Were the native’s real as brutal as this Cormac presents in “Blood Meridian” ?
 Thalidomide Vintage Ad Shirt $22.14 |
 |
Thalidomide Vintage Ad Shirt $22.14 |
Were the natives real as brutal as this Cormac presents in Blood Meridian ?
Were the native’s real as brutal as this Cormac presents in “Blood Meridian” ?
Thalidomide Vintage Ad Shirt $22.14 |
|
Thalidomide Vintage Ad Shirt $22.14 |
Why the frick is that your question about this book?
The Apache were brutal warriors, the Yuma were brutally betrayed and the Delaware were sagacious scouts... that's without even looking outside of BM.
If anything the interest is in bloodthirsty violence across peoples, the violent and cruel dimension of ubiquitous human nature.
Just asking if they were as brutal as it is in the book. Raping in battles, hanging babies from trees, etc
yeah they were men at war, they're always fricking savages. As if the redskins were too noble to kill babies?
>men
>virgin
>they were men at war
They were bandits and raiders that attacked in defended towns and always immediately fled whenever they were met in force
>small band of warriors melts into the wilderness when faced with a larger and better equipped force
That's basic military sense you moron, what are they supposed to do, stick around and get massacred for some moron notion of honor?
Yes, pretty much all men do that in war unless restrained. There are illustrations of European knights skewering babies on lances from the wars of religion era.
Once I read Chamberlain's book I didn't even have sympathy for the fricking Mexicans in the story.
Yes. 100%. You can read first hand accounts from all different people's of the era.
Most people are. The natives weren't any more brutal than anyone else, but they had their own special forms of fricking people up.
I mean it makes sense, you want to let the other side know you're not fricking around.
Why did he name his book twice?
It was the style at the time
Yeah. Everything you read about the Comanche make you root for the genociders.
Even other natives hated their fricking guts
This
It's funny when academics and reviewers try to claim Blood Meridian is some sort of "anti-racist" or "anti-imperialist" book when it's basic historical fact that some of the native tribes were so fricking evil and sadistic that even other people of their own race fricking hated them and sided with the so-called racist imperialists against them.
>Comanche
Still not as evil and moronic as Aztecs. Civilization mutates the cruelty of people in bizarre ways. In many ways I more admire the Comanche, though, I would have never admitted it in those times and given all I could to move to where they were and fight them.
that's not unique to natives anon, a lot of tribes in the northeast survived by playing the French and English off against each other
Racial unity was always more ideal than reality
If you're like a whiney basedtard maybe. Murder is based.
Basedtard take.
>Omg waaah people like to kill each other??? Hurr durr this means god hates them and so do I >:[
I remember there was a case of a "based moron" Indian who (justifiably) hated another tribe for raping, murdering, and steeling from his tribe, so when he hears about the blue coats he tricks settlers into going into the other tribes territory so when they are attacked they can send help for the blue coats and the tribe will be all killed. Jokes on him the only surviving member was a woman who blamed the other Indian and his tribe was killed instead of the other one.
If we went by ancient historiography standards Blood meridian would be considered a reliable primary source concidering it was based on the exploits of the real Glanton gang.
Yeah
The Texas tribes were reputed for their genocidal and cannibalistic tendencies
I'm pretty sure there were tales of the Comanche from other native tribes where they'd deliberately goad the enemy warriors away from their encampments in order to have other Comanche warriors literally eat the defenseless women and children in-situ