About
Content
Store
Forum

Rebirth of Reason
War
People
Archives
Objectivism

Post to this threadMark all messages in this thread as readMark all messages in this thread as unreadBack one pagePage 0Page 1


Post 20

Friday, April 27, 2012 - 10:29pmSanction this postReply
Bookmark
Link
Edit
Another example of the immorality of primitive cultures:
Reverend Father Barthelemy Vimont presented a harrowing example of Iroquois torture that occurred in 1642 in The Jesuit Relations and Allied Documents. In this account he told of an Iroquois war band that captured a small group of Algonquin and himself. Immediately the Iroquois cut off a few fingers from each captive using fish scales. The Iroquois intended to take the captives to their village. On the way one Algonquin woman, realizing what her fate would be, ran into a icy river and drowned herself rather than face the impending torture. Once they had arrived at their captors’ village, the Iroquois made their prisoners sing and dance upon a scaffold. Vimont’s companion, a converted Algonquin named Adrian, wouldn’t sing in the Iroquois’ language, and they slit his fingers lengthwise to cause him intense pain. Next they cleared the scaffold except for one Algonquin named Awessinipin, and they began burning his body with brands. The Iroquois forced an Algonquin woman to take a torch and burn Awessinipin and then killed her when she finally complied. Throughout this entire ordeal the Algonquin man showed no pain. They continued this torture throughout the night, building to a fervor, finally ending at sunrise by cutting his scalp open, forcing sand into the wound, and dragging his mutilated body around the camp. When they had finished, the Iroquois carved up and ate parts of his body.

The Jesuits Relations, The Explorations of Radisson, and Narrative of the Life of Mrs. Mary Jemison offer other detailed descriptions of Iroquois atrocities, but generally the torture followed the same pattern. First the victorious Iroquois warriors would mangle the prisoners’ hands; they did this by pulling out the captives’ fingernails and/or cutting off some of their fingers. The victors usually subjected the prisoners to a heavy beating at the same time. Thereafter the Iroquois took the captives to their village and subjected the men to the gantlet (or gauntlet). They then humbled those who survived in a number of ways; for example the Iroquois might strip them naked in front of the village and force them to sing and dance. This process always ended either in a slow death by fire and scalping or with adoption into the Iroquois village. The Iroquois tortured only men to death when they weren’t adopted; they either killed quickly women and children who were unadopted.

...

The warriors were not the only ones who conducted the torture, however; the women and children of the village had just as much of an active role as the men did. While the captives were perched upon the scaffold, the children of the tribe would jab at the prisoner’s feet with knives. In addition to this, every person in the village took turns with the burning torches during the night ritual. In fact, the rest of the tribe would scorn anyone who did not partake in the torture as a weak and lazy individual. Because everyone took part, it becomes clear that besides being an act for grieving family members to vent their frustration on an unyielding victim and doing so feel avenged for the loved ones’ deaths, it was a reassertion of Iroquois dominance and power. Yet this second purpose seems of less importance considering the specialized nature of the mourning war. That is to say, the process of the mourning war is oriented far more towards the grieving matriarchs rather than the entire village.

...

Though modern Americans do not associate other tribes with the practice of mourning wars, they performed the same methods of torture that the Iroquois did. These accounts are much less frequent than descriptions of Iroquois torture, nevertheless they do exist and are no less ruthless in nature. Samuel de Champlain’s notes contain accounts of the Algonquins, Montagnais, and Etechemins as the aggressors. After they captured a handful of Iroquois in battle, these "friendly" tribes proceeded to torture the captives to death. They burned the body of one captive Iroquois then poured water on him in cycles so that his flesh would fall off his body. When they had finally killed him and threw his innards into the river, the Indians told Champlain that this act was done in vengeance for their own mutilated tribesmen.
Source:
http://www.ohio.edu/orgs/glass/vol/1/14.htm

Ed


Post 21

Monday, June 17, 2013 - 6:28pmSanction this postReply
Bookmark
Link
Edit
I just want to come back to this thread and add the following comment regarding the Trail of Tears:


The State of Georgia made an agreement with the Federal Government in 1803 to cede land to the national government in exchange for the Feds taking the lead and responsibility for extinguishing Indian land claims in the State of Georgia. Every President from Jefferson to Van Buren worked on doing so. Jackson oversaw a treaty with the Cherokees that had them agree to removal to west--a treaty which many of them followed (which is how John Ross was in Oklahoma in the 1860s, joining the Confederacy against the Union).

A large group of holdouts refused to accept the terms of the treaty and essentially waited, making no preparations for any sort of trip, until the Feds arrived during the Van Buren administration to escort them to the Indian Territory. Because of the wait and no preparation, the Indians suffered, but that suffering was alleviated by the U.S. Army under Winfield Scott who did everything he could to procure food and supplies previous groups of Indians had supplied themselves. No President from Jefferson to Van Buren repudiated the 1803 agreement--all of them tried to devise ways to see it through. The deaths which occurred during the so-called "trail of tears" were anamolous for such migrations which had already occurred many times over without incident. Whether one wants to blame them on the Federal Government, the State of Georgia, the holdout Cherokee chiefs who let their people unrealistically believe they could stay put forever and not prepare at all for a long trek, etc., is up to the interpreter.

The Cherokees wanted political autonomy within a state, something they knew was impossible after 1803 and which they had no means to win in any sense, even from the courts. Most of them went west without waiting for the very last moment and prepared for the trip.

Post 22

Monday, June 17, 2013 - 7:04pmSanction this postReply
Bookmark
Link
Edit
Jefferson and Washington both worked hard over many years to bring about assimilation - to get the peaceful Indian tribes to adopt the ways of the colonists, knowing that in the end, it would be the only peaceful resolution when two cultures clash.

Post to this threadBack one pagePage 0Page 1


User ID Password or create a free account.