jf
New Member
Posts: 3 
|
Post by jf on Feb 27, 2015 8:34:29 GMT -6
Thank you all for your comments; my question was intentionally vague. I started researching this tangent after reading the NA oral accounts of Soldier suicide during LBH, it sounded plausible. If indeed it did happen that way, the next question would be “why.” From history and some of my own experience, Soldiers past and present circulate misconceptions about enemy combatants in attempt to justify their own actions and involvement. More simply, I’m good and he’s bad. Without any doubt trophy taking and sadistic actions are perpetrated by both sides during conflicts. Until recently I had always accepted, without taking the time to verify, that anyone taken captive Soldier or civilian would be tortured. Interestingly, my Lakota friends were equally split. Half replying, “Don’t believe everything you read,” and “Sure we did.” Religious rituals were certainly masochistic. I’m inclined like Mr. Montrose to accept that sadism was not a predominant part of the culture in the Northern Tribes. End result, I suspect that if Soldiers did indeed commit suicide from fear of torture it would not have changed the overall outcome; but was also most probably a justifiable fear.
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Feb 27, 2015 12:59:49 GMT -6
JF,
Major Eliot and his command were killed and mutilated at the Battle of the Washita. There's precedent for soldiers to fear being tortured. And there's also the Fetterman Massacre.
LBM
|
|
|
|
Post by tubman13 on Feb 27, 2015 13:03:55 GMT -6
JF, Major Eliot and his command were killed and mutilated at the Battle of the Washita. There's precedent for soldiers to fear being tortured. And there's also the Fetterman Massacre. LBM Were they mutilated or tortured before death, do we know? I am sure that either could strike fear in those who recovered the bodies.
Regards, Tom
|
|
|
|
Post by crzhrs on Feb 27, 2015 13:15:40 GMT -6
I wonder if they "Waterboarded" anyone?
|
|
|
|
Post by crzhrs on Feb 27, 2015 13:26:52 GMT -6
There were various reasons for mutilations and/or torturing. Many Indians believed you entered the next world in the condition you were when you died, i.e., if you were chopped up, had body parts cut off, etc. you would not have a very happy next life. Revenge played a big part in it, especially among women who took out their sorrow and grief for a fallen son, husband, father or other loved one; some wanted to see how brave your enemy was, if you didn't cry out when being tortured/killed you were brave and died as a warrior. Contempt played a part also; anyone who were felt to betray them would also be targeted a la Dorman at the LBH. How much sadism/masochism played in this would have to be explained by a psychologist. Indians were not the only race that tortured/mutilated or did other hideous acts on others. It may have been more sensational because they were "wild" people rather than the "civilized" ones during the Inquisition or other "advanced" peoples throughout history.
|
|
|
|
Post by chris on Feb 27, 2015 15:50:24 GMT -6
I wonder if they "Waterboarded" anyone? Quit it - that's Tom's job. Best, c. |
|
|
|
Post by tubman13 on Feb 27, 2015 15:55:39 GMT -6
Rumor has it crzhrs is a Master Gardner, don't mess with him you might get planted
Regards,
Tom
|
|
|
|
Post by fred on Feb 27, 2015 16:27:52 GMT -6
Major Eliot and his command were killed and mutilated at the Battle of the Washita. There's precedent for soldiers to fear being tortured. Littlebigman, You bring up a very interesting point: were Custer's men already imbued with the "Elliot Syndrome" and was it a valid fear? In the same-- or similar, anyway-- regard, were they familiar with the Sergeant Wyllyams business? Was that photo readily available then? I do not know of, or have I read, of any specific examples of torture, where these Indians went out of their way to capture someone for the express purpose of torturing them. Certainly at the LBH they were taking no prisoners, so it was a shot to the head by one's own hand or a club to the head by someone else's. Also, I saw something about Dorman.... If I am not mistaken, Dorman was incapacitated (pinned under his horse) when Moving Robe Woman killed him and then the depredations occurred. And those were for a specific reason... or maybe even multiple reasons: he was recognized and her brother had just been killed by the Crow scouts. Then again, maybe she didn't kill Dorman, but McIntosh...? Best wishes, Fred. |
|
|
|
Post by Beth on Feb 27, 2015 16:57:15 GMT -6
Wouldn't some of the 7th be familiar with what happened to Wyllyams? If not personally but by word of mouth. Has there ever been any proof eye witness or otherwise that the Western tribes tortured then killed? I believe there are reports of delivering a coup de grace. Why waste a bullet if someone was going to come along after and end the job.
Beth
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Feb 27, 2015 17:42:32 GMT -6
It's always puzzled me why the Indians mutilated bodies for the express purpose of removing a threat in the afterlife. To me this implies fear of a vanquished enemy. What kind of warrior would admit this? Of course I'm looking at this from the point of view of a completely different culture.
LBM
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Feb 27, 2015 17:43:14 GMT -6
I wonder if they "Waterboarded" anyone? Maybe with a kettle of blood instead. |
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Feb 27, 2015 17:50:06 GMT -6
I do not know of, or have I read, of any specific examples of torture, where these Indians went out of their way to capture someone for the express purpose of torturing them. Certainly at the LBH they were taking no prisoners, so it was a shot to the head by one's own hand or a club to the head by someone else's. Interesting. I always took it for granted that torture was a common, well-known and documented fact. Apparently not! LBM |
|
|
|
Post by fred on Feb 27, 2015 18:51:37 GMT -6
Interesting. I always took it for granted that torture was a common, well-known and documented fact. Apparently not! I agree. I took it for granted, as well, and actually tried to find instances of its occurrence at the LBH. Every account-- Indian account-- that discusses it says no. The Santee (Inkpaduta's mob) still practiced decapitation-- though not the same way Jihadi John practices it-- but it was more incidental than deliberate among others at the battle and I am sure the victims were already dead. I am as far from a Western or Indian scholar or expert as you can get, so I do not have a lot of info, but what I do have doesn't point to any specific incidents of torture. I think I need to go back and look at Dark Cloud last post on it. He made some sense... but I just do not know. Best wishes, Fred. |
|
|
|
Post by fred on Feb 27, 2015 19:01:37 GMT -6
It's always puzzled me why the Indians mutilated bodies for the express purpose of removing a threat in the afterlife. To me this implies fear of a vanquished enemy. What kind of warrior would admit this? I think a lot of times it was done to show an onlooker just who did the deed. A little like marking arrows. Remember one of the early scenes from She Wore a Yellow Ribbon? Tyree tells Brittles the arrow bears the markings of a Southern Cheyenne Dog Soldier. Well, a sliced-open thigh was indicative of one of the Sioux tribes I believe. The Cheyenne turned their victims on their faces so they couldn't see the hereafter, fearing it was bad luck to leave an enemy facing the sky. They all had their different superstitions. Best wishes, Fred. |
|
|
|
Post by Beth on Feb 27, 2015 19:18:40 GMT -6
It's always puzzled me why the Indians mutilated bodies for the express purpose of removing a threat in the afterlife. To me this implies fear of a vanquished enemy. What kind of warrior would admit this? I think a lot of times it was done to show an onlooker just who did the deed. A little like marking arrows. Remember one of the early scenes from She Wore a Yellow Ribbon? Tyree tells Brittles the arrow bears the markings of a Southern Cheyenne Dog Soldier. Well, a sliced-open thigh was indicative of one of the Sioux tribes I believe. The Cheyenne turned their victims on their faces so they couldn't see the hereafter, fearing it was bad luck to leave an enemy facing the sky. They all had their different superstitions. Best wishes, Fred. Fred, to Europeans, it may have been superstion but to the NA wasn't it their religion? Beth |
|
