BadEagle.com Header Image

 

Bad Eagle Journal

War, Women, and Children

by David Yeagley · August 7, 2006 · 19 Comments ·

Women, children, and the elderly, have been slaughtered in war for millenia. It is a common, ancient thing. Only in recent, “civilized” ages was it considered especially wrong. In the old days, women and children were often taken captive and enslaved, as well. That doesn’t happen so much today, at least on the battlefield. It does happen on the black market.


In Nahariya, Israel on Wednesday, July 26, 2006. An Israeli elderly couple living
in an underground bomb shelter in the northern Israeli city of Nahariya, the site
of multiple rocket attacks by Hezbollah guerrillas.
(Newsday / Moises Saman)
People who live in glass houses should not thrown stones. There are apparently
no bomb shelters in southern Lebanon. Israelis are certainly prepared to have
stones thrown at them. It is not their fault that Hezbollah abuses the Lebanese.

Today, women and children of the Muslim world have been trained to destroy themselves, and others. They are not always so innocent anymore. Yet, the enemy of all good knows that Western civilization today does not look kindly upon the slaughter of women and children. (Or, at least not on the slaughter of women. Free abortion begs the question about the slaughter of children. For that matter, scientists tell us know that abortion is definitely linked to breast cancer. It’s a hormonal issue. So, the West is willing to torture women, if not slaughter them, or so it seems).

In even more egregious hypocrisy, the Muslims murderers decry the deaths of “innocents” in Lebanon, even as Hezbollah continues to use women and children as shields. This ploy they use to weaken the resolve of the West. This fraudulent lamentation they use to turn the the world against Israel. It seems to work, because most people abhor the slaughter of innocents. The problem is, it is Hezbollah that is doing the slaughtering! The world can’t put two and two together. Otherwise, Islam would be universally outlawed as the most vicious, dangerous, and horriid cult every to curse mankind.

That’s if the West truly values life, however. The West has seen a lot of slaughter too, historically. When the Europeans first came here, they experienced the slaughter of their women and children–by American Indians. The Jamestown Massacre comes to mind, when the Powhatan Indians brutally 347 Englishmen, men, women, and children, comprising nearly a quarter of Virginia’s English population in 1622. (Of course, the Powhatans had given full waring, and apparently did not plan such a massacre. This would be certainly similar to the current situation in southern Lebanon. Israel has warned all. Yet, Hezbollah would have the slaughter.)

Of course, a few years later, in Connecticut, the English colonists massacred a Pequot village in Mystic. Some 500 women and children were shot or burned alive. That was called the Mysic Massacre, of Connecticut, in 1637.

There were numerous massacres in American Indian/ United States history, involving the slaughter of women and children.

More recently, in 1864, there was the Sand Creek Massacre, when 700 US soldiers and Colorado volunteers went out and slaughtered 150 Cheyenne and Arapaho women, children, and elderly. That was under Colonel John M. Chivington, former Methodist minister.

Of course, we mustn’t leave out Wounded Knee, of 1890, when the US Army slaughter 150 Sioux were killed and 50 wounded. A good number of these were women and children and elderly.


Quanah Parker, leader of the last free Comanche

For that matter, sometimes animals get slaughtered. Remember how Col. Ranald Slidell MacKenzie was able to get the last of the Quahadi Comanche to surrender? He slaughtered some 1,400 of their horses out near Palo Duro Canyon, in the summer of 1874. The Comanche surrendered the next spring at Fort Sill, without a fight. They were starving.


Col. Ranald S. MacKenzie, slaughterer of horses.

In the old days, wars were fought to win. To win usually means to slaughter. That’s what’s so ugly about war. It is not a sport. Is is a desperate struggle to kill or be killed. When an opposing force is vulnerable, the aggresser must vanquish.

If there is no enemy left around, the defeat is more certain, lasting, and safe. The price is dreadful. And obviously, in the history of the world, slaughter is no guarantee. Hiroshima and Nagasaki teach that lesson, when some 214,000 Japanese “women and children” went up in smoke. Wars have continued, even after such a cataclysm. Sure, they were warned. The only redeeming factor in the Japanese story is that Japan has never proved a military threat again. However, they are a most formidable economic power in the world. There are those who say this was Japan’s aim from the start, and that WWII was the usurpation of Japanese initiative by egotisical war lords, trying to re-live the Samuri days. Japans energies had been hi-jacked.

Whatever the case, slaughter is horrid, yet some part of humanity continues to indulge in it. It is a remarkable thing, that Israel continues to show restraint, sacrificing even those of its own citizenry, to avoid complete slaughter of the enemy in southern Lebanon–an enemy which slaughters women and children before the world.

Posted by David Yeagley · August 7, 2006 · 7:54 pm CT · ·

Tags: Bad Eagle Journal




Read More Journal Posts »

19 responses so far ↓

  • 1 Kidist // Aug 8, 2006 at 8:58 am   

    It is a remarkable thing, that Israel continues to show restraint…

    In the old days, wars were fought to win. To win usually means to slaughter…

    —————————————

    This must be a difficult topic to talk about. In my humble opinion, it is very well written.

    Now there is a “modern” frame of mind that says that slaughter of the enemy is inexcusable, if the technology is there to avoid it.

    For example, Mercer, here, writes that the Israeli air force has done a terrible job in getting rid of Hezbollah, and instead reduced Lebanon into a “parking lot.” Instead, more precision ground force work should be done.

    Of course, I cannot argue against this, not being an expert.

    Whatever superior technology there is to do the work, of course it should be used.

    But, this is an interesting, and modern, argument where one thinks of the well-being of the enemy’s civilians while planning a war.

    I guess that is where “just war” comes in without the religious connotations. Also, this must be the basis for The International Criminal Tribunal and the Geneva conventions.

    I suppose this is trying to step away from the barbarism of the Muslims et al. But, it is that very mentality by the Muslims is winning them their wars!

  • 2 David Yeagley // Aug 8, 2006 at 9:44 am   

    It’s quite a pickle, isn’t it Kidist! The ‘world’–at least the western civilizations, wants to hold itself to a higher standard, yet that is the open door for the murderous Muslims to conquer.

    Kill or be killed: the world thinks it is above this predicament? Is it too humiliating to have to kill someone? Is it unbearable to write human beings off as demonic dogs, unworthy of life among the living? This is the challenge the murderous Muslims present before the world.

    They defile the world. We are defiled by them.

    But, you know, sometimes, a man just has to take responsibility, get in there, do a “dirty job,” and be done with it. Isn’t that what nuclear bombs are for? There are other bombs, too, that are very effective, that aren’t nuclear.

    There are ways to do this job, but, the world is unwilling to do it. It takes a Dracula to fight the Muslims.

  • 3 Kidist // Aug 8, 2006 at 10:05 am   

    The interesting thing is that modern technology wrought the most destructive weapon of all, ever, and used it on a civilian population.

    Warfare should go hand in hand with God’s guidance. Who is to say that precision technology would be less or more destructive?

  • 4 R // Aug 8, 2006 at 10:25 am   

    Until highly visible Jewish people stop publishing lies and garbage like this, they will never have my support for their cause.

    Smithsonian Indian Museum will indict America

    The NMAI is nothing like this maniac describes it. I wonder if Jewish people don’t truly hate American Indians.

  • 5 Respects Nothing // Aug 8, 2006 at 10:36 am   

    “A nation is not conquered until the hearts of its women are on the ground. Then it is finished,
    No matter how brave its warriors or how strong their weapons.”

    Cheyenne proverb

  • 6 Respects Nothing // Aug 8, 2006 at 10:41 am   

    R, this land isn’t jewish homeland, therefore they can only write and attempt to degrade the indigenous people who will live as long as the grass grows. Besides, they got their holocaust museum so I don’t know what they’re complaining about.

  • 7 R // Aug 8, 2006 at 11:06 am   

    “A nation is not conquered until the hearts of its women are on the ground. Then it is finished,
    No matter how brave its warriors or how strong their weapons.”

    Indeed, a lesson that fool Don Feder should learn before shooting his mouth off about “degraded status of women in most Indian tribes”. He obviously knows nothing of the culture he is addressing – confusing Indians with perhaps Hassidic Jews or Arabs that do treat their women like second class citizens. This man is insane and it is an insult to all Indian people for this nonsense to be published on sites like Jewish World Review.

  • 8 R // Aug 8, 2006 at 11:16 am   

    Respects Nothing, imagine if a visible Native American came out and attacked The Holocaust Museum as a bunch of politically correct nonsense and a website like Indian Country Today printed his editorial? There would be a national firestorm!

  • 9 David Yeagley // Aug 8, 2006 at 11:31 am   

    Well, I can’t say I disagree with Feder, except for a certain unclarity about “the degraded status of women in most Indian tribes.” Does he mean historically, or contemporarily? Pre- or Post- Reservation days? What exactly is he talking about?

    I’ve written more than once against the whole ideology of the Museum. I must say. It struck me as a “hating whitey” approach, and included any darkie in the western hemisphere. People that ARE NOT INDIAN are in that museum. Get it? America Indians are “equalized” with all indigenous of the western hemisphere, including the Pacific islanders.

    I think this is horribly racist, shameful, and it puts American Indians in a backdrop position.

    I am certainly not defensive if the National Museum of the American Indian. There are many far better Museums for the true American Indian. Oklahoma is building the great one, even as we write.

    But, again, I don’t know what Feder meant by the statement about Indian women. I’ll ask him. I’m in touch. I shall also interview him, as I am interviewing other conservative writers. They rarely say anything about Indians, anything at all.

  • 10 R // Aug 8, 2006 at 12:10 pm   

    I visited the museum last November, and while I can’t say I agreed with the whole format, it wasn’t bad, but it certainly wasn’t some politically correct mission like Feder stated it was. The third floor had a huge collection of rifles and discussed the fact that Indians, weapons, and warfare have historically been integrated. That certainly is not a page from some liberal victimization agenda, like Feder suggested the whole thing would be, or appeasing to the anti-gun liberals, either. I think Richard West is an upstanding person who did a fine job with no politically correct agenda, and is not deservant of having words stuck in his mouth by some half-wit journalist. Feder obviously never even met Mr. West. He should apologize for his remarks.

  • 11 David Yeagley // Aug 8, 2006 at 12:24 pm   

    I’ve contacted Feder, given him links to this blog and other things. We’ll see. He’s a nice guy. He’ll respond.

    Now, the real blabber mouth here is me. I haven’t seen the museum. I have Indian friends who have seen it, and don’t like it. It’s not “Indian” enough, they say.

    Well, I’m supposed to have some musical compositions performed in an American Indian “classical” composers concert this October. I’ll get to see it then.

    I opted to participate in this small concert series, since I’m one of the handful of Indian composers that exist who writes classical, not rock, pop, or blues. How could I refuse?

  • 12 Respects Nothing // Aug 8, 2006 at 1:10 pm   

    R, of course there would be an uproar if ” a visible Native American came out and attacked The Holocaust Museum as a bunch of politically correct nonsense and a website like Indian Country Today printed [the] editorial. There would be a national firestorm!” Why, because that’s not what a “real indian” would do, right?

    R, it’s just one person’s view and it doesn’t mean jacksh*@.

    As for the museum…why not make something to speak for the American Indian perspective. Why do we have to keep quiet about it Doc? It never struck me as a “hatey whitey”. It struck me as a “it’s for us to show” and alot of tribal people participate in the consultations. Besides your definition of “indian” is different from others and well, the majority rules whether we like it or not, but at least “we” have our say.

    I’ve never visited the museum either, but I look forward to when I do. Never been to the Holocaust Museum either. Does it state that people other than Jews were also exterminated in the camps? i.e. JW’s (Jehovah’s Witnesses) and others? I’m no JW, but I didn’t realize this little factoid about the holocaust because it is a little blurb no one really hears about.

  • 13 R // Aug 8, 2006 at 1:25 pm   

    I went with an entire entourage from a Tribal Youth conference we had in DC last year – tribes from all over America attended. Reviews were mixed, but overall, I think everyone was happy to at least see an attempt by Indians to portray Indians – something that has been terribly lacking not only in museums, but history books as well. It definitely has it’s flaws. One thing which I questioned was why South/Central American Indians were represented as heavily as they were. I thought that space could have been used by more North American tribes that weren’t even represented there. Hawaiians I could somewhat understand, as they do qualify as indigenous Native Americans and Hawaii is a state. There may have been a few stories focusing on genocidal type issues or stories of tragedy, but that was not the overall theme of the museum at all. There were alot of beaded objects to view as well as historic weapons, a huge presentation on modern Indians with quotes, and even a section about modern type music, namely the fiddle playing by Cherokees, Choctaws, etc. which I found interesting. My main complaint is that it didn’t seem to cover enough and show all the dimensions of Indian people. I would love to see a section added for Indian humor, for instance. But it seems they have alot of vacant space yet, so hopefully it will evolve.

    Don Feder, if you read this please go to the museum and re-post your thoughts. The main theme of that museum is to educate non-Indians from a native perspective, and while it may not exactly accomlish that objective, it is anything but on a victimization theme. As for groups like AIM, they show up at any public ceremony involving Indians, and have their same old worn out message. They are like the extreme radical Zionists in Israel – they make a big splash, but don’t speak for everyone, and certainly not Richard West. He is a proud descendant of Cheyenne Warriors, and another good ole Okie like David, lol.

  • 14 Respects Nothing // Aug 8, 2006 at 1:52 pm   

    R, was your question rhetorical or did you ask it to somebody because I want to know the answer to that question also, the one about south and central america. Thanks for the persepctive!

  • 15 R // Aug 8, 2006 at 1:58 pm   

    I can only guess that they included them as “Native Americans” which includes Indian tribes throughout the Americas. I guess that would be fine if it was the Museum of Native Americans or such, but as the National Museum of the American Indian, I kind of thought it would be limited this nation’s tribes and not all indigenous peoples throughout the Americas.

  • 16 David Yeagley // Aug 8, 2006 at 7:28 pm   

    I know we’re a bit off topic here, but, Ray, (R), I think that the other “indigenous” folk of the western hemisphere are being dumped on American Indians. They do not hold the honor and grandeur we do, but they are quite happy to be associated with us.

    The NMAI “restributes honor,” like Communism redistributes wealth. That was the point of the article I wrote. I think its a bit racist to dump all the skins together. Hawaiians have no relationships whatever to American Indians, even in theory. They are Polynesian. They are from southeast Asia. But because Hawaii is a state of the United States, that gives them the right to be “American Indian?” No way.

    I come from a tribe that spilled a lot of blood over Indian things. Though I certainly to not speak for Comanche people, or for Indians, I for one really resent handing out honors simply because of non-white skin. I’m jealous of what Indians earned–the ones that did earn. I don’t like giving it away, especially at the injunction of liberal non-Indians (whites).

    I’ve never heard of any Jews objecting to the Holocaust museum. I should look into that.

  • 17 ecology // Aug 9, 2006 at 11:49 am   

    werd Doc! I fully agree. Diluting the fierce great American continent hunting/warrior cultures. I for one am sick of it all.

  • 18 LanceThruster // Aug 11, 2006 at 12:19 pm   

    Author Joseph Heller defined Catch-22 as “People have the right to do to you anything that you cannot prevent them from doing to you.”

    Israel is in for one rude awakening on that day they’re on the short end of the stick. No wonder they squirrel away those nukes. Nothing like a little “scorched earth” to let folks know you’re serious.

  • 19 Peg // Aug 11, 2006 at 5:21 pm   

    pbuh Lance, read another book and get smart! I hope people do as they want to a evil vindictive person as yourself! You deserve what you get! It’s coming for you! Your the enemy!

You must log in to post a comment.