My input is it was part spiritual, the captives were sacrificed to the Great Spirit or the sun and they apparently believed their gods like to receive tortured souls. The other part is akin to the Japanese Bushido tradition where you should not be taken alive as a man but should fight to the end. They did believe that the victims should be stoic in their misery and should die without showing cowardice and pain.

I'll also throw in they were racists and lived under harsh conditions and thus life was hard and making it harder was no big deal. The Apache and Comanche seemed to be among the harshest torturers and their home ranges were quite harsh places to live for the most part.

To be honest, the more I read/learn about the indians, the less guilty I feel about them getting wiped out.

You don't need to feel any guilt you weren't there but the US Government screwed them over big time on several occasions. The Ft. Laramie Treaty being one of the biggest screw jobs.

BQ78 said:

---

You don't need to feel any guilt you weren't there but the US Government screwed them over big time on several occasions. The Ft. Laramie Treaty being one of the biggest screw jobs.

---

There was a part in the book where one of the main subjects was taken captive while she was 4 months pregnant. By some miracle the fetus survived all the beatings she endured and was born several months later. When it was 7 weeks old, some committee decided to kill the baby. They first strangled it and then gave it back to her. However, it was still alive, so they took the baby put a rope around it's neck and then dragged it through a bunch of cactus by hand and then horse until it was in pieces. The only reason we know this story is that she was able to escape and live (for a while) to write the story down. Who knows what sort of atrocities were performed that nobody knows about.

To me, the atrocities performed by Indians far outweigh broken treaties by the US. I can see why Texas decided to "F-this" and go medieval on them once and for all.

https://www.forttours.com/pages/torture.asp

A short read on some of the atrocities committed by the Comanches....it certainly wasn't done exclusively to anglos...as their arch enemy the Tonkawas faired just as bad or worse when captured. Doesn't necessarily explain the "why", but when you read it, it certainly explains why settlers were told to save the last bullet for themselves!! It kind of puts an end to the "noble savage" viewpoint ! (I might add, a great read is Three Years Among the Comanches by Nelson Lee....a captured Texas Ranger who finally escaped....but some of the Comanche torture stories are extremely brutal and hard to fathom!)

Atrocities went both ways, check up on Sand Creek and the Wa****a, poor Black Kettle got fooled twice. You seem to agree with Phil Sheridan that the only good Indian is a dead Indian but I'll say that Indians are like Iraqis they come in different stripes, i.e. the Kurds are pretty good dudes. Your account doesn't justify screwing the Lakota because a Comanche drug a baby through cactus.

I didn't try to justify screwing the Lakota because a Comanche drug a baby through cactus. The Lakota had atrocities of their own to justify that.

My recent conclusion has become this: we were at war with each other for centuries. If the indians had the technology and manpower, they would have wiped out every last settler on the continent. And they wouldn't have created reservations either. They would tortured and killed everybody. We used our technology and ended the war once and for all.

I no longer think we were the "bad guys" like I was taught all through school. The "good guys" actually won.

Well each case against the "good guys" and the "bad guys" is different but in general I believe the "good guys" were most often the instigators of trouble. Hollywood loves to show us the wagon trains of the settlers being attacked but that is mostly a myth. The settlers that moved through the plains seldom had troubles with the Indians and in fact they were often helpers as the settlers moved through. The Mormons even when they stayed for example, lived in peace with the Indians and carved out their place in the wilderness and had no issues with anybody but the "good guys." It wasn't until the "Good guys" tried to run the "Bad guys" off their land and exploit the riches of the plains that the troubles ensued. So the idea of genocide originated for the most part with the "good guys," not the "bad guys." I won't disagree that after the "good guys" made it war to the knife, that the "bad guys" adopted the same black flag attitude.

In addition to probably many nuanced differences amongst the hundred if not thousands of tribes on their treatment of others, the time period probably also makes a difference. When learning about Esteban and Cabeza de Vaca crossing through Texas in the 1520's and 1530's, there were tales of some of the indigenous tribes being welcoming on initial contact of the foreigners turned traders. However, they brought diseases with them and the villages they visited would get decimated after they left. The concept of germ theory did not have to exist for the locals to see the connection of the foreigners and death. Upon their return to those villages they often were received with great hostility. Also in a more general way, disease caused a civilization collapse with 85%-90% population reduction after about a century of European exposure. I am just hypothesizing here, but I would venture to guess that it had a massive impact on their views on the value of the lives of others. We've seen less serious events like economic recession be used to explain the rise of the nazis.

Edit: for BQ78

Are you serious? Hollywood of the last 30 or 40 years loves to show indians as environmentalist peace nicks who get unfairly treated by the "white man". And the idea that Europeans taught them how to be ruthless is preposterous. The natives were slaughtering and torturing each other long before Europeans discovered the continent. Hell they were wearing each others skins.

The Parker family had peacefully "carved out their place in the wilderness" when they were slaughtered/captured by the Comanche. They did nothing to instigate it. In fact, the Comanche were violently pushing out other tribes when they found the Parkers. They even approached the Parkers with a (fake) white flag.

And BTW, this book makes it it clear that traveling through Comanche land (which was huge) was practically a death sentence. Even for troops.

pmart said:

---

In addition to probably many nuanced differences amongst the hundred if not thousands of tribes on their treatment of others, the time period probably also makes a difference. When learning about Esteban and Cabeza de Vaca crossing through Texas in the 1520's and 1530's, there were tales of some of the indigenous tribes being welcoming on initial contact of the foreigners turned traders. However, they brought diseases with them and the villages they visited would get decimated after they left. The concept of germ theory did not have to exist for the locals to see the connection of the foreigners and death. Upon their return to those villages they often were received with great hostility. Also in a more general way, disease caused a civilization collapse with 85%-90% population reduction after about a century of European exposure. I am just hypothesizing here, but I would venture to guess that it had a massive impact on their views on the value of the lives of others. We've seen less serious events like economic recession be used to explain the rise of the nazis.

---

The Aztecs were sacrificing other tribes on pyramids when they were first discovered by the Spanish. The Spanish didn't teach them any of that. They thought it was barbaric. The tribes throughout America had a unique and established war strategy when Europeans first showed up. Europeans were confused by what they were doing. They learned all that fighting each other. Not from Europeans. And indians who were "welcoming" to settlers often did so because they wanted allies against their existing enemies. There are stories of settlers going along on Indian war parties and being horrified by what the Indians did to each other.

They had been doing that stuff for a LONG time. We didn't teach them any of it. In fact, they thought the way we engaged in war was stupid.

BQ78 said:

---

Guess you missed that "in general part."

---

No, I didn't. I flat out disagree.

Indians that saw Europeans as militarily superior, obviously tried to make friends. Both to keep safe and also to make allies against their enemies. Tribes, like the Comanche, who thought they were more powerful, tried to wipe Europeans "into the sea". It wasn't until the Comanche started getting their asses kicked, then bands start to become "friendly" all of the sudden. It's weird how that works (not really).

Well you would be wrong then.

Tell you what, when we both have more time you make a list of Indians starting the wars and I'll make one where the "Good Guys" started the troubles and I'll bet my list is longer.

I'll let you have the last word for now.

BQ78 said:

---

Well you would be wrong then.

Tell you what, when we both have more time you make a list of Indians starting the wars and I'll make one where the "Good Guys" started the troubles and I'll bet my list is longer.

I'll let you have the last word for now.

---

Not only are you wrong, but the fact that you think such a list would settle it shows why you are wrong.

The Americans killed far more Nazis than Nazis killed Americans. Does that make the Nazis the "good" guys? Hell no.

Likewise, settlers eventually got tired enough of native violence that they kicked the crap out of them. And since settlers didn't want to get tortured, they fought to the death, just like the indians. So of course the the winning side would would be "responsible" for more massacres.

And what do you call "starting" it? For every massacre, you almost always find an earlier incident by the other side. The most famous early massacre in the English colonies was of 1622 where indians killed a bunch of settlers. Yet if you go to wikipedia, it tries desperately to make the natives look as good as possible. It says

Quote:

---

Upon the settlement's founding in 1607, the local indigenous tribes were willing to trade provisions to the Jamestown colonists for metal tools, though by 1609 governor of the colony John Smith had begun to send raiding parties to demand for provisions from local indigenous settlements.

---

As if John Smith just randomly decided to send raiding parties for the hell of it. Then it implies that the natives sieged the colonists, who got a little hungry, who then took a more war stance, which lead to the First Anglo-Powhatan War, and then resulted in the 1622 massacre. Which merely attempted to "leave them contained in a small trading outpost, rather than expanding throughout the area with new plantations."

What the wiki page leaves out is that

Quote:

---

within days of the Jamestown colonist landing, they were attacked by the Powhatans.

---

So wouldn't THAT be the first attack? What it also leaves out is that during the "Starving Time", caused by the Powhatans and killing most of the colonists, the Powhatans invited colonists to a gathering where they would be given corn in exchange for copper. But it was a trap. Instead, they were ambushed and Powhatans killed 24 of the 26 of the colonists. They took the captured acting governor, John Ratcliffe, to their camp, and skinned him piece by piece, tossing it into the fire while he watched. They did his face last and then burned him at the stake. Gee... wouldn't THAT be an important detail to include? Maybe THAT was the reason the colonists were in a "war footing"?

And do you think that torture technique was taught to them by the colonists? Were they peace loving helpers prior? Was it the colonists who taught them the "same black flag attitude"? Hell no. They were savages prior. They did to Ratcliffe what they had done many times before to their enemies.

I think it's safe to say that Comanche torture was going on well before the arrival of Anglo's....as referenced in my earlier post about the brutal torture of their enemies the Tonkawas. It was just part of their culture. It was not "in response" to fight Anglo expansion, it was just something they did! On the other hand, Anglo Texans also committed atrocities against the Comanches at times...notably killing men, women and children indiscriminately in attacks on Comanche camps. I cannot blame Comanches or any tribe for that matter for fighting desperately to hang on to their lands from Anglo expansion. Now, as far as their noted delight in torture....one cannot condone/defend that under any circumstances.

Sapper Redux said:

---

Quote:

---

So wouldn't THAT be the first attack?

---

Nope. Powhatan had plenty of experience with Europeans. The English were not the first to land in his kingdom. You might stop and think why Europeans had such a bad reputation. Word spreads. The Spanish were BRUTAL towards natives. Even those that helped them were either murdered or enslaved.

---

LOL... Somehow, I doubt you would give Europeans a pass if they assumed that the entire continent was a single tribe and killed natives indiscriminately merely because one group attacked them decades prior. That is especially ironic since you claim "not EVERY tribe tortured!" in your next post. So you give a pass to the indians for killing all European nationalities indiscriminately, but take offense if you (incorrectly) think that I am lumping all tribes together.

Just like the Powhatan's were not the Cherokee, the English were not the Spanish. Those English who landed at Jamestown did not deserve getting attacked like that. And they had every right to protect themselves.

And I don't care WHY they torture. Whether it be spiritual nonsense or whatever. That is no excuse. It's still barbaric and savage. And Ratcliff wasn't a "warrior". He wasn't captured in "battle". Yet he was skinned alive and burned to death anyway.

Furthermore, you blind native defenders like to talk about broken treaties and agreements, well the massacre of 1622 did just that. As you undoubtedly know, there was a peace after the First Anglo-Powhatan War. The English wanted to live an integrated society with the indians. The indians were welcome within their settlements and even homes. The Powhatans used that trust to mingle with the settlers and then suddenly do a coordinated attack on everybody (a fact that is conveniently left out of Wikipedia and most internet sites). Who could blame the English for getting violent in return?

This reminds me of people who blindly defend Palestinians for indiscriminately killing Israelis no matter what. But bash Israel at every turn, even when they are clearly defending themselves.

If you're digging through history looking for good guys or bad guys at the societal level, you're doing it wrong. The indigenous nations fought to claim and extend land, resources, and power. The Europeans came to claim and extend land, resources, and power. The difference is that the former were behind several thousand years in most forms of technology (and exposure to most of the world's cooties). Swap the tech imbalance and Seminoles colonize France, brutally.

Sapper Redux said:

---

aTmAg said:

---

Sapper Redux said:

---

Quote:

---

So wouldn't THAT be the first attack?

---

Nope. Powhatan had plenty of experience with Europeans. The English were not the first to land in his kingdom. You might stop and think why Europeans had such a bad reputation. Word spreads. The Spanish were BRUTAL towards natives. Even those that helped them were either murdered or enslaved.

---

LOL... Somehow, I doubt you would give Europeans a pass if they assumed that the entire continent was a single tribe and killed natives indiscriminately merely because one group attacked them decades prior. That is especially ironic since you claim "not EVERY tribe tortured!" in your next post. So you give a pass to the indians for killing all European nationalities indiscriminately, but take offense if you (incorrectly) think that I am lumping all tribes together.

Just like the Powhatan's were not the Cherokee, the English were not the Spanish. Those English who landed at Jamestown did not deserve getting attacked like that. And they had every right to protect themselves.

And I don't care WHY they torture. Whether it be spiritual nonsense or whatever. That is no excuse. It's still barbaric and savage. And Ratcliff wasn't a "warrior". He wasn't captured in "battle". Yet he was skinned alive and burned to death anyway.

Furthermore, you blind native defenders like to talk about broken treaties and agreements, well the massacre of 1622 did just that. As you undoubtedly know, there was a peace after the First Anglo-Powhatan War. The English wanted to live an integrated society with the indians. The indians were welcome within their settlements and even homes. The Powhatans used that trust to mingle with the settlers and then suddenly do a coordinated attack on everybody (a fact that is conveniently left out of Wikipedia and most internet sites). Who could blame the English for getting violent in return?

This reminds me of people who blindly defend Palestinians for indiscriminately killing Israelis no matter what. But bash Israel at every turn, even when they are clearly defending themselves.

---

Imagine you have a group of heavily armed males arrive on your land and immediately start making demands, kidnapping your people, and threatening you. Now imagine another group of heavily armed males arrives on your land and starts fortifying a piece of YOUR land and claiming it as their own. You're now claiming that the Powhatans had no right to be defensive of their territory after being attacked in the past by the same type of exploratory group.

---

"THEIR" land? So now you are declaring both Central America AND Virginia to be "THEIR" land? As if the Aztecs and the Powhatan were a single tribe or even buddies? How desperate you have become to justify naked aggression by the Powhatans.

Furthermore, it makes no sense to be able to declare a huge chunk of untamed land as "YOUR" land. If you could then why couldn't the English settlers do so to? To say "well the Powhatan's did it first" is disingenuous. Because they didn't do it first. There were other tribes there before them. And they got violently thrown off too. So you can't have it both ways. You can't adopt the "might makes right" land ownership model and then complain when settlers kick your ass after you attack them first.

Personally, I adhere to the cultivation ownership model. You claim land by working it. Property is the spoil of labor, after all. It's the only model that makes logical sense. It's stupid to pretend the first person who crossed the Bering Strait could declare the entire western hemisphere as his. So in reality, the only land that was "theirs" was what they actually build up, plowed, etc. Powhatan's had their fields and villages and the settlers had Jamesown.

Either way you go.. The Powhatan's are in the wrong. The are the ones who attacked first and dictated the "might makes right" model. After that and other atrocities, the got their asses kicked. And they deserved every bit of it.

Quote:

---

For the record, however, they were not hostile to the point of war. They were definitely defensive, they definitely attacked certain exploratory parties that seemed to threaten their towns. But they made some peaceful gestures. Powhatan was willing to have them relocate to one of his villages and serve his confederacy. Why would that be wrong? If the English just wanted to live in an integrated society with the Indians (AHAHAHAHAHAHA), then why wouldn't they take this agreement? I mean, multiple members of the original settlers ran away and joined the Powhatans, and were welcomed in as full members.

---

Why would the English NOT want to live under and serve the Powhatans? Are you serious? Do you want to live under and serve the Iranians? No? Why not? And there were Powhatan's who joined the Settlers too. The only reason Jamestown itself avoided the brunt of the 1622 attack was because they were warned by a Powhatan convert. And it's not up to you to decide what hostile enough to the point of war. You weren't living there. Due to your politics, you probably think NOTHING was hostile to the point of war. Personally, I think taking captives is sufficient. Sieging their fort certainly was.

Quote:

---

The simple answer is that the English wanted to control the local tribes and allow them to survive if they acquiesced to English demands. They were always armored and armed and threatening. So, yes, as relations deteriorated and the English made increasingly beligerent actions, hostilities increased.

---

The exact same could be said for the Powhatans. They weren't offering flowers when they met.

Quote:

---

As for Ratcliff, he was absolutely a soldier. He was part of an armed party that had been making escalating demands. And in Powhatan culture, EVERY adult male is a warrior. That's their role. He and the colony had been demanding more and more food to make up for their own complete inability to grow anything. This was during a drought when food supplies were low for the Powhatans. Why would they give the English anything? What obligation was there for them to feed an invader?

---

It wasn't just because supplies were low, it was because the Powhatan's killed anybody who left the fort. Previously, they kidnapped farmers.

Quote:

---

I noticed you skipped over De la Warr's response and the first Anglo-Powhatan War. The response where they slaughtered 70 villagers, destroyed their crops, threw the queen's children in the water and shot them, and then planned to burn the queen alive until one of the solders just flat out murdered her. Does that count as torture? Drowning kids and shooting them?

---

After what the Powhatans did to them during the Starving time, they were at war as far as I'm concerned. The English were responding to the atrocities of the Powhatans. The don't get to start a fight, then torture and kill settlers and then cry foul when they get attacked back.

Quote:

---

And as for torture in European society, it was EXTREMELY widespread in the 17th century in every level of society. It was believed that torture would reveal the truth behind an accusation. They believed an innocent person could withstand torture when accused of something while a guilty soul would confess. Torture was not just accepted, it was expected in virtually every criminal accusation from heresy to treason.

---

Nothing like the savages in America. Not even close.

This is a childish level of response. It's not even an historical argument. It's "nuh-uh, the Indians were bad!"

Quote:

---

"THEIR" land? So now you are declaring both Central America AND Virginia to be "THEIR" land? As if the Aztecs and the Powhatan were a single tribe or even buddies? How desperate you have become to justify naked aggression by the Powhatans.

Furthermore, it makes no sense to be able to declare a huge chunk of untamed land as "YOUR" land. If you could then why couldn't the English settlers do so to? To say "well the Powhatan's did it first" is disingenuous. Because they didn't do it first. There were other tribes there before them. And they got violently thrown off too. So you can't have it both ways. You can't adopt the "might makes right" land ownership model and then complain when settlers kick your ass after you attack them first.

Personally, I adhere to the cultivation ownership model. You claim land by working it. Property is the spoil of labor, after all. It's the only model that makes logical sense. It's stupid to pretend the first person who crossed the Bering Strait could declare the entire western hemisphere as his. So in reality, the only land that was "theirs" was what they actually build up, plowed, etc. Powhatan's had their fields and villages and the settlers had Jamesown.

Either way you go.. The Powhatan's are in the wrong. The are the ones who attacked first and dictated the "might makes right" model. After that and other atrocities, the got their asses kicked. And they deserved every bit of it.

---

First of all, you seem quite ignorant of colonial history. You may want to sit this out.

The Spanish attempted to colonize the Powhatan lands before the English. They kidnapped and killed multiple Powhatans, including Opechancanough, which would help explain his extreme hostility towards Europeans.

The Powhatans were a confederacy of over 30 individual tribes held under the overall leadership of Powhatan himself. Yes, they fought wars and made treaties and did bad things and good things before any Europeans showed up. You seem hellbent on demonizing them. They were human and behaved as humans behave.

You've also just sort of arbitrarily decided on the 17th century English model of property ownership. That's quite convenient. It's not any more logical than any other system, it just fits your personal biases better. For the record, the Powhatans were a settled polity. They engaged in large scale agriculture and hunting. Jamestown was on their hunting grounds. It wasn't farmed because it was probably the worst spit of land in all of Virginia to try to farm and settle. The English were so obsessed with Spanish ships attacking them that they forgot they needed to settle somewhere survivable. Their rates of disease and starvation had almost nothing to do with the Powhatans, who largely sat back and watched them, and everything to do with their own rank ignorance and the arrogance with which they interacted with the locals. But it's good to know that I can just walk up to any land you own that isn't cultivated, put a plow down, and claim it as my own. That makes a ton of ****ing sense.

Quote:

---

Why would the English NOT want to live under and serve the Powhatans? Are you serious? Do you want to live under and serve the Iranians? No? Why not? And there were Powhatan's who joined the Settlers too. The only reason Jamestown itself avoided the brunt of the 1622 attack was because they were warned by a Powhatan convert. And it's not up to you to decide what hostile enough to the point of war. You weren't living there. Due to your politics, you probably think NOTHING was hostile to the point of war. Personally, I think taking captives is sufficient. Sieging their fort certainly was.

---

This is an amazing statement. Again, it has nothing to do with history and everything to do with your personal beliefs. You claimed the English wanted an integrated society with the Powhatans. I offered an example of such a society and you immediately scoff at it. As the English did. They didn't want an integrated society. They wanted to dominate. As for what level of hostilities are enough, I'm not making a judgement, I'm saying what happened. You can't seem to get it through your head that the English were unwelcome invaders and that their mere presence and desire to expand control of Powhatan lands was an act of war by any conventional definition of that era or ours. The existence of the fort at Jamestown was hostile to the point of war, even if they never left it. That's how territorial claims work.

Quote:

---

It wasn't just because supplies were low, it was because the Powhatan's killed anybody who left the fort. Previously, they kidnapped farmers.

---

Supplies were extremely low for everyone. The English had made plenty of attempts at farming that were not interrupted that failed because Jamestown sits on a salt marsh and is terrible land for any agriculture. And again, this was not aggression for the sake of aggression. This was a series of interactions that increased in intensity as the English continued to try to expand their hold on Powhatan land and build new outposts on that land.

Quote:

---

After what the Powhatans did to them during the Starving time, they were at war as far as I'm concerned. The English were responding to the atrocities of the Powhatans. The don't get to start a fight, then torture and kill settlers and then cry foul when they get attacked back.

---

Ah, so tossing small children into water and shooting them is okay in your book. Got it. Burning a woman alive is okay. But the English are culturally superior? Interesting.

Quote:

---

Nothing like the savages in America. Not even close.

---

Look up what happened to the anabaptists in Munster.

Who did I claim was superior or exceptional?

aTmAg said:

---

I'm listening to "Empire of the Summer Moon" on audiobook and it describes how settlers were shocked at the brutality of the indians. That it was a given that they would torture their captured enemy including infants, women, elderly, etc. Basically everybody other than children that they could assimilate into their tribe. And that it wasn't a single tribe here or there, but that it was widespread everywhere. He talks about how the indians actually enjoyed inflicting pain on their captives. It talks about cases where captives were returned after ransoms and that the indians were surprised how pissed the settlers were at their loved one's conditions.

I'm wondering why that came to be. I know that there were cases of severe torture in Europe and plenty of killing (like the Mongols). But that Europe evolved to only reserve torture for egregious crimes like mass murder, treason, banging the kings wife, etc. Why did they evolve so drastically different?

Was it Christianity? Something else?

---

Christianity and Savagery? Lets talk savagery ....

1.Spanish Inqusition
2. Catholic Church's total distruction of the native cultures in the Americas.
3. The Portuguese, English, Spanish, French and Dutch (all Christian nations) involvement in the Atlantic slave trade...
4. England and the subjugation of Scotland and Ireland. Good Christians all.

In regards to the Comanche? The treated the Americans, Spanish and Mexicans no differently than they did the Lipan Apache and the Tonkawa. They really didn't differentiate who their victims were or how the treated them. The were a source of horses, slaves and goods.

It's hilarious how you filibuster on the irrelevant to hide the fact that you are conveniently ignoring the meat of the argument. I'm going to focus on one point to force you to address it:

The English weren't the Spanish. There is no justification to attack the English because decades prior the Spanish treated you poorly.

aTmAg said:

---

It's hilarious how you filibuster on the irrelevant to hide the fact that you are conveniently ignoring the meat of the argument. I'm going to focus on one point to force you to address it:

The English weren't the Spanish. There is no justification to attack the English because decades prior the Spanish treated you poorly.

---

Guys (only guys) wearing armor, carrying weapons and flags, who land, claim your territory, act belligerently and violently towards your people, and demand both assistance and submission… Big difference. I'll say this, though, the Spanish invested less in actually seizing and militarizing Powhatan land. If anything, the English behaved far, far worse. You keep ignoring that.

Rabid Cougar said:

---

aTmAg said:

---

I'm listening to "Empire of the Summer Moon" on audiobook and it describes how settlers were shocked at the brutality of the indians. That it was a given that they would torture their captured enemy including infants, women, elderly, etc. Basically everybody other than children that they could assimilate into their tribe. And that it wasn't a single tribe here or there, but that it was widespread everywhere. He talks about how the indians actually enjoyed inflicting pain on their captives. It talks about cases where captives were returned after ransoms and that the indians were surprised how pissed the settlers were at their loved one's conditions.

I'm wondering why that came to be. I know that there were cases of severe torture in Europe and plenty of killing (like the Mongols). But that Europe evolved to only reserve torture for egregious crimes like mass murder, treason, banging the kings wife, etc. Why did they evolve so drastically different?

Was it Christianity? Something else?

---

Christianity and Savagery? Lets talk savagery ....

1.Spanish Inqusition
2. Catholic Church's total distruction of the native cultures in the Americas.
3. The Portuguese, English, Spanish, French and Dutch (all Christian nations) involvement in the Atlantic slave trade...
4. England and the subjugation of Scotland and Ireland. Good Christians all.

In regards to the Comanche? The treated the Americans, Spanish and Mexicans no differently than they did the Lipan Apache and the Tonkawa. They really didn't differentiate who their victims were or how the treated them. The were a source of horses, slaves and goods.

---

1. Childs play compared to what native Americans did to each other and others. Not to mention that the Spanish Inquisition was likely vastly exaggerated by English anti-Catholic propaganda of the time.
2. Indian tribes genocides each other before Europeans showed up. Disease killed far more indians than any violence that the Europeans inflicted.
3. The indians enslaved each other long before Europeans showed up. And after the Europeans showed up, tribes owned black slaves too.
4. Indians subjugated the **** out of each other. Good pagans all.

And who give a crap if the Comanches were equal opportunity *******s? They were still raging *******s.

Sapper Redux said:

---

aTmAg said:

---

It's hilarious how you filibuster on the irrelevant to hide the fact that you are conveniently ignoring the meat of the argument. I'm going to focus on one point to force you to address it:

The English weren't the Spanish. There is no justification to attack the English because decades prior the Spanish treated you poorly.

---

Guys (only guys) wearing armor, carrying weapons and flags, who land, claim your territory, act belligerently and violently towards your people, and demand both assistance and submission… Big difference. I'll say this, though, the Spanish invested less in actually seizing and militarizing Powhatan land. If anything, the English behaved far, far worse. You keep ignoring that.

---

The English were attacked first WITHIN DAYS OF LANDING. Of course, the English would "act belligernetly and violently" towards them after that.

And the freaking indians walked around with weapons too. The idea that the English deserved it because they were wearing armor, carrying weapons, and flags is idiotic.

Sapper Redux said:

---

If he wants to talk torture, we could talk a lot about Cromwell in Ireland.

---

Yet the settlers were shocked by the torture that the indians inflicted on each other and on settlers. That goes to show something.