I think the reason she killed like she did is really very simple. She saw her baby brained and killed against a tree. As far as she knew her husband and the rest of her children were dead also. And there was no guarantee as to her final fate. She saw a chance to escape and exact some revenge and she took it.. She killed because she wanted the Abenaki to know that two could play at that kind of game. No one was safe, women and children included. The Abenaki had been raiding and killing that way for yrs and her mind this was just a little bit of payback.
Yup, people love to view a lot of the native tribes as defending their land and noble savages when in fact they were just savages. Not just killing their enemy but torturing them, stealing women for sex slavery and children to brainwash in warriors. They got a little taste of their own medicine and all of a sudden it’s the white man’s fault.
I am Native American and knowing the horrific depravity that these tribes have committed is just terrible,I can see why there were such hostility and prejudice between the tribes and races. So much bloodshed and hatred in this world. May God be with us.
A "Native" posting about how horrible Native people are? Yeah right Karen. Just write war is horrible. You'd be more believable just like the author at the end of the video when comparing Hannah's actions to Nat Turner's (horrible analogy but it makes some sense).
@@fp8901 What exactly do you think he should conclude? That they were all angels? I'm Irish, our ancestors went through a similar subjugation, but during that subjugation and before it we weren't peace loving hippies who never killed anyone unjustly. The world doesn't work that way.
There is no way to apply modern sensibilities to the actions of someone 326 years ago. We grew up with central AC/heat, running water and the ability to call police & emergency medical services. She could reasonably assume that she must leave zero survivors in order to protect her escape. It's also reasonable to assume that she needed those scalps for the verification of her story. Not to mention the timeless human motivator of revenge. If she watched someone bash her baby's brains out, she would be reasonable to spend the rest of her life killing for the sake of revenge. We all still have those basic instincts, we are just less likely to have those instincts drawn to the surface because of modern comfort & the utter comparative absence of violence that we enjoy in the modern era. In those times, the accomplishment of all things was based on violence & the threat thereof. Today the threat of violence is more abstract, but it is still the ultimate motivator of order.
Exactly. There is a word that describes what you are saying, Presentism. Looking at the past through todays morals/ethic/ideals lens. 1600's no such things as "Individual Rights" as known like today. No such thing as "self determination", the notion people or even a country has a "right" to decide how to live. No such sciences like Anthropology or Archeology or Sociology or any comparative study of people or cultures. The common person was lucky to even be able to read and write something the Native American hadn't even developed, Natives didn't even have a written history to look back on, only "oral traditions" and seeing Spirits in everything. 1600's is completely alien to anyone today as is how someone living in the 1600's can't grasp life today. Judging the past through todays lens is stupid and ignorant.
Well they did kill new born baby's in front off her on the Journey. I can imagine the anger and hate that would have stirred up. They did what i and most people would have done.
*"There is no way to apply modern sensibilities to the actions of someone 326 years ago."* *"Not to mention the timeless human motivator of revenge."* LOL
"Et tu, Brutus?" Written at length a munch longer time after the death of Julius Caesar. That first part makes sense, but the concept of violence being an ultimate motivator of order is a bit shallow for any time period. Survival, wealth, and expression would be a better starting point to judge any time's sense order, at least to start with; each of these things can lead to prosperity and violence, and many times, simultaneously.
Bro. You're vids have a perfect mix of old-history teacher vibes writing notes via overhead projector + a cousin dropping weird amounts of knowledge at a family event. Love the pseduo-low tech setup (but def prefer your new greenscreen) and the dry-ish delivery. No corny click-tactics or over emoting and feels like your just talking to me or small class...so refreshing. Hit me with facts laid out with some good visuals and in a relatable tone for normal dorks that wanna learn. Keep it up D&DG 👍
Good ....then when your newborn ends up a steaming gutpile in a snowbank , I'll wonder what you shrieking about and not get involved . You are a useless human being .
It's neither neutral, nor unbiased. He deliberately skims over European atrocities in his Apache videos and specifically chooses anecdotes of violent events.
@@nichoudhahe doesnt skim over anything. He talks about apaches when they’re the subject, whites when they are. He did a whole video on the cruelty of the spaniards in relation to their war hounds. The “anecdotes” are examples, records of dealings with the apache. They were a raiding society, violence wasn’t anecdotal. People like you dont want balance, you want to villify whites
His "research" is a bunch of anecdotes of specifically violent events. Does he cover the Great Law of Peace? the Great Law of Peace under the haudenosaunee was a thing; they also were what inspired the women's rights movement since 60% of all captured White women ran back to Native American territories because Native men did not rape and provided better rights to women.
But he did a great job of laying that all out in fact. And not demonizing either party. The fact is that the past was incredibly brutal and we are so far separated by that brutality in the west that we too often look down on those actions through a purely 21th century lens without the clearly of context to inner thinking of those of their time.
Wow! As a Brit, the European settling in and expansion of the Americas fascinates. There are so many stories to tell - and so many lessons to be learned - that I'm often surprised we, and especially today's Americans, don't know more. I only wish such tales could be told more like you do, Sir: unbiased, honest, contextual and accepting of human nature. We only learn from the past if we can see ourselves in it. All today's focus on identity, and which tribe was the most 'moral' or had the most right, is infantile.
I've been having a bit of a binge on your channel, and I have to say it's great content and well narrated. Keep up the good work. I am looking forward to more of your content.
I wonder if a modern day person could go back in time and survive those harsh living conditions, or do you have to be born in historic harsh times to survive them.
Born and lived in Haverhill, MA. for 69 years, I had a 1 month class in the history of Haverhill (pronounced Hayvrill) in the late 1960s.We were taught that Hannah kinda lost it when she thought her entire family had been killed and was bent on vengeance. According to a tale from the boy from Worcester, they were 50 to 100 feet from the island in the Merrimack when Hannah turned the canoe back to the island to collect the scalps of those they had killed. They then went back south on the river at night only and found sanctuary with a farmer from Nashua ,New Hampshire.This man would not leave his family alone with French and Abenakis in the area but did give supplies and advice on how to get back to Haverhill MA. We were told that after several days the 3 escapees landed where her and the nanny were initially put in canoes for their journey to Canada. I believe the young boy, who had been a prisoner for much longer was returned to his surviving relatives in Worcester. The Buttonwoods museum in Haverhill has much info on this as well as some artifacts from Hannah.
They absolutely did that. There are lots of schools of thought on this. The most compelling to me seems to be a blend of cultural misunderstandings on what it meant to hold land mixed with a lack of people who could both speak Indian languages are write.
True history isn't about judging, but understanding, and this channel does that spectacularly with respect for the perspectives and conditions of each party involved. Keep it up mate.
My boyfriend is a direct descendant of Hanah Dustin and I can tell you with absolute certainty they brutally killed her baby right in front of her screaming and pleading. I don't blame this woman for snapping and doing what she did. I don't excuse her but totally understand it as I'm a mother myself, watching what they did and thinking the rest were dead too, she most likely went insane with hatred and had nothing to lose at that point.
I have admired your work for several months now. After listening to the conclusion of this video, your explanation on why she acted the way that she did, I admire you even more. Thank you for the great work.
Welcome to life on the New England frontier. Plenty of shame and blame and self justification for vile acts to go around for everybody. She did a good job, man, I'm proud of her , she won playing by their own rules. And you try canoeing that river in March, pal, it's a boiling rushing ice cold hell...
A proud fervent Canadian Loyalist I had reason to look deeply into the roots all my 'American' ancestors, the Moores/Mooers/Moore and the Man/Mann families (fantastic Loyalists, only a foot note to the famous of the day) who arrived in Boston successivly in 1638 & 1652. A branch of the family, the 'Dawsons', were victims of the French led Abananki attack on Oyster river in 1696(?) - old memory fails me for the moment) and they suffered again in a 2nd attack ca 1706. Survivors went on to immigrate to Canada (lumber trade), founding Dawsonville in NB, in the 1830s. Stars of their generation, Dawsonville is now reduced to reclaimed forest and a few dispersed 'rough' homes, best known for a large grave yard and an abandoned church of those long gone and on the cusp of being completely forgotten. Such is history. It is either erased by 'politics' or else surely erased by 'time' and the 'pull of gravity''' of old memory killed by pure 'apathy', on the well travelled road to complete ignorance.
In support of Hannah's vicious reprisal... if someone kills one of my children, they had better tell everyone that's ever spoken a kind word to them to move far, far away because they would all be important targets in my mind. Good for you, Hannah.
Drawing the parallel to Nat Turner is an interesting one to help put things in perspective. The lack of details surrounding the father and his escape with the children is interesting for me, maybe it's just because he wasn't the intended hero of the story by the people that recorded it but it's interesting. Makes me wonder how rough life was for these people or their forefather's in Europe that roughing it in a place with constant raids was more appealing.
There actually isn’t a ton to know on the father. The story is told in a handful of places but it is very short. Cotton Mather’s version is three pages. The history of Haverhill’s version is maybe 8 or so. They focus on Hannah’s story and Thomas is definitely let go of after he reaches the block house with the kids. If you were a religious dissident or in the lower classes things were pretty rough in 1600s Europe. The aristocracy held all the land during a time where that is how the majority of people made their living. Outlooks for people were often very limited. Plymouth was originally settled around 1620. By 1630, 20k immigrants had come. That’s a good sign people were desperate.
about europe: around this time the "30 years war" between katholics and protestants did happen, farmers have been "owned" by royals, the osmans attacked europe to islamice them , ... - so the hope of getting a peaceful live where you can feed a family by your own work outside of europe was big....
Warfare has always been brutal. I'm sure the Abenaki would have done the same thing to Mohawk captives and vice versa. It just turned out that Hannah and her two compatriots, one fourteen years old, were underestimated and used the advantage to retaliate in kind.
the Great Law of Peace under the haudenosaunee was a thing; they also were what inspired the women's rights movement since 60% of all captured White women ran back to Native American territories because Native men did not rape and provided better rights to women.
@@nichoudhathere are multiple records of natives r*ping white women you despicable liar. I know of one where the comanches cut her breasts off after and left her to die
Way to call human beings devils and savages for a few alleged killings (that likely didn't even happen, like with the baby), as though your own people didn't come here stealing land and immediately murdering 90-95% of the Indigenous people on Turtle Island. Sounds about white 🤮
Stuff like that is so neat. I’m always curious what families can hold on to through generations that isn’t known to the public. Is there any part of the story that you are aware of that didn’t make it into the books?
As for the description by some of the murder of the baby and others on the march as "a mercy killings", I don't remember anyone referring to the murder of allied POWs by the Japaneses and Germans on similar marches as "mercy killings".
I agree fully with steve wixsom's assessment below. The Abenaki were merciless savages. They had killed her baby. Only a mother could understand such pain. Good for her!
I think you are right neither to justify nor condemn the actions of the various parties involved. Life is, at times, unforgiving -- and any of us can be faced with brutal choices. It is not for the rest of us as armchair or keyboard warriors to try and justify or condemn, but to explain and try to understand. Thankyou for doing exactly this in the video; it's a fine line and I think you trod it well.
So, how much was 25 pounds in the day? A month's wages or six or twelve? It would give an indication of how much threat the colonists felt from the natives.
I have always had trouble with getting a handle on true value of money in the past and have found it helpful think about what I could buy with it. I found sources that suggested a musket would cost you at the time between 10-30 pounds. Its a wide range that makes me uncomfortable but gives some sense of value. A found another source that said there is a journal of an unskilled laborer that was able to save 25 pounds in a year. My best guess is that it is in the range of a few months salary for most skilled laborers but I’m not confident.
I feel no need to try to justify her's or the Indian's actions. Unfortunately, that is "just the way it was" at the period of time. We can't apply today's standards to the standards of that time.
Bingo. Applying modern standards to historrical situations never ends well. Of particular note is arguments about who was enslaving who 400-500 years ago. The thing is that until the early 1800's the concept that slavery itself might be wrong just did not exist, Well not by enough people to affect any thing. Slave taking and keeping has been a standard state of affairs throughout history. Edited to add. We should consider ourselves fortunate to liive in such a time that even if we find ourselves in a the middle of a brutal war the question "Should I kill these 6 children with a hatchet?" Is unlikely to ever need to be asked.
One of the biggest problems facing our country today is that people cannot understand that society was totally different 300 or 400 years ago, and we cannot apply today’s standards to how they lived their lives back then.
A lot of times tribes would also sell them they may not have had any legitimate claim to. Additionally there was a factor I should have addressed in the video. Very very few people could speak the native languages, speak english, and read. It naturally caused a lot of confusion and mistakes in regard to agreements.
Love the vid and the channel, love hearing stories n history of my people. Times were crazy back then. Im Mi’kmaq from Nova Scotia, we were part of the wabanaki confederacy, which the abenaki was also a part of. My family on my dads side are all from boston
This guy reminds me of watching the old western movies with my grandfather as a young boy. I asked him, "who's the good guys and who's bad?" He said there is no good guys and bad guys, there's just 2 sides that don't get along. Maybe people today could use that lesson.
I doubt that....seems the whole cluster to fame is lack security. No Guards, and what do you expect 🤔. If she was as bold with no fear ,she wouldn't be in thus situation or as show her captures were stupid....
I have had a comment or two where people said they were decedents. It is crazy how we are not that far removed. You are not the first one to bring up my poor pronunciation. And my wife is actually from Massachusetts and told me how it was correctly pronounced before I made the video. I didn’t believe her. As per usual, I should have listened.
There were thousands of black slave owner of black slaves. The national census of 1830 in the US lists over 3000 black slave owners. Many of these slave owners had 100-150 slaves; just as many as the richest white slave owners owned.
Wait a second , you can't defend what this woman did and then say that it wasn't right . If she had no choice , and clearly she didn't , then she was right . One can't be on the fence about this just to please everyone
@@stevewixom9311 I would say that our narrator was very non-PC. The PC brigade like simple answers and rushed moral judgements, but the narrator didn't do that.
A direct ancestor of mine experienced the same thing. Major Simond Willard's son was a settler with three children and a wife. The wife and three children were abducted by the Indian, who also killed the husband. The baby kept crying while they were being transported to Canada, so the Indian repeatedly pounded him on a tree until he passed away. They were saved by Major Simon Willard. This incident took place close to New Hampshire. You can find the story in the Willard Memoir.
I grew up in Longmeadow MA, just outside of Springfield. At the end of town, was a memorial park called King Philip's Stockade, commemorating a battle that took place there. It was said that you could still find arrowheads from time to time in that area.
Interesting that I found this video today. I live in this area of New Hampshire and just happened to ride by that site today and looked over at the statue of Hannah Dustin.
I hadn’t considered stealth as a possible reason but that would make sense. The first day of travel for Haverhill, they went 12 miles. They went that far specifically so that they would be able to get some distance between them and the settlement. If they feared being pursued that may have been reason enough to kill the child.
@datesanddeadguys It was survival of the fittest in the art of war...I'm not saying that what any of them did was right or wrong but I'm sure that's how they thought of it
False flag mission of whites killing white to create hate under the belief that indians were behind the killing. Killing a baby for no reason other than to hide Idk seems like he dies to harsh condition’s especially if Hannah barely had clothes on. But best to believe the embellished story against the dead 🤷🏻
I have lived in Haverhill (pronounced Hayvrill) my whole life and I drive by Hannah’s Statue all the time and you are telling me she is missing a shoe!!! wow!
My 11th Great Grandmother. What happened to her sister Elizabeth Webster was just as brutal as Hannah. She was hanged for infanticide, after she had given birth (without her parents knowledge) at the foot of their bed!
She is my 9th times great grandmother, I remember my great grandmother, my grandmother and others in the family still talked about Hannah and others who were killed by Indians, they had several other family members killed by Indians. So she did what she had to do to get back to the rest of her family and anyone to judge her doesn't know what they would do in that situation, especially after watching them smashing her baby head against a tree. It was a different time and a very different way of life.
This story is too complex for me to judge as all I heard of was vague references to her, in comparison to the Joseph Kellogg story which happened in the same year. From memory, I'll try to relate my family's story. While Joseph Kellogg was away, his farm was attacked, his wife and infant child killed and four older children were abducted and taken to Canada. The infant was killed because a baby's cries would give the band away. The press gave a minister's family all the press when they were ransomed, the name was Williams. The Kellogg's got little but as most settlers kept journals, the story survived. The oldest boy tried escaping but was recaptured. They cut off his big toes so he would try escaping again. He and his brother were worked as slaves. The girls were forced to marry into the tribe. The oldest boy escaped again despite his handicap and made it back home somehow. For years he hated the Indians but at the end of the war, his siblings were ransomed. The younger brother stayed with his family but the two girls, now women and mothers wanted to return to the tribe. The life of an Indian women and Colonial women were just equally as harsh according to my source. The oldest son who escaped upon finding out his sisters were treated well, changed his mind about the 'savages' and opened up a missionary school to convert the local tribes to Christianity. Sorry, I don't recall the name of the oldest son. I thought the change of his attitude more interesting, while the Williams story tended to praise the superiority of Christian Western culture. An interesting coincidence happened. I went to a small LDS family history center in Oakley, Calif. and met a woman whose family line was from one of those two sisters who went back to the tribe in Canada. I was also able to fill in gaps from some of her lines from Arizona. The Kellogg family name is interesting. Four Kellogg brothers came to the colonies, each were known for their size. There are eight generations of Kelloggs in my line. Joseph Kellogg had nine children by his first wife killed by the Indians and nine more by his second, 18 in all. The survival rate of the White children were much greater than those born to the Indian tribes. Smallpox killed more Native Americans than wars.
you tell a great story. Good stuff. We don't hear enough about the early conflicts with Amerindians and settlers in this kind of detail. Even though it is well documented.
Man has been doing this to each other throughout time, if you look a little further back, the mound culture had pushed those Natives out of the Ohio Vally all the way north east in a cannibalistic fashion ( as I surmise they were originally from the Central American Origins), a good example can be found in the Oklahoma University Press titled, 'LaSalle, Discovery of the Mississippi' ( An Iroquois Wolfpack decimated an Illini Village on the west side of the river where LaSalle had started a fort/outpost) Because the Mound Culture was cannibalistic, their enemies would retaliate in kind, to the shock of whites, killing your enemy and then eating his liver was commonplace.
Had ancestor killed in 1676 during king Philips war. Capt Thomas Lathrop.He and 84 men were wiped out ( 200 yrs before Custer) evacuating towns harvests after many towns massacred
"No matter what your legends say, you didn't sprout from the plains like the spring grasses. And you didn't coalesce out of the ether. You came out of the Minnesota woodlands armed to the teeth and set upon your fellow man. You massacred the Kiowa, the Omaha, the Ponca, the Oto and the Pawnee without mercy. And yet you claim the Black Hills as a private preserve bequeathed to you by the Great Spirit." "Chief Sitting Bull, the proposition that you were a peaceable people before the appearance of the white man is the most fanciful legend of all. You were killing each other for hundreds of moons before the first white stepped foot on this continent. You conquered those tribes, lusting for their game and their lands, JUST AS WE HAVE NOW CONQUERED YOU FOR NO LESS NOBLE A CAUSE." Best movie quote that sums up what we should think about land ownership and the natives.
@randallsanchez3161 that little speech is deflecting. The colonizers came here to get away from being oppressed. This has been going on since the beginning of time all over the world. There has always been tribal fighting everywhere. Alexander the Great set out to conquer the world. Mainly to gain territory and control. Colonizers did the same thing. Slavery has also been around since the dawn of time. This also was tribal. Again, Europeans who colonized Americas made it a major big business. The one thing European colonizers did was make tribes and races to unify and fight back. You can not condemn one tribe for what happened. Mostly, it boils down to greed, always wanting more.
14:59 - love your shit and I think we agree mostly but black white red or brown nobody has ever been oppressed by an infant. Also if you can't keep the baby why did you take it in the first place? As if you thought a rescue party wouldn't be by shortly. I can understand the actions taken by the wabanaki up to the taking of an infant. Same goes for Hannah, too
In terms of her scalping the Indians, just on a technical level I would think it's not something that she would need to be taught. Being a frontier wife, she would have vast experience skinning rabbits, squirrels and other small (and large game). So scalping an Indian would be no different than driving a car you had never driven before. Different, but still exactly the same.
If I was native i would have done what they’ve done, if I was her i would have done the same thing also! It was hard times and bad and good decisions were made to get us here today.
25 Pounds Sterling was a fortune in that day. I think that many of us today would have gone into the scalp business. Especially after living in constant fear of attack by these folks that you were going to scalp. Your attempts to understand & explain the mindset of those involved in the struggles of the late 17th Century frontier are laudable. Most modern Americans have been so indoctrinated with wokeness that they cannot analyze things rationally. For example most young Americans seem to be of the opinion that early Americans invented slavery and that only Black folks have ever been enslaved. This ignorance is by design, btw. Critical Race Theory (along with several other Critical Theories) was developed in order to bring down The bonds of Western Civilization, especially America. This anticipated demise sets the stage for the Marxist takeover. The theories were developed by the Frankfurt School Marxists who were given refuge from Hitler in America. They eventually gained control of Columbia’s School of Education. From there the cancer spread to colleges & universities across the US. It’s now taken hold in primary & secondary education. And 80 years later we have ignorance & self loathing at all time highs. Thank you for your balanced discussions.
What seems incradible to me, and really speaks volumes of her charakter is that she would inquire about how to scalp. She not only wanted to know how she could escape (how to kill with a hatchet) but also how she could turn a profit. It seems she was extremely confident she could not only take all of them out, but also take their scalps to "sell" later on. It seems so strange to me that she would think that far ahead, like "of course I'm gonna get out of this, but how am I gonna get the reward for killing those indians?". The killing of the children doesn't strike me as strange at all. Predjudice and racism was common back then and she probably had a mindset of "those kids are going to grow up to be savages like their parents" which is hard to dispute. Of course it was very wrong, but also with that logic and lack of empathy very understandable.
"She not only wanted to know how she could escape (how to kill with a hatchet) but also how she could turn a profit." Yeah, which makes her equally psychopathic. And you admire that?
@@kraanzthe woman had just had her whole family and sustenance destroyed by them, and was bound to be a destitute widow: a very ugly situation. She had every rational reason to seek how to make a living from her captors who had just destroyed her whole world. In those days, scalps were simply a commodity.
If the Abenaki hadn’t murdered Hannah’s child and other babies then their own children would have been safe. Hannah was a prisoner and based on the Abenaki’s own deeds Hannah had no reason to think she would be safe…. In her mind the Indian children would grow up to be murderers just like the adults have shown them how to be… she prevented the losses of future lives by taking them out while they were small enough and weak enough that she could. Neither party is blameless, but the moral of the story is leave well enough alone, live, and let live, and know that your actions teach people how to treat you. The end.
I'm not sure of the value of including modem day apologists arguing that people who regularly murdered infants wouldn't have murdered an infant. Also I think the outcome in terms of killing everybody was just
I think the fact that she killed women and children of the tribe kinda gives validity to the claim that they butchered her infant. If she’s traumatized from that, then getting horrifically abused by not only her captors, but the women and children of her captors, she’s gonna be out for blood. It’s all horrible and completely unnecessary. There was more than enough land to go round and many ways to make it fair
I had never heard of that story as our history books in French Catholic schools were quite different. I know of a family in the province of Québec whose ancestor was a young boy taken from an English settlement by the Abenaki and traded to the Mohawks and adopted by them and brought to the French colony as an adult and later married a French Canadian woman and had a descendence in my country. They changed his name to make it sound French and most of his descendants don't even know about this story as it wasn't written in any history books. The English colonists would also send war parties against French settlements in those days as they were at war. That war was started in Europe and both sides would hire natives to do the ugly work and both would demonize the other side. As you may know, history is written by those who survived and they always have to find a way to justify their deeds so they can look as if they always acted in their own right. In those days it was customary for natives to adopt some of their captives to bring new blood as to avoid marriages in the same clan. Thank you for presenting the subject from an objective perspective. I is believed that some 60% of French Canadians have some Native ancestry as in Canada relations between natives and colonists were different and more inclusive for those who would accept baptism. It was customary though to hide it as not to be rejected by pure Europeans. I'm proud to be a mixed blood yet it means I don't belong to any family clan or tribe as since my grandmother died when I was 16 the family lost its center and ceased to gather together on holidays. Modern life pulls families apart and people are more alone than ever. Hopefully, these conflicts are things of the past yet I worry about all these wars abroad where Americans and Canadians have to participate because of past alliances through Nato and the UN. Their way to kill people nowadays is also very ugly and can hardly be justified. ⚜🍁♾♾🌲♾♾🪔
@@jayteegamble I doubt anyone can change the past, we can only work on the present time and hope for the future. My own bloodline includes Scot, Irish, French, Iroquois, Algonquin, and Italian, and I even had a Dutch great-uncle. And it seems all these disparate ancestors wedded lawfully in times of peace in northeastern Canada. Who needs to kidnap and rape is a villain. Honest people try to live in peace. My dad who was born in 1917 and died in April 2000 used to say that although technology and progress had changed a lot of things on Earth, humans were still the same as they were in his youth. And me being 70 years old can still say the same. 🪔
Oh please! Hannah Duston was a mother who saw her infant child's head slammed into a tree. The butchering of the other women captives were not mercy killings, but the depraved actions of men inconvenienced by the slowness and infirmities of those captives. PERIOD. Duston and her fellow captives acted out of desperation and rage, killing ALL the Abenaki so that NONE could alert tribe members. Even the Christian Indians were catholic, and held protestants in contempt and showed it. To the indigenous the English were just another tribe, and could just as easily been Huron or Pequot. Captive indigenous women might well have acted the same way as Duston.
I can appreciate the attempt to see it from a historical perspective but it seems awkward to compare Hannah and Nat Turner without acknowleding the very different way the stories were treated at the time. I dont think there are any statues of Nat Turner even now, although he's mentioned on one. If we are going to try to understand them, shouldnt we understand that Hannah knew her actions would be popular if she returned home, but for Nat, he was facing execution at the hands of his own country?
I don't blame her for taking out the kids. If they are capable of killing, which they were probably taught how to kill at a young age and were most likely witnesses to killing, they are also dangerous and a worthy threat to eliminate. It was her life or theirs as far as I'm concerned and being hurt by the murder of her newborn child with that hatred, I could understand why she would feel the desire to take their children in revenge or out of need for survival. All of this is sad and I'm greatful not to have to live in the past because I feel I would be unlcuky enough to either be a victim or do similar things or both.
I think the reason she killed like she did is really very simple. She saw her baby brained and killed against a tree. As far as she knew her husband and the rest of her children were dead also. And there was no guarantee as to her final fate. She saw a chance to escape and exact some revenge and she took it.. She killed because she wanted the Abenaki to know that two could play at that kind of game. No one was safe, women and children included. The Abenaki had been raiding and killing that way for yrs and her mind this was just a little bit of payback.
People with nothing to lose are very dangerous
Nonetheless, she scalped them to collect the reward... Quite a savage that woman. 🪔
🔥
Yup, people love to view a lot of the native tribes as defending their land and noble savages when in fact they were just savages. Not just killing their enemy but torturing them, stealing women for sex slavery and children to brainwash in warriors. They got a little taste of their own medicine and all of a sudden it’s the white man’s fault.
Exactly!
When you hurt someone’s kin or their child, you forfeit your humanity… Especially a woman’s kin
I am Native American and knowing the horrific depravity that these tribes have committed is just terrible,I can see why there were such hostility and prejudice between the tribes and races. So much bloodshed and hatred in this world. May God be with us.
You have a cool name
A "Native" posting about how horrible Native people are? Yeah right Karen. Just write war is horrible. You'd be more believable just like the author at the end of the video when comparing Hannah's actions to Nat Turner's (horrible analogy but it makes some sense).
God bless you!
@@fp8901 What exactly do you think he should conclude? That they were all angels?
I'm Irish, our ancestors went through a similar subjugation, but during that subjugation and before it we weren't peace loving hippies who never killed anyone unjustly. The world doesn't work that way.
@@peterhoulihan9766 I am part Irish to. Saint Kevin and the blackbird was my inspiration.
There is no way to apply modern sensibilities to the actions of someone 326 years ago. We grew up with central AC/heat, running water and the ability to call police & emergency medical services. She could reasonably assume that she must leave zero survivors in order to protect her escape. It's also reasonable to assume that she needed those scalps for the verification of her story. Not to mention the timeless human motivator of revenge. If she watched someone bash her baby's brains out, she would be reasonable to spend the rest of her life killing for the sake of revenge. We all still have those basic instincts, we are just less likely to have those instincts drawn to the surface because of modern comfort & the utter comparative absence of violence that we enjoy in the modern era. In those times, the accomplishment of all things was based on violence & the threat thereof. Today the threat of violence is more abstract, but it is still the ultimate motivator of order.
Exactly. There is a word that describes what you are saying, Presentism. Looking at the past through todays morals/ethic/ideals lens. 1600's no such things as "Individual Rights" as known like today. No such thing as "self determination", the notion people or even a country has a "right" to decide how to live. No such sciences like Anthropology or Archeology or Sociology or any comparative study of people or cultures. The common person was lucky to even be able to read and write something the Native American hadn't even developed, Natives didn't even have a written history to look back on, only "oral traditions" and seeing Spirits in everything. 1600's is completely alien to anyone today as is how someone living in the 1600's can't grasp life today. Judging the past through todays lens is stupid and ignorant.
Not just the, men but the women and the children too.
Well they did kill new born baby's in front off her on the Journey. I can imagine the anger and hate that would have stirred up. They did what i and most people would have done.
*"There is no way to apply modern sensibilities to the actions of someone 326 years ago."*
*"Not to mention the timeless human motivator of revenge."*
LOL
"Et tu, Brutus?"
Written at length a munch longer time after the death of Julius Caesar.
That first part makes sense, but the concept of violence being an ultimate motivator of order is a bit shallow for any time period. Survival, wealth, and expression would be a better starting point to judge any time's sense order, at least to start with; each of these things can lead to prosperity and violence, and many times, simultaneously.
Bro. You're vids have a perfect mix of old-history teacher vibes writing notes via overhead projector + a cousin dropping weird amounts of knowledge at a family event. Love the pseduo-low tech setup (but def prefer your new greenscreen) and the dry-ish delivery. No corny click-tactics or over emoting and feels like your just talking to me or small class...so refreshing. Hit me with facts laid out with some good visuals and in a relatable tone for normal dorks that wanna learn. Keep it up D&DG 👍
No lies here
Your neutral and unbiased viewpoint towards both Indians and settlers is refreshingly nice!
Thank you.
You indians love your criminals
Good ....then when your newborn ends up a steaming gutpile in a snowbank , I'll wonder what you shrieking about and not get involved . You are a useless human being .
It's neither neutral, nor unbiased. He deliberately skims over European atrocities in his Apache videos and specifically chooses anecdotes of violent events.
@@nichoudhahe doesnt skim over anything. He talks about apaches when they’re the subject, whites when they are. He did a whole video on the cruelty of the spaniards in relation to their war hounds.
The “anecdotes” are examples, records of dealings with the apache. They were a raiding society, violence wasn’t anecdotal. People like you dont want balance, you want to villify whites
@@nichoudhaso he doesn't tell the story you want him to? Got it. You could always make your own videos.
I’m really enjoying your videos. The fact that they aren’t terribly long is a plus. I appreciate the research you have to devote to these subjects.
Thank you. I enjoy making them.
His "research" is a bunch of anecdotes of specifically violent events. Does he cover the Great Law of Peace? the Great Law of Peace under the haudenosaunee was a thing; they also were what inspired the women's rights movement since 60% of all captured White women ran back to Native American territories because Native men did not rape and provided better rights to women.
Both Hannah and the Abenacki, were products of their time. Pretty much impossible to judge them by today's standards.
But he did a great job of laying that all out in fact. And not demonizing either party.
The fact is that the past was incredibly brutal and we are so far separated by that brutality in the west that we too often look down on those actions through a purely 21th century lens without the clearly of context to inner thinking of those of their time.
Keep dropping this heat. It’s much appreciated
Wow! As a Brit, the European settling in and expansion of the Americas fascinates.
There are so many stories to tell - and so many lessons to be learned - that I'm often surprised we, and especially today's Americans, don't know more.
I only wish such tales could be told more like you do, Sir: unbiased, honest, contextual and accepting of human nature.
We only learn from the past if we can see ourselves in it. All today's focus on identity, and which tribe was the most 'moral' or had the most right, is infantile.
Our forebears were serious frontier types capable of extreme violence. In a rage, she simply treated her captors in kind.
I've been having a bit of a binge on your channel, and I have to say it's great content and well narrated. Keep up the good work. I am looking forward to more of your content.
I wonder if a modern day person could go back in time and survive those harsh living conditions, or do you have to be born in historic harsh times to survive them.
People can adapt to anything that's what made us so successful throughout evolution
Savages got what they had coming.
@@FrankGhal Indeed, people can generally get by with full-blown PTSD.
They had no choice. The victims of war have to endure as much as possible. I imagine we would have done what we had to do in any situation.
Human beings can adapt to just about anything… It would take the modern man and woman longer to adjust I suppose, but adjust and adapt we will
Born and lived in Haverhill, MA. for 69 years, I had a 1 month class in the history of Haverhill (pronounced Hayvrill) in the late 1960s.We were taught that Hannah kinda lost it when she thought her entire family had been killed and was bent on vengeance. According to a tale from the boy from Worcester, they were 50 to 100 feet from the island in the Merrimack when Hannah turned the canoe back to the island to collect the scalps of those they had killed. They then went back south on the river at night only and found sanctuary with a farmer from Nashua ,New Hampshire.This man would not leave his family alone with French and Abenakis in the area but did give supplies and advice on how to get back to Haverhill MA. We were told that after several days the 3 escapees landed where her and the nanny were initially put in canoes for their journey to Canada. I believe the young boy, who had been a prisoner for much longer was returned to his surviving relatives in Worcester. The Buttonwoods museum in Haverhill has much info on this as well as some artifacts from Hannah.
I lived in Methuen and Haverhill and from grade 3 to grade 9. I never heard this 😮story.
12:27 I have read/heard that tribes "sold" land that they didn't have legitimate claim to.
They absolutely did that. There are lots of schools of thought on this. The most compelling to me seems to be a blend of cultural misunderstandings on what it meant to hold land mixed with a lack of people who could both speak Indian languages are write.
True history isn't about judging, but understanding, and this channel does that spectacularly with respect for the perspectives and conditions of each party involved. Keep it up mate.
He judged Hannah with todays morals though
You post is very thoughtful. Thankyou
My boyfriend is a direct descendant of Hanah Dustin and I can tell you with absolute certainty they brutally killed her baby right in front of her screaming and pleading. I don't blame this woman for snapping and doing what she did. I don't excuse her but totally understand it as I'm a mother myself, watching what they did and thinking the rest were dead too, she most likely went insane with hatred and had nothing to lose at that point.
Why didn't the husband take the baby when he entered the house before leaving her there?
I do excuse her, I think what she did was morally justified
@@nichoudhacuz he was defending the 7 other children against a group of natives? Kinda need two hands for that so carrying a baby might be impossible
I have admired your work for several months now. After listening to the conclusion of this video, your explanation on why she acted the way that she did, I admire you even more. Thank you for the great work.
Very well told. I really enjoyed this video I look forward to watching your other ones🙂
I really appreciate that. It’s a wild story!
Welcome to life on the New England frontier. Plenty of shame and blame and self justification for vile acts to go around for everybody. She did a good job, man, I'm proud of her , she won playing by their own rules. And you try canoeing that river in March, pal, it's a boiling rushing ice cold hell...
Absolutely brutal. And with one shoe (maybe). Her surviving her return alone is incredible.
How are invading enslavers in the right?
@@trey9775 it’s just the way the world works,whoever is strongest will conquer everyone else
@@trey9775 Africans did it before Europeans came, people have been doing it since the beginning of time
@@Rigoberto365- false. this is the way the world under Western control on the path from colonialism to 1 word government.
A proud fervent Canadian Loyalist I had reason to look deeply into the roots all my 'American' ancestors, the Moores/Mooers/Moore and the Man/Mann families (fantastic Loyalists, only a foot note to the famous of the day) who arrived in Boston successivly in 1638 & 1652. A branch of the family, the 'Dawsons', were victims of the French led Abananki attack on Oyster river in 1696(?) - old memory fails me for the moment) and they suffered again in a 2nd attack ca 1706. Survivors went on to immigrate to Canada (lumber trade), founding Dawsonville in NB, in the 1830s. Stars of their generation, Dawsonville is now reduced to reclaimed forest and a few dispersed 'rough' homes, best known for a large grave yard and an abandoned church of those long gone and on the cusp of being completely forgotten. Such is history. It is either erased by 'politics' or else surely erased by 'time' and the 'pull of gravity''' of old memory killed by pure 'apathy', on the well travelled road to complete ignorance.
In support of Hannah's vicious reprisal... if someone kills one of my children, they had better tell everyone that's ever spoken a kind word to them to move far, far away because they would all be important targets in my mind. Good for you, Hannah.
Hannah is a Hero in my book, the narrator seems confused and thinks Natives just did rain dances
What's amazing is some of the sheer ignorance of some of these commenters----
I mean... plenty of the N*zi's top brass were still alive after WW2. And the hamas attack on Israel is retaliation for the Nakba...
Just found your channel, really enjoying the history content and have added it to my collection 😁
Drawing the parallel to Nat Turner is an interesting one to help put things in perspective.
The lack of details surrounding the father and his escape with the children is interesting for me, maybe it's just because he wasn't the intended hero of the story by the people that recorded it but it's interesting. Makes me wonder how rough life was for these people or their forefather's in Europe that roughing it in a place with constant raids was more appealing.
There actually isn’t a ton to know on the father. The story is told in a handful of places but it is very short. Cotton Mather’s version is three pages. The history of Haverhill’s version is maybe 8 or so. They focus on Hannah’s story and Thomas is definitely let go of after he reaches the block house with the kids. If you were a religious dissident or in the lower classes things were pretty rough in 1600s Europe. The aristocracy held all the land during a time where that is how the majority of people made their living. Outlooks for people were often very limited. Plymouth was originally settled around 1620. By 1630, 20k immigrants had come. That’s a good sign people were desperate.
Very interesting that they fled the highly civilized world only to encounter brutal opposition by the relatively"uncivilized". A rock and a hard place
about europe: around this time the "30 years war" between katholics and protestants did happen, farmers have been "owned" by royals, the osmans attacked europe to islamice them , ... - so the hope of getting a peaceful live where you can feed a family by your own work outside of europe was big....
Warfare has always been brutal. I'm sure the Abenaki would have done the same thing to Mohawk captives and vice versa. It just turned out that Hannah and her two compatriots, one fourteen years old, were underestimated and used the advantage to retaliate in kind.
the Great Law of Peace under the haudenosaunee was a thing; they also were what inspired the women's rights movement since 60% of all captured White women ran back to Native American territories because Native men did not rape and provided better rights to women.
@@nichoudhathere are multiple records of natives r*ping white women you despicable liar. I know of one where the comanches cut her breasts off after and left her to die
@nichoudha what a ridiculous lie. Native Americans systematically raped captive women and children
She made her escape from the devils the only way she could. Savages who murdered her infant have a propensity for barbarity, that's obvious.
You do know the European invaders did similar savage acts?
Way to call human beings devils and savages for a few alleged killings (that likely didn't even happen, like with the baby), as though your own people didn't come here stealing land and immediately murdering 90-95% of the Indigenous people on Turtle Island. Sounds about white 🤮
Good on Her. Not seeing the problem here.
My distant grandmother 💕
Stuff like that is so neat. I’m always curious what families can hold on to through generations that isn’t known to the public. Is there any part of the story that you are aware of that didn’t make it into the books?
As for the description by some of the murder of the baby and others on the march as "a mercy killings", I don't remember anyone referring to the murder of allied POWs by the Japaneses and Germans on similar marches as "mercy killings".
I agree fully with steve wixsom's assessment below. The Abenaki were merciless savages. They had killed her baby. Only a mother could understand such pain. Good for her!
Yea okay true but the settlers killed our babies, women, and elders too, both did bad, but dont sit there n make it so just we’re the evil ones
No one should ever congratulate the murder of 6 kids.
I think you are right neither to justify nor condemn the actions of the various parties involved.
Life is, at times, unforgiving -- and any of us can be faced with brutal choices.
It is not for the rest of us as armchair or keyboard warriors to try and justify or condemn, but to explain and try to understand.
Thankyou for doing exactly this in the video; it's a fine line and I think you trod it well.
So, how much was 25 pounds in the day? A month's wages or six or twelve? It would give an indication of how much threat the colonists felt from the natives.
It was good money, easily a years good wages...
I have always had trouble with getting a handle on true value of money in the past and have found it helpful think about what I could buy with it. I found sources that suggested a musket would cost you at the time between 10-30 pounds. Its a wide range that makes me uncomfortable but gives some sense of value. A found another source that said there is a journal of an unskilled laborer that was able to save 25 pounds in a year. My best guess is that it is in the range of a few months salary for most skilled laborers but I’m not confident.
@@datesanddeadguys Thanks.
@@datesanddeadguys the money economy in the frontier colonies was very small at the time.
I feel no need to try to justify her's or the Indian's actions. Unfortunately, that is "just the way it was" at the period of time. We can't apply today's standards to the standards of that time.
Bingo. Applying modern standards to historrical situations never ends well. Of particular note is arguments about who was enslaving who 400-500 years ago. The thing is that until the early 1800's the concept that slavery itself might be wrong just did not exist, Well not by enough people to affect any thing. Slave taking and keeping has been a standard state of affairs throughout history.
Edited to add. We should consider ourselves fortunate to liive in such a time that even if we find ourselves in a the middle of a brutal war the question "Should I kill these 6 children with a hatchet?" Is unlikely to ever need to be asked.
You don't know what going on in the world if ou think that.
Your channel is amazing
Despite my criticism below, I love these clips and respect your perspective. I'm a subscriber, and look forward to more of these.
Imagine if this was made into a movie.. Who do you think would play Hannah Duston??
Brianne of Tarth
Antje Traue she was great as Sub Commander Faora Ul
Beth from Yellowstone. 🤣
@@datesanddeadguyslmfao 🤣 good one
Darryl Hannah.
If a person is kidnapping he or she should be able to use all means available to escape.
Can someone tell me what "scotied" means (9:07)? I googled it and checked on Wiktionary, but can't find anything.
One of the biggest problems facing our country today is that people cannot understand that society was totally different 300 or 400 years ago, and we cannot apply today’s standards to how they lived their lives back then.
I know, and people call the prophet a pedo because he married a young girl for a family alliance...
A lot of times land was sold or given to the colonists by tribes to place a buffer between them and their enemies
A lot of times tribes would also sell them they may not have had any legitimate claim to. Additionally there was a factor I should have addressed in the video. Very very few people could speak the native languages, speak english, and read. It naturally caused a lot of confusion and mistakes in regard to agreements.
SHE WANTED REVENGE FOR THE DEATH OF HER BABY!!! NOTHING IS STRONGER THA A PISSED OFF WOMAN!!!
i had no idea who hannah duston was until i started building my family tree, she’s my 8th great grandmother😅
Love the vid and the channel, love hearing stories n history of my people. Times were crazy back then. Im Mi’kmaq from Nova Scotia, we were part of the wabanaki confederacy, which the abenaki was also a part of. My family on my dads side are all from boston
This guy reminds me of watching the old western movies with my grandfather as a young boy. I asked him, "who's the good guys and who's bad?" He said there is no good guys and bad guys, there's just 2 sides that don't get along. Maybe people today could use that lesson.
Nobody is the bad guy from their perspective.
“Fear keeps people in line…not Hannah Duston”. Brilliant 😂
And we are ... ?
I doubt that....seems the whole cluster to fame is lack security. No Guards, and what do you expect 🤔. If she was as bold with no fear ,she wouldn't be in thus situation or as show her captures were stupid....
Discretion is the better part of valor. She lived to fight another day. And they did not.
I love that her statue has the scalps. What a hero, I’d love to go see it one day. Great story, thanks.
Great info! I enjoyed it. I know some Duston descendents. Ps its pronounced Haiv rhill by the locals. Keep up the great videos
I have had a comment or two where people said they were decedents. It is crazy how we are not that far removed. You are not the first one to bring up my poor pronunciation. And my wife is actually from Massachusetts and told me how it was correctly pronounced before I made the video. I didn’t believe her. As per usual, I should have listened.
There were thousands of black slave owner of black slaves. The national census of 1830 in the US lists over 3000 black slave owners. Many of these slave owners had 100-150 slaves; just as many as the richest white slave owners owned.
Excellent scholarship and analysis.
Wait a second , you can't defend what this woman did and then say that it wasn't right . If she had no choice , and clearly she didn't , then she was right . One can't be on the fence about this just to please everyone
I had the same thoughts. Pick one side or the other but quit trying to be so PC.
I would agree. However, I also want to keep seeing new content from him.....and, well, TH-cam. lol
Killing children is never right but in the mind of a woman who just lost her child it was most likely an act of vengeance
@@stevewixom9311 I would say that our narrator was very non-PC. The PC brigade like simple answers and rushed moral judgements, but the narrator didn't do that.
Unintelligent people require clear, black-and-white answers to everything. Reflect on your lack of depth.
A direct ancestor of mine experienced the same thing. Major Simond Willard's son was a settler with three children and a wife. The wife and three children were abducted by the Indian, who also killed the husband. The baby kept crying while they were being transported to Canada, so the Indian repeatedly pounded him on a tree until he passed away. They were saved by Major Simon Willard. This incident took place close to New Hampshire. You can find the story in the Willard Memoir.
I grew up in Longmeadow MA, just outside of Springfield. At the end of town, was a memorial park called King Philip's Stockade, commemorating a battle that took place there. It was said that you could still find arrowheads from time to time in that area.
Great take
14:45 why would their knives swards and axes be dull?...
Well presented -- Cheers!
I appreciate it, sir. Thank you.
Well, 1st, Haverhill is not pronounced Haver- Hill. Here in NE, it's pronounced Hey-Veral but good analysis 👍. They should make a movie!!
Interesting that I found this video today. I live in this area of New Hampshire and just happened to ride by that site today and looked over at the statue of Hannah Dustin.
As far as the killing of the infant that wasn't unheard of due to the need of speed and stealth for the raiding party
I hadn’t considered stealth as a possible reason but that would make sense. The first day of travel for Haverhill, they went 12 miles. They went that far specifically so that they would be able to get some distance between them and the settlement. If they feared being pursued that may have been reason enough to kill the child.
@datesanddeadguys It was survival of the fittest in the art of war...I'm not saying that what any of them did was right or wrong but I'm sure that's how they thought of it
False flag mission of whites killing white to create hate under the belief that indians were behind the killing. Killing a baby for no reason other than to hide Idk seems like he dies to harsh condition’s especially if Hannah barely had clothes on. But best to believe the embellished story against the dead 🤷🏻
Or it could be just barbarism.
@@mirrage42 like unnecessary abortions?
7:12 Not Hannah Dunston ❤
You judge people by the times that they lived in I think you did a great job
I have lived in Haverhill (pronounced Hayvrill) my whole life and I drive by Hannah’s Statue all the time and you are telling me she is missing a shoe!!! wow!
If someone ever touched a hair on my children’s head they would be volunteering for a blood bath beyond contemplation
My 11th Great Grandmother. What happened to her sister Elizabeth Webster was just as brutal as Hannah. She was hanged for infanticide, after she had given birth (without her parents knowledge) at the foot of their bed!
She is my 9th times great grandmother, I remember my great grandmother, my grandmother and others in the family still talked about Hannah and others who were killed by Indians, they had several other family members killed by Indians. So she did what she had to do to get back to the rest of her family and anyone to judge her doesn't know what they would do in that situation, especially after watching them smashing her baby head against a tree. It was a different time and a very different way of life.
Haverhill is pronounced Hay-vrill. Wicked awesome videos btw guy
Well done!
At 9:00 the text reads that ". . . they were scotied at . . ." I take that to mean the Indians spat at them. Is that correct?
-- Old Matt
This story is too complex for me to judge as all I heard of was vague references to her,
in comparison to the Joseph Kellogg story which happened in the same year. From
memory, I'll try to relate my family's story.
While Joseph Kellogg was away, his farm was attacked, his wife and infant child
killed and four older children were abducted and taken to Canada. The infant was
killed because a baby's cries would give the band away. The press gave a minister's
family all the press when they were ransomed, the name was Williams. The Kellogg's
got little but as most settlers kept journals, the story survived.
The oldest boy tried escaping but was recaptured. They cut off his big toes so he
would try escaping again. He and his brother were worked as slaves. The girls were
forced to marry into the tribe. The oldest boy escaped again despite his handicap
and made it back home somehow. For years he hated the Indians but at the end of
the war, his siblings were ransomed. The younger brother stayed with his family but
the two girls, now women and mothers wanted to return to the tribe. The life of an
Indian women and Colonial women were just equally as harsh according to
my source. The oldest son who escaped upon finding out his sisters were
treated well, changed his mind about the 'savages' and opened up a missionary
school to convert the local tribes to Christianity. Sorry, I don't recall the name of
the oldest son. I thought the change of his attitude more interesting, while the
Williams story tended to praise the superiority of Christian Western culture.
An interesting coincidence happened. I went to a small LDS family history
center in Oakley, Calif. and met a woman whose family line was from one
of those two sisters who went back to the tribe in Canada. I was also able
to fill in gaps from some of her lines from Arizona.
The Kellogg family name is interesting. Four Kellogg brothers came to the
colonies, each were known for their size. There are eight generations of
Kelloggs in my line. Joseph Kellogg had nine children by his first wife killed
by the Indians and nine more by his second, 18 in all. The survival rate of
the White children were much greater than those born to the Indian tribes.
Smallpox killed more Native Americans than wars.
Throughout all of human history the basic land law has been, "if you can defend it, it's yours." It's still very much that way today.
8:19, Maybe the Jesuits instructed the Abenaki to be so mean and ruthless to the English, because the English were protestants.
you tell a great story. Good stuff. We don't hear enough about the early conflicts with Amerindians and settlers in this kind of detail. Even though it is well documented.
Man has been doing this to each other throughout time, if you look a little further back, the mound culture had pushed those Natives out of the Ohio Vally all the way north east in a cannibalistic fashion ( as I surmise they were originally from the Central American Origins), a good example can be found in the Oklahoma University Press titled, 'LaSalle, Discovery of the Mississippi' ( An Iroquois Wolfpack decimated an Illini Village on the west side of the river where LaSalle had started a fort/outpost) Because the Mound Culture was cannibalistic, their enemies would retaliate in kind, to the shock of whites, killing your enemy and then eating his liver was commonplace.
Loved your account, but just a small mention; Haverhill is pronounced HAV- er-ill.
Had ancestor killed in 1676 during king Philips war. Capt Thomas Lathrop.He and 84 men were wiped out ( 200 yrs before Custer) evacuating towns harvests after many towns massacred
"No matter what your legends say, you didn't sprout from the plains like the spring grasses. And you didn't coalesce out of the ether. You came out of the Minnesota woodlands armed to the teeth and set upon your fellow man. You massacred the Kiowa, the Omaha, the Ponca, the Oto and the Pawnee without mercy. And yet you claim the Black Hills as a private preserve bequeathed to you by the Great Spirit."
"Chief Sitting Bull, the proposition that you were a peaceable people before the appearance of the white man is the most fanciful legend of all. You were killing each other for hundreds of moons before the first white stepped foot on this continent. You conquered those tribes, lusting for their game and their lands, JUST AS WE HAVE NOW CONQUERED YOU FOR NO LESS NOBLE A CAUSE."
Best movie quote that sums up what we should think about land ownership and the natives.
@randallsanchez3161 that little speech is deflecting. The colonizers came here to get away from being oppressed. This has been going on since the beginning of time all over the world. There has always been tribal fighting everywhere. Alexander the Great set out to conquer the world. Mainly to gain territory and control. Colonizers did the same thing.
Slavery has also been around since the dawn of time. This also was tribal. Again, Europeans who colonized Americas made it a major big business. The one thing European colonizers did was make tribes and races to unify and fight back. You can not condemn one tribe for what happened. Mostly, it boils down to greed, always wanting more.
14:59 - love your shit and I think we agree mostly but black white red or brown nobody has ever been oppressed by an infant. Also if you can't keep the baby why did you take it in the first place? As if you thought a rescue party wouldn't be by shortly. I can understand the actions taken by the wabanaki up to the taking of an infant. Same goes for Hannah, too
Would a black slave whose kid was sold or killed be given a staue for murdering 6 children during her escape and revenge?
No one seems to want to engage with this question.
By blacks, probably yes
In terms of her scalping the Indians, just on a technical level I would think it's not something that she would need to be taught. Being a frontier wife, she would have vast experience skinning rabbits, squirrels and other small (and large game). So scalping an Indian would be no different than driving a car you had never driven before. Different, but still exactly the same.
If I was native i would have done what they’ve done, if I was her i would have done the same thing also! It was hard times and bad and good decisions were made to get us here today.
I read Phibrick's bok on King Philip 's War. A great read yo !
25 Pounds Sterling was a fortune in that day.
I think that many of us today would have gone into the scalp business. Especially after living in constant fear of attack by these folks that you were going to scalp.
Your attempts to understand & explain the mindset of those involved in the struggles of the late 17th Century frontier are laudable. Most modern Americans have been so indoctrinated with wokeness that they cannot analyze things rationally.
For example most young Americans seem to be of the opinion that early Americans invented slavery and that only Black folks have ever been enslaved. This ignorance is by design, btw.
Critical Race Theory (along with several other Critical Theories) was developed in order to bring down The bonds of Western Civilization, especially America. This anticipated demise sets the stage for the Marxist takeover.
The theories were developed by the Frankfurt School Marxists who were given refuge from Hitler in America. They eventually gained control of Columbia’s School of Education. From there the cancer spread to colleges & universities across the US. It’s now taken hold in primary & secondary education.
And 80 years later we have ignorance & self loathing at all time highs.
Thank you for your balanced discussions.
The painting depicted at 8:09 were my family members!
Mercy killings????? Wow. She’s a hero.
Well said
You forgot to say it was a mercy gauntlet.
What seems incradible to me, and really speaks volumes of her charakter is that she would inquire about how to scalp. She not only wanted to know how she could escape (how to kill with a hatchet) but also how she could turn a profit. It seems she was extremely confident she could not only take all of them out, but also take their scalps to "sell" later on.
It seems so strange to me that she would think that far ahead, like "of course I'm gonna get out of this, but how am I gonna get the reward for killing those indians?".
The killing of the children doesn't strike me as strange at all. Predjudice and racism was common back then and she probably had a mindset of "those kids are going to grow up to be savages like their parents" which is hard to dispute. Of course it was very wrong, but also with that logic and lack of empathy very understandable.
"She not only wanted to know how she could escape (how to kill with a hatchet) but also how she could turn a profit." Yeah, which makes her equally psychopathic. And you admire that?
@@kraanz Why do you think I do?
@@kraanzthe woman had just had her whole family and sustenance destroyed by them, and was bound to be a destitute widow: a very ugly situation. She had every rational reason to seek how to make a living from her captors who had just destroyed her whole world. In those days, scalps were simply a commodity.
If the Abenaki hadn’t murdered Hannah’s child and other babies then their own children would have been safe.
Hannah was a prisoner and based on the Abenaki’s own deeds Hannah had no reason to think she would be safe….
In her mind the Indian children would grow up to be murderers just like the adults have shown them how to be… she prevented the losses of future lives by taking them out while they were small enough and weak enough that she could.
Neither party is blameless, but the moral of the story is leave well enough alone, live, and let live, and know that your actions teach people how to treat you. The end.
You can't punish a child for a crime they hadn't committed
I'm not sure of the value of including modem day apologists arguing that people who regularly murdered infants wouldn't have murdered an infant. Also I think the outcome in terms of killing everybody was just
I think the fact that she killed women and children of the tribe kinda gives validity to the claim that they butchered her infant. If she’s traumatized from that, then getting horrifically abused by not only her captors, but the women and children of her captors, she’s gonna be out for blood. It’s all horrible and completely unnecessary. There was more than enough land to go round and many ways to make it fair
She was a hero.
I had never heard of that story as our history books in French Catholic schools were quite different. I know of a family in the province of Québec whose ancestor was a young boy taken from an English settlement by the Abenaki and traded to the Mohawks and adopted by them and brought to the French colony as an adult and later married a French Canadian woman and had a descendence in my country. They changed his name to make it sound French and most of his descendants don't even know about this story as it wasn't written in any history books. The English colonists would also send war parties against French settlements in those days as they were at war. That war was started in Europe and both sides would hire natives to do the ugly work and both would demonize the other side. As you may know, history is written by those who survived and they always have to find a way to justify their deeds so they can look as if they always acted in their own right. In those days it was customary for natives to adopt some of their captives to bring new blood as to avoid marriages in the same clan. Thank you for presenting the subject from an objective perspective. I is believed that some 60% of French Canadians have some Native ancestry as in Canada relations between natives and colonists were different and more inclusive for those who would accept baptism. It was customary though to hide it as not to be rejected by pure Europeans. I'm proud to be a mixed blood yet it means I don't belong to any family clan or tribe as since my grandmother died when I was 16 the family lost its center and ceased to gather together on holidays. Modern life pulls families apart and people are more alone than ever. Hopefully, these conflicts are things of the past yet I worry about all these wars abroad where Americans and Canadians have to participate because of past alliances through Nato and the UN. Their way to kill people nowadays is also very ugly and can hardly be justified. ⚜🍁♾♾🌲♾♾🪔
"adopt some of their captives to bring new blood as to avoid marriages in the same clan" is such a polite way to say 'kidnap and rape'.
@@jayteegamble I doubt anyone can change the past, we can only work on the present time and hope for the future. My own bloodline includes Scot, Irish, French, Iroquois, Algonquin, and Italian, and I even had a Dutch great-uncle. And it seems all these disparate ancestors wedded lawfully in times of peace in northeastern Canada. Who needs to kidnap and rape is a villain. Honest people try to live in peace. My dad who was born in 1917 and died in April 2000 used to say that although technology and progress had changed a lot of things on Earth, humans were still the same as they were in his youth. And me being 70 years old can still say the same. 🪔
9:00 scotied?
Judging the past by our standards today is unreasonable. Invading, massacring and scalping was how many of these tribes thought it moral to behave.
What comes around goes around.
Oh please!
Hannah Duston was a mother who saw her infant child's head slammed into a tree. The butchering of the other women captives were not mercy killings, but the depraved actions of men inconvenienced by the slowness and infirmities of those captives. PERIOD.
Duston and her fellow captives acted out of desperation and rage, killing ALL the Abenaki so that NONE could alert tribe members.
Even the Christian Indians were catholic, and held protestants in contempt and showed it.
To the indigenous the English were just another tribe, and could just as easily been Huron or Pequot. Captive indigenous women might well have acted the same way as Duston.
Second time here like how you cover the material....
I can appreciate the attempt to see it from a historical perspective but it seems awkward to compare Hannah and Nat Turner without acknowleding the very different way the stories were treated at the time. I dont think there are any statues of Nat Turner even now, although he's mentioned on one. If we are going to try to understand them, shouldnt we understand that Hannah knew her actions would be popular if she returned home, but for Nat, he was facing execution at the hands of his own country?
I can’t believe how you are saying Haverhill
It’s have like wave and ril like til
David Gemmel said it best, "A woman to walk the mountains with"
I don't blame her for taking out the kids. If they are capable of killing, which they were probably taught how to kill at a young age and were most likely witnesses to killing, they are also dangerous and a worthy threat to eliminate. It was her life or theirs as far as I'm concerned and being hurt by the murder of her newborn child with that hatred, I could understand why she would feel the desire to take their children in revenge or out of need for survival. All of this is sad and I'm greatful not to have to live in the past because I feel I would be unlcuky enough to either be a victim or do similar things or both.
Some people aren't good or bad, they're just trying to survive
But they weren't oppressed by one group,first slave owner was a black gentleman.
Anthony Johnson.