Waco1947 said:

---

4th and Inches said:

---

Waco1947 said:

---

4th and Inches said:

---

Waco1947 said:

---

Canada2017 said:

---

Waco1947 said:

---

Robert Wilson said:

---

This whole business of (i) trying to critique someone's entire life rather than focusing on what they did that is pertinent to the history books and then (ii) trying to judge their entire life not within the time period during which they lived or within the flow of history, but rather by today's standards is complete foolishness. Just a way to tear others down and make us feel better about ourselves. We could all be torn apart, out of context, by other fools in the future. Who cares.

---

What is out of context? The Alamo defenders fought for slavery. It's history. Learn from it.
What were their heroic goals? Slavery is not heroic ideal. You can't name any truly historic ideals.

---

You have zero comprehension of Texas history .

You have zero comprehension of the history of the West .

You have zero comprehension of US history .

Merely a very old mediocrity bored out of his mind in assisted living .

Continually posting semi literate trash hoping to generate responses in the vain hope to pass still another day of empty hours .

---

Yes I know Texas history

---

not based on your posts

---

Point out my errors

---

They've been pointed out, repeatedly

---

Try again. I am listening. Specifically what what were my errors.

---

Forest Bueller_bf said:

---

Waco1947 said:

---

Forest Bueller_bf said:

---

GrowlTowel said:

---

So if Texans fought for slavery, it follows, 47, that Americans in WWI fought for Jim Crow and in WWII fought for segregation, using your logic?

Wow, if I were you I would find the person that taught you to hate yourself and kick his/her/its ass. You are truly one of the most evil persons I have ever come across.

---

Here is the deal, it is a garbage book with the sole purpose of it being written to make the people, the politics and the event of the Alamo look as bad as it possibly could. It was written to deconstruct the "whitewashed anglo" angle of the Alamo. To proclaim they weren't heroic, they didn't fight to the end, they had no idea what they were doing etc. etc. etc. etc. etc. etc. etc. etc. etc. etc. etc. etc. etc. etc. etc. etc.

Were the people at the Alamo perfect, hell no, were their motives perfect, are motives ever, were the men at the Alamo the most heroic men ever born. Not all of them and maybe even not most of them.

But here is the angle this book was written with. You have a pastor, he is an all around good guy and he tries to lead his flock in the right direct. You want to write a book about him, your first 2 questions are.

1) Do you still beat your wife?

2) Are you ever going to stop stealing from your flock? and a third for good measure.

3) Are you still lusting after one of our elders wives?

But instead of him getting to answer these charges, his worst enemy in the world is getting to answer them.

It is simply a hit piece, written for folks who eat up "critical race" stuff. If the Alamo story has 10 different angles, this was written leaving out 9 of them.

---

Did the Texians fight for the right to own slaves?

---

You fully encapsulate my points with this one question.

It is like someone asking me, hey since you voted FOR someone for President, in a country that allows a baby to be killed in the womb, you MUST be for the killing of children in the womb.

One hundred eighty-nine men from 23 states and seven countries that included England, Wales, Scotland, Ireland, Denmark, Germany and Mexico brought Jim Bowie, William Travis and the legendary David Crockett to the Alamo to defend her against the Mexican Army led by Mexican President Antonio Lopez de Santa Anna.

The most immediate cause of the Texas Revolution was the refusal of many Texas, both Anglo and Mexican, to accept the governmental changes mandated by "Siete Leyes" which placed almost total power in the hands of the Mexican national government and Santa Anna. ... Many Mexicans felt exactly the same way.

Primarily the people were fighting for Independence, Federalism, Immigration rights, and not to be under almost dictatorial type control.

To say the fight was primarily about Slavery is like saying immigrants coming in from the southern border is primarily about expanding the drug trade and drug cartel influence.

You simply are not a thinking man.

---

Redbrickbear said:

---

Waco1947 said:

---

The battle was stupid militarily. Travis should have left and joined Houston."

---

Again I know Waco is not looking to have a rational discussion....he just wants to engaged in leftist ideological ranting.

But, let's talk about the battle.

The Battle of the Alamo had 180+ Texan deaths. 500-800 Mexican army deaths and 800-1000 Mexican army wounded. Mexican captain Fernando Urizza said "another such victory as this, we'll go to the devil". It was not much of a massacre...more like a very costly Pyrrhic victory.

The Mexican army that invaded Texas is said by historians to have been about 4,000-6,000 men strong.

So their army was delayed for almost two weeks taking the Alamo. They lost 1/4th to maybe even half their fighting strength taking the fort. Massive amounts of ammo, gun powder, and supplies were used up trying to take the fort.

It gave time for Gen. Houston and his Texas forces to move east, organized, and let volunteers join them.

It hurt Mexican army morale (no longer any talk of a quick campaign to put down the Texas rebels), while giving a huge boost to Texan morale and fighting motivation.

And cost the mexican army valuable men and material that they could not easily replace from far away Mexico City.

It is impossible to know if things would have worked out better had Travis evacuated the Alamo and headed East. He had no draft animals to take the artillery pieces with him. And we can't second guess history. The Texas cause was ultimately successful.

---

4th and Inches said:

---

Waco1947 said:

---

From the vantage point of history it is clear that the Alamo defenders were deeply flawed humans who saw other humans as property. They were men of their times and to them slavery was OK. These men fought bravely no doubt but again from a historical perspective they were not heroes. Heroes die for just causes. Any other virtues that we might perceive like "liberty" or "freedom" is again against a backdrop of slaves who would neither know liberty or freedom.

---

if you actually cared about the truth then we could continue but it's obvious that you don't

If you want to continue this dialogue, please explain to me in detail your viewpoint on how the battle at Gonzalez was an effort to create a slavery state

---

Booray said:

---

Redbrickbear said:

---

Waco1947 said:

---

The battle was stupid militarily. Travis should have left and joined Houston."

---

Again I know Waco is not looking to have a rational discussion....he just wants to engaged in leftist ideological ranting.

But, let's talk about the battle.

The Battle of the Alamo had 180+ Texan deaths. 500-800 Mexican army deaths and 800-1000 Mexican army wounded. Mexican captain Fernando Urizza said "another such victory as this, we'll go to the devil". It was not much of a massacre...more like a very costly Pyrrhic victory.

The Mexican army that invaded Texas is said by historians to have been about 4,000-6,000 men strong.

So their army was delayed for almost two weeks taking the Alamo. They lost 1/4th to maybe even half their fighting strength taking the fort. Massive amounts of ammo, gun powder, and supplies were used up trying to take the fort.

It gave time for Gen. Houston and his Texas forces to move east, organized, and let volunteers join them.

It hurt Mexican army morale (no longer any talk of a quick campaign to put down the Texas rebels), while giving a huge boost to Texan morale and fighting motivation.

And cost the mexican army valuable men and material that they could not easily replace from far away Mexico City.

It is impossible to know if things would have worked out better had Travis evacuated the Alamo and headed East. He had no draft animals to take the artillery pieces with him. And we can't second guess history. The Texas cause was ultimately successful.

---

They weren't fighting for slavery, but they were fighting a tactically dumb battle-as did Fannin at Goliad.

Houston wanted both of them out before the Mexicans got there, for good reason. The combined losses of men and arms from Goliad and the Alamo took a much bigger bite out of the Texans than what Mexican losses did to Santa Anna.

Every history of the war I ever read says the opposite about morale. The Mexicans viewed the end as being near, they were conducting mop up operations designed to push the settlers across the Sabine. And the Texans morale was at an absolute low point. The citizenry was in a full fledged panic and the political leadership spent its time haranguing Houston for being gutless.

---

Waco1947 said:

---

Forest Bueller_bf said:

---

GrowlTowel said:

---

So if Texans fought for slavery, it follows, 47, that Americans in WWI fought for Jim Crow and in WWII fought for segregation, using your logic?

Wow, if I were you I would find the person that taught you to hate yourself and kick his/her/its ass. You are truly one of the most evil persons I have ever come across.

---

Here is the deal, it is a garbage book with the sole purpose of it being written to make the people, the politics and the event of the Alamo look as bad as it possibly could. It was written to deconstruct the "whitewashed anglo" angle of the Alamo. To proclaim they weren't heroic, they didn't fight to the end, they had no idea what they were doing etc. etc. etc. etc. etc. etc. etc. etc. etc. etc. etc. etc. etc. etc. etc. etc.

Were the people at the Alamo perfect, hell no, were their motives perfect, are motives ever, were the men at the Alamo the most heroic men ever born. Not all of them and maybe even not most of them.

But here is the angle this book was written with. You have a pastor, he is an all around good guy and he tries to lead his flock in the right direct. You want to write a book about him, your first 2 questions are.

1) Do you still beat your wife?

2) Are you ever going to stop stealing from your flock? and a third for good measure.

3) Are you still lusting after one of our elders wives?

But instead of him getting to answer these charges, his worst enemy in the world is getting to answer them.

It is simply a hit piece, written for folks who eat up "critical race" stuff. If the Alamo story has 10 different angles, this was written leaving out 9 of them.

---

Did the Texians fight for the right to own slaves?

---

RD2WINAGNBEAR86 said:

---

Waco1947 said:

---

4th and Inches said:

---

Waco1947 said:

---

From the vantage point of history it is clear that the Alamo defenders were deeply flawed humans who saw other humans as property. They were men of their times and to them slavery was OK. These men fought bravely no doubt but again from a historical perspective they were not heroes. Heroes die for just causes. Any other virtues that we might perceive like "liberty" or "freedom" is again against a backdrop of slaves who would neither know liberty or freedom.

---

if you actually cared about the truth then we could continue but it's obvious that you don't

If you want to continue this dialogue, please explain to me in detail your viewpoint on how the battle at Gonzalez was an effort to create a slavery state

---

It's a part of the Texas Revolution whose cause was slavery.

---

Doesn't the Old Testament, Leviticus 25:44 tell us we can own male and female slaves from neighboring countries? Is it better to own Mexican slaves or Canadian slaves? What do you think, Waco? I am not sure.

---

LIB,MR BEARS said:

---

Waco1947 said:

---

4th and Inches said:

---

Waco1947 said:

---

From the vantage point of history it is clear that the Alamo defenders were deeply flawed humans who saw other humans as property. They were men of their times and to them slavery was OK. These men fought bravely no doubt but again from a historical perspective they were not heroes. Heroes die for just causes. Any other virtues that we might perceive like "liberty" or "freedom" is again against a backdrop of slaves who would neither know liberty or freedom.

---

if you actually cared about the truth then we could continue but it's obvious that you don't

If you want to continue this dialogue, please explain to me in detail your viewpoint on how the battle at Gonzalez was an effort to create a slavery state

---

It's a part of the Texas Revolution whose cause was slavery.

---

you've yet to prove the cause of the revolution was slavery. Several here have shown evidence that it was not.

Open another bottle and relax

---

RD2WINAGNBEAR86 said:

---

Waco1947 said:

---

4th and Inches said:

---

Waco1947 said:

---

From the vantage point of history it is clear that the Alamo defenders were deeply flawed humans who saw other humans as property. They were men of their times and to them slavery was OK. These men fought bravely no doubt but again from a historical perspective they were not heroes. Heroes die for just causes. Any other virtues that we might perceive like "liberty" or "freedom" is again against a backdrop of slaves who would neither know liberty or freedom.

---

if you actually cared about the truth then we could continue but it's obvious that you don't

If you want to continue this dialogue, please explain to me in detail your viewpoint on how the battle at Gonzalez was an effort to create a slavery state

---

It's a part of the Texas Revolution whose cause was slavery.

---

Doesn't the Old Testament, Leviticus 25:44 tell us we can own male and female slaves from neighboring countries? Is it better to own Mexican slaves or Canadian slaves? What do you think, Waco? I am not sure.

---

Thee University said:

---

Waco1947 said:

---

Forest Bueller_bf said:

---

GrowlTowel said:

---

So if Texans fought for slavery, it follows, 47, that Americans in WWI fought for Jim Crow and in WWII fought for segregation, using your logic?

Wow, if I were you I would find the person that taught you to hate yourself and kick his/her/its ass. You are truly one of the most evil persons I have ever come across.

---

Here is the deal, it is a garbage book with the sole purpose of it being written to make the people, the politics and the event of the Alamo look as bad as it possibly could. It was written to deconstruct the "whitewashed anglo" angle of the Alamo. To proclaim they weren't heroic, they didn't fight to the end, they had no idea what they were doing etc. etc. etc. etc. etc. etc. etc. etc. etc. etc. etc. etc. etc. etc. etc. etc.

Were the people at the Alamo perfect, hell no, were their motives perfect, are motives ever, were the men at the Alamo the most heroic men ever born. Not all of them and maybe even not most of them.

But here is the angle this book was written with. You have a pastor, he is an all around good guy and he tries to lead his flock in the right direct. You want to write a book about him, your first 2 questions are.

1) Do you still beat your wife?

2) Are you ever going to stop stealing from your flock? and a third for good measure.

3) Are you still lusting after one of our elders wives?

But instead of him getting to answer these charges, his worst enemy in the world is getting to answer them.

It is simply a hit piece, written for folks who eat up "critical race" stuff. If the Alamo story has 10 different angles, this was written leaving out 9 of them.

---

Did the Texians fight for the right to own slaves?

---

Hell no!

We fought to own aquabacks!!!

They worked twice as hard as conventional slaves, did not complain and were raring to go every morning.

---

Waco1947 said:

---

LIB,MR BEARS said:

---

Waco1947 said:

---

4th and Inches said:

---

Waco1947 said:

---

From the vantage point of history it is clear that the Alamo defenders were deeply flawed humans who saw other humans as property. They were men of their times and to them slavery was OK. These men fought bravely no doubt but again from a historical perspective they were not heroes. Heroes die for just causes. Any other virtues that we might perceive like "liberty" or "freedom" is again against a backdrop of slaves who would neither know liberty or freedom.

---

if you actually cared about the truth then we could continue but it's obvious that you don't

If you want to continue this dialogue, please explain to me in detail your viewpoint on how the battle at Gonzalez was an effort to create a slavery state

---

It's a part of the Texas Revolution whose cause was slavery.

---

you've yet to prove the cause of the revolution was slavery. Several here have shown evidence that it was not.

Open another bottle and relax

---

Yes I have. It was built into the 1836 Texas constitution. I posted that fact.
Read the book and the letters of Austin. He advocated for slavery. Mexico certainly understood it was slavery.

---

ShooterTX said:

---

Forest Bueller_bf said:

---

Canon said:

---

LIB,MR BEARS said:

---

Waco1947 said:

---

From the vantage point of history it is clear that the Alamo defenders were deeply flawed humans who saw other humans as property. They were men of their times and to them slavery was OK. These men fought bravely no doubt but again from a historical perspective they were not heroes. Heroes die for just causes. Any other virtues that we might perceive like "liberty" or "freedom" is again against a backdrop of slaves who would neither know liberty or freedom.

---

outside of Christ, who would you describe as a hero that was not deeply flawed?

---

The trick is to conflate heroism with victim hood. A victim will always be the victim of someone or something ostensibly despicable. Thus calling a victim a hero absolves the victim from critique, lest the person critiquing them be seen as siding with the victimizer.

It's a very Marxist trick, but look who is using it.

---

You mean that establishing victimhood absolves the Comanche of their selling of slaves, after they would raid whites and sell off their slaves, or the ownership of slaves by the Cherokee and Creek Indians who would buy them from the Comanche.

Not trying to say the natives were not badly mistreated, but there were some really bad people among them. Some brutal beyond what our civilized mind is used to, the Iroquois were particularly brutal...

Quote:

---

First the victorious Iroquois warriors would mangle the prisoners' hands; they did this by pulling out the captives' fingernails and/or cutting off some of their fingers. The victors usually subjected the prisoners to a heavy beating at the same time. Thereafter the Iroquois took the captives to their village and subjected the men to the gantlet (or gauntlet). They then humbled those who survived in a number of ways; for example the Iroquois might strip them naked in front of the village and force them to sing and dance. This process always ended either in a slow death by fire and scalping or with adoption into the Iroquois village. The Iroquois tortured only men to death when they weren't adopted; they either killed quickly women and children who were unadopted.

There are definitely reasons behind this torture that do not extend into metaphysical domains. The initial beating obviously broke the spirits of the captive and ensured submission. The act of battering prisoners to break their will is no isolated policy of the Iroquois alone, but of nearly every race throughout history.

At this time the Iroquois also mangled a prisoner's hands, a brutality performed so that the captive could no longer wield a weapon. After returning to their village, the Iroquois used the gantlet to further break the spirits of the captives and to serve as a test of endurance and physical tolerance. The Iroquois would execute without ceremony those captives who fell and did not get up, which indicates disdain for mental and physical weakness. Indeed, the Iroquois expected even those captives who underwent subsequent lethal torture to stand strong and not cry outthe warriors would disgustedly dispatch a captive who lost his composure. As the night went by and the prisoner remained silent, the entire tribe would become more and more frenzied until the sun came up and the prisoner was killed. Thus it seems that torturing captives to death was a ritualized act of vengeance that was truly fulfilled only when its objective (making the victim respond to the torture) failed!

The warriors were not the only ones who conducted the torture, however; the women and children of the village had just as much of an active role as the men did. While the captives were perched upon the scaffold, the children of the tribe would jab at the prisoner's feet with knives. In addition to this, every person in the village took turns with the burning torches during the night ritual. In fact, the rest of the tribe would scorn anyone who did not partake in the torture as a weak and lazy individual. Because everyone took part, it becomes clear that besides being an act for grieving family members to vent their frustration on an unyielding victim and doing so feel avenged for the loved ones' deaths, it was a reassertion of Iroquois dominance and power. Yet this second purpose seems of less importance considering the specialized nature of the mourning war. That is to say, the process of the mourning war is oriented far more towards the grieving matriarchs rather than the entire village.

---

Quote:

---

Though modern Americans do not associate other tribes with the practice of mourning wars, they performed the same methods of torture that the Iroquois did. These accounts are much less frequent than descriptions of Iroquois torture, nevertheless they do exist and are no less ruthless in nature. Samuel de Champlain's notes contain accounts of the Algonquins, Montagnais, and Etechemins as the aggressors. After they captured a handful of Iroquois in battle, these "friendly" tribes proceeded to torture the captives to death. They burned the body of one captive Iroquois then poured water on him in cycles so that his flesh would fall off his body. When they had finally killed him and threw his innards into the river, the Indians told Champlain that this act was done in vengeance for their own mutilated tribesmen. There is mention in Relation des Hurons of the Neutrals and Hurons performing the same cruelties, and the Hurons are mentioned for taking captives to be adopted. Nevertheless there are no vastly different reasons that can be determined for the atrocities of the other northeastern tribes. All of these other tribes practiced torture as an act of vengeance for their own mutilated dead, and in some cases even performed similar adoption ceremonies.

But can a desire for vengeance be sufficient to explain Iroquois cannibalism? In nearly every instance the Iroquois ate parts of the bodies of war prisoners who had been tortured to death. In Father Vimont's previous account it was the heart or other internal organs that were consumed as well as the hands and feet of the tortured prisoner. Another Jesuit gives this account: "having cut off (the captive's) hands and feet, (the Iroquois) skinned him and separated the flesh from the bones, in order to make from it a detestable repast." Further accounts include multiple mentions of the cannibalistic "customary feasts" of the Iroquois. There is obviously more to this form of cannibalism than the necessity of consuming human flesh to stay alive in hard times. Vengeance alone does not provide an ample explanation for cannibalism like it does for torture, yet the two always occur together.

As previously mentioned, the Iroquois were not alone in this practice, as various accounts describe the Winnebagos, Huron, and other French-sympathizing Indians partaking in feasts of human flesh. In the aforementioned Champlain account, the Algonquins, Montagnais, and Etechemins did not actually eat the Iroquois captive's flesh, but rather forced the other captives to eat his heart. Though this makes a case against cannibalistic practice, another account one year later tells of these same three tribes taking a quartered body home to be eaten. In another part of the country, a Neutral brave is recorded in Relation des Hurons saying to the Jesuit Father Brebeuf and his company, "[I've had] enough of the dark-colored flesh of our enemiesI wish to know the taste of white meat, and I will eat yours." In the same set of accounts the Jesuits chastise the Hurons to "eat no human flesh" so that they could be good Catholics.

---

---

But, but.... Dances with Wolves.... ??
I thought they were noble and honorable and one with nature???

---

Forest Bueller said:

---

ShooterTX said:

---

Forest Bueller_bf said:

---

Canon said:

---

LIB,MR BEARS said:

---

Waco1947 said:

---

From the vantage point of history it is clear that the Alamo defenders were deeply flawed humans who saw other humans as property. They were men of their times and to them slavery was OK. These men fought bravely no doubt but again from a historical perspective they were not heroes. Heroes die for just causes. Any other virtues that we might perceive like "liberty" or "freedom" is again against a backdrop of slaves who would neither know liberty or freedom.

---

outside of Christ, who would you describe as a hero that was not deeply flawed?

---

The trick is to conflate heroism with victim hood. A victim will always be the victim of someone or something ostensibly despicable. Thus calling a victim a hero absolves the victim from critique, lest the person critiquing them be seen as siding with the victimizer.

It's a very Marxist trick, but look who is using it.

---

You mean that establishing victimhood absolves the Comanche of their selling of slaves, after they would raid whites and sell off their slaves, or the ownership of slaves by the Cherokee and Creek Indians who would buy them from the Comanche.

Not trying to say the natives were not badly mistreated, but there were some really bad people among them. Some brutal beyond what our civilized mind is used to, the Iroquois were particularly brutal...

Quote:

---

First the victorious Iroquois warriors would mangle the prisoners' hands; they did this by pulling out the captives' fingernails and/or cutting off some of their fingers. The victors usually subjected the prisoners to a heavy beating at the same time. Thereafter the Iroquois took the captives to their village and subjected the men to the gantlet (or gauntlet). They then humbled those who survived in a number of ways; for example the Iroquois might strip them naked in front of the village and force them to sing and dance. This process always ended either in a slow death by fire and scalping or with adoption into the Iroquois village. The Iroquois tortured only men to death when they weren't adopted; they either killed quickly women and children who were unadopted.

There are definitely reasons behind this torture that do not extend into metaphysical domains. The initial beating obviously broke the spirits of the captive and ensured submission. The act of battering prisoners to break their will is no isolated policy of the Iroquois alone, but of nearly every race throughout history.

At this time the Iroquois also mangled a prisoner's hands, a brutality performed so that the captive could no longer wield a weapon. After returning to their village, the Iroquois used the gantlet to further break the spirits of the captives and to serve as a test of endurance and physical tolerance. The Iroquois would execute without ceremony those captives who fell and did not get up, which indicates disdain for mental and physical weakness. Indeed, the Iroquois expected even those captives who underwent subsequent lethal torture to stand strong and not cry outthe warriors would disgustedly dispatch a captive who lost his composure. As the night went by and the prisoner remained silent, the entire tribe would become more and more frenzied until the sun came up and the prisoner was killed. Thus it seems that torturing captives to death was a ritualized act of vengeance that was truly fulfilled only when its objective (making the victim respond to the torture) failed!

The warriors were not the only ones who conducted the torture, however; the women and children of the village had just as much of an active role as the men did. While the captives were perched upon the scaffold, the children of the tribe would jab at the prisoner's feet with knives. In addition to this, every person in the village took turns with the burning torches during the night ritual. In fact, the rest of the tribe would scorn anyone who did not partake in the torture as a weak and lazy individual. Because everyone took part, it becomes clear that besides being an act for grieving family members to vent their frustration on an unyielding victim and doing so feel avenged for the loved ones' deaths, it was a reassertion of Iroquois dominance and power. Yet this second purpose seems of less importance considering the specialized nature of the mourning war. That is to say, the process of the mourning war is oriented far more towards the grieving matriarchs rather than the entire village.

---

Quote:

---

Though modern Americans do not associate other tribes with the practice of mourning wars, they performed the same methods of torture that the Iroquois did. These accounts are much less frequent than descriptions of Iroquois torture, nevertheless they do exist and are no less ruthless in nature. Samuel de Champlain's notes contain accounts of the Algonquins, Montagnais, and Etechemins as the aggressors. After they captured a handful of Iroquois in battle, these "friendly" tribes proceeded to torture the captives to death. They burned the body of one captive Iroquois then poured water on him in cycles so that his flesh would fall off his body. When they had finally killed him and threw his innards into the river, the Indians told Champlain that this act was done in vengeance for their own mutilated tribesmen. There is mention in Relation des Hurons of the Neutrals and Hurons performing the same cruelties, and the Hurons are mentioned for taking captives to be adopted. Nevertheless there are no vastly different reasons that can be determined for the atrocities of the other northeastern tribes. All of these other tribes practiced torture as an act of vengeance for their own mutilated dead, and in some cases even performed similar adoption ceremonies.

But can a desire for vengeance be sufficient to explain Iroquois cannibalism? In nearly every instance the Iroquois ate parts of the bodies of war prisoners who had been tortured to death. In Father Vimont's previous account it was the heart or other internal organs that were consumed as well as the hands and feet of the tortured prisoner. Another Jesuit gives this account: "having cut off (the captive's) hands and feet, (the Iroquois) skinned him and separated the flesh from the bones, in order to make from it a detestable repast." Further accounts include multiple mentions of the cannibalistic "customary feasts" of the Iroquois. There is obviously more to this form of cannibalism than the necessity of consuming human flesh to stay alive in hard times. Vengeance alone does not provide an ample explanation for cannibalism like it does for torture, yet the two always occur together.

As previously mentioned, the Iroquois were not alone in this practice, as various accounts describe the Winnebagos, Huron, and other French-sympathizing Indians partaking in feasts of human flesh. In the aforementioned Champlain account, the Algonquins, Montagnais, and Etechemins did not actually eat the Iroquois captive's flesh, but rather forced the other captives to eat his heart. Though this makes a case against cannibalistic practice, another account one year later tells of these same three tribes taking a quartered body home to be eaten. In another part of the country, a Neutral brave is recorded in Relation des Hurons saying to the Jesuit Father Brebeuf and his company, "[I've had] enough of the dark-colored flesh of our enemiesI wish to know the taste of white meat, and I will eat yours." In the same set of accounts the Jesuits chastise the Hurons to "eat no human flesh" so that they could be good Catholics.

---

---

But, but.... Dances with Wolves.... ??
I thought they were noble and honorable and one with nature???

---

Well we are certainly being force fed everybody is noble even heroic. Everybody except white folk that is. No they are an evil lot deserving elimination.

---

Forest Bueller said:

---

ShooterTX said:

---

Forest Bueller_bf said:

---

Canon said:

---

LIB,MR BEARS said:

---

Waco1947 said:

---

From the vantage point of history it is clear that the Alamo defenders were deeply flawed humans who saw other humans as property. They were men of their times and to them slavery was OK. These men fought bravely no doubt but again from a historical perspective they were not heroes. Heroes die for just causes. Any other virtues that we might perceive like "liberty" or "freedom" is again against a backdrop of slaves who would neither know liberty or freedom.

---

outside of Christ, who would you describe as a hero that was not deeply flawed?

---

The trick is to conflate heroism with victim hood. A victim will always be the victim of someone or something ostensibly despicable. Thus calling a victim a hero absolves the victim from critique, lest the person critiquing them be seen as siding with the victimizer.

It's a very Marxist trick, but look who is using it.

---

You mean that establishing victimhood absolves the Comanche of their selling of slaves, after they would raid whites and sell off their slaves, or the ownership of slaves by the Cherokee and Creek Indians who would buy them from the Comanche.

Not trying to say the natives were not badly mistreated, but there were some really bad people among them. Some brutal beyond what our civilized mind is used to, the Iroquois were particularly brutal...

Quote:

---

First the victorious Iroquois warriors would mangle the prisoners' hands; they did this by pulling out the captives' fingernails and/or cutting off some of their fingers. The victors usually subjected the prisoners to a heavy beating at the same time. Thereafter the Iroquois took the captives to their village and subjected the men to the gantlet (or gauntlet). They then humbled those who survived in a number of ways; for example the Iroquois might strip them naked in front of the village and force them to sing and dance. This process always ended either in a slow death by fire and scalping or with adoption into the Iroquois village. The Iroquois tortured only men to death when they weren't adopted; they either killed quickly women and children who were unadopted.

There are definitely reasons behind this torture that do not extend into metaphysical domains. The initial beating obviously broke the spirits of the captive and ensured submission. The act of battering prisoners to break their will is no isolated policy of the Iroquois alone, but of nearly every race throughout history.

At this time the Iroquois also mangled a prisoner's hands, a brutality performed so that the captive could no longer wield a weapon. After returning to their village, the Iroquois used the gantlet to further break the spirits of the captives and to serve as a test of endurance and physical tolerance. The Iroquois would execute without ceremony those captives who fell and did not get up, which indicates disdain for mental and physical weakness. Indeed, the Iroquois expected even those captives who underwent subsequent lethal torture to stand strong and not cry outthe warriors would disgustedly dispatch a captive who lost his composure. As the night went by and the prisoner remained silent, the entire tribe would become more and more frenzied until the sun came up and the prisoner was killed. Thus it seems that torturing captives to death was a ritualized act of vengeance that was truly fulfilled only when its objective (making the victim respond to the torture) failed!

The warriors were not the only ones who conducted the torture, however; the women and children of the village had just as much of an active role as the men did. While the captives were perched upon the scaffold, the children of the tribe would jab at the prisoner's feet with knives. In addition to this, every person in the village took turns with the burning torches during the night ritual. In fact, the rest of the tribe would scorn anyone who did not partake in the torture as a weak and lazy individual. Because everyone took part, it becomes clear that besides being an act for grieving family members to vent their frustration on an unyielding victim and doing so feel avenged for the loved ones' deaths, it was a reassertion of Iroquois dominance and power. Yet this second purpose seems of less importance considering the specialized nature of the mourning war. That is to say, the process of the mourning war is oriented far more towards the grieving matriarchs rather than the entire village.

---

Quote:

---

Though modern Americans do not associate other tribes with the practice of mourning wars, they performed the same methods of torture that the Iroquois did. These accounts are much less frequent than descriptions of Iroquois torture, nevertheless they do exist and are no less ruthless in nature. Samuel de Champlain's notes contain accounts of the Algonquins, Montagnais, and Etechemins as the aggressors. After they captured a handful of Iroquois in battle, these "friendly" tribes proceeded to torture the captives to death. They burned the body of one captive Iroquois then poured water on him in cycles so that his flesh would fall off his body. When they had finally killed him and threw his innards into the river, the Indians told Champlain that this act was done in vengeance for their own mutilated tribesmen. There is mention in Relation des Hurons of the Neutrals and Hurons performing the same cruelties, and the Hurons are mentioned for taking captives to be adopted. Nevertheless there are no vastly different reasons that can be determined for the atrocities of the other northeastern tribes. All of these other tribes practiced torture as an act of vengeance for their own mutilated dead, and in some cases even performed similar adoption ceremonies.

But can a desire for vengeance be sufficient to explain Iroquois cannibalism? In nearly every instance the Iroquois ate parts of the bodies of war prisoners who had been tortured to death. In Father Vimont's previous account it was the heart or other internal organs that were consumed as well as the hands and feet of the tortured prisoner. Another Jesuit gives this account: "having cut off (the captive's) hands and feet, (the Iroquois) skinned him and separated the flesh from the bones, in order to make from it a detestable repast." Further accounts include multiple mentions of the cannibalistic "customary feasts" of the Iroquois. There is obviously more to this form of cannibalism than the necessity of consuming human flesh to stay alive in hard times. Vengeance alone does not provide an ample explanation for cannibalism like it does for torture, yet the two always occur together.

As previously mentioned, the Iroquois were not alone in this practice, as various accounts describe the Winnebagos, Huron, and other French-sympathizing Indians partaking in feasts of human flesh. In the aforementioned Champlain account, the Algonquins, Montagnais, and Etechemins did not actually eat the Iroquois captive's flesh, but rather forced the other captives to eat his heart. Though this makes a case against cannibalistic practice, another account one year later tells of these same three tribes taking a quartered body home to be eaten. In another part of the country, a Neutral brave is recorded in Relation des Hurons saying to the Jesuit Father Brebeuf and his company, "[I've had] enough of the dark-colored flesh of our enemiesI wish to know the taste of white meat, and I will eat yours." In the same set of accounts the Jesuits chastise the Hurons to "eat no human flesh" so that they could be good Catholics.

---

---

But, but.... Dances with Wolves.... ??
I thought they were noble and honorable and one with nature???

---

Well we are certainly being force fed everybody is noble even heroic. Everybody except white folk that is. No they are an evil lot deserving elimination.

---