Empire of the Summer Moon by S.C. Gwynne ~ February Book Club Online

[Jonathan]

The Book Club Online is  the oldest  book club on the Internet, begun in 1996, open to everyone.  We offer cordial discussions of one book a month,  24/7 and  enjoy the company of readers from all over the world.  Everyone is welcome to join in.

Empire of the Summer Moon  by S.C.Gwynne

February Book Club Online  

It's an AMERICAN STORY.  THE U.S. ARMY, TEXAS RANGERS - SETTLERS- ALL AGAINST THE INDIANS The year was 1871 and the final destruction of the last of the hostile tribes was just beginning after 250 years of bloody combat.  The end of the Civil War had brought many new people to the west searching for land, adventure, glory. By this time the Indians had seen the buffalo depart, they were cadging food, stealing horses and other useful artifacts or ornamental things from the white man.   Some learned to speak Spanish or English.  All loved clothing and blankets made of cotton or wool, and the  accumulation of white man's artifacts.  It was a sort of cultural pollution that could not be stopped. And then there were the white captives; particularly a white squaw who had lived with the Indians, married, had a son named Quanah who became the last great Comanche War Chief.  An epic saga!  A fascinating  book! Come join us as we discuss the integration of the Indians into a civilized world.

Map of Great Plains - shaded in red

Discussion Schedule Feb. 1 - 7      Chapters   1 - 7 Feb. 8 - 14    Chapters 8 - 13 Feb. 15 - 21  Chapters 14-18 Feb  22 - 28  Chapters 19 -22

Great Plains near Nebraska

       

   

Talking Points
Feb. 1-7 ~ Chapters 1 - 7

1.  Why do you think the Indians captured Cynthia Ann Parker?  Of what use would she be in the tribe?  

2.  Why would the white settlers believe the westward lands belonged to them?

3.  Why did both Spain and then Mexico encourage Anglos from the U.S. to move to Texas by giving them large tracks of free land with the promise of no taxes for 10 years

4..  How did the Comanche tribe become the single dominant Indian force in the western states?

5.  Twenty thousand Comanches, divided into five bands of approximately 4000 members each, lived in harmony with each other and had little system of government.  How was this possible?

6.  How were the Apaches, and, subsequently, the Spanish, conquered by the Comanches?

7.  The Republic of Texas elected Mirabeau B. Lamar as its second president in 1838,  How did his Indian policy differ from those of the first President Sam Houston.  Were settlers on the frontier more or less safe as the result of Lamar's policy changes?  

8.  What were a few of the weaknesses or mistakes made by the Indians in their battles with the whites?  Mistakes and successes made by the Rangers and the Army?  


Related Links: Interview with author, S.C. Gwynne ; Listen to C-SPAN Interview HERE ;
MAP of Texas; Historical Maps of Texas ; Tribal Map of Oklahoma ;
All about the Red River (Mississippi River) ;
The Die is Cast ;

 

Discussion Leaders:  Ella & Harold

 

From Jonathan:  Oh, my God! I've just read the description of a 'blue' norther (39-40).

This,it says,was routine weather on the plains.

I see the promise of a great historical drama in this book. The imaginative chapter  headings assure me of that. I find myself smacking my reader's lips at the sight of each one. In total, how much adventure, I wonder, can an author get into one book. Take for example the last chapter, Resting Here Until Day Breaks.That's enough to keep me reading all night.

[Ella Gibbons]

Was that your post, JONATHAN?    If so, you are to read just chapters 1-7 in preparation for our discussion tomorrow! 

Harold, that was interesting and I think LaSalle had something to do with naming the Chateau Frontenac in Quebec which is just absolutely out of this world - charming.  We stayed there a few nights years ago!

But we are way off topic.  Back to Indian country.  There was a segment last night on 60 Minutes about jaguars and how the settlers of North America killed them off because they were a menace to their cattle; these beautiful cats would have been plentiful, don't you imagine, before the white man came to the west.

http://www.defenders.org/programs_and_policy/wildlife_conservation/imperiled_species/jaguar/

[JoanP]

Passing this reminder from Ella - in case you didn't realize how quickly January is passing us by -

"The Comanches are arriving tomorrow, February lst."

[CallieOK]

Ella, I'm the one who mentioned the "blue norther" description on pages 39-40.  These pages are in Chapter 4.  

Comanches, Apaches, Kiowas, settlers and everyone else will need a pile of buffalo robes tomorrow around this area.  Even the state capitol has already announced it will be closed tomorrow....and nothing has happened, yet.

I'm so looking forward to the start of the discussion.   

[Aberlaine]

I just finished watching the BookTV interview given by the author, S.C. Gwynne.  Knowing how he wrote the book (chapter by chapter) and the structure of the book (large story, then smaller story) will help me organize the story better.  I'm going to go back now and skim the first chapters to see if they become clearer based on this new information.

See you all tomorrow!  Great book!  Great pick!
Nancy

[Ella Gibbons]

Here is the old West as we think of it.  The transcontinental railroad has just been completed, cattle drives to the railroads, Texans making big dough, beef shipped east, a capitalist society is being formed.

Entrepreneurs heading west ready to start little farms, business booming, and then we learn that thousands of armed Indians, in war paint riding fast ponies, are killing the settlers as fast as they get within range!  And with some reason we read!

And then we have restless ex-soldiers from the Union Army sitting around wondering what they are supposed to be doing, General Grant is president, and General Sherman giving orders!  And, of course, they all get involved.

 And, that’s just the beginning of the tale!

SO - WHAT SURPRISED YOU IN THESE FIRST FEW CHAPTERS!  WHAT IMPRESSED YOU?  WHAT WAS NEW?

Let's begin.  There are some TALKING POINTS in the heading for your consideration but those are just suggestions.   

  

[Ella Gibbons]

CALLIE, I apologize, it's the turning of the page again.  I could hardly get my paper this morning off the porch, it's just ice, just ice which looks like rain until you step on it!

Stay warm everybody and be careful!  Let's talk about the Indians.

[serenesheila]

ELLA, I am surprised, and stunned by the graphic descriptions of the Indians torture, with all of the gory details.  I was also surprised to learn that the French were a threat to Anglos in Texas.  I was under the impression that the French were only interested in Florida. 

Now, back to our book.

Sheila

[JoanP]

Good morning...
Hard to think of the Indians while Mother Nature is making life hard for so many of us...18" in Tulsa?  Two feet of snow predicted for Chicago!

Ella asks -
 

WHAT SURPRISED YOU IN THESE FIRST FEW CHAPTERS!  WHAT IMPRESSED YOU?  WHAT WAS NEW?

For one thing, I hadn't been aware of Indian torture - beyond scalping that is.  Gwynne is providing a  less sympathetic  way of regarding the Indians and  having "their" land invaded by the heartless white man.   -

I was really impressed by the number of footnotes - and the number of sources Gwynne used for this book...not only first hand accounts, but official documents and other books too.  (See the back of the book - you have to impressed!)

That said, I had to question Gwynne's description of the Arkansas river - In the first chapter, on pl5, he writes:


"- in 1871 buffalo roamed the plains - a herd of 4 million   near Arkansas River in southern Kansas.  The main body was fifty miles deep and twenty five miles wide."

Can this be right? Maybe I'm not reading it right.  Still, I was impressed at the extensive footnotes and am ready to accept this book as an important historical account.

[CallieOK]

Ella,  I do the same thing - not a problem.  If my paper was delivered, it's buried under a 6" snow drift and I'm not going to look for it.

A large part of Comancheria  is experiencing a Ground Blizzard today.  50mph winds are blowing snow into high drifts and the wind chill in the OK (and probably TX) panhandle area is 36º below Zero (Farenheit).
The t v weatherman commented on the dangers of ranchers having to see about their livestock.  He said that, at this wind chill temperature, the water in your eyes will freeze in a few minutes.

Just imagine the Indians huddled around a fire inside a tepee.  I wonder if their horses were also sheltered?

The canyons would have provided some protection and snow can be an insulator - but it would still have been a miserable experience.

Re:  "What surprised you in the first few chapters?"
I was surprised to see how many Civil War officers were sent to the forts being built across the Plains and to engage in the Indian Wars.  I suppose I'd never thought about it and assumed they just went home and planted tomatoes. 

[bookad]

one early thing that struck me about this book, was learning the Comanche, initially calling themselves 'the people/Nermernuh, were really a nondescript tribe,who barely eeked out an existance living mainly in Wyoming, eastern slope of the rockies, and were driven to it by their enemies.  The tribes seemed to be the little guy with poor skills at war, and were tormented and trodden down by surrounding enemy tribes. The book suggested that they were bullied by other tribes.  

Then 1625--1750 the Nermernuh had an amazing transformation into the domineering power.  They owed this transformation to obtaining horses from the spanish.  These horses were an agile Arabian breed, and the people now known as Comanches were adept at training, and utilization of them as no other groups appeared to be.  This made them the top dogs and they used this position to give back harshly to all that had made their lives miserable before.  

So the spanish were ultimately responsible for the change in balance of power among the aborigionals they came into contact with and the plains Indians in particular.  

The descriptions of Indian men and womwn riding their horses was awesome, and it seemed like an Indian and his horse had a spiritual oneness together...

if the Indians had never been introduced to horses their lives would have been much different, especially the Comanche, who were an inferior tribe before their acquisition of spanish horses.  

I had always thought the Apaches were the dominant tribe and I guess they were until as this book states another tribe received a new tool (the horse) and took every advantage of its being.  

then it appears the Comanche with their pent up anger at being the underdog, as well as their history with other warring tribes...... became the main terrorizing warring group.

How sad it seems to me that on this continent men seemed to hold war as a full time occupation, women doing most of the work, men doing their war dances and painting themselves up for their warring, gambling....{this last part is my thoughts not all from the book}

I was recommended this book as a good read late last year, and am ever so glad it is the choice this month.

Deb

[HaroldArnold]

Serenesheila wrote in post 367
>ELLA, I am surprised, and stunned by the graphic descriptions of the Indians torture, with all of the gory details.  I was also surprised to learn that the French were a threat to Anglos in Texas.  I was under the impression that the French were only interested in Florida.  

Torture seems to have been a rather general part of  most native Indian warfare cultures, but for most tribes I don’t think it was as generally as prevalent as with the Comanche as described in our book.  In my reading of the book, I might have been surprised by the author used such graphic details, but I was not surprised by the fact that these practices commonly occurred.  There is just too much early contemporary documentation out there relative to many different tribes to permit the denial of the reality of this history.

In east Texas the Caddo farmers too were much pre-occupied with war.  Though they were always trying to get visiting Europeans to go on the war path with them, first and foremost their interest in European visitors as trading partners, trumped their interest in them as either wartime enemies or allies.  Henri Joutel the La Salle lieutenant who survived to write the history of the French Texas colony tells the gruesome story of the torture of enemy prisoners brought back from a raid in which several French had participated.  This included cannibalism an act that the Comanche apparently did not practice.  In Texas the Tonkawa, the tribe that frequently provided the Scouts serving with the Rangers or army was the subject of Comanche scorn for their common practice of this .ceremony.  

Also ‘Sheila the French were never a threat to the Anglo’s in Texas.  They were here between 1685 and 1689.;  They were a threat to the Spanish who before that time were quite content for the land mass north of the lower Rio Grande to be vacant.  It was this French intrusion that changed this Spanish policy, and required not only Spanish interest, but also an actual Spanish physical presence.  It was the event that caused the beginning of Spanish settlements in Texas.

[Frybabe]

Gwyne's anthropological explanation of how and why the Comanche became as they were, including a brief comparison with the early Celtic tribes (wonder why he chose to compare them over other hunter gatherer societies), is interesting.

Their extremely loose group structure is very interesting. I don't recall learning of any groups that were so unorganized. Most groups I learned about had a leader of sorts, often the patriarch or matriarch as a lot of the groups were extended family groups. They struck me as somewhat democratic in that they convened a group council of sorts to arbitrate disputes.

[Aberlaine]

I was amazed at how fast the Comanches became the dominant tribe once they learned how to use horses.  I was reminded of an old Star Trek directive about never showing modern technology to a culture which was in its infancy.  It would cause them to leap and bound over the other cultures around them.  And that's what happened with the Comanche.

I never could figure out why the newly free Americans believed the land belonged to them.  I tried to imagine if another culture landed on the tip of Florida and just started defeating us and taking over "our" land.  How presumptuous we were.

[HaroldArnold]

Regarding blue northers mentioned above by both Jonathan and CallieinOK they were certainly a factor in many of the skirmishes mentioned in our book.  Many of these battles occurred in central and north Texas or Oklahoma.  Indeed it must have been a bitter time to fight particularly for the European Anglos who though better clothed than the Indians were much less physically condition than the Indians for fighting in such a winter environment. 

Historians have noted the fact that the Texas climate going back to the 1400’s through the 1850’s had been colder than .in later times.  This is based on early Spanish records that recorded colder winters in North Mexico including frequent winter snow storms, along the lower Rio Grande even just 100 plus miles up stream from it’s mouth.  This would include the Mission San Juan Baptisista region near the Texas town of Eagle Pass. 

The time before the 1850’s is sometimes described by Texas historians as “the little ice age.”.  I think based on my life experience our winters here in South Texas have been successively warmer.  We always use to have at least one really cold norther, sometimes two or three that seem now not to be coming.   In fact I think the last one was in 1985 when we had some 13 inches of snow between 5:00Pm Friday and 1:00 PM the following Sunday.: 

But today we are getting a good old fashion blue norther.  Unlike the pattern described in the book with the initial cold wind, sleet and snow this one has blown in dry.  But what a change it is from our 75 degree afternoon yesterday.  We have the 40 MPH cold wind gusts with temperatures in the 40’s, but the predictions for the rest of the week are for lows down to 13 degrees, with a wet turn coming Wednesday night and sleet and snow forecast Thursday and Friday.  This extreme may or may not happen but one thing I think is sure.  That is by the week end a warming trend will set in and by the middle of next week the 75 degree afternoons will be back...  I’ll keep you posted on how this scenario plays out

[HaroldArnold]

This is an interesting thought. Aberlaine in you message #135.    There are surely other historical examples such as the transformation of Japan as a modern industrial  economy after the 1870’s opening by the U.S. Naval visit.  Also perhaps another example is the modern transformation of China, India and Korea after WW II.

Regarding the Comanche’s sudden emergence I don’t doubt it was their use of the horse that made them such a potent force.  They seemed particularly adapt at horsemanship.  They would ride into a buffalo heard at full gallop, “look mom no Hands!” and with both hands on their bow fire 5 or more arrows a minute into the side of a buffalo running at top speed.  Likewise they would charge into battle again on horseback sometimes using their horse as a shield by sliding their body under the protection of the horse's side capable of sending a rapid fire barrage of arrows into an enemy often on foot and limited to a single shot.

The Comanche were Shoshone from the mountains of Idaho, the same tribe, who supplied Lewis & Clark with horses in 1804.  The Comanche had begun their separation several centuries earlier.  Making their way south and east they begin acquiring horses by the mid 17th century.  Where did the horses come from?  It must have been from the Spanish settlements in northern New Mexico either by trade or thievery.  Are could it have been wild horses, the off spring of horses lost from one of the several earlier Spanish explorations in Colorado, Kansas, new Mexico and north-west Texas?  In any case by the beginning of the 18th century the Comanche had horses and they knew how to use them.  

I don’t see how they managed those large horse herds that seem to have numbered sometimes in excess of 10,000.   It must have been another job for women and older children .  It sure took management skills complicated by the fact that the tribe was often being tracked by rangers.  

[Ella Gibbons]

WOW!  I'm so happy to see this many of you posting in our discussion during this miserable weather outside all across the USA!  Thank you so much!  Stay warm, stay inside, keep reading and posting!

It was CALLIE, I believe, who commented about the Plains Indians keeping warm in their teepees and  wondering if their horses were sheltered?  Do you think they might have been considerate enough to throw a buffalo robe over them?  No, no, there were too many horses!  Now if we were at the movies those horses would have had blankets over their backs and saddles; that would have helped.

A friend who is reading this book called me on the phone to express the opinion that there is so very much detail in this book, so much to talk about, and wondered how we could ever discuss it online.

Well, of course, we can and we shall and have fun doing it!!  And try to forget this weather.

A few statements by you:

"stunned by the graphic descriptions of the Indians torture, with all of the gory details" - SHEILA

"For one thing, I hadn't been aware of Indian torture - beyond scalping that is." - JOANP

Is Gwynne being too graphic?  Do we want the truth?  Is this the truth?  Is it that we don't want to read it?    I don't know.  What do you think?

----------------------------------------------------

"Comanches became the dominant tribe once they learned how to use horses." - ABERLAINE

"it was their use of the horse that made them such a potent force.  They seemed particularly adapt at horsemanship." - HAROLD

"an Indian and his horse had a spiritual oneness together."..DEB

Yes, the horse!  Gwynne does emphasize the Comanches and the horse.  It's amazing to me that other tribes did not catch on or catch up?  Wouldn't you have thought?

But he does state that the Comanche could breed them and no other tribe could do that , or do it as well.  That's a real talent I understand.  Breed them for running, racing.  It's done all the time in the white civilized world.  Around these parts you hear about it at the Kentucky Derby!

[Ella Gibbons]

Before we are swallowed up by the immensity of our subject, let's try to concentrate on one idea at a time -   the Indians of North America, Comanches or otherwise.

This paragraph from pg. 91 surprised me:

"Comanches were short, and they were unimpressive physically...... They were half-naked, they rode mustangs that were small, unshod, scrawny, and unattractive.....they used bows and arrows as their main weapons.......they loved to scavenge tin and iron, from which they made their weapons."

As wild as they were, as terrifying as they must have been (imagine 1000 of these coming at you) I had a different view in my imagination of the Comanche Indian.

What about their religion, their leaders or lack thereof, their livelihood, their ancestry, their place in history, their future.  

Why were they so bloody?  

Let's talk Indian for a little while and then we will move on to other areas of these chapters, okay?

[bookad]

a little 'aside' about torture--when I was about 14 my parents first took me to St Marie Among the Hurons, and the Martyr's Shrine in Midland, Ontario....I bought a book there about a two well know French religious men (Brebeuf +Lamont)  who in the late 1600s lived among the Huron of the area trying to bring Christianity to them...the book was a gruesome description of their death at the hands of a group of Indians who tied them to a bonfire, stripped them of their skin, ate their parts, ..,.,(there was some part perhaps the heart that if the tortured person was a particularly admired person would be eaten to give the eater his strength, it was believed) I was very interested in Indians at the time, I think reading this book was very hard for me, mind you I persevered ...it was not a nice picture, but it was their way...the two men were later to become 'saints'

The church is a roman catholic cathedral and stands very tall on the landscape, very beautiful with the stations of the cross around it, and it is on the Wye River, the last pope came there on a visit (I was sad that they cut down a whole forest of trees to help in parking for that visit). it has since grown partly back again

Deb

[Jonathan]

What a fascinating story. Nancy is right. Great book! Great pick!

Nancy also goes on to mention that the Gwynne interview left her with the impression that the author had a purpose in mind with his story. That's what strikes me also. I would even be tempted to say that the author is a modern Homer, telling a modern story of war and plunder on a huge scale, rich with detail.

I guess it's the amazing Comanches, few in number, ruling such a vast domain, that surprises me. With their equestrian mobility giving them a striking range of 400 miles. Few in numbers! Finding it necessary to abduct women and children to keep the numbers up. And leaving no records. How much of the vast array of sources at the back of the book is Indian? Were they really so cruel? The author seems apologetic about introducing stories of torture. No doubt many horrific stories must have made the rounds.

And yet Cynthia Ann chose to remain with her Comanche abductor. And one hears of others who accepted that fate. Perhaps they got to like it. Perhaps it was a life of greater freedom than one in a fort. In fact there must have been a certain exhilaration about that nomadic lifestyle. How about a Sun Dance for a spiritual lift. Some might find that more attractive than a prayer meeting.

Sorry to hear about the inclement weather down there in Comanche country. How can you call it a Norther? It's balmy up here, to the north of you.

[kiwilady]

I never stop being shocked that we just moved in and took land wherever we went. We had no regard for the indigenous peoples and vilified them for objecting! Imagine for instance in my case if the Indonesians just decided they wanted my country for its great crop growing capacity. They have a giant army and we have a minute one. However I cannot see any one of my fellow countrymen just accepting this. I think we would resort to violence too. I can't help it but my sympathies will always be with indigenous peoples.

Carolyn

[CallieOK]

When I am taking a group of school children on a tour of the Oklahoma History Museum, I often say, “If you say the word ‘history’ very slowly, you will hear the word ‘story’.  Not all parts of every story are pleasant ones.  Some parts tell about mean things, some tell about sad ones.  It’s the same with history.  If we are going to tell the stories of the past accurately, we have to include the unpleasant parts.”
When we go through the Indian Gallery and the Afro-American Exhibit,  both of which are accurate, I make sure to point out the many exhibits devoted to achievements by Native Americans and Blacks - throughout history.
I try to show that, in spite of the sad and mean things that happened to them, the contributions of both have enriched our society in many, many ways.

And so it is with the story we're discussing now - whether we like it or not.

[Babi]

  JOANP, I'm sure that description was of the herd of buffalo, not
the river. No rivers that big, though we did eventually find a canyon possibly that size made by a river.

CALLIE, I admire your introductory remarks to the children about history. It prepares them for hearing and seeing unpleasant things while
allowing them to be open to the good and beautiful.

   I’m learning more about the early history of Texas, things that only got a paragraph or two in school.
I knew about the capture of Cynthia Ann Parker, but nothing about the Parker family and their role in the early settlement of Texas.    I also did not realize that in the 1830’s,  Texas was the only frontier fronting the borders of hostile tribes.  All the eastern and southern tribes had already been subdued.
I had never heard of Capt. MacKenzie and his successful campaign against the Comanches.  I was amazed to learn how those blundering  soldiers, wholly ignorant of the ways of the Plains, managed to survive, much less eventually succeed.

  I had to forget my earlier picture of the Indians as only massacring  whites because we were massacring them first.   Mr.Gwynne makes it very clear that the extremely savage tactics of the Comanches had been standard practice against rival tribes long before they ever saw a European.
  

[Ella Gibbons]

DEB, am so sorry the description of torture was upsetting; you were at an impressionable age when you first encountered the subject.

As JEAN said in her Post #117 - "Some of their methods of senseless torture seemed to be new to the white men but many had been carried out by the so called civilized people in Europe. Humans seem to have a great penchant for cruelty to animals and one another."

Cruelty, brutality all through mankind's history, as you all are aware.

NANCY mentioned the structure of the book. That's an important point.  As I recall from Gwynne's interview on BookTV (Callie would you check this out from your tape), there are certain chapters that deal with Cynthia Parker and the white squaws and Quanah. I think the 2nd and 4th chapters are more  dedicated to the subject in this week's assignment although mention is made throughout.

Gwynne wants his book not to be read as a historical account of Indian savagery or early white settlement of the Plains.

He wants this book to be read as one would read a fiction.  Makes it a bit difficult to discuss, but we are good at it.

It was just 130 years or so ago that the white man was terrified of Indians, now we feel great sympathy for their way of life. 

[Ella Gibbons]

WHY DID THE WHITE MAN COME WEST?   WHAT GAVE THEM THE IDEA THEY COULD SETTLE ON THE PLAINS?

[HaroldArnold]

More about light Calvary Tactics 1830’s 1870

Our book point out the tactical differences between Comanche and Rangers approaches in a battle.   Interestingly it was the horse and rider armed with a short 40 inch bow that gave the Comanche their early advantage over settlers, Anglo or Spanish.  The mounted Indian armed with a bow and a quiver full of arrows would typical fight from horseback.  This was possible because of the speed with which a Comanche warrior could reload and fire arrows from horseback.  Balanced in a crude saddle with both hands free to manipulate his bow, he would guide his war horse by movement of his knees and legs, with his hands free to fire arrows one after another in quick succession.  

His enemy be it Spanish or Anglo initially prepared for battle by dismounting and continuing to engage their Indian enemy on foot.  Comanche tactics involved initially stampeding the Ranger horse herd and then swooping down on their unhorsed enemy with their rapid fire arrow assault.  The ranger defender with much slower fire from their muzzle loading rifle, fired from whatever ground cover that might have been available to them.  Fortunately for the Rangers, Comanche, generally were not interested in sustaining long siege attacks against defenders in a partially protected position, and when facing such a situation they would ride off leaving the battered defenders to walk back to their home base often several hundred miles away.  

It was the clumsiness and slow reloading of the muzzle loading rifle that create the problem in fighting from horseback.  Though six shot repeating pistols became available in the late 1840’s, their reloading required removal of the cartridge cylinder, a difficult procedure from horseback during a fire fight.  Also though the early six shooters were being produced they don’t seem to have been generally available in Texas until after the civil war.  Then also the  repeating Carbine became generally available.  It was these technological improvements that turned the course by enabling Ranger units to out gun their Comanche opponents.

[ANNIE]

Well, I will jump right in here and say that I had no idea of the cruelty foisted by the Indians upon the whites and the Spanish and the Mexicans.
Their adoption of the horse and being able to control these wild animals with a choke hold and then a soft blowing into the horse's nostrils which gentled the horse.  What made them think of doing such a thing?  And how did they decide how to side ride a horse and shoot their arrows 30 yards into whatever they were aiming at?
  
The author presents the Plains (Comanches) Indians as being behind every other group of Indians when it comes to being civilized, learning how to farm, how to make products that they  could sell, wearing fabrics like wool and cotton instead of the buffalo hides.  In the beginning they just weren't interested in having villages or a specific religion.  They did have a spiritual outlook as to the thoughts of every thing on our earth had a spirit.  According to the author, these Indians were 400 years behind the Eastern Indians and the Nothern Indians and he doesn't think that they would ever catch up.

Minus my book at the moment, I seem to remember that it was common for them to eat their enemies and hoped to take the enemy's strong spirit into their bodies.  This belief is not an unfamiliar one.  I believe it was Joseph Campbell in the "Power of Myth", who mentioned that the eating of the flesh and drinking of the blood of a dead person was practiced throughout the ancient world.  I remember Campbell talking of communities celebrating the death of a beloved member, eating the member's flesh and drinking its blood, they believed that in taking these things into their bodies, they were keeping this person's body on it path back into the earth.  

[JoanP]

I keep noticing that Gwynne keeps coming back to this date - Oct.3, 1871  , referring to it as the beginning of the end of the Indian wars after 250 years of combat- The goal - kill the Comanches, exterminate them, I think he said.  No matter where he takes us, he returns to 1871.

Babi...thank you!  Gwynne was talking about the size of the buffalo herd, not the depth and width of the Arkansas River? Funny!  Thank you!


Carolyn - "I can't help it but my sympathies will always be with indigenous peoples."   Can we really call the Comanches "indigenous"?  Gwyne describes these Indians as "brutal - demonic satanic - gang rapists."  "Not only did they torture - they ENJOYED IT!"  The Comanches practiced this torture on other tribes as they took over their land.  I can't see them as "indigenous" to this land.  

Babi - says these  savage tactics of the Comanches had been standard practice against rival tribes long before they ever saw a European.   Yes, I think that's right.  Gwynne says that  "the discovery of agriculture in Asia and the Middle East around 6500 BC allowed the transition from nomadic hunter/gatherer societies to the higher civilizations that followed.  But the Indians in America did not discover farming until 4000 years later. A tremendous gap. - And the Non agrarian Plains Indians were even further behind.  This accounts for the differences.  To me, it's as if a herd of Tyrannasaurus Rex came into contact with a tamed herd of...buffalo, thousands of years later.  Neither would understand the practices of the other as they struggled to survive.
Annie - the Plains Indians didn't spend time curing and preparing their buffalo meat, did they?  I remember reading how they would just eat barely cooked chunks of buffalo meat.  Cannabalism was only one step beyond eating buffalo meat.  These interlopers were their enemies.

Of course, to  their enemies, the Comanches were savage killers. .

Ella, that's a thought-provoking question -
WHY DID THE WHITE MAN COME WEST?   WHAT GAVE THEM THE IDEA THEY COULD SETTLE ON THE PLAINS?





  

[HaroldArnold]

Ella  asked: WHY DID THE WHITE MAN COME WEST?   WHAT GAVE THEM THE IDEA THEY COULD SETTLE ON THE PLAINS?  This same question in slightly different words has been asked in sever other posts yesterday.

To a contemporary settler, be he Spanish, Portuguese, English or French   going back to the 1492 discovery of America by Columbus the land was their gift from god, theirs for their taking.  It was their manifest destiny, their reward from god.  If they owed any obligation to the native populations it was only to remold them in their image as Christians after the model of contemporary European peasants.  The land and all its resources was there for the taking a gift to them from god, and they were ready, and willing to title as much as possible.  Native population be damned

I know this view does not reflect the popularly conceived contemporary attitude toward their ancestors but after viewing contemporary attitudes today toward the accumulation of wealth and property, I sort of doubt that the present generation if presented with a similar situation, would act much differently than their ancestors

[CallieOK]

Thank you, Harold!   I have been thinking most of the morning about how to comment on western expansion.
Why did anyone come to the American continents (North or South) from "somewhere else" in the first place?  Why did the Comanches and other tribes try to expand their territories?  Why did so many Irish come to America during the Potato Famine?  Why did the so-called "Okies" go to California during the Dust Bowl?  Why do people today accept corporate moves?
IMO, it's because of 1) curiousity, 2) adventure and/or 3) the vision of an opportunity for a better way of life, whatever the definition of that might be to the individual.

Ella,  I haven't yet had a chance to check the interview for Gwynne's comments on Cynthia Ann and Quanah.  Will do so ASAP.
In the Notes on page 322, there is a long comment on Gwynne's original source for the story of Rachel Plummer in Chapter Two.  
I could be mistaken, but I don't think Cynthia Parker ever wrote about her experiences. Again IMO, I wonder if she would have become so well-known if she had not been the mother of Chief Quanah?

At the beginning of the discussion, I commented on the need to be careful about comparing these Plains Tribes with the agrarian Tribes.   Joan's comments on the huge cultural differences are "spot on".
Pages 60-61, the many facets of the Comanches are discussed in more detail.  One statement that caught my eye was:  "In addition to their prowess in war, the Comanches were great merchants and traders.   ...in 1748, the tribe was officially admitted to the Taos trade fair".
Pages 70-72 describe what happened when a new Spanish governor wanted to make friends and allies of the Comanches.  In light of later history re: treaties with the Indians, this effort had amazing results.

[Jonathan]

Why did the white man come west? Good question. One could also ask, why did the Comanche come south from Wyoming. Whatever the reason, the result led to the confrontation between nomad and settler, which provided Gwynne with a theme for his amazing 'story'. As he puts it on page 53:

an immense struggle for control of the center of the North American continent....

I think Gwynne is trying to be even-handed in the attribution of savagery between the native and the white intruder. So much of the atrocity, he tells us constantly, was motivated by vengeance.

[ALF43]

JoanP—hahah, I love the pictures of the marauding Indians in post  #294.  As far as this:

The Comanches practiced this torture on other tribes as they took over their land.  I can't see them as "indigenous" to this land.

Why not? weren't they endemic to the west? Natives (no pun intended here)?
 
Sheila- it is the same as we discussed in Little Bee, abuse of fellow man is inherent in all cultures.  To the Indians it wasn't torture , it was expected that they ravage  the enemy- they were trying to keep their own culture strong and we were invading their territory.
 They were taught, I'm sure to dismantle and desecrate, with vigor OR- perhaps they believed if the tribe destroyed and crushed the enemy, leaving the abhorrent remains to be seen, it would be an admonition to others to back off and leave them in peace.
 Yes Callie- I loved that - Hi(STORY.)
As Harold so aptly put it- it is a reality!  Thank you Harold for the mention of the differences in the fighting sides in regards to firearms vs. the bow and arrow.  I would imagine that that came as a heck of a shock to many of those former soldiers.
When I was young, I always rooted for the injuns- I wonder if I might have some Apache blood coursing thur my own veins?
Deb mentioned the acquisition of the horses from the Spanish and what a fortunate accomplishment that was for the tribes.  It allowed them free and rapid access to the western plains.  How did they learn to ride so admirably? 

Why did they go?  Why not- the war was over, the west needed exploration and those that had gone before were slowly leaving.  We MUST occupy land and resources.  It's no different today.

[ANNIE]

I quote from the last few pages we just read.  From Mary Maverick's memoir: "They were drawn to the
west by the wildness and danger and daring of the frontier life."

I thought that the separation of History was "his story" or "her story".  Meaning that calling this story history is telling us the story of male battle cries--on both sides.

When I started reading this book, I thought we were into another "poor indian" tale.  But, I find that I can't feel sorry for the Comanche or their cohorts.  But, it looks to me as if both sides were bloodthirsty before this part of history came to an end.

JoanP,
I was not speaking of eating of buffalo. 

[kiwilady]

Indigenous peoples are those who settled the land before being colonised. If settlers had not come into the area there would have been no killings of white people. To call these people savages is the pot calling the kettle black. Colonists all over the world committed terrible atrocities. In fact Australian aborigines were massacred in the forties and fifties. (20th century)Can anyone here say with all honesty no atrocities were committed by white settlers?

Are cluster bombs atrocious? I think they are. There has also been torture during modern day conflicts and we tend to brush these incidents under the carpet.

The Indian was only protecting their territory just as we would if suddenly we were confronted with an invasion from another culture into our countries. People coming and settling on land that we regarded as ours. The Indians were semi nomadic and ranged over wide areas moving camps according to the seasons.

So far I think this book is terribly one sided. However I will read on.

Carolyn

[bookad]

I believe so many of the Europeans came to the new continents to escape religious persecutions especially from England; then there were areas of Scotland where people who were under a lord working his property were displaced when sheep farming came in and was found to be more lucrative to the landowner. 

These displaced people, one would think would have some humility after being pushed out of their home lands and be thankful to share land that was not theirs to begin with in the Americas. It appeared initially Indians were accepting of these new invading groups of people crossing the oceans, even teaching them how to cope with plantings, gathering crops, weather protection.  The Europeans in their pompous ways felt so pleased they in turn felt they should aid the Indians in becoming good Christians.  The Europeans always thinking theirs was the better way. 

The misunderstanding of these two cultures; the Europeans not comprehending the differences in social, political structure used their standpoint to consider all they were viewing, and very few tried to see the other sides viewpoint.  Christianity was imposed upon the Indians, and the Indian ways were looked down upon...... with the few exceptions if their way was useful to the white man---like the growing of crops in the new climate,

The fact that the white men were slow learners in a number of instances i.e. riding to a waring group of horse mounted Indians, then dismounting to fight, time and time again (this was the army's way of war and it was not mandated otherwise)

I am reminded of hearing a speech being translated for an Arabian and an American, and its translation word for word did not do justice to the meaning behind words and paragraphs....the understandings of intent of words was not getting thru

Rory Stewart -author of---"The Prince of the Marshes"
                                      "The Places in Between"
a Scottish man spent time travelling in Afghanistan thru rural areas and the reader was shown total different mindsets of people
so when leaders would meet the words would flow, but the understanding was poor due to cultural ways

so it was with the Indian and the white man--but the whiteman did not appear to try to comprehend from where the Indian's point of view was coming from//nor did he seem to care

Deb

[Babi]

ELLA, in a nutshell, white men came west because they were hungry
for land of their own. They thought they could settle on the plains
mostly because they were totally ignorant about them. The only
places on the plains at all suitable for farming were right on the
rivers, hopefully with a few sturdy trees for windbreaks. And of
course, the Indians would be routinely traveling along those same
rivers. Trying to settle on the plains was a really, really bad idea.

 ANNIE, I am seeing much about the Comanches and their knack with
horses that reminds me they came to North American overland from
the steppes of Russia. I can't help thinking that these are the
descendents of the horsemen who were the terror of Europe. Maybe
this knowledge was in their genes.
  CAROLYN, nobody would even try to deny that atrocities were
committed by the whites against the Indians. (Or, I should say,
the Native Americans.) I am just having to adjust the picture that
I was presented with growing up, that the Indians were innocent
peoples defending themselves. Obviously, there were differences
between them and some were extremely aggressive and bloody-minded.
 CALLIE,  it is remarkable to me that while I had heard of Cynthia Ann Parker, whose claim to fame is that her half-Indian son became an important Comanche war chief,  I had never heard of  Rachel Parker Plummer,  whose story is so much more remarkable. 
    It is not clear to me how Rachel Plummer kept the detailed information she gathered, such as “details of the flora, fauna, and geography  that she saw”.  Such information must have been of great value to those newly come to the land, but did she keep all that information stored in her memory?  I can’t imagine she had the materials or the time to keep a daily journal.  To remain so alert and observant, in the harsh  circumstances of her slavery among the Comanche, is most remarkable. I would like to read her book.

[ALF43]

Good question Babi- It makes one wonder if maybe Rachael wrote it in the wind. At the time of her abduction, I'm sure the diaries were destroyed along with the cabin.

[JoanP]

"Indigenous peoples are those who settled the land before being colonised."  Carolyn
My question concerns ONLY the Comanches right now...calling then "indigenous" when they seem to simply be vicious marauders of the Plains which had been previously settled by other Indian tribes.  I don't see them "settling"  the land at all.  Do they have legitimate claim to this land? -

  I guess am looking at them through the cultural lens of the white man, Deb.  The Comanches had successfully driven out other inhabitants of this land...and in their eyes it was now theirs. The white man was trying to take it from them by settling in their territory.  They had no choice but to protect their hard-won territory...in the only way they knew how.

So why is the white man here? Annie quotes Mary Maverick's memoir: "They were drawn to the
west by the wildness and danger and daring of the frontier life."  Maybe they were, but can you understand bringing wives and children out to face this danger?
Hadn't they heard of the rape, the kidnappings?  Maybe not.

Babi, I'm interested in Rachel Plumnmer's diary too.  I followed a footnote in Chapter 2 to the back of the book.  In Chapter 2, note #13, there is reference to  two of her memoires:
Rachel Plummer's Narrative of Twenty-one Months Servitude as a Prisoner among the Comanche Indians  and Narrative of the Capture  and Subsequent Sufferings of  Mrs. Rachel Plummer.  Don't you think she kept all of these observations in her head during her 20 month captivity and then wrote them down after her return?  I find it hard to believe she'd have had  the time and materials to write these memoirs while in captivity.

I made a note about the  Parker family's reason for coming to Texas in 1833.  "In exchange for promising allegiance to Mexico  (Texas a part of Mexico)  the heads of the Parker families were  each given 4300 acres near Mexia in centeral Texas.  No taxes.  Magnificent land - fertile near Navasota River."
Does this answer your question about what drew people to the West, Ella?

[ANNIE]

About the fascination of the people who moved to the Texas frontier,  I am also reading another book on this topic of captured children in Texas,  and the author quotes another historian, T.R. Frerenbach who said, "The type of white person drawn to the frontier, either as a settler or an Indian fighter, was one whose life was given to ceaseless action, rarely reflection or philosophy....only a handful of the thousands of Texans who battled Indians on the frontier ever bothered to write down their observations."[/b]

[CallieOK]

Quotes:

Page 79:  "(Colonel John Moore) was blessed with the same character trait that made pioneers want to settle the wildest and most hostile regions of the country, where their families were likely to be raped and disemboweled: heedless, unwarranted optimism."   (Apparently, Gwynne's opinion)

Page 85:  quoting a report from TX Ranger Noah Smithwick about Comanche spokesman Spirit Talker:  "If the white men would draw a line defining their claims and keep on their side of it the red men would not molest them."

One of the discussion questions asked how Texas Republic president Mirabeau Lamar's Indian policy differed from that of his predecessor, Sam Houston.
Pages 73 ff (and particularly, page 74) address this.  Houston took a conciliatory approach toward the Indians.  Lamar "...believed that Indians should be either expunged from Texas or killed outright." (Page 75)