early slavery in New England

[bobbieinok]

From Wikipedia article on the Pequot War in 1600s in Connecticut:

"Other Pequot were enslaved and shipped to Bermuda or the West Indies, or were forced to become household servants in English households in Connecticut and Massachusetts Bay.<15> Colonists appropriated Pequot lands under claims of a "just war". They essentially declared the Pequot extinct by prohibiting speaking the name of the people. The few Pequot who managed to evade death or slavery later recovered from captivity by the Mohegan and were assigned reservations in Connecticut Colony."

More information we don't learn in our history classes.

Americans (and/or Christians) sure have a lot of nerve chastising other lands (and/or religions) for the practice of slavery.

Bobbie in OK

And.....when Oklahoma became a state in 1907, one of the very earliest laws passed was a Jim Crow law. When OK GOP campaigns on "Oklahoma values." they speak more accurately than most, if not all, of them realize.

[The Straight Story]

1. Indians enslaved each others, Africans did, Europeans, Romans, Chinese

etc and so on. So I guess by your logic no one has the right to complain about it?

[pnwmom]

3. And as long as someone did something 400 years ago,

or 1000 years ago, then no one now can be criticized for it.

[hfojvt]

4. hush now, are you trying to ruin a holiday tradition?

Even though Labor day is not a patriotic holiday as such, it still may be inspiring some to create an "America is the worst country in the world" thread to celebrate it. Happy labor day!! America sucks!!! :party:

[marmar]

10. Jeezus.....So a discussion of history is an "America is the Worst Country in the World" thread?

That's a Free Republic level of anti-rational, anti-intellectual garbage.

[bobbolink]

20. !

:applause:

It really is past time for us to take a good, long look at ourselves. :(

[H2O Man]

5. Who did the

Indians in the northeast enslave? Source, please.

[The Straight Story]

7. Here you go:

http://www.dinsdoc.com/lauber-1-1.htm

Similar practices are related of the southern Indians. The Virginia tribes possessed “people of a rank inferior to the commons, a sort of servants . . . called black boys, attendant upon the gentry.”1 When Menendez founded St. Augustine in 1565, he discovered in a native village the descendants of a band of Cuban Indians who had come to the mainland, been taken prisoners by the Florida Indians, and reduced to slavery.2

In the south the strongest tribes were the Choctaw and Chickasaw. These two tribes were not only at war with each other from time to time, but each preyed upon the weaker tribes of the surrounding country. In 1717, a Cadodaquiou chief informed La Harpe, on his journey to the Nassoni northwest from Natchitoches, that the Chickasaw had killed and enslaved their nation until it was then very small, and that the remnant had been forced to take refuge among the Natchitoch and Nassoni.3

The Choctaw enslaved the Choccuma, a small tribe lying between them and the Cherokee,4 and about 1770 captured and burned their village. The chief and his warriors were slain, and the women and children became the slaves of the conquerors.5 The Pima of the present southern Arizona took their slaves chiefly from the ranks of the Apache and their allies, and in some degree from the Yuma.

Much more at link. Also some of the Indians in PA, when they defeated other tribes, would make the men from that tribe dress as women and enslave them.

(Will take a few for that cite, was from a progressive view of the history of America in, C 1935, which I used to own)

[H2O Man]

11. You should read

the link closer. It notes the use of the word "slave" was the European interpretation of prisoners taken in battle.

Prisons of battles are distinct from "slaves." Let's consider, for fun, the example that you use of the Pennsylvania Indians. Those that you are making reference to are, of course, the Susquehannocks. There was a brief period in the colonial times when the Haudenosaunee did defeat them in a violent series of battles, and then put them in a position that Euro-Americans called "women." That included in a few instances having them wear women's clothing.

However, it did not include "slavery." As you should know, before making statements about this situation, the Susquehannocks were/are the southern branch of the Onondaga. In pre-colonial times, they had identical cultural attributes. The only cultural artifact that can be used to identify specific settlements is a pottery type -- though there are frequent overlaps. Also, the Susquehannocks had a period where they buried their dead in a sitting position. (The White Site, near Norwich, NY, is a good example; it is the largest known Hunter's Home settlement, and has both "early" Iroquoian cultural remains, plus the grave of at least one Susquehannock sachem.)

At approximately 900 ad, there was a division in the larger Onondaga group (not uncommon, as this is the era when the Cayuga and Oneida also began as distinct tribes). The separation, in this instance, had to do with the acceptance of the teachings of a Susquehannock man, who was born on Three Mile Island.

The conflicts between tribes/nations in the northeast can be easily documented as taking place in specific time periods, as the result of tensions relating to trade with outside powers (those in the Ohio River Valley, then the proto-Mississippi cultures, then the Europeans). The Susquehannocks were viewed as the most capable warriors in that area; hence, they were able to secure the best weapons from the Europeans. This included at least one cannon, unheard of among other woodland people at that time. The Susquehannocks fought with the Lenape primarily. When tensions increased over beaver etc in common territory, the battles with the Haudenosaunee began. And they were indeed brutal.

However, "prisoner" should not be confused with "slave." We should not allow our thinking to be handcuffed by old interpretations. The wearing of women's clothing was tempoirary -- it was symbolic of their status in the process of adoption into Onondaga and Oneida. They were allowed to have a voice during internal debate, but -- and you should be familiar with William Penn's writings before attempting to express any opinion about this topic -- they could not sit in council with the chiefs in dealings with others.

Once adoption was complete, of course, they had the exact and full rights enjoyed by any and every other member of the Haudenosaunee.

The women's clothing often surprises people. Again, we view things from our cultural vantage point. However, if we consider Mohawk leader Joseph Brant's warriors, when confronting the Johnson family at Old Unadilla at the beginning of the infamous border wars of the Revolutionary War, we see that even Mohawk warriors were prone to wearing women's "bloomers."

Real slavery was not unknown in the Americas, of course. But it was practiced in Meso-America, and a very few other regions for short durations.

[The Straight Story]

12. So it comes down to semantics in some ways

But admittedly not in others. Slavery is a broad term, as is prisoner.

My overall point being that I don't find any culture of being innocent enough to tell another that they have no 'right' (in a position wise sense) to complain about X because at one time in their history they engaged in X.

Aside from all that, and the basis of the thread, I appreciate the insight into the period. I collect old works on everything from religion (from various groups and sects) to the myths and legends of peoples (currently I only own ebooks as all my books were destroyed many years ago).

The problem, when it comes to American Indians (and other groups to be sure) is that written records were not the main form of communication between generations - and so we come up with several problems:

1. Those who did write, and conquered/won, wrote the history (I just got done reading "With The Sioux" a tale of Missionaries and their interactions with the Sioux of Minnesota - You can find it on Manybooks.net - and despite some biases it is a really good, and short, read).

2. The oral traditions of people tend to favor their own tribes/people.

3. And an outside view of a group is often hard to judge in our times as the times during which people acted were different and the morals and values we hold today are also much different. Then too we have the 'survival' aspect to look at (We would not do X, but we would if Y was a factor, but then Z looks at it many years later and says that what X did was wrong, even though it ensured their survival at the time).

Were Indians brutal? Did they follow religious ways that today we as a society would shun? Probably - but does that make them 'bad'? Were there some who were models of how we think people should be today? Probably - and some might say folks like the Amish are also that way in many aspects.

Tis no matter though the past in all of this to some extent. Slavery was wrong, we abolished it here, and we grew and progressed. Such is the story of the human race. Some have evolved, others have not. And no matter what those of my faith/race have done in the past it has not bearing on me and what I feel about issues today.

[H2O Man]

15. I think the term

"indentured servant" is relatively close to "slave," though the issue of time is different. In one case, it can be measured in years, in the other, generations.

In the context of "prisoner" -- in the northeastern woodlands -- it was a short period, per say. Brant's letters to Johnson, for example, show that prisoners in the war had two immediate options: first, to be adopted into a Haudenosaunee clan; or, second, to be held prisoner, to be exchanged for prisoners held by the Patriots.

There are some records from the early 1800s that say that the Haudenosaunee's prisoners were not fed properly. This is true, but it is important to note the Haudenosaunee were on the same diet -- the Clinton-Sullivan campaigns wiped out food supplies. More, as Nash documents in "Red, White & Black: The Early Peoples of North America" (still the most respected source), most Euro-Americans taken captive by Indians in the northeast choose to stay, when offered a chance to return to white society.

The clans of the Susquehanna, by the way, were the same as three of the Onondaga (and hence Oneida). Thus, when the Susquehanna were "captured," other than the warriors who resisted, the adoption process was immediate. The communities between Philly and Binghamton (roughly) remained Susquehannock by tradition, but under the protection of the Confederacy.

Onondaga Chief Paul Waterman's father's family was from the Wyoming County, PA, region of the Susquehannocks, the same as my mother's mother's family. I strongly recommend the book "Water Man," by my sons (it'll be in print by the end of this year). It has the best information combining the archaeological record, colonial/pioneer histories, and oral traditions on the Haudenosaunee and other Indians in the northeast.

[The Straight Story]

16. Here is the interesting point in it all though

Your references, and mine, for the most part rely on a written word that did not exist for the American Indians.

What about times prior to the white man? What do we have to go on other than Oral traditions?

How much should we trust the oral traditions (which are just as biased as the written ones of the white man) to tell the 'whole' truth?

[H2O Man]

17. Brant wrote extensively.

There are numerous good sources from that era.

[The Straight Story]

18. And who was Brant? An Indian? (nt)

[H2O Man]

23. Joseph Brant

was a Mohawk leader. There are numerous good books on his life, including a number which contain some of his writings. (I have about 500 artifacts from one of his camps, and a few from other sites his forces occupied during the war. Some of my relatives were close associates of Brant, including Indian and colonists.)

In woodland cultures, the violence associated with trade conflicts threatened local populations in terms of the gene pool. Communities adopted, in order to replentish that pool. It's a far more common practice than "slavery," which is a dynamic of larger, more densely populated agricultural societies with a metal industry. Horticultural societies do not have that need, though they often have the need for that larger gene pool.

[The Straight Story]

25. First off, thank you for a civil discourse

I really appreciate that, especially when it is with people I have known for some time here :)

Still, though, I am mystified on some levels. Whose writings and oral traditions do we trust - and why?

I have no problems justifying the actions of peoples in the face of such things as wars/etc, they merely wanted to defend themselves and their ways of life - to be left alone (something I can personally relate to). I have been to many an Indian Pow-Wows out in the west and have been sympathetic to their plight at the hands to the Europeans who invaded their lands.

On the other side of that, in relation to the OP - I don't see the Indians here as any 'better' (for lack of a better term) than any other group during that time. I think that they were more wronged, if you will, and given the situations they faced they were totally screwed over time and again. But from a moral perspective - were they any better than any other group in the world at that time?

[proteus_lives]

27. A point.

"they merely wanted to defend themselves and their ways of life"

Not always. Many tribes eagerly joined with white settlers for social/economic and political advantage.

They traded for guns and then used those weapons to destroy their traditional enemies.

"But from a moral perspective - were they any better than any other group in the world at that time?"

No.

[H2O Man]

28. Sure.

And you as well.

Here's an interesting example: the Great Law of Peace of the Haudenosaunee is an oral tradition. It is viewed by conservative anthropologists as being from the early 1500s; by some as from the 900s; and by traditionals as originating around 450 ad. It takes a speaker three days in the Long House to recite it.

There are a few written editions of it. These are from various sources, in the past 125 years or so. They come from several locations. And these written editions are all almost exact.

In terms of our state government (and a couple others that Paul and I dealt with), when it comes to documenting a local site's significance, a few "sources" are important: the archaeological record; the written records; and oral histories. In fact, "oral history" is not limited to Indians in these instances; a local historian may well have learned about a site from "old folks" in the area, who passed on what they knew in conversation. The best history, in my opinion, is when there is overlap among these three sources.

In regard to morality: again in my opinion, culture produces individuals. As Fromm noted, there have been/are healthy societies, and unhealthy societies. In "Red, White, & Black," the author quotes numerous colonists who pointed out that as a culture, the Indian communities in the northeast were far more "Christian" than the Euro-American communities. These comments were based on factors such as sharing (including food, and with strangers)and treatment of those facing difficulties. Was Native society perfect? Of course not. It had its share of hoodlums and violence. But, in my opinion, it was more prone to producing healthy/moral individuals.

[bobbolink]

19. "But mom! All the other kids did it!"

Its time for us to grow up and recognize OUR sins!

[Confusious]

26. Yes, recognize ours sins, and make sure it doesn't happen again

But saying America is the worst even though everyone else was doing it is a fallacy.

You don't just punish one kid when the entire class is behaving badly.

[bobbolink]

30. The OP wasn't the ones making the comparisons... the detractors were the ones doing that.

You are doing some conflating here, and that doesn't help anything.

[Confusious]

31. Which am I conflating?

And I might be, though I'm really not sure DU is any help board, it's a discussion board.

See yahoo.answers.com for help.

[bobbolink]

32. You have gone so far off the rails, it isn't even worth dealing with.

Nobody mentioned help... I think you are trying to do too many things at once, and getting them all mushed together.

Maybe a shower would help?

[Confusious]

33. Haven't gone off the rails, not yet at least

You posted

But ma, all the other kids did it.

It's not an excuse, but on the other hand, to focus on America exculisivly as the evil slave nation is to minimize the sins of the rest of world in that evil.

And you stated I wasn't helping. I was giving you a place to get help. DU is a discussion board, not a help board.

The last sentence was ment to be humor, I hope at least.

[bobbolink]

35. When you are ready to have some compassion, and sound like an adult, let us know.

You sound like a middle-schooler, off on holiday.

[Confusious]

36. Really? Is being rude a part of the adult experience

I've tried to be nice through three post and you throw crap back in my face every time.

Does compassion mean I have to be as dower as you?

[defendandprotect]

22. NO ONE enslaved anyone on the scale or with the brutality of Western Europeans here ....

which was, btw, "licensed" by Papal Bulls which called both for the enslavement or death

of Native Americans and Africans --

The brutal and cruel treatment of the Native American here -- which resulted in genocide --

resembles more the new precedents of brutality, cruelty and torture which were invented by

the Vatican during the Crusades/Inquisition than brief periods of servitude practiced by some

nations where people were committed to something more like valet service.

Any notions of any enslavement of any peoples is a sickness we should stamp out.

And, keep in mind, we are still in that same gene pool --

[yellerpup]

37. +100

All true. :hi:

[Cal33]

29. "By your logic no one has the right to complain about it?"

I think no one has the right to complain about OTHERS doing it.

[pnwmom]

2. That was 400 years ago. We SHOULD be speaking out against

slavery, whether it occurs here -- and it still does, although not legally -- or anywhere else in the world.

Fortunately, we continue to advance in our understanding in civil rights. We're not stuck where we were 400 years ago or 100 years ago or even 50 years ago. And I'm betting that within the next ten years, we'll make another major step forward when we accord full civil rights to all people without regard to sexual orientation.

[Crystal Clarity]

6. I think everyone w/an intact ethical conscience should chastise slavery

{Americans (and/or Christians) sure have alot of nerve chastising other lands (and/or religions) for the practice of slavery}

I don't get the point of this OP and that sentence in particular. Is it (the OP) implying that if one comes from a culture or religion that at one time enslaved other human beings, they then cannot speak out against it?

If so, who CAN speak out against slavery since it is a practice with ancient origins found in every civilization.

From Wikipedia:

Slavery in ancient cultures was known to occur in civilizations as old as Sumer, and it was found in every civilization, including Ancient Egypt, the Akkadian Empire, Assyria, Ancient Greece,<4> Rome and parts of its empire. Such institutions were a mixture of debt-slavery, punishment for crime, the enslavement of prisoners of war, child abandonment, and the birth of slave children to slaves.<5> In the Roman Empire, probably over 25% of the empire's population,<6> and 30 to 40% of the population of Italy<7> was enslaved. Records of slavery in Ancient Greece go as far back as Mycenaean Greece. It is often said that the Greeks as well as philosophers such as Aristotle accepted the theory of natural slavery i.e. that some men are slaves by nature.<8>
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/History_of_slavery

[ProgressiveEconomist]

8. "essentially declared the Pequot extinct by prohibiting speaking the name of the people"

Now that's what I'd call "final solution" ethnic cleansing. And it's more American than apple pie!

[unhappycamper]

9. I just picked up this t-shirt at the VFP convention in Portland:

[The Straight Story]

13. What was their immigration policy - and did you note that they owned guns??

Damn those gun owners anyway :)

[bobbolink]

21. Policy = they let in any riff-raff.

[proteus_lives]

14. "Fighting Terrorism Since 1492"

Not a track record I'd be proud of.

[dimbear]

24. Although records are sketchy, it appears

Amerinds successfully repelled the first European invasions, made by the Norse. Push the date back to AD 1000 and the record looks better. Note that the Norse didn't have guns either, hence the better result for the Amerinds.

[frogmarch]

34. All of my Puritan ancestors who

settled in New England in the early 1600s owned black slaves. It makes me sick to know this, just as it did to learn that one of my distant great-grandfathers was a juror in the Salem court of oyer & terminor during the Salem witch trials. He and the other jurors later apologized for causing the death of innocent people. They claimed the devil made them do it. Assholes.

I've learned the names given some of my ancestors' slaves, but not all of them. I would like to find their descendants.