100% agreed with the following:
John Knight
Bob LeChevalier wrote: <snip> living in a CHRISTIAN land,
a nonsensical phrase
<snip>
>Nonsensical because the Native Americans (Indians, Aboriginals, what have
you) were Pagans themselves, and they had a better life then the Europeans,
IMO. They knew how to live WITH nature, not against it. What the
"Christians" did to their fellow man (the Native Americans) was very
un-Christian like. They (the "Christians") burned their (the Native
Americans) histories and religious texts and forced upon them a life and
religion foreign to them. Personally, shit like that makes me sick to be an
American, but knowing my blood relatives earliest venture into America was
1865 (mom's side) and 1956 (dad's side) kinda takes away that sick feeling.
I still feel bad what was done in the past, and yes, it is the past, but we
haven't learned from it. "Christians" around the world are STILL burning the
religious texts of thousands of aboriginal people's. Not only is part of
history lost with those texts, but so are those people's cultures that
CHRISTIANS so carelessly crush.
John Knight Wrote:
What you view as "un-Christian like" is what White Christian Israelites HAD
to do to preserve their race. If Mr. Jefferson et. al. hadn't taken a
strong stand against the Indians when they did, the Indians would have
eliminated them in a heart beat. These savages were scalping White men by
the tens of thousands and sending the scalps to King George for payment,
cutting the legs off White settlers and impaling their torsos on little
carts so they could roll them around the tee-pee and torture them, and
committing many other unconscionable acts. If defending the White Christian
Israelite Race against such savages "makes [you] sick to be an American",
believe me, that can be fixed instantly.
The only reason a single Indian is alive today is Christian charity. If
these savages had been dealing with Huns, or even with each other, they
would have been a red oil slick in the Pacific.
Right now, it's the jews who're the biggest threat to world peace that you
ought to be speaking out against. They want White Christian Israelites to
use their dollars and their men to fight the JEWs' enemies. And it was
Trotsky and Lenin and Hitler and most Bolshevists and Nazis who were the
JEWS who were responsible for murdering 25-50 million fellow White Christian
Israelites in Russia, and another 48 million in Europe. And it was jews who
persecuted and killed Israelites like Jesus Christ and St. Paul and even
Christ's mother and uncle.
If you like the life style Indians had, then why should you agree to sending
one nickel to the Indians so they can share the benefits of the White
Christian Israelite Race? Why do they leave their reservations by the
thousands and try to blend into our cities? Why can't they be
self-sufficient, as White Christian Israelites are?"
Well, stated John. Perhaps, Mr. LeChevalier is interested in cannibalism
that the Indians practised besides their cruel torture of captives. This
wasn't done to whites only, but these practices and cannibalism was a way of
life with some other tribes and nations before the white man came to the
American shores. I agree with Mr. LeChevalier, he should be sick to be an
American, he needs to master American history better.
Incidentally, my forefather came over eleven generations ago in 1636. I had
two relatives that fought in King Philip's War in 1678. The Indian,
Metacomet, also known as "King Philip," was the Grand Sachem of the
Wampanoags Indians. My forefather John Sr. was wounded and his son was
killed by Wampanoag Indians. I have another forefather that fought in Battle
known as "Lovewell's Fight," or locally it's called the "battle of the
Pond." On May 9, 1725, a small band of English rangers engaged an
undetermined number of Pequawket braves in a remarkable battle on the banks
of Saco Pond in what is now Fryeburg, Maine. It was an Indian ambush, in
which it was estimated between 40 to 80 braves participated in. The
historian Francis Parkman calls the ten hour battle that followed "one of
the most obstinate and deadly bush-fights in the annals of New England." It
was written that "Lovewell asked his men whether they should proceed or
retreat. According to Parson Symmes, the Fight's first 'historian', they
replied, ' We came to see the enemy; we have all along prayed God we might
find them; and we had rather trust Providence with our lives, yea, die for
our country, than try to return without seeing them, if we might, and be
called cowards for our pains.' This 'God is on our side' interchange is
typical of the way in which Symmes embellished his account." And later, when
they realized how outnumbered they were, it was recorded- "However without
the colonists packs and only the ammo and weapons they carried in pursuit of
the lone Indian, the rangers could not have had much with which to fight. It
most certainly was a waiting game, ammunition could not be wasted by random
firing. As Parkman describes it, 'each man crouched with eyes and mind
intent, firing whenever he saw, or thought he saw, the head, limbs or body
of the enemy exposed to sight for an instant'. The rangers, with the pond at
their back, could not be surrounded but neither could they escape. At one
point, according to Symmes, 'SOME of the Indians held up Ropes, ask'd the
English if they'd take Quarter, but were Answer'd Briskly, they'd have none
but at the Muzzle of their Guns'. As desperate as conditions must have
seemed to the rangers, being bound and led off into captivity was not an
option." My forefather took charge of that small group of rangers after
Lovewell was killed. My forefather fired his gun and killed the Indian War
party's leader, which greatly demoralized the Indians who withdrew from the
field soon after. These accounts are recorded by the minister who was part
of that group of American rangers.
I had eight relatives that fought in the Revolutionary War. Six were
mortally wounded. Indeed, all were VERY active against the British on the
side of the Colonists. One of my relatives, Jabez was killed brutally after
being bayoneted by British soldiers. It is written that "Jabez and his
brother-in-law Jason Winship were both killed by the British in Cooper's
Tavern, in Menotomy, on 19 April 1775, the site where the Arlington House
now stands. The troops fired more than a hundred bullets into the house on
the afternoon of that day; hen a number of them entered and slew the two men
named above, stabbing them through in many places, breaking their skulls,
scattering their brains." The tavern keeper Benjamin Cooper and his wife
said: "The two aged (sic) gentlemen were most barbarously and inhumanely
murdered by them, being stabbed through in many places, their heads mangled,
skulls broke, and their brains out on the floor and walls of the house."
I have a stake in this land, more of it than nearly all who call themselves
Americans. My family shed their Christian blood so that we could be free of
all tyranny. And, the blood of my family doesn't stop there. I know the
history of my forefathers, of which I have given you a part of. I will not
let anyone tell me what the founders of this nation meant. It is the duty of
everyone to understand what they were all about. We were indeed a Christian
nation founded on the Christian principle. Jabez and Jason waited for news
at the Tavern Inn. A common place to receive breaking news in those days.
And, it is written that my forefather worked for the Reverend Cooke, another
common practice in those days. The parishes were indeed the center to the
communities in those days.
CANNIBALISM IN NORTH AMERICA
The Iroquois, for example, are well known for their incessant warfare and
their training of males to be immune to pain. They are also well known for
their merciless treatment of prisoners of war. Captives were forced to run a
gauntlet, their fingernails were pulled out and their limbs hacked off, and
they were finally decapitated or roasted alive at the stake - after which
their remains were consumed in cannibalistic feasts.
Marvin Harris: Cannibals and Kings: The Origin of Cultures, Glasgow, 1978
The Kwakiutl Indians have asserted, when interrogated, that the practice of
cannibalism only became general about a hundred years ago. White men who
travelled in their territory were able to witness many of their ceremonial
dances, and two of them, Hunt and Moffat, brought back first-hand
information about their customs. They say that sometimes slaves were killed
for the benefit of Hamatsas [the cannibal members of the Kwakiutl], and that
at other times the Hamatsas contented themselves with snatching mouthfuls of
flesh from their own tribesmen - usually from the chest and upper arms of
well-fleshed individuals. They vouch for an example of ritual cannibalism
which took place near Fort Rupert. A Kwakiutl shot and wounded a slave, who
ran away and collapsed on the beach at the water's edge. He was pursued by
the tribesmen, including a group of the 'Bear Dancers' and Hamatsas. The
slave's body was cut to pieces with knives while the Hamatsas squatted in a
circle round them crying out their terrible cry: "Hap! Hap! Hap! Hap!"
Helpless to intervene, Moffat and Hunt watched the Bear Dancers snatch up
the flesh, warm and quivering, and growling like the Grizzly they
represented, offer it to the Hamatsas in order of seniority. The wife of the
dead slave was at the time in Fort Rupert, and, like Hunt and Moffat,
witnessed the slaughter of her husband, helpless to avert it. But she had a
weapon that the white men did not possess: she could throw a curse over the
Hamatsas. "I will give you five years to live," she shrieked at them from
the walls of Fort Rupert. "The Spirit of your Dancing is strong, but my
spirit is stronger still. You have killed my husband with knives; I shall
kill you with the point of my tongue." Within five years of this episode,
the white men report, every member of the tribe who had taken part in the
killing of this slave was dead. In memory of the grim episode, a rock on the
beach where the ritual feast took place was carved into the likeness of the
Baxbakualanuxsiwae mask. The tradition died hard. A Hamatsa demanded that
another slave - this time a female - should dance for him. She stood a
moment looking at him in terror, and said: "I will dance. But do not get
hungry. Do not eat me!" She had hardly finished speaking when her master, a
fellow member of the tribe, split her skull open with an axe, and the
Hamatsa thereupon began to eat her flesh. This actual Hamatsa was still
alive towards the end of the nineteenth century, and on interrogation
remarked, among other things, that it is very much harder to consume fresh
human flesh than the dried flesh of corpses that have been left to mummify
in the trees and then brought down to appease the Hamatsa's hunger. He also
said that it was common practice to swallow hot water after a mouthful of
flesh taken from a living body, as it was believed that this would cause the
inflammation of the wound made by the teeth. All cannibal tribes, of course,
file their teeth to sharp points in order to deal more effectively with
their food. There was a variant of the practice whereby the returning
Hamatsa ran riot among the members of his tribe, biting flesh from them.
Sometimes he brought a corpse with him - that of a slave or some victim
captured and killed for the purpose. He ate part of this corpse after his
ceremonial dance was completed, but because this was the first corpse to be
devoured by him since his initiation, it was prepared with extra elaborate
care. One of the most important details was the removal of the skin at the
wrists and ankles, for the Kwakiutls believed that to eat of either hand or
foot would result in almost immediate death. This is one of the many
examples of the divergences of custom in this respect; to the Kwakiutls,
hands and feet were tabu; but among the Mangeromas of the Amazon jungles,
whose customs we shall be examining in due course, the palms of the hands,
and the soles of the feet, were looked upon as the greatest delicacies, and
were reserved for those of the tribe who for one reason or another demanded
priority. Most recently, that is to say at the very end of the nineteenth
century, it seems that the barbarous practices among the Kwakiutls had
become modified to a very great extent: the ceremonial was retained, but
symbolism played a larger and larger part in the ceremonial, replacing the
physical act. For example, the late-nineteenth-century Hamatsa did not
necessarily bite a mouthful of flesh from the chest or the arm. Instead, he
caught a piece of skin between his teeth and sucked at it hard, to extract
the taste of blood. Then, with a sharp knife, he would snip off a piece of
skin and pretend to swallow it. However, instead of swallowing it in fact,
he put it into his hair behind his ear, to lie there until the ceremonial
dancing was over. Then it was returned to the owner, who was thus assured
that a piece of his own skin would not eventually be used to his harm in
some piece of witchcraft. It was, as it were, the beginning of the end. From
the horrors of that house on the mountainside in which Baxbakualanuxsiwae
and his hideous attendants practised their fiendish rites, the customs of
the Kwakiutls have been refined to a ritual dance with gestures hardly more
dangerous than mime.
Garry Hogg, Cannibalism and Human Sacrifice, Robert Hale & Co., 1958
CANNIBALISM IN CANADA
[About the early 18th century] Jesuit missionaries witnessed a similar
ritual [to the Brazilian Tupinamba] among the Hurons of Canada. The victim
was an Iroquois man who had been captured along with several other
companions while they were fishing on Lake Ontario. The Huron chief in
charge of the ritual explained that the Sun and the God of War would be
pleased by what they were about to do. It was important not to kill the
victim before daybreak, so at first they should only burn his legs. Also,
they ought not to have sexual intercourse during the night. The prisoner,
his hands bound, alternately shrieking with pain and singing a song of
defiance learned as a child for just this occasion, was brought indoors,
where he was set upon by a crowd armed with brands of burning bark. As he
reeled from one end of the room to the other, some people seized his hands,
'breaking the bones thereof by sheer force; others pierced his ears with
sticks they left in them.' Whenever he seemed ready to expire, the chief
intervened 'and ordered them to cease tormenting him, saying it was
important that he should see daylight.' At dawn he was taken outside and
forced to climb on to a platform built on a wooden scaffold so that the
entire village could watch what was happening to him - the scaffold making
do as a sacrificial platform in the absence of flat-topped pyramids reared
for such purposes by the Mesoamerican states. Four men now took over the
task of tormenting the captive. They burned his eyes, applied red-hot
hatchets to his shoulders, and thrust burning brands down his throat and
into his rectum. When it was apparent that he was about to die, one of the
executioners 'cut off a foot, another a hand, and almost at the same time a
third severed the head from the shoulders, throwing it into the crowd where
someone caught it' to carry to the chief, who later made 'a feast therewith.
' The same day a feast was also made of the victim's trunk, and on their way
home the missionaries encountered a man 'who was carrying upon a skewer one
of his half-roasted hands.'
Marvin Harris: Cannibals and Kings: The Origin of Cultures, Glasgow, 1978
