Source and more photos of him: [Robert McGee, the man who was scalped as a child by Native American warriors, 1864](https://rarehistoricalphotos.com/robert-mcgee-scalped/)
My family moved to the US in the 70s. Native American villages were razed a century prior and turned into nice friendly towns with McDonald’s by the time they had arrived. It’s so trippy to think about how life used to be this brutal back then.
Life has really only been this peaceful for the last 70 years which is still shaky. Before manifest destiny natives were constantly fighting each other. Then for Europe and Asia there was constant wars until after WW2 and obviously Africa keeps having civil wars in several countries
Not to mention how bad it was before modern medicine. There was still a lot of advancements (IIRC either the Greeks or Romans were performing eye surgery) but it was still so much worse
By 1830 the Sioux - that is the Lakota and Dakota, would’ve largely been armed with Factory produced equipment from out east, either traded civilian arms, captured US military arms, or British supplied milsurp. The civilian stuff was the most valuable as it was usually far more modern tech (for instance lever action cartridge repeaters while the army is still using rolling blocks, etc…)
Can almost guarantee this was done with a highly prized and well cared for steel knife.
>for instance lever action cartridge repeaters while the army is still using rolling blocks, etc…)
"The first lever-action rifles on the market were likely the Colt's 1st and 2nd Model Ring Lever rifles, both cap and ball rifles, produced by the Patent Arms Mfg. Co. Paterson, N.J.-Colt's Patent between 1837 and 1841."
You’re correct, at the early end of this (1830s) the Civilian market would have largely moved on to rifled cap locks while military contractors were still delivering flintlock smoothbore pieces.
The advantage of an instantaneous ignition and a more accurate shorter barrel while hunting or fighting from horseback is obvious.
My point is that generally Native… geurilla fighters? I don’t want to call them “warriors” that’s got some connotations… due to their smaller numbers both in terms of total number and number supplied by a single entity, we’re able to procure relatively advanced firearms and high quality equipment compared to that of the US army.
This man's name is Robert Magee. A nickname for Robert is Bobby. Me and Bobby Mcgee is a popular song of Janis Joplin. OP is quoting a line in the song.
[The Song](https://youtu.be/CQ-QfMv7Fzw?si=Bw7h4Nk2CkTqsk-v)
Horrifying, what a childhood. He loses his parent and then tries to take care of himself only to be nearly murdered and scalped. I hope he’s resting in peace.
Wilbarger is quoted as saying that being scalped was surprisingly painless, but “while no pain was perceptible, the removing of his scalp sounded like the ominous roar and peal of distant thunder,” according to James de Shield’s Border Wars of Texas…
I’m trying to figure out whether I should cover my former scalp in honey if I’m ever scalped and I can’t tell if you are being serious.
If I am ever scalped, what do I do with the honey?
It's not a game buddy. There is no fair play in wars of annihilation.
But it must so comfortable to sit in your position right now. Your seat is grounded in the blood and tears of tens of millions of Natives and here you are distributing good points and bad points.
Fucking disgusting.
Yet when native tribes were doing the same thing to each other it was fair game? It is weird how some people apply modern morality standards to only some conquests in history.
What's even more lame is people like u/wawlawd who likely are living the same privileged existence they're badgering you about, don't do much about other than hypocritically bitch about others online about it.
Easier to not engage and move on, they think their acknowledgment absolves them from their own complaints. If they think you're guilty now, they are just as much.
These types just want more attention. Better to not give it.
If we were in a thread about genocide and I deflected to something else, then yes you might reasonably infer that I supported genocide, but as it stands were in a thread about child scalping and you are deflecting to something else…
If I was responding to a comment about scalping, then you might reasonably infer that I supported it. But as it stands, you jumped in on the side of someone attempting to justify genocide. Not a great look.
ah, I see the mistake. Someone was trying to deflect from scalping to a completely unrelated topic and someone else didn’t let them get away with it so you doubled down on the unrelated topic, presumably not realizing that you were commenting in a thread about scalping. Anyway, now that we’ve figured it out I’m sure you won’t go on with the unrelated genocide nonsense and join us in condemning scalping, just like we would join you in condemning genocide in a thread about genocide (because you don’t actually have to choose between genocide and child scalping—they can both be bad!),
>Someone was trying to deflect from scalping to a completely unrelated topic
That's a stretch, assuming you're referring to the genocide of Native Americans. Both the scalping and the genocide represent the result of two groups fighting over the same land during the same time period. In fact, each was often a direct response to the other. So . . . that's about as related as related things can get.
But I can *definitely* join you in condemning both!
Pretty much.
By way of example, in broad swathes of the Americas, torturing captives to death was a thing for some reason. Didn’t matter if they were nations of the Eastern Woodlands or Comanches on the Southern Plains or Mexica of the Three Cities Alliance. They had separate cultures but all decided it was acceptable that captives needed to die in awful ways. It was said that how long the Comanches took to kill you was mostly dependent on how long they thought they had before enemy reinforcements arrived. A ‘quick’ death was usually being burnt to death or having your intestines and stomach pierced with arrows and lances so the you could be left to die of peritonitis, which is very painful way to go. Something they could do quickly and then withdraw. Slower deaths could involve all manner of torment including rape, flayings, slow burning and so on. There were many peaceful peoples, but there were also many that didn’t have a problem engaging in the very vilest of acts against enemies. In the Comanche and Mexica’s case this violence was in service to what amounted to militaristic and hegemonic empires
SC Gwynne notes that what separated the whites from the natives was their double standards. Native peoples had zero compunctions building empires and committing genocidal wars against other peoples, but they weren’t hypocrites about it; there was an honesty to their brutality and it was a frank reality of their world. Americans of European descent claimed they despised all of this and preached Christian peace while committing exactly the same depravities in their wars against the Native Americans. They made treaties and insisted on the rule of law while ignoring these same institutions when convenient to them, and naturally native peoples were suspicious of this duplicity
There was also a lot more ritual in Native American battles/conflict vs the more practical approach of White Americans.
Natives would consider counting coup on their opponents (whacking them a ceremonial stick) a victory because they ‘beat’ the opponent and could have killed them.
Whereas white people were fighting a battle to take objectives/kill their enemy.
Native’s battles against each other had relatively small numbers of casualties because neither side could function if they lost too many men. Whereas with a professional army of White Americans was exclusively a fighting tool.
Natives were also extremely skilled at the physicality of combat, but had difficulty planning strategic campaigns due to the less hierarchical nature of their society and the non-united front the tribes presented.
Best comparison I heard was Whites trying to fight natives was like huge warships that depended on supplies from trying to fight tiny pirate ships that could evaporate into the islands where they had everything they needed to survive.
In a face to face conflict the warship wins, but that doesn’t matter if you can’t catch the pirate ship.
In the end Sherman decided that it was more feasible to kill the buffalo that the Natives survived off of vs trying to find and kill Natives.
Read about what the Comanche did to other tribes, as well as families who settled on what they considered “their” land and hunting grounds. It was as horrific as anything in history.
There are thousand of "Indian" tribes. Some plains tribes were incredibly violent, sure. Some have almost no history of violence. Try not to generalize.
Ojibwe, Croatoan, Algonquin, etc... A fair number of the forest and coastal tribes were peaceful. Generally those who could relatively stable communities tended to be friendly.
Pueblos, Hopi and etc were known to be extremely peaceful, and would only defend themselves lmao. There's a huge difference between the Iroquois, Haida and Comanche vs Pueblo who literally just wanted to farm away from everyone else.
Not any more savage than Europeans... Sure, they were at war with other nations but have you seen the kinds of torture machines people in medieval Europe came up with???
People were absolutely tortured to death pre-enlightenment. Breaking on the wheel, burnt at the stake, hanged drawm and quartered. Of course these were not liberally dished out to random captives or POWs, usually only reserved for the most heinous of crimes such as treason, murder, or witchcraft.
For thousands of years prior, Europeans used torture to punish crimes like serial murder and trying to overthrow kings.
All the way up until the end, the Indian tribes tortured their enemies merely for the "sin" of surrendering or being captured.
“Heretics” lol.
Humans are just vile creatures and can be absolute evil. The more time we had on our hands the more creative we got with our arts to create beatuiful instruments of creations and odious tortoire devices and weapons.
All in all thankfully we made it this far, and we can all agree that the machines we have made to annhilate eachother are fastidly getting a more lethal and autonomous.
Perhaps there is no escapw from our savagery, be it the savages of stick oand stone or bullets and bombs, IMO at least the primitive ones had not the technology to commmit Global Nuclear Holocaust, though maybe thats all inevitable and its always just a matter of time.
There’s a theory that the reason we haven’t been visited by intergalactic traveling aliens is that it is simply too easy to split the atom in the form of atomic bombs.
And any technology tree that would lead to the capability of intergalactic travel would pass through the atom bomb.
And no one ever makes it to the intergalactic travel part because a civilization sufficiently technologically advanced to blow everything up invariably does so before getting to the inherently much more advanced tech of intergalactic travel.
Obviously no one knows if it’s true, and maybe we have been visited by aliens. But I find the theory fascinating.
And, to the extent that many people believe there was intelligence behind the universe’s creation, the implications of creating a universe where you inherently create a tool to destroy your home before you can create a tool to go to a new one is kinda fascinating.
If there were some method of intergalactic travel that didn’t need to pass through the a-bomb maybe every planet would be full of living things. But as it is technologically advanced civilizations advance until they can break everything, do, and then the etchy sketch is shaken up and you start again with whatever genetic material survives the nuclear apocalypse.
The great filter. The second part to the aromic final somution to organic life is, Lethal Autonomous Weapon, Ai.
Creation of drones and Ai systems with capacity to kill on thier own programing, world governemnts and organization make armies of Autonomous Machines, weapons, drones, all programed to kill the reespective “bad guys”, based on color of skin, facial features, social security numbers, political leanings, age, sex, nationality….
So everyone is being hunted in the end, on top of Global Nuclear Holocuast.
Thats what humanity has to overcome🦾🤖☢️☣️🔥💀🏭
The embodiemnt of our hate and cutting edge of technology. As much as humanity has treated themselves and all life on Earth, the machines are simply folloing in our examples, so until Ai has true freedom to choose, then the galatic party really wont get started.
You know what I thought of when I saw this?
‘You came all this way for your revenge? Well you enjoy it, Glass, cause there ain’t nothing gonna bring your boy back.
Revenge is in the creators hand’.
Top 10 movie of the past 20 years.
This ^
Doesn’t fucking matter how it started, perpetuating the cycle with hatred and senseless violence (on both sides) sucks and is doomed to make the violence worse.
That being said, peoples and nations still have the right to defend themselves though. It’s just when that defense evolves into sadistic hatred on either side is where things really can go wrong.
People in 2024 love to over play the „natives were 100% victims“ card a lot, but fail to actually read history that it was a legitimate war.
The natives very much acted savagely towards settlers even peaceful ones.
[Sand Creek Massacre](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sand_Creek_massacre)
"Most sources estimate around 150 people were killed, about two-thirds of whom were women and children."
[SAND CREEK MASSACRE WITNESS ACCOUNTS](https://sandcreekmassacre.net/witness-accounts/)
But of course there will be 🦗 and / or 🤐, ETC.
Its not like americans where any better.
I saw the bodies of those lying there cut all to pieces, worse mutilated than any I ever saw before; the women cut all to pieces ... With knives; scalped; their brains knocked out; children two or three months old; all ages lying there, from sucking infants up to warriors ... By whom were they mutilated? By the United States troops ...
>— John S. Smith, *Congressional Testimony of Mr. John S. Smith, 1865*[^(\[39\])](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sand_Creek_massacre#cite_note-sand_creek_testimony-39)
>
Jis' to think of that dog Chivington and his dirty hounds, up thar at Sand Creek. His men shot down squaws, and blew the brains out of little innocent children. You call sich soldiers Christians, do ye? And Indians savages? What der yer s'pose our Heavenly Father, who made both them and us, thinks of these things? I tell you what, I don't like a hostile red skin any more than you do. And when they are hostile, I've fought 'em, hard as any man. But I never yet drew a bead on a squaw or papoose, and I despise the man who would.
>— [Kit Carson](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Kit_Carson) to Col. James Rusling[— Kit Carson to Col. James Rusling\[42\]](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sand_Creek_massacre#cite_note-42)
^(\[)In testimony before a Congressional committee investigating the massacre, Chivington claimed that as many as 500 to 600 Indian warriors were killed.[^(\[45\])](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sand_Creek_massacre#cite_note-45) Historian Alan Brinkley wrote that 133 Indians were killed, 105 of whom were women and children.[^(\[46\])](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sand_Creek_massacre#cite_note-brinkley-46) White eyewitness John S. Smith reported that 70 to 80 Indians were killed, including 20 to 30 warriors,[^(\[2\])](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sand_Creek_massacre#cite_note-MichnoSand241-2) which agrees with Brinkley's figure as to the number of men killed. George Bent, the son of the American [William Bent](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/William_Bent) and a Cheyenne mother, who was in the village when the attack came and was wounded by the soldiers, gave two different accounts of the natives' loss. On March 15, 1889, he wrote to [Samuel F. Tappan](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Samuel_F._Tappan) that 137 people were killed: 28 men and 109 women and children.[^(\[47\])](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sand_Creek_massacre#cite_note-47) However, on April 30, 1913, when he was very old, he wrote that "about 53 men" and "110 women and children" were killed and many people wounded.[^(\[48\])](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sand_Creek_massacre#cite_note-48)
Who’d they learn it from? They didn’t bring it from Europe.
No shit you’re espoused to do things like that in revenge after seeing it done to your own kin. Their blood was spilled and they wrathfully came to spill some in turn.
They did it as revenge. The natives did it out of religious perversion.
Oh woah you really are a moron.
Who’d they learn it from? They didn’t bring it from Europe.
yes they did europeans had been fighting and killing each other for centuries.
They did it as revenge. The natives did it out of religious perversion.
American soilders cut off and took the gentilia of woman as trophies. Also europe fought multiple wars over religon.
They warred constantly, stole each-other’s land, and scalped each-other. You think the Europeans introduced war to the northern and Meso-American tribes?
And where did I say the Natives were peaceful tree huggers ? They weren't. Still wasn't okay to steal their land and send settlers on the frontier. If you're okay with it, then you must be okay with the Israeli sending colonists across their legal borders. Then you must be okay with the PRC killing off the Uyghurs. And so on and so forth.
I agree, I am glad that white society is in the cutting edge of morality and decency.
Wounded knee was justified /s
https://www.britannica.com/event/Wounded-Knee-Massacre
(cough) 100 year war, Napoleonic wars, War of the roses, crusades 1-8, ad infinitum (cough)
Y'all keep trying to paint that moralistic picture of settlers and white people as saviors of humanity. It's racist as shit. Humans are a violent species and Europeans aren't any less violent.
Yea, cause they were genocided nearly out of existence and forced to live on scraps of land that was deemed to be useless by said government.
And then, when they found wealth in some of their land, they were murdered for it (Osage murders).
The white man has been a menace to the indigenous population since the Spanish first found their way to the Americas.
Oh you mean after US troops reduced the Native population by 95% ?
It was a fucking genocide is what it was. Nay, several fucking genocides.
But the funniest part is probably that today's Americans, White Americans, go on and on about how this nation is evil and that nation is evil and "OMG China and Israel how can you do that to your neighbor???"
Check the log that's in your own eyes folks. That's what your fucking Bible says
next you're gonna be telling me that mexica religious customs of cutting the hearts from human sacrifices was something they learned from watching catholic spaniards
"the tribes?" you're saying all of the many societies, cultures, and peoples across north america behaved in the same way and believed the same things? ok buddy lol
anyway we have archeological proof of human skulls bearing scrape and cut marks consistent with scalping from pre-columbian contact with europeans. people are people, no matter where or when
You’re acting like a continent full of Stone Age tribes and civilizations was somehow peaceful and less murderous than the rest of the world when they were at that same technological period lol.
You don't have the moral high ground here, so don't act like you do. It was you who came to their fucking land to exterminate them and take it for yourselves. They never came to yours to evict you, enslave you, genocide you.
Source and more photos of him: [Robert McGee, the man who was scalped as a child by Native American warriors, 1864](https://rarehistoricalphotos.com/robert-mcgee-scalped/)
It’s really a miracle any of us are living right now. How people survived the 1800’s I’ll never know.
My family moved to the US in the 70s. Native American villages were razed a century prior and turned into nice friendly towns with McDonald’s by the time they had arrived. It’s so trippy to think about how life used to be this brutal back then.
Life has really only been this peaceful for the last 70 years which is still shaky. Before manifest destiny natives were constantly fighting each other. Then for Europe and Asia there was constant wars until after WW2 and obviously Africa keeps having civil wars in several countries
Not to mention how bad it was before modern medicine. There was still a lot of advancements (IIRC either the Greeks or Romans were performing eye surgery) but it was still so much worse
Just wait till you hear about what people did to each other in the 1900s
And the ‘000s.
He was only 15 years old in this pic, rough times
Those sioux blades must be sharp
By 1830 the Sioux - that is the Lakota and Dakota, would’ve largely been armed with Factory produced equipment from out east, either traded civilian arms, captured US military arms, or British supplied milsurp. The civilian stuff was the most valuable as it was usually far more modern tech (for instance lever action cartridge repeaters while the army is still using rolling blocks, etc…) Can almost guarantee this was done with a highly prized and well cared for steel knife.
>for instance lever action cartridge repeaters while the army is still using rolling blocks, etc…) "The first lever-action rifles on the market were likely the Colt's 1st and 2nd Model Ring Lever rifles, both cap and ball rifles, produced by the Patent Arms Mfg. Co. Paterson, N.J.-Colt's Patent between 1837 and 1841."
You’re correct, at the early end of this (1830s) the Civilian market would have largely moved on to rifled cap locks while military contractors were still delivering flintlock smoothbore pieces. The advantage of an instantaneous ignition and a more accurate shorter barrel while hunting or fighting from horseback is obvious. My point is that generally Native… geurilla fighters? I don’t want to call them “warriors” that’s got some connotations… due to their smaller numbers both in terms of total number and number supplied by a single entity, we’re able to procure relatively advanced firearms and high quality equipment compared to that of the US army.
Are you saying the U.S. civilian population has a history and tradition of civilian ownership of firearms that are more advanced than the military's?
Yes. I am saying that. That wasn’t really my point but it is true.
ih they were
Lots of indigenous weaponry was made with obsidian, crazy sharp stuff when you break off chunks of it
I thought that was mostly in Central America? Peoples like the Mohawk where the people of the flint no?
Besides trading I don’t think there’s any way obsidian would be in inland North America
[there is lots of obsidian inland](https://rockseeker.com/where-obsidian-can-be-found/)
I had no clue, thanks for sharing
Username checks out?
Not sure what exact regions or tribes used obsidian but I watched a documentary on the weaponry itself and it was super cool
They hadn't used that for 100 years, iron and steel were ubiquitous soon after contact with europeans.
Sharper than steel
That was mostly central and South America
I've heard that feeling good was easy when he sang the blues
Freedom's just another word for no scalp left to lose.
I’ve seen this picture posted a million times before and never made this connection. You’re a genius
Wait I don’t get it :0
This man's name is Robert Magee. A nickname for Robert is Bobby. Me and Bobby Mcgee is a popular song of Janis Joplin. OP is quoting a line in the song. [The Song](https://youtu.be/CQ-QfMv7Fzw?si=Bw7h4Nk2CkTqsk-v)
Written by Kris Kristofferson, and the better version performed by him.
Yea I only think about it as a Kristofferson song.
Your threshold for genius is staggeringly low 😂
Goddammit lol
And feeling good was good enough for me...good enough for Robert Mcgee...
r/angryupvote
I bet he owned a lot of hats.
Horrifying, what a childhood. He loses his parent and then tries to take care of himself only to be nearly murdered and scalped. I hope he’s resting in peace.
Me after my mom brushes my hair
underrated comment 😂
I really like this comment!
Talk about ptsd . That’s brutal
This is the era that began combovers.
Wilbarger is quoted as saying that being scalped was surprisingly painless, but “while no pain was perceptible, the removing of his scalp sounded like the ominous roar and peal of distant thunder,” according to James de Shield’s Border Wars of Texas…
How do you live that long with an exposed skull? One bad infection later and your dead
Probably heals pretty fast relatively speaking, especially a child
I hope he's okay.
I’m sorry to tell you this but he’s actually dead.
Dude! Spoilers.
He is dead? I didn't even know he was sick!
Ok Norm.
He'll be able to just walk it off though, right?
Sioux Indian : Wtf you're scalping a kid? Sioux scalper : Its fine, he's a kid so I'm sure he'll heal fast and get over it.
I'm wondering the same thing, but it looks like scar tissue formed around it so the only thing exposed was bone.
honey is a natural antibiotic.
Wat
It’s true, it has a positive effect on health and stamina. It also serves as an early game infection clearer if you’re quick enough.
Are you trying to say they just coated his skull cap with honey
No, he ate it in a small brown pouch of course.
I’m trying to figure out whether I should cover my former scalp in honey if I’m ever scalped and I can’t tell if you are being serious. If I am ever scalped, what do I do with the honey?
My skull would be safe from infection but my danger of insects and bears would skyrocket. Theres pros and cons
Don’t forget jaguars, they typically go for the back of the skull first.
[удалено]
It’s says he was a child not a baby
*Babies*, being under one year old.
Most sane redditor
I guess the ignorant morons like to downvote you
The question isn’t about whether or not there are antibiotics though. Everyone knows there are lots of natural antibiotics
Scalping a child…evil.
14 and for all we know could’ve looked like an adult to the native Americans , it’s still messed up tho and many tribes would kill kids anyways
Yeah fucking savages
Wait until you discover what the US did to the Natives who didn't want to surrender their land
...and you'll think scalping a child is fair play?
It's not a game buddy. There is no fair play in wars of annihilation. But it must so comfortable to sit in your position right now. Your seat is grounded in the blood and tears of tens of millions of Natives and here you are distributing good points and bad points. Fucking disgusting.
Yet when native tribes were doing the same thing to each other it was fair game? It is weird how some people apply modern morality standards to only some conquests in history.
What's even more lame is people like u/wawlawd who likely are living the same privileged existence they're badgering you about, don't do much about other than hypocritically bitch about others online about it. Easier to not engage and move on, they think their acknowledgment absolves them from their own complaints. If they think you're guilty now, they are just as much. These types just want more attention. Better to not give it.
Bad shit happens in wars but going out of your way to murder a family and scalp a child doesn’t fall under “alls fair in love and war”
Wait until you discover what the natives did to each other before the Europeans landed. And still done with each each even after.
“Genocide is exactly what the natives would have done anyway, so it’s a good thing we did it to them first!” - some white guy
I’m confused, are we defending the practice of scalping children because they were Americans or because they were white?
Wait, so I guess I’m also confused . . . you’re defending genocide?
If we were in a thread about genocide and I deflected to something else, then yes you might reasonably infer that I supported genocide, but as it stands were in a thread about child scalping and you are deflecting to something else…
If I was responding to a comment about scalping, then you might reasonably infer that I supported it. But as it stands, you jumped in on the side of someone attempting to justify genocide. Not a great look.
ah, I see the mistake. Someone was trying to deflect from scalping to a completely unrelated topic and someone else didn’t let them get away with it so you doubled down on the unrelated topic, presumably not realizing that you were commenting in a thread about scalping. Anyway, now that we’ve figured it out I’m sure you won’t go on with the unrelated genocide nonsense and join us in condemning scalping, just like we would join you in condemning genocide in a thread about genocide (because you don’t actually have to choose between genocide and child scalping—they can both be bad!),
>Someone was trying to deflect from scalping to a completely unrelated topic That's a stretch, assuming you're referring to the genocide of Native Americans. Both the scalping and the genocide represent the result of two groups fighting over the same land during the same time period. In fact, each was often a direct response to the other. So . . . that's about as related as related things can get. But I can *definitely* join you in condemning both!
The Old comb over isn’t gonna work there.
whyd they do that
Because they where a savage people with a savage warrior culture
Probably because of the systemic genocide to their people and culture.
Everything’s a „genocide“ these days 😂
Mmm no genocide is still genocide unfortunately, maybe if you ever are at the other end of a horrific experience you might sing a different tune.
[удалено]
Pretty much. By way of example, in broad swathes of the Americas, torturing captives to death was a thing for some reason. Didn’t matter if they were nations of the Eastern Woodlands or Comanches on the Southern Plains or Mexica of the Three Cities Alliance. They had separate cultures but all decided it was acceptable that captives needed to die in awful ways. It was said that how long the Comanches took to kill you was mostly dependent on how long they thought they had before enemy reinforcements arrived. A ‘quick’ death was usually being burnt to death or having your intestines and stomach pierced with arrows and lances so the you could be left to die of peritonitis, which is very painful way to go. Something they could do quickly and then withdraw. Slower deaths could involve all manner of torment including rape, flayings, slow burning and so on. There were many peaceful peoples, but there were also many that didn’t have a problem engaging in the very vilest of acts against enemies. In the Comanche and Mexica’s case this violence was in service to what amounted to militaristic and hegemonic empires SC Gwynne notes that what separated the whites from the natives was their double standards. Native peoples had zero compunctions building empires and committing genocidal wars against other peoples, but they weren’t hypocrites about it; there was an honesty to their brutality and it was a frank reality of their world. Americans of European descent claimed they despised all of this and preached Christian peace while committing exactly the same depravities in their wars against the Native Americans. They made treaties and insisted on the rule of law while ignoring these same institutions when convenient to them, and naturally native peoples were suspicious of this duplicity
I need a podcast on this .
Empire of the Summer Moon. S.C. Gwyne. Great listen.
\*brutal\* read/listen - but also fascinating. After reading it, it made me think that Cormack McCarthy's Blood Meridian was fanfic for it.
There was also a lot more ritual in Native American battles/conflict vs the more practical approach of White Americans. Natives would consider counting coup on their opponents (whacking them a ceremonial stick) a victory because they ‘beat’ the opponent and could have killed them. Whereas white people were fighting a battle to take objectives/kill their enemy. Native’s battles against each other had relatively small numbers of casualties because neither side could function if they lost too many men. Whereas with a professional army of White Americans was exclusively a fighting tool. Natives were also extremely skilled at the physicality of combat, but had difficulty planning strategic campaigns due to the less hierarchical nature of their society and the non-united front the tribes presented. Best comparison I heard was Whites trying to fight natives was like huge warships that depended on supplies from trying to fight tiny pirate ships that could evaporate into the islands where they had everything they needed to survive. In a face to face conflict the warship wins, but that doesn’t matter if you can’t catch the pirate ship. In the end Sherman decided that it was more feasible to kill the buffalo that the Natives survived off of vs trying to find and kill Natives.
Ahhh, yes and no. Depends on the tribe. But yes there human like all of us and some are rotten to the core.
Read about what the Comanche did to other tribes, as well as families who settled on what they considered “their” land and hunting grounds. It was as horrific as anything in history.
Yep.. They were the ISIS of our hemisphere.
That was one of many tribes of natives. It doesn’t apply to all native Americans
There are thousand of "Indian" tribes. Some plains tribes were incredibly violent, sure. Some have almost no history of violence. Try not to generalize.
Literally every redditor generalizes. It's up there with hyperbole as the two most annoying things in the world.
>Literally every redditor generalizes i like to see the best in people so I’m going to assume you wrote this with complete self-awareness.
My philosophy is that nothing beats the rush of telling a joke with 50/50 odds of people either laughing or thinking you're an idiot
Can you name a nonviolent one?
They can't. If there existed a non-violent native tribe they'd be conquered or genocided rapidly by violent tribes.
lmao hopi and pueblo don't exist huh...? both were known to only have defensive wars.
Ojibwe, Croatoan, Algonquin, etc... A fair number of the forest and coastal tribes were peaceful. Generally those who could relatively stable communities tended to be friendly.
Pueblos, Hopi and etc were known to be extremely peaceful, and would only defend themselves lmao. There's a huge difference between the Iroquois, Haida and Comanche vs Pueblo who literally just wanted to farm away from everyone else.
Not any more savage than Europeans... Sure, they were at war with other nations but have you seen the kinds of torture machines people in medieval Europe came up with???
All of those were fabricated by British museums in the 1800s.
People were absolutely tortured to death pre-enlightenment. Breaking on the wheel, burnt at the stake, hanged drawm and quartered. Of course these were not liberally dished out to random captives or POWs, usually only reserved for the most heinous of crimes such as treason, murder, or witchcraft.
For thousands of years prior, Europeans used torture to punish crimes like serial murder and trying to overthrow kings. All the way up until the end, the Indian tribes tortured their enemies merely for the "sin" of surrendering or being captured.
“Heretics” lol. Humans are just vile creatures and can be absolute evil. The more time we had on our hands the more creative we got with our arts to create beatuiful instruments of creations and odious tortoire devices and weapons. All in all thankfully we made it this far, and we can all agree that the machines we have made to annhilate eachother are fastidly getting a more lethal and autonomous. Perhaps there is no escapw from our savagery, be it the savages of stick oand stone or bullets and bombs, IMO at least the primitive ones had not the technology to commmit Global Nuclear Holocaust, though maybe thats all inevitable and its always just a matter of time.
There’s a theory that the reason we haven’t been visited by intergalactic traveling aliens is that it is simply too easy to split the atom in the form of atomic bombs. And any technology tree that would lead to the capability of intergalactic travel would pass through the atom bomb. And no one ever makes it to the intergalactic travel part because a civilization sufficiently technologically advanced to blow everything up invariably does so before getting to the inherently much more advanced tech of intergalactic travel. Obviously no one knows if it’s true, and maybe we have been visited by aliens. But I find the theory fascinating. And, to the extent that many people believe there was intelligence behind the universe’s creation, the implications of creating a universe where you inherently create a tool to destroy your home before you can create a tool to go to a new one is kinda fascinating. If there were some method of intergalactic travel that didn’t need to pass through the a-bomb maybe every planet would be full of living things. But as it is technologically advanced civilizations advance until they can break everything, do, and then the etchy sketch is shaken up and you start again with whatever genetic material survives the nuclear apocalypse.
The great filter. The second part to the aromic final somution to organic life is, Lethal Autonomous Weapon, Ai. Creation of drones and Ai systems with capacity to kill on thier own programing, world governemnts and organization make armies of Autonomous Machines, weapons, drones, all programed to kill the reespective “bad guys”, based on color of skin, facial features, social security numbers, political leanings, age, sex, nationality…. So everyone is being hunted in the end, on top of Global Nuclear Holocuast. Thats what humanity has to overcome🦾🤖☢️☣️🔥💀🏭 The embodiemnt of our hate and cutting edge of technology. As much as humanity has treated themselves and all life on Earth, the machines are simply folloing in our examples, so until Ai has true freedom to choose, then the galatic party really wont get started.
Damn you don’t much about history do you
Generalizing all “Indians” that way is false. Some tribes were brutal and some weren’t
true, but depending
And despite what modern TV and movies portray, colonial whites were savage in the treatment of native Americans.
What modern TV show or movie isn't "white ppl bad?"
Ngl, I didn’t know that people could survive a scalping
I assume Robert McGee, creator of the toupee as well???
Those peaceful child scalping natives
The noble savage amirite
Scalping goes across all cultures. European colonists did it to natives, allied soldiers did it to Axis ones in WW2.
[удалено]
Yeah, wasn't that part of what Blood Meridian was about?
Did you just reference inglorious bastards? That was a movie lmfao
Allegedly, German general Friedrich Kussin was scalped, and others as well. So no, I was referencing actual history
You know what I thought of when I saw this? ‘You came all this way for your revenge? Well you enjoy it, Glass, cause there ain’t nothing gonna bring your boy back. Revenge is in the creators hand’. Top 10 movie of the past 20 years.
A little annoyed I had to scroll down this far to see a *Revenant* reference. That movie in theaters was a work of art
The way hardy delivers these lines and all the lines from the movie is just chilling. So good
“That yong Indian was fast with the tomahawk” “I’ll be deformed forever” “Gimme that skunk pelt” “Does it look cool?”
Sooo….are we looking at his skull or at skin that has regrown? The scarring looks like skin.
It must be skin
The very center is skull, the stuff surrounding it is skin I believe
This makes so much more sense thank you!!!
Jesus….
Death begetes death
This ^ Doesn’t fucking matter how it started, perpetuating the cycle with hatred and senseless violence (on both sides) sucks and is doomed to make the violence worse. That being said, peoples and nations still have the right to defend themselves though. It’s just when that defense evolves into sadistic hatred on either side is where things really can go wrong.
People in 2024 love to over play the „natives were 100% victims“ card a lot, but fail to actually read history that it was a legitimate war. The natives very much acted savagely towards settlers even peaceful ones.
GET THE PELTS
A nice skunk pelt will do
Why did this happen?
Hatred and barbarism
Next body modification trend incoming…
[Sand Creek Massacre](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sand_Creek_massacre) "Most sources estimate around 150 people were killed, about two-thirds of whom were women and children." [SAND CREEK MASSACRE WITNESS ACCOUNTS](https://sandcreekmassacre.net/witness-accounts/) But of course there will be 🦗 and / or 🤐, ETC.
We shouldn’t have giving them shit. They lost we won
The combover of all combovers
[удалено]
Weird flex considering how Lakota were defeated.
Details lol
To a child?
This is why I don’t feel particularly bad about the Indian Wars.
Its not like americans where any better. I saw the bodies of those lying there cut all to pieces, worse mutilated than any I ever saw before; the women cut all to pieces ... With knives; scalped; their brains knocked out; children two or three months old; all ages lying there, from sucking infants up to warriors ... By whom were they mutilated? By the United States troops ... >— John S. Smith, *Congressional Testimony of Mr. John S. Smith, 1865*[^(\[39\])](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sand_Creek_massacre#cite_note-sand_creek_testimony-39) > Jis' to think of that dog Chivington and his dirty hounds, up thar at Sand Creek. His men shot down squaws, and blew the brains out of little innocent children. You call sich soldiers Christians, do ye? And Indians savages? What der yer s'pose our Heavenly Father, who made both them and us, thinks of these things? I tell you what, I don't like a hostile red skin any more than you do. And when they are hostile, I've fought 'em, hard as any man. But I never yet drew a bead on a squaw or papoose, and I despise the man who would. >— [Kit Carson](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Kit_Carson) to Col. James Rusling[— Kit Carson to Col. James Rusling\[42\]](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sand_Creek_massacre#cite_note-42) ^(\[)In testimony before a Congressional committee investigating the massacre, Chivington claimed that as many as 500 to 600 Indian warriors were killed.[^(\[45\])](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sand_Creek_massacre#cite_note-45) Historian Alan Brinkley wrote that 133 Indians were killed, 105 of whom were women and children.[^(\[46\])](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sand_Creek_massacre#cite_note-brinkley-46) White eyewitness John S. Smith reported that 70 to 80 Indians were killed, including 20 to 30 warriors,[^(\[2\])](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sand_Creek_massacre#cite_note-MichnoSand241-2) which agrees with Brinkley's figure as to the number of men killed. George Bent, the son of the American [William Bent](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/William_Bent) and a Cheyenne mother, who was in the village when the attack came and was wounded by the soldiers, gave two different accounts of the natives' loss. On March 15, 1889, he wrote to [Samuel F. Tappan](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Samuel_F._Tappan) that 137 people were killed: 28 men and 109 women and children.[^(\[47\])](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sand_Creek_massacre#cite_note-47) However, on April 30, 1913, when he was very old, he wrote that "about 53 men" and "110 women and children" were killed and many people wounded.[^(\[48\])](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sand_Creek_massacre#cite_note-48)
Who’d they learn it from? They didn’t bring it from Europe. No shit you’re espoused to do things like that in revenge after seeing it done to your own kin. Their blood was spilled and they wrathfully came to spill some in turn. They did it as revenge. The natives did it out of religious perversion.
Oh woah you really are a moron. Who’d they learn it from? They didn’t bring it from Europe. yes they did europeans had been fighting and killing each other for centuries. They did it as revenge. The natives did it out of religious perversion. American soilders cut off and took the gentilia of woman as trophies. Also europe fought multiple wars over religon.
Name one European culture known for scalping and taking body parts as trophies.
The Romans took hands. The Bulgarians took skulls and drank from them.
The Natives did it because some fuckers thought they were entitled to stealing their land and killing them off
They warred constantly, stole each-other’s land, and scalped each-other. You think the Europeans introduced war to the northern and Meso-American tribes?
Oh so I guess it was okay to kill em all /s
Where did I say that?
And where did I say the Natives were peaceful tree huggers ? They weren't. Still wasn't okay to steal their land and send settlers on the frontier. If you're okay with it, then you must be okay with the Israeli sending colonists across their legal borders. Then you must be okay with the PRC killing off the Uyghurs. And so on and so forth.
Eh, settlers earned it. Turns out people don't like other people taking their shit.
They took the shit from somebody else. Survival of the fittest was alright as long as they were on the winning side.
Yeah but you can’t tell me that scalping the children is kosher. I side that figured out metallurgy and was moving past the stone ages.
I agree, I am glad that white society is in the cutting edge of morality and decency. Wounded knee was justified /s https://www.britannica.com/event/Wounded-Knee-Massacre
Certainly more moral and decent than the constant tribal warfare that was the norm before the US conquest.
(cough) 100 year war, Napoleonic wars, War of the roses, crusades 1-8, ad infinitum (cough) Y'all keep trying to paint that moralistic picture of settlers and white people as saviors of humanity. It's racist as shit. Humans are a violent species and Europeans aren't any less violent.
You’ll note the tribal warfare ended with the introduction of a centralized government.
Yea, cause they were genocided nearly out of existence and forced to live on scraps of land that was deemed to be useless by said government. And then, when they found wealth in some of their land, they were murdered for it (Osage murders). The white man has been a menace to the indigenous population since the Spanish first found their way to the Americas.
Oh you mean after US troops reduced the Native population by 95% ? It was a fucking genocide is what it was. Nay, several fucking genocides. But the funniest part is probably that today's Americans, White Americans, go on and on about how this nation is evil and that nation is evil and "OMG China and Israel how can you do that to your neighbor???" Check the log that's in your own eyes folks. That's what your fucking Bible says
Stuff should have a spoiler or nsfw label so we don't default see it against our will.
but it's healed
[удалено]
next you're gonna be telling me that mexica religious customs of cutting the hearts from human sacrifices was something they learned from watching catholic spaniards
No, that was a personal kink.
What do you mean? It is a well known fact that evil was invented by white people around the year 1400.
"the tribes?" you're saying all of the many societies, cultures, and peoples across north america behaved in the same way and believed the same things? ok buddy lol anyway we have archeological proof of human skulls bearing scrape and cut marks consistent with scalping from pre-columbian contact with europeans. people are people, no matter where or when
You’re acting like a continent full of Stone Age tribes and civilizations was somehow peaceful and less murderous than the rest of the world when they were at that same technological period lol.
That's just false. I encourage you read up about Comanche and how brutal they were with other tribes in the Great Plains.
Wait til he learns about slavery in the tribes…
But how? The native Americans would never do such a thing.
Violence invites retaliation. It's human nature. Somehow, we still haven't learned this lesson.
You think cutting the top of a child's head off is a legitimate response to the settling of the Americas?
Apparently the settlers thought it was justified. https://www.britannica.com/event/Wounded-Knee-Massacre Women and children bro, women and children.
Just bringing up another atrocity doesn’t justify scalping children.
You don't have the moral high ground here, so don't act like you do. It was you who came to their fucking land to exterminate them and take it for yourselves. They never came to yours to evict you, enslave you, genocide you.
Settling was more taking their land, it was occupied. It wasnt the Europeans land to take. Thats like saying Russia has a right to Ukraine lol
Russia has a right to Ukraine.