Apache Laws

[strangerbaby]

I was curious, after reading up on the ethics and laws of Geronimo's people, what was the major documented effects of the exile of criminals from the tribe?
I read that the Apache's would simply separate the really nasty individuals, as bad as murderers and rapists, and that these unsavory individuals would form their own tribes and join other tribes.

Are there any known tribes that were specifically nasty and known to have formed from old exiles? Are there any Exiled Indians that went to become big leaders of other tribes?

Knowing this sort of thing can help pin point some of the badder Indians responsible for many of the transgressions that got them thrust into many terrible conflicts.

Stranger

(and yes, I am aware that Indians have been cheated on many occasions and are sometimes at fault do to basic prejudices. But they were not all in that category, and insist that historians check their books again if they think the Indians were all peaches and Ice cream. They have sins just like any body else, and not all of them were simply attacked through prejudice. I will note that Geronimo was wrongly taken down by the US, completely as a result of the backlash against any warring tribe or persons therewith, even if his fight was with Mexicans, and he loved the US right up until the day he died.)

(**** Senior Member, awaiting the reinstatement of my old account) .

[bc]

strangerbaby said:

Are there any known tribes that were specifically nasty and known to have formed from old exiles? Are there any Exiled Indians that went to become big leaders of other tribes?

I don't know about Indian tribes but it has been and still is prevalent among churches. Everytime someone gets excommunicated or has a row with the preacher, they go out and form a new church. Latest example is Ted Haggard from Colorado who got fired for having gay sex, he then got the three week cure for it, and then started a new church.

I have read of exiled Indians going to live with other tribes.

And technically all the separate tribes of the Apache (White mountain, etc.) and the Sioux ( Miniconjou, etc) and other tribes were all broke down into separate subdivisions because of differences they had at one time or another with each other. And even then, the separate subdivision/band of a tribe, even at the LBH, were broke down to where separate chiefs had their own little village or chiefdom that they either camped separately, or next to, or among another chiefdom/village. Although they may not be technically called exiles because they formed their own village, you can't really call them one big happy family either.

I harken back to the 1860's Kansas, for example, where every individual chief of the Cheyennes, Kiowas, etc had to sign a peace treaty for him and his followers. The Cheyenne dog soldier chiefs always complicated things for the others because they wouldn't sign or if they did, they wouldn't obey.

[crzhrs]

Many warriors bands may have different philosophies regarding dealing with Whites, but in the end none were ever ostricized and/or exiled. They were relatives & friends of someone.

Even Black Kettle who admitted he couldn't control his warriors never abandoned them and that's probably true of most tribes and/or leaders. The leading men may have known younger warriors could lead to conflicts with the Whites but they were still part of the family/band/clan.

[conz]

What I've read on Native American culture leads me to believe that a Warrior (never read a female) was sometimes kicked out of a clan, or family group, but that they always found hospice in another clan of that same, or closely related, tribe. Even for murder, theft, adultery, etc.

I don't find any instances of disparate tribes, like Apaches with Lakotas, or Comanches with Nez Perez, doing such...they were as much enemies often as the wasichus were.

I've never heard of "renegade" outlaws from within the tribes...I don't think they could survive for long without a village with squaws. The summer, for sure, but come February, these misfits have found a family home or have died in the mountains...is my take.

Clair

[Scout]

Murder within the tribe was not uncommon among the Indians. Like any culture there were squabbles over different things, primarily women. The murderer could be banished for a certain length of time and could return only with the permission of the murdered person's family. If they return prior to this permission they risked their lives. Of course this isn't true of all tribes but I think it holds true for the plains Indians. And it was a very logical answer to the problem.

I have heard of some young men being thrown out of tribes for being downright uncontrollable and dangerous to other tribal members. Same as the white world. crzhrs, your statement that NONE(?) were ever exiled is bizarre . You've watched 'Dances with Wolves' one time to many. Let us not forget that Crazy Horse was shot in the face and nearly killed by a jealous husband. Some actions merited exile.

[crzhrs]

Re: Crazy Horse and his shooting

No Water (the shooter) was never thrown out or "exiled" from the tribe. Intermediaries resolved the matter without any further bloodshed.

An individual would never be "thrown out" . . . they had relatives and/or clan/band members (blood is thicker than wine) that always sided with them regardless of the infraction and most issues were resolved, but could later blow up with the next incident.

Maybe NONE is too general, but I have never read about any individual and/or group shunned or exiled, even Black Kettle took in his uncontrollable warriors.

[elisabeth]

Wasn't this how the Dog Soldiers began? I thought I'd read this -- that they started life as a bunch of renegades? But I may be wrong.

The exile system was also common among the Icelandic Vikings, a rather similar society in some ways: warriors at heart, but with a firm social/judicial structure, same as the Indians. The usual deal was that if someone committed murder, there'd be an attempt to negotiate compensation; if that didn't work, there'd be outlawry. If the person exiled didn't stay away for the required time, he was fair game to be killed by anyone, not necessarily the aggrieved family. But if he did, he could come back and re-take his place in society. Extremely logical. Same sort of situation -- limited numbers of providers -- so a sensible way of keeping as many alive and functioning as you could, while still applying penalties for dangerous behaviour.

[Scout]

I never said No Water was thrown out.. I was using the CH shooting as an example of how violent confrontations could be. And yes, many were thrown out. One young Sioux killed a rival and was told not to come back or incur the wrath of the murdered man's family. Several months later he waltzed back into camp and was promptly killed by the man's family. I know you want to present the Indian life as total ideal, but such is not the case. It was a world just like the whites. Sometimes young men were driven out and took their families and friends with them. These were welcomed back at anytime but not the sentenced.

[crzhrs]

Never said the Indians' life was total ideal. If you note in my post:

". . . most issues were resolved, but could later blow up with the next incident."

Like most cultures transgressions may be forgiven but not forgotten.

It happened to Crazy Horse & Sitting Bull when they were killed by their own people, albeit of different bands.

[strangelives]

Yeah, I knew about the Norse traditions too. Considering the fact that Vikings and wild Norsemen exceed the very definition of the word "savage" (and merely speaking on them in the past has gotten me Exiled from here, bringing up the Berserkgangr's nude warfare), I wonder what in the world you'd have to do to get kicked out of their groups. A few of their exiles went on to become the most well known, such as Eric the Red, etc.

Now back to the Indians, alot of what you guys have said goes to articulate my points most clearly. Crazy Horse has a lot of heart to forgive some one who shoots him in the face, but this sort of thing goes to show exactly how far even the smarter Indians will go to defend their unsavories. I know Indians have suffered their shares of Injustice over time, but knowing the ways that Indians handle their criminals.......... their fudgy legal systems might be more than a tad responsible for the unnecessary and brutal attacks upon settlers and the wars that resulted therewith. No one ever pin points or identifies who the bad Indians are , Indian leaders are not even given controversial status. Sitting Bull can be just as controversial as Tom Custer can be at any time of the week, I've read a few major similarities between the two, not just their common pranks but their general attitudes as well. Not at all far from different, and Sitting Bull is one of the major prides and joys of the Indian enthusiasts.

Now I could be a little ignorant, after all I'm just as fresh as any to many new thoughts concerning the tribes, but I never read of such brutality on Geronimo's side of the pond in comparison to the Sioux's. Though, what I know of Geronimo comes mainly from his autobiography, and I think I recall that some say they have left out some of his less flattering deeds in his book. I know that Geronimo killed practically all of his prisoners because he apparently hadn't the proper means to transport and care after them ( its just hard enough to feed your own men). Preferably, its a blessing to have the idea of capturing and releasing great soldiers or warriors after all problems are resolved, but its mainly a gesture of courtesy that cannot always be applied, and Indians, who follow the intense simplicity of warfare, are not always accustomed to this standard, and many of them abide in the simplicity of killing enemy .

I'm not sure if Geronimo participated in even the more common of Indian rituals. Did he ever mutilate remains? I don't recall him going through with any of that sort of business, I think he was a little too busy to go around with the cruel "fun and games" rituals that other tribes relish in. Geronimo does not even follow any of the coup counting if I remember correctly. He can roll mano to mano, but he's a big time shooter with no apologies. Killing efficiently with utmost simplicity and bud nipping. Geronimo is, in fact, probably the exact ideal of Samson, and even better since Geronimo didn't kill himself. Samson invented the simplicity of war fare ideals that I hold very dear. I've compared Samson to Custer before, though that was more of a joke along with a few interesting in-commons to go with that. But if you read Geronimo's autobiography and then turn to the Book of Judges in the Old Testament, pay close attention to the two personalities, because those two are like twin brothers in the way they act and carry things out.

Stranger****
(speaking of Exile, I'm still not back, but I like sticking around, so I'll be back whenever I can get back)