Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
Oh lord, looks like someone was reading Fehrenbach's book. Sounds almost quoted. That book was was written in 1974 and reads like it. Don't expect today's analysis, scholarship or readability. Don't expect footnotes or even a decent bibliography. Understand that this book is a narrative, i.e., part fiction, was written in another time, for another purpose and with a definite agenda. Its style is cumbersome, verbose, and opinionated. Fehrenbach is a Manifest Destiny apologist and that's being kind.
All that aside, I am a Comanche - enrolled and everything. We have have no idealized version of ourselves and know who we were then and are today. Our people were a warrior society. Yes, we raided, especially for horses which were our main source of "revenue"...not captives as one poster said. Yes, we took captives, did ransom some, adopted some and sometimes sold some to the Comancheros. What the Comancheros (white and Mexican traders) did with them was not our concern. Yes, god help you if you encroached into Comancheria uninvited, especially after treaty agreements were made or the deception in San Antonio by the Texans against the Penateka Comanches. Yes, we could be brutal to our enemies.
At the same time, it bothers me that the perception is that this went on daily or that my people went about looking for whites or others to torture. It amazes me that the John Wayne vision of Comanches is still valid in some people's minds well into the 21st Century - judging from the comments of some on this board anyway. Who of you know of our relationship with the German settlers of Fredericksburgh, Texas? These people came into Comancheria. They made a treaty with the Comanche and Kiowa bands they encountered. They never broke that treaty. Guess what? Neither did we. They lived in peace among us. Now what was the quote I read here? Oh yeah, the "nastiest bunch." BTW, the citizens of Fredericksburgh and us celebrated the 150th anniversary of that treaty in 1996. We had a big powwow to commemorate it and have been doing this with them annually ever since. Still not broken by either side to this day. The people of Fredericksburgh are not the only ones who managed to live peaceably among my people just so you know.
Had the Texans kept their promises they would not have suffered at the hands of my ancestors. Their constant lies were what caused our wrath and deservedly so. They were a people without honor. Sam Houston was about the only Texas politician who understood how to keep the peace. Had the Texans not enlisted our enemies - the Plains Apache, Wichita and Tonkawa - to war against us, there would have been no problem. Had the Texans kept their word and stayed out of Comancheria, there would have been no problem. Had the Texans not shown their treachery in San Antonio, there would have been no problem. Had the Texas senate ratified the treaty designed by Sam Houston, the problems would have ceased. Had Mirabeau B. Lamar not restarted Texas aggression, there would not have been continuing problems. Had the Americans not picked up where the Texans left off, there would have been no problems. But they wouldn't.
As it was, neither the Spanish, the Mexicans, the Texans nor the Americans could defeat us militarily. It was Old World diseases that did a lot of it. But, it was not until the US government's policy of buffalo extermination that the US Army was able to defeat us and our Kiowa allies. Many of you have been taught that the near-extinction of the buffalo was caused by "indiscriminate" hunters. Yes it was, but what was left out was that it was under US government policy, US government encouragement, US government sponsorship and US government payment. It was the only way they were going to be able to defeat the Plains Nations and they knew it. Take away their food source and let the bullets do the rest. Put that into your pipe and smoke it.
And stillkit, I would ask you how you would like it if the US Army or the Texas Rangers came into your camp and slaughtered your women and children? Can you imagine that happening to YOUR children? What do you think would be YOUR reaction the next time you ran across a Texan? How do you think you'd feel if the Americans came and took your people and forced you to give up your culture, language, imprisoned on a reservation the ones they couldn't kill and shipped your children to "Indian Schools (in essence re-education camps) to be forced to become Christians, forget their language and traditions? Spare me your false outrage. Bottomline, had the Texans stayed out of Comancheria like they said they would, they would have had nothing to worry about.
Texian treachery at San Antonio? Do you recall WHY they held that meeting in the first place? It was because the Comanches had a bunch of captives they were threatening to kill, which they did after the shootout. If the whites don't get a pass for starting the shooting, why do the Comanches get a pass for holding civilian captives which started the whole thing?
It's never so cut and dried that one side deserves all the blame. It was war, a war begun by the Comanches and one which they lost to superior numbers and firepower. No amount of historical revisionism can change that.
As for the the treaty between the Comanche and the citizens of Fredericksburg, let's not forget that the war between the whites and Comanches was already begun by then and Buffalo Hump had already made his great raid down to Victoria and Linnville. That a few people at one specific location made a treaty doesn't mean anything as neither they, nor the Indian's, presumed it to apply to anyone else.
You do realize, don't you, that you're arguing against a Comanche historian?
You do realize, don't you, that your arguments are based on a single, rather limited (and ethnocentric) belief system, whereas the contradicting arguments are drawn from a large number of factual and ethnic sources?
It is human nature to present ones nation in a positive light, and to ignore or gloss over events or conduct that was not so good. While many events that took part in Texas during historical times are unknown, or at best, only slightly known, there are many written accounts of relationships with the Comanche and other native tribes from Spanish, Mexican, Texican, and American sources. With no written accounts, and oral traditions lost or grown dim over time, many Native American tribes are unsure of their own past. Am neither argueing or presenting an ethnocentric position, but very briefly summarizing what the historical evidence indicates. Warfare on the frontier was brutal, from every conflict from Columbus to Wounded Knee, with atrocities committed by both sides. To deny this is revisionism, and this has been my position.
Oddly, did not come across the Fehrenbach book and read it until about six months ago while browsing in my library, months after my quoted post. The opinions are from many earlier sources.
That is a very important word highlighted there and I am glad you recognize that.
Quote:
Originally Posted by BlackShoe
The Comanche were a warrior society in which a mans status depended on his prowess in war. After their acquisition of Spanish horses after the great Pueblo revolt and their migration into what is now parts of five states, mostly Texas, in the 18th and early 19th century, they waged wars of expulsion and extermination against dozens of tribes. They were brutal conquerors, and many tribes that had suffered at their hands were eager to ally themselves with the Texans and strike back. After firmly establishing Comancheria they would raid hundreds of miles from home, hardly a defensive neccessity to maintain security.
Yes, we were and I am aware of that. I would ask that you not speak of my people in the third person to me as we are still here.
Wars of explusion? Yes. Extermination? No. Explusion is actually the wrong word for it. We did not commit wars like whites think of it. It was not the "Nation" going to war nor was it politicized. Remember that we were very loose bands. What one band did did not necessarily mean that other bands joined in. That was the rule, rather than the exception. Raiding parties most certainly did not involved the whole nation or even whole bands.
It was more "get out of our way". Yes, we did force the Plains Apache and Lipans out of Comancheria. Yes, we warred against the Tonkawa, Karankawa and Wichita. Add to that the Utes, Pueblo nations in New Mexico and just about everyone else. We raided as far south as Monterrey, Mexico. There is no question that we warred to acquire honors and to defend our access to and dominance over the southern buffalo herds. There is no question that we raided to acquire horses (especially) There is no question that we often gave no quarter. There is a good reason the Utes called us Komahts (those who always fight all the time) from where the Spanish bastardization "Comanche" comes from.
That being said, we also had another side. The way things are painted, we were the horrible savages capable of nothing more. BS...massive BS. We traded with other nations as much as we warred. We maintained good relations with others whom we has established relationships with. Many times, warfare was simply "counting coup". This is the side that is left out most of the time. The Texans, in particular, made is out to be as bad as possible. They hated us and we them. This is how it works.
Quote:
Originally Posted by BlackShoe
While Spanish lancers had had some success against them, it was not until the 1840's that they came up against a force that could and did beat them often. This was the famed Texas Rangers, viewed as arch villains by Comanche tribal historians. Superior leadership, tactics, and weapons enabled the Rangers to take the fight to the Comanche and beat them on their home ground.
Not really that much for the Spanish. They won a few skirnishes, but that is about all. Yes, the Texas Rangers had success by waging the guerilla tactics against us that we used, but we killed may of them as well. They were also not able to remove us from Comancheria. In our eyes, they were arch villians. Our villian is the taibo hero. The reason so many of us who are Southern Straight Dancers (powwow) wear an encircled star on our neckerchiefs is to commemorate killing Rangers and using their badges as adornment. Despite all that, they were greatly respected as warriors among my people.
Cholera, did more damage than the Rangers though. The Civil War definitely interupted things for the Texans and we were able to reestablish ourselves. After the war, the US Army tried traditional tactics and failed. The Texas taught them what had to be done. In the end though, it was still the US government sponsored slaughter of the buffalo herds that did us and the rest of the Plains nations in.
Quote:
Originally Posted by BlackShoe
In the "PC" environment of the late 20th and 21st century there has been a trend to somehow sanitize and lessen the brutality and cruelty of the frontier wars between Native Americans and European Whites. Revisionism does not work, we cannot go back and change things from what they were to what we think they should have been.
Maybe so for the Lakotas and the Dances With Wolves crowd. We know who and what we were then and are now. I am not trying to sanitize anything, but some things concerning my people have been massively...umm...over dramaticized. We could be brutal, the whites could be brutal. We could be peaceful, the whites could be peaceful.
Last edited by Fullback32; 12-13-2010 at 05:29 PM..
Texian treachery at San Antonio? Do you recall WHY they held that meeting in the first place? It was because the Comanches had a bunch of captives they were threatening to kill, which they did after the shootout. If the whites don't get a pass for starting the shooting, why do the Comanches get a pass for holding civilian captives which started the whole thing?
Of course I know why the meeting was being held. But it wasn't just for the return of captives held by the Penatekas (BTW, I am of the Kutsutuuka and Yaparuka bands....a descendent of Moway and Ten Bears.) The Texas "Peace" commission also insisted that the Comanches abandon Central Texas, cease interfering with Texan incursions (was that a joke?), and avoid all white settlements. So in other words, we were not to fight to keep the Texans from coming onto our land. The Texans did not seem to see their incursions as a problem, we better not do anything about it and, if we went anywhere near white settlements on our land we apparently had the problem. I see.
In addition, since the Texans had no clue as to how our society worked, they did not understand that Mukwahruh had no authority to release captives held by other bands. He could only release the ones he held. This he was willing to do.
The Texans instead chose to send in soldiers. When the Penateka leaders attempted to leave, the soldiers fired inside the meeting place and onto the Comanches outside of the meeting place. Of the 65 Penatekas who showed up for the peace meeting, only 27 survived.
This single event created the intense hostility from my people as word spread to all bands. Of course, Buffalo Hump's raid was predicated on the Council House fight. His raid was purely in retaliation for the Council House Fight. This event outraged us as our people believed that emissaries of peace were immune from acts of war. White eyes and NDN eyes do not see things the same way. What the Texans might have seen as just, we saw as an act of absolute treachery.
Quote:
Originally Posted by stillkit
It's never so cut and dried that one side deserves all the blame. It was war, a war begun by the Comanches and one which they lost to superior numbers and firepower. No amount of historical revisionism can change that.
Nobody is revising anything. It is a different point of view. Our culture was not the Texans culture. The Council House fight started the war in our eyes. Again, superior number and firepower were not what ultimately did us in. Cholera and small pox outbreaks put us in the coffin. The extermination of the buffalo herds put on the lid and most of the nails. The guns and numbers just put in the final nails. It is true that no one side deserves all the blame. I will grant you that.
Quote:
Originally Posted by stillkit
As for the the treaty between the Comanche and the citizens of Fredericksburg, let's not forget that the war between the whites and Comanches was already begun by then and Buffalo Hump had already made his great raid down to Victoria and Linnville. That a few people at one specific location made a treaty doesn't mean anything as neither they, nor the Indian's, presumed it to apply to anyone else.
Yes the treaty with Fredericksburgh happened in 1847 and Buffalo Humps raid was in 1840. This actually provides extra strength to my statement that my people could live in peace with whites. In a time of intense hostility toward the Texans and Texan hostility toward my people, we still chose to live in peace with white settlers on our land. Of course it only applied to Muesenbach and his fellow settlers and the Comanche who had made peace with them. Of the 20 Comanche chiefs (paraibo) that made that treaty were Santanna, Old Owl, Horse Back and, oddly enough, Buffalo Hump.
Had the Texans truly desired peace, they could have had it.
Mabe I am butting in here, but the way I see it, no way can the white man walk away from this with his honor intact. He chose to conquer the land he called America. Since he wrote the history books, he wasn't going to admit that it was greed, pure and simple. The American Indian simply defended his territory as best he could, and many times his best was pretty darned good.
He chose to conquer the land he called America. Since he wrote the history books, he wasn't going to admit that it was greed, pure and simple.
A great many historians and books admit it was often greed, pure and simple. What are you reading?
Not only that but at the very time the Indians were being conquered by The United States there were politicians, civic leaders and newspaper men that said it was often greed, pure and simple. Even soldiers said so.
One thing you forgot to mention Fullback was that, along with the cholera and the Rangers, and later the Army, adopting Comanche tactics, the Army was willing to go on offensive operations in the winter when the tribes were generally holed up somewhere and not expecting to be attacked. This was done on both the Southern and Northern Plains.
Last edited by North Beach Person; 12-14-2010 at 06:38 PM..
Reason: spelling
One thing you forgot to mentiom Fullback was that, along with the cholera and the Rangers, and later the Army, adopting Comanche tactics, the Army was willing to go on offensive operations in the winter when the tribes were generally holed up somewhere and not expecting to be attacked. This was done on both the Southern and Northern Plains.
There can be little doubt the Army would bring the Comanche to heel one way or another. Afterall, they'd brought into line such formidable peoples as the Iroquois, Miami and Shawnee.
Eventually yes. But the Comanche were a whole different group with a whole different way of doing things. They were spread out over an incredibly large territory, could move with very little lead time. They were way more mobile, as were almost all the Plains tribes, than the Eastern Indians, who never really adopted the horse for warfare and continued to fight on foot.
Please register to post and access all features of our very popular forum. It is free and quick. Over $68,000 in prizes has already been given out to active posters on our forum. Additional giveaways are planned.
Detailed information about all U.S. cities, counties, and zip codes on our site: City-data.com.
Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
