was being abandoned. Some of their inhabitants probably made it out alive, but, says Kohler, "Many did not."
Aztec Culture: How Many were Killed as Human Sacrifices?
https://www.historyonthenet.com/aztec-culture-how-many-were-killed-as-human-sacrifices
INDIAN CAPTIVES The practice of captive-taking among North American Indians goes back to prehistoric times.
J. Norman Heard
https://tshaonline.org/handbook/online/articles/bxi01
The practice of captive-taking among North American Indians goes back to prehistoric times. Centuries before white men came to these shores, captives were taken from neighboring tribes to replenish losses suffered in warfare or to obtain victims to torture in the spirit of revenge. When warfare developed between Europeans and Indians, white captives were taken for the same reasons and, in addition, to hold for ransom or to use to gain bargaining power with an allied European government or colony.
The earliest European captives in Texas were Álvar Núñez Cabeza de Vaca and three companions, survivors of the expedition of Pánfilo de Narváez in 1528. Though these conquistadors used their skills as medicine men to escape from captivity, during the next three centuries numerous Spanish and Mexican captives remained many years in the camps of Apache, Comanche, Kiowa, and Wichita raiders. During the succeeding half century after Indian warfare broke out with whites in the 1830s, many settlers underwent Indian captivity.
The life of a captive was fraught with perils and hardships. Survival frequently depended upon the whim of the captor and the fortitude displayed by the captive. Mature males who fell into Indian hands were considered to have forfeited their lives. Captive white women in Texas, as in much of the territory west of the Mississippi River, were usually compelled to serve their captors as concubines and menials (the roles of most Indian women). Their ordeals frequently led to early deaths, before or after redemption. The experiences of Rachel Plummer and Sarah Ann Horn dramatically illustrate the horrors of female captivity among the Plains Indians. Abuse of captive women, however, was by no means universal. Some women, though subservient to their captors, were treated with unexpected respect.
Indian raiders killed captive children who lagged behind when the Indians were pursued. Children who arrived safely at the Indian village, however, usually were adopted as replacements for deceased relatives and thereafter treated as true sons or daughters. Many of these youngsters enjoyed the wild, free life of the Indians and became so completely assimilated that they resisted attempts to redeem them. Some youths became fierce warriors who raided the settlements. Among the most formidable "white Indians" were Clinton and Jeff Smith, Herman Lehmann, Adolph Korn, Rudolph Fischer, and Kiowa Dutch.
White girls captured before the age of puberty usually became assimilated and married chiefs or warriors. The most famous of these, Cynthia Ann Parker, married the Comanche chief Peta Nocona and became the mother of Quanah Parker, last war chief of the tribe. When recaptured by Lawrence Sullivan Ross in 1860 and reunited with her relatives, she tried to run away to her Indian family. Millie Durgan lived happily to old age as the wife of a Kiowa warrior. On the other hand, girls taken at childbearing age hated their captors and sometimes risked their lives to escape. Martina Díaz, one of many captives redeemed by the Indian agent Lawrie Tatum, hid in his house from threatening warriors. Matilda Lockhart, thirteen years old when captured and treated brutally by the Comanches, precipitated the Council House Fight in San Antonio in 1840 when she accused the Indians of hiding other captives.
Many Texas captives were rescued or ransomed by relatives, Texas Rangers, soldiers, Indian agents, or traders. Britton Johnson, a black rancher, traded goods for his own wife and children, the sister of Millie Durgan, and several other captives. Sam Houston purchased Mrs. Elizabeth Kellogg, seized in the Comanche raid on Fort Parker in 1836, from friendly Delaware Indians. Two young boys taken in the same raid, John Parker and James Plummer, were ransomed by Gen. Zachary Taylor in 1842. Gen. Albert Sidney Johnston rescued Rebecca Jane Fisher and her brother, William Gilleland, captured by Comanches who killed their parents near Refugio in 1842. Sul Ross redeemed a young white girl in 1858 during an attack on a Comanche village. She had forgotten her name, and her identity was never established. She was raised as a member of his family and given the name Lizzie Ross.
When the Comanches and Kiowas were driven onto reservations north of the Red River and compelled to release their prisoners, many captives had become so completely assimilated that they chose to remain with their captors. Most of these had married Indians, and it is estimated that 30 percent of Apaches, Comanches, and Kiowas had captive blood in their veins.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=JMWPP-vXzhQ
People are complicated.
Replied by OB1Shinobi on topic Am I allowed to call myself a Jedi in this Temple if I...?
Fyxe wrote: but we also killed thousands of American Indians, all innocent so we could steal their land,
What do you mean “we”? WE weren't born yet when those things happened.
Also, Native Americans were not the loving, magical elves that modern people seem to think.
The Most Violent Era In America Was Before Europeans Arrived
By News Staff | August 3rd 2014 11:34 PM
https://www.science20.com/news_articles/the_most_violent_era_in_america_was_before_europeans_arrived-141847
Warning: Spoiler!
There's a mythology about the native Americans, that they were all peaceful and in harmony with nature - it's easy to create narratives when there is no written record.
But archeology keeps its own history and a new paper finds that the 20th century, with its hundreds of millions dead in wars and, in the case of Germany, China, Russia and other dictatorships, genocide, was not the most violent - on a per-capita basis that honor may belong to the central Mesa Verde of southwest Colorado and the Pueblo Indians.
Writing in the journal American Antiquity, Washington State University archaeologist Tim Kohler and colleagues document how nearly 90 percent of human remains from that period had trauma from blows to either their heads or parts of their arms.
"If we're identifying that much trauma, many were dying a violent death," said Kohler. The study also offers new clues to the mysterious depopulation of the northern Southwest, from a population of about 40,000 people in the mid-1200s to 0 in 30 years.
From the days they first arrived in the Southwest in the 1800s, most anthropologists and archaeologists have downplayed evidence of violent conflict among native Americans.
"Archaeologists with one or two exceptions have not tried to develop an objective metric of levels of violence through time," said Kohler. "They've looked at a mix of various things like burned structures, defensive site locations and so forth, but it's very difficult to distill an estimate of levels of violence from such things. We've concentrated on one thing, and that is trauma, especially to the head and portions of the arms. That's allowed us to look at levels of violence through time in a comparative way."
It wasn't just violent deaths that poke holes in the harmony with the land and each other myth. A paper in June in the Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences found that the Southwest also had a baby boom between 500 and 1300 that likely exceeded any population spurt on earth today. The northern Rio Grande also experienced population booms but the central Mesa Verde got more violent while the northern Rio Grande was less so.
Kohler has conjectures on why. Social structures among people in the northern Rio Grande changed so that they identified less with their kin and more with the larger pueblo and specific organizations that span many pueblos, such as medicine societies. The Rio Grande also had more commercial exchanges where craft specialists provided people both in the pueblo, and outsiders, specific things they needed, such as obsidian arrow points.
But in the central Mesa Verde, there was less specialization.
"When you don't have specialization in societies, there's a sense in which everybody is a competitor because everybody is doing the same thing," said Kohler. But with specialization, people are more dependent on each other and more reluctant to do harm.
If that sounds like rationalization based on Harvard psychologist Steven Pinker's The Better Angels of Our Nature: Why Violence Has Declined, it is.
"Pinker thought that what he called 'gentle commerce' was very important in the pacification of the world over the last 5,000 years," said Kohler. "That seems to work pretty well in our record as well."
The episode of conflict in Southwest Colorado seems to have begun when people in the Chaco culture, halfway between central Mesa Verde and northern Rio Grande, attempted to spread into Southwest Colorado.
From 1080 to 1130, the Chaco-influenced people in Southwest Colorado did well. In the mid-1100s, there was a severe drought and the core of Chaco culture fell apart. Much of the area around Chaco lost population, and in 1160, violence in the central Mesa Verde peaked. Slightly more than a century later, everyone left that area, too.
"In the Mesa Verde there could be a haves-versus-have-nots dynamic towards the very end," said Kohler. "The people who stayed the longest were probably the people who were located in the very best spots. But those pueblos too were likely losing population. And it might have been the older folks who stuck around, who weren't so anxious to move as the young folks who thought, 'We could make a better living elsewhere.'" Older, or with too few people to marshal a good defense, the remaining people in the Mesa Verde pueblos were particularly vulnerable to raids.
At least two of the last-surviving large pueblos in the central Mesa Verde were attacked as the region was being abandoned. Some of their inhabitants probably made it out alive, but, says Kohler, "Many did not."
Aztec Culture: How Many were Killed as Human Sacrifices?
https://www.historyonthenet.com/aztec-culture-how-many-were-killed-as-human-sacrifices
Warning: Spoiler!
Human sacrifices Aztecs were a part of their religious ceremony that they believed properly appeased their gods to spare them from suffering. The numbers of people sacrificed by the Aztecs is a mystery today and will probably remain a mystery, unless more archeological evidence is uncovered. Whether only a few thousand of victims were sacrificed each year, or 250,000 as some scholars say, few human remains such as bones have been found at Templo Mayor or other Aztec temples. A couple of dozen skeletons and a few thousand loose bones and skulls do not add up to 250,000 or 20,000 or whatever number is cited.
Evidence of human sacrifice comes from both the Aztecs themselves, their art and codices containing their writings, and from the Spanish conquerors. However, it is safe to say that the Spanish could easily have exaggerated the numbers killed to make the Aztecs seem more savage and brutal than they actually were.
In 1487, the great Templo Mayor was dedicated in the main Aztec city of Tenochtitlan with a four-day celebration. How many were sacrificed during that time is a subject of scholarly speculation: some put the figure as low as 10,000 or 20,000, several others put it as high as 80,400 people sacrificed during those four days. Scholars think the Aztec priests used four sacrificial altars for the dedication ceremonies. However, if that’s the case and 80,400 people were killed, then the priests would have had to sacrifice 14 people every minute, which is a physical impossibility.
Spanish missionaries sent to convert the Aztecs to Christianity learned the Nahuatl language spoken by the Aztecs. These priests and friars spoke to old Aztecs to learn their history. These Aztecs put the number of sacrificial victims at the time of the temple’s dedication at 4,000, a much lower total than 80,400.
With scant archeological evidence, it is hard to know how many Aztecs died under the sacrificial knife. Many reputable scholars today put the number between 20,000 and 250,000 per year for the whole Aztec Empire. All Aztecs cities contained temples dedicated to their gods and all of them saw human sacrifices. Whatever the total was, we know from both the Aztecs and the Spanish that many human beings lost their lives to human sacrifice. We will probably never know exactly how many.
Evidence of human sacrifice comes from both the Aztecs themselves, their art and codices containing their writings, and from the Spanish conquerors. However, it is safe to say that the Spanish could easily have exaggerated the numbers killed to make the Aztecs seem more savage and brutal than they actually were.
In 1487, the great Templo Mayor was dedicated in the main Aztec city of Tenochtitlan with a four-day celebration. How many were sacrificed during that time is a subject of scholarly speculation: some put the figure as low as 10,000 or 20,000, several others put it as high as 80,400 people sacrificed during those four days. Scholars think the Aztec priests used four sacrificial altars for the dedication ceremonies. However, if that’s the case and 80,400 people were killed, then the priests would have had to sacrifice 14 people every minute, which is a physical impossibility.
Spanish missionaries sent to convert the Aztecs to Christianity learned the Nahuatl language spoken by the Aztecs. These priests and friars spoke to old Aztecs to learn their history. These Aztecs put the number of sacrificial victims at the time of the temple’s dedication at 4,000, a much lower total than 80,400.
With scant archeological evidence, it is hard to know how many Aztecs died under the sacrificial knife. Many reputable scholars today put the number between 20,000 and 250,000 per year for the whole Aztec Empire. All Aztecs cities contained temples dedicated to their gods and all of them saw human sacrifices. Whatever the total was, we know from both the Aztecs and the Spanish that many human beings lost their lives to human sacrifice. We will probably never know exactly how many.
INDIAN CAPTIVES The practice of captive-taking among North American Indians goes back to prehistoric times.
J. Norman Heard
https://tshaonline.org/handbook/online/articles/bxi01
Warning: Spoiler!
The practice of captive-taking among North American Indians goes back to prehistoric times. Centuries before white men came to these shores, captives were taken from neighboring tribes to replenish losses suffered in warfare or to obtain victims to torture in the spirit of revenge. When warfare developed between Europeans and Indians, white captives were taken for the same reasons and, in addition, to hold for ransom or to use to gain bargaining power with an allied European government or colony.
The earliest European captives in Texas were Álvar Núñez Cabeza de Vaca and three companions, survivors of the expedition of Pánfilo de Narváez in 1528. Though these conquistadors used their skills as medicine men to escape from captivity, during the next three centuries numerous Spanish and Mexican captives remained many years in the camps of Apache, Comanche, Kiowa, and Wichita raiders. During the succeeding half century after Indian warfare broke out with whites in the 1830s, many settlers underwent Indian captivity.
The life of a captive was fraught with perils and hardships. Survival frequently depended upon the whim of the captor and the fortitude displayed by the captive. Mature males who fell into Indian hands were considered to have forfeited their lives. Captive white women in Texas, as in much of the territory west of the Mississippi River, were usually compelled to serve their captors as concubines and menials (the roles of most Indian women). Their ordeals frequently led to early deaths, before or after redemption. The experiences of Rachel Plummer and Sarah Ann Horn dramatically illustrate the horrors of female captivity among the Plains Indians. Abuse of captive women, however, was by no means universal. Some women, though subservient to their captors, were treated with unexpected respect.
Indian raiders killed captive children who lagged behind when the Indians were pursued. Children who arrived safely at the Indian village, however, usually were adopted as replacements for deceased relatives and thereafter treated as true sons or daughters. Many of these youngsters enjoyed the wild, free life of the Indians and became so completely assimilated that they resisted attempts to redeem them. Some youths became fierce warriors who raided the settlements. Among the most formidable "white Indians" were Clinton and Jeff Smith, Herman Lehmann, Adolph Korn, Rudolph Fischer, and Kiowa Dutch.
White girls captured before the age of puberty usually became assimilated and married chiefs or warriors. The most famous of these, Cynthia Ann Parker, married the Comanche chief Peta Nocona and became the mother of Quanah Parker, last war chief of the tribe. When recaptured by Lawrence Sullivan Ross in 1860 and reunited with her relatives, she tried to run away to her Indian family. Millie Durgan lived happily to old age as the wife of a Kiowa warrior. On the other hand, girls taken at childbearing age hated their captors and sometimes risked their lives to escape. Martina Díaz, one of many captives redeemed by the Indian agent Lawrie Tatum, hid in his house from threatening warriors. Matilda Lockhart, thirteen years old when captured and treated brutally by the Comanches, precipitated the Council House Fight in San Antonio in 1840 when she accused the Indians of hiding other captives.
Many Texas captives were rescued or ransomed by relatives, Texas Rangers, soldiers, Indian agents, or traders. Britton Johnson, a black rancher, traded goods for his own wife and children, the sister of Millie Durgan, and several other captives. Sam Houston purchased Mrs. Elizabeth Kellogg, seized in the Comanche raid on Fort Parker in 1836, from friendly Delaware Indians. Two young boys taken in the same raid, John Parker and James Plummer, were ransomed by Gen. Zachary Taylor in 1842. Gen. Albert Sidney Johnston rescued Rebecca Jane Fisher and her brother, William Gilleland, captured by Comanches who killed their parents near Refugio in 1842. Sul Ross redeemed a young white girl in 1858 during an attack on a Comanche village. She had forgotten her name, and her identity was never established. She was raised as a member of his family and given the name Lizzie Ross.
When the Comanches and Kiowas were driven onto reservations north of the Red River and compelled to release their prisoners, many captives had become so completely assimilated that they chose to remain with their captors. Most of these had married Indians, and it is estimated that 30 percent of Apaches, Comanches, and Kiowas had captive blood in their veins.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=JMWPP-vXzhQ
People are complicated.
Last edit: 15 Feb 2020 21:14 by OB1Shinobi.
The following user(s) said Thank You: Carlos.Martinez3
Please Log in to join the conversation.
-
- Visitor
-
15 Feb 2020 21:41 #349799
by
Replied by on topic Am I allowed to call myself a Jedi in this Temple if I...?
Attachment boomerokbabayoda.png not found
Attachments:
Please Log in to join the conversation.
-
- Visitor
-
15 Feb 2020 23:44 #349800
by
Excuse me but you have already challenged me on it??!
OBI, WE means the united states of westward expansion as was mentioned previousley. I also never said the indians were saints so Im not sure why y0ou decide to challenge me as well. I simply made a comment about the death penalty and how the repurcussions of what was quioted led to the attempted genocide of a people. so just because there was voilence before whites arrived are you now saying its was ok for the whites to commit the same thing against them? I just dont see why Im so strongley rebuked here. it was a sijmple comment against the death penalty - something I thought was an accepted statement here. whats the deal?
Replied by on topic Am I allowed to call myself a Jedi in this Temple if I...?
Snow Wolf wrote:
Your response did not reflect a complete reading and understanding of my position, but I won't challenge you on it.Fyxe wrote: I did read your entire statement and I responded respectfully with an honest response. No emotion and no lack of reading as you want to claim.
Excuse me but you have already challenged me on it??!
OBI, WE means the united states of westward expansion as was mentioned previousley. I also never said the indians were saints so Im not sure why y0ou decide to challenge me as well. I simply made a comment about the death penalty and how the repurcussions of what was quioted led to the attempted genocide of a people. so just because there was voilence before whites arrived are you now saying its was ok for the whites to commit the same thing against them? I just dont see why Im so strongley rebuked here. it was a sijmple comment against the death penalty - something I thought was an accepted statement here. whats the deal?
Please Log in to join the conversation.
