The Native American Before Christian Spoil

Propaganda demonized the native cultures.

A first-hand recount of William Penn from 1687, telling of his interactions with the natives.

But what is most striking in Penns delineation of the Indians character, is the often repeated eulogy of the Indians natural piety. Again and again he dwells on the fact that the Indian shames the Christian in the sincerity of his religious belief and the correctness of his moral conduct”.

Describing the frugal meal that satisfies them, “pumpkin without butter or spice, the bare ground for a table, shells for spoons and leaves of the forest for plates”, he winds up exclaiming, “these wild men who never in their life heard Christs teaching of temperance and contentment, herein far surpass the Christian

Ten years later he goes on again with his praises; “They live far more contented and unconcerned for the morrow than we Christians. They do not over-reach in trade. They know nothing of our everlasting pomp and stylishness. They neither curse nor swear, are temperate in food and drink, and if any of them get drunk, the fault of the Christians for the sake of accursed lucre”.

They intentionally liquored the Indians to cheat them. Even as absolute surety demonstrated the Indian surpassed them in every way as human beings, they still sought them to Christ as the only way of true living. It most certainly is not, but may soon become such through attrition—our course is set.

He said; “meanwhile, we use the wild man for day labor and gradually acquire their language and make them acquainted with the teachings of Christ”—1687

The arrogance of monotheism and the conceit of faith is not a virtue. We have little hope but a Herculean breakthrough of some type or another. It won’t come by belief, but by uncultured minds that don’t yet know it’s not possible.

Italics ref—Google Books

Friends Intelligencer

Vol 29, pp 68-69

Andover-Harvard Theological Library


Author: jimoeba

Alternatives to big box religions and dogmas

42 thoughts on “The Native American Before Christian Spoil”

  1. My uncle who loves history and I talked about the cultural assimilation of Indians and historical reasons why the settlers took such extreme measures in modern eyes. I proposed that at the time, Indians were a real and dangerous threat on the frontier so settlers probably thought the only way to get rid of the threat, other than killing them, was to assimilate them. I personally don’t agree with how extreme they were, as you can embrace aspects of both cultures instead of shunning one completely, but I understand where they were coming from in that time period. However, my uncle posed the question which you may find interesting to ponder: “How might it have been different if Rome were never Christianized, as many pagan religions are more tolerant of other ways of doing things?” Like, how would the Western culture have thought of the Indians’ own cultures if they had a less Judeo-Christian worldview? Such as converting people? Food for thought 😉

    Liked by 4 people

    1. I think it is amazing, and I have a post in the hopper about this very topic. The indigenous peoples throughout the world shared dozens of commonalities, practice, and ritual with each other. Michael Harner catalogued this as “core shamanism”, and it was an intuitive coexistence with nature and its energy. It was worldwide and I think your on point here. The pagans would have been (and still are) very accepting and would have fit right in. A part of nature, not a stranger to it.
      It strikes me that conservative values is actually Christian values of economy. The Native American was much more conservative than a Christian. And as a frame of reference, William Penn was a Quaker, and a very pious man, yet the Indians were a part of nature, outshining the best Christianity had to offer. Maybe that was the threat. This was 200 years after the Europeans infiltrated the culture. So this in itself is likely a watered down version of the virtue of indigenous living.

      Liked by 3 people

    2. Pre-Christianization Rome was anything but tolerant. They saw all other civilizations as barbaric and fit only to be conquered, slaughtered or enslaved. The Roman empire was built upon the backs and blood of conquered “barbarians.” That is history. Prior to Rome, the Greeks had a similar approach, as did all those engaged in imperial conquest. If Christianity was not a contemporary problem most people wouldn’t even remember it, and never mention it. Christianity is a plague on society certainly but it is very dangerous to blame everything on something that is only partially to blame for our current existential problems as a global society. A rich man goes bankrupt. It is discovered that he had a favourite prostitute he went to periodically for comfort. Will society blame only the prostitute for the man losing his fortune, ignoring that he made bad investments and gambled?

      Liked by 2 people

    3. The Roman way during the time of their empire(which was late in their history) was to culturally assimilate the locals via cultivating the local elites. People that cooperated with Rome benefited from all the trade and commerce facilitated by the empire. The Roman army and engineers would build them fora, theaters, bathhouses, aqueducts, and temples. The local elites would be encouraged to give their children a Roman education. Tacitus wrote about this process as it was occurring in Britain with the Celtic peoples there. That was the soft power method. The ones that did not cooperate were punished in various ways. One common way was that the Romans would give their support to that tribes rivals and enemies. If the Romans really wanted the land, they would just invade. The vanquished might be deported and others moved onto their land. They might have their walls and forts demolished. They might be enslaved. Their leaders might be sent to Rome in chains, or be crucified. All of those could happen at once.

      Tacitus wrote about the subjection of the British peoples as it was ongoing in his biography of Agricola:
      “The following winter passed without disturbance, and was employed in salutary measures. For, to accustom to rest and repose through the charms of luxury a population scattered and barbarous and therefore inclined to war, Agricola gave private encouragement and public aid to the building of temples, courts of justice and dwelling-houses, praising the energetic, and reproving the indolent. Thus an honourable rivalry took the place of compulsion. He likewise provided a liberal education for the sons of the chiefs, and showed such a preference for the natural powers of the Britons over the industry of the Gauls that they who lately disdained the tongue of Rome now coveted its eloquence. Hence, too, a liking sprang up for our style of dress, and the toga became fashionable. Step by step they were led to things which dispose to vice, the lounge, the bath, the elegant banquet. All this in their ignorance, they called civilization, when it was but a part of their servitude.”

      Liked by 3 people

      1. Every time I read one of your comments K, I find something new that I could take an interest. Thank you. In the end they serve the empire for flesh pot, finery, and some quasi status serving a high servant. The bath house is a pretty good idea to do that.
        This questions me a bit about Islam. What is it they’re offering that is attracting new members?

        Liked by 1 person

        1. Rome is a tragic case to me. They did not start out as some empire set on absorbing everyone, they were not so different at first from the barbarians that they treated as their inferiors. Tacitus was actually a critic of Roman imperialism and the culture of his time. It comes through strongly in his writings(Germania and Agricola in particular), which he started right after the tyrannical emperor Domitian died. Many were hoping for some kind of restoration of the old liberties after that, but it never really happened.

          The Romans were religiously tolerant compared to Christians or Muslims, there is no question there. The Roman idea of religion, like other peoples in their area, was that of each tribe or city having its particular cults and traditions, and they had a great respect for anything old. New religions, they did not like very much, and early on in their history the Romans tried to resist foreign influence and religious innovation, though eventually this trend reversed. And their tolerance was not total. Augustus as high priest, for example, burned many books of Greek and Latin oracular verse. Also, the Romans banned practices that they considered witchcraft or magic, again Augustus provides an example. The philosopher and writer Apuleius was famously put on trial for practicing magic, though he was acquitted They also tended to kick out astrologers, at least periodically. Anything that involved night meetings was usually banned.

          I wonder how many converts Islam gets compared to people that leave it? Their birth rates are the main reason for the increase in numbers. But I have noticed that there are some converts. I can understand the appeal. We live in a time of confusion and anomie. That has been clear to me for a long time. Islam is a rigid system that provides all the answers one might need, and a purpose if they are looking for one. Whether those answers are worth anything is another matter.

          And to be honest, what attracts a lot of young men to the extreme end of Islam(Islamist political movements) is that it offers a fight. Danger, death, the possibility of conquering the foe, a cause to fight for. And for those who win, the rewards of status, women, wealth, land. Even in a loss, death, a memory as a hero, and a paradise for martyrs. Modern thought is in my view almost blind to this part of the human psyche. It is kind of assumed today that the maximum comfort possible and avoiding anything uncomfortable or challenging is what everyone wants. I think it is untrue that we all desire peace, if that were the case then we would be pacifistic, but as a species we are not.

          Those who are not attracted to Islam might be equally at home in some secular religion like communism, fascism, or Nazism. I see a lot of the political mania that is cropping up(right and left) as a search for some kind of religion. Even the hysteria over Trump, to some he is a god, to others a devil.

          Liked by 2 people

    1. That would be hopeful. I would bet dollars to donuts that the alien specie would have much more in common with the shaman than the Christian. Wonder if they’ve ever heard of Yahweh (unless they’ve been listening to old TBN broadcasts with Pat Robertson) then they will never come. They’re still scratching their heads saying What. The. Fuck. Is this?
      That would be proof of Yahweh’s omnipotence if other galaxies knew about him though.

      Liked by 1 person

    1. I would like to know if that is true too. I remember a friend that spent some time years ago in Polynesia. He thought at first they were dishonest thieves, but it turned out they owned nothing and freely borrowed from one another without a thought about it. They didn’t ask to borrow, because nobody owned anything.

      Liked by 2 people

    2. I am Metis, part First Nations, part European. While First Nations people were willing to share the land, they still had their own hunting grounds, sacred places, etc. We did not think of it as ownership, how can anyone “own” nature? But we defended our areas to the death if necessary. Two weeks later we would go to a Council of Nations and party it up with those we had just fought. We didn’t hold grudges, nor did we hate.

      Liked by 3 people

      1. If only they had social media and fake news could they learn the art of hate. It’s a strange phenomenon now days, where both sides hate hate each other based on ideas. It’s what you say, not what you do that breeds the most fake outrage.


  2. Yes. History. The history of mankind is usually unkind, not that the truth is often known. Christianity has not been the only “religion” to be damaging to the concurred tribe. So true. So sad.


    1. But Christianity is supposed to know better with the unchanging, unmatched morality from the word of god. My deconversion started based on the outcomes. What we see is not at all what they say it is, or even should be.

      Liked by 3 people

      1. No religion changes anyone from who they are. When it is all (moral or not) for the glory of god (and conveniently some of us), how we spell it matters not a bit.

        Liked by 1 person

        1. No one can change their consciousness, their personality, but through religion they can learn to hide it, lest they disappoint all the others that think they’re the only ones.

          Liked by 2 people

  3. This is part of our family story from the Red River Settlement, now Winnipeg:
    Government agents called the heads of all Metis families together, meeting in a bar. They then handed out deeds to the land, with every family getting a bit of river land, and extending outward from the river. All prime territory. Then they offered drinks to the new landowners to celebrate. Really.
    Suddenly in walks a white man who says I will buy those pieces of paper for a bottle of whiskey. You can’t eat paper, but you can drink whiskey. Already feeling a bit tipsy, the family heads “sold” their pieces of paper for that bottle of whiskey. Next day as they woke up with hangovers, the Mounted Police arrived to kick them off the land their First Nations ancestors had lived on for centuries, which they had “owned” for mere minutes.
    Years later this was taken to court, the government people and the traders obviously conspired to take the land away from the Metis. The white judge just said Buyer beware. They bought the whiskey. Too bad, so sad.
    As for pure First Nations people, they just moved them off their land and put them on rocky soil. That was straight theft.

    Liked by 4 people

    1. Hard to hit the like button on that comment sir. Here in the post we have a Quaker (Penn), a very trusted governor describing exactly what your family went through. At least those Christian cheats were forgiven by their master.

      Liked by 1 person

  4. Excellent post.
    I was thinking just the other day about really that the crux of Christianity is arrogance and believing they are superior. Their religion is the true one, they are correct in their beliefs, others are going to hell, their need to force it upon the rest of the non Christian world, their piousness in believing their prayers are answered but not others, natural disasters happen not to them, but the ones who have offended god in some way, god saves their child, but not yours and on and on it goes.

    At heart, it is truly about this arrogance, even when at its most subtle.
    It has nothing to do with love, kindness or fairness, but fear, control and oppression.

    Liked by 4 people

    1. I’m just going to requote Eric Hoffer here—
      The impression somehow prevails that the true believer, particularly the religious individual, is a humble person. The truth is that the surrendering and humbling of the self breed pride and arrogance. The true believer is apt to see himself as one of the chosen, the salt of the earth, a prince disguised in meekness, who is destined to inherit this earth and the kingdom of heaven, too. He who is not of his faith is evil; he who will not listen shall perish.”

      Liked by 4 people

  5. I may have shared this before. I was really pleased to read the story of a missionary who went to convert an Amazonian tribe (I think this was in the 1980s or 90s). He realized how happy they were and how easy and leisurely their lives were. Chucked the whole religion thing and became part of the tribe.

    It’s also telling that many whites who were captives of Native American tribes refused to leave when given the opportunity. A Native captive of the whites typically couldn’t leave fast enough.

    Liked by 1 person

    1. Your comment sort of reminds me of John Dunbar in dances with wolves.
      I remember two deconvert missionary stories that are quite good. Henry Rambow and Daniel Everett. Both realized they had nothing to offer but a line of pretense. Daniel Everett was trying in the end to infuse existential death into a culture that had no fear of an afterlife. It was silly to them, nor would they buy it. That is our natural intuition.

      Liked by 3 people

  6. Guys, I feel like this is a more complex issue. In no way am I justifying the stealing of Native American land by these European colonists..

    But, I do have to question the idea that all of the Native American tribal people were peace loving and lived in harmony before the Europeans arrived on the continent. I know there are archaeologists who dispute this.

    I also question whether the whole western expansion and the exploitation of the Native Americans was due to Christianity. I mean how on earth does this all square with the teaching of Jesus to love our neighbors as ourselves? It seems to me that this whole notion of manifest destiny was used as an excuse and cover for well, the “sin” of greed and coveting.

    What did it mean for these people to even describe themselves as “Christians?” It was just all part of their culture.

    To me it actually seems more Christlike, to work to help preserve indigenous culture, and to be open to what we can learn from one another.

    Liked by 1 person

    1. Well, this could be a very long answer but not this time I hope. The problem is the core of what the religion demands with obedience through faith vs ethical living. Your first allegiance is to god, even the first five commandments emphasize that. By faith his followers tow behind self appointed (called by god, oops) men of words that interpret this urgency to share it all with an equal amount of zealousy of every mass movement in history.
      “If you can get a man to believe an absurdity, you can get him to commit atrocities”
      Even the supposed Jesus knew this. He came to divide, according to scripture, not unite. A few platitudes of love mixed in with a lot of debate, immortality, and conjecture shows the relevance of the Bible could be printed in a pamphlet. But I regress. When the first premise of love in the gospel is the fallen sinner, “not worthy to latched his shoe”, self deprecating, unworthy orphans (god has his true love in his son) that you are barely tolerated, by shear grace are you even permitted to continue living. But if you obey hard enough… This “love your neighbor as yourself” has spoken volumes about how believers feel about themselves. “Treat others the way they want to be treated” would be more ethically minded.
      Followers today are merely transitioned Jews. They still believe everyone in the world is against them and in the end time prophecy, that many pray for its speedy arrival here in the US.
      What is sad about this, is by appealing to faith as a virtue, this sets one above the other, even amongst your own. Everyone thinks that the others are doing it wrong. But,
      “I believe”, means problem always laid at the feet of another.
      Jesus May have taught a little about love, but the churches have propagated us vs them since forever.

      Liked by 1 person

      1. Jim, I have to respect and accept your experience in the church. And, I think you’re right. Some do propagate an us vs. them mentality in the extreme.

        I can only share that for me, it’s all about building bridges, healing and reconciliation.

        I do think it’s good to treat people how they want to be treated. But, sadly, there are some people who have been so wounded and hurt, they almost don’t feel as if they deserve to be treated well or with respect. They push others away.

        If we don’t love ourselves, how are we truly able to love God or our neighbor, either? It feels connected to me. I feel that God’s care extends to all species. I think we are all connected in the great web of life.

        Appreciate hearing your thoughts.

        Liked by 1 person

        1. I do like you attitude anyway. I like the popes latest catch phrase that resonated well with me. I have to paraphrase, but you’ll get it “I don’t care if you’re a believer or not—do good, we’ll meet you there”. There is a lot of history that certainly, whether your faith is in something true or not, shows a divergence from the naturally evolved man and the believer who has been affected by power and the men of words. Europe, it’s hard to tell how far back the corruption goes, but untouched pockets of societies here and in the Caribbean and the north, lived beautiful lives at one with the environment. In the search for truth, for good, it leads me by the evidence. You know how I feel about this already, but the universal culture of the shaman found everywhere on earth, certainly has my attention.


    2. To me it actually seems more Christlike, to work to help preserve indigenous culture, and to be open to what we can learn from one another. By helping we will only wreck it further, IMO.
      Wade Davis was on one of his research projects. He loved the events in the long houses. Natives in their full regalia, dancing, music, traditional liturgy “and the only thing missing were the f-n missionaries. Seems they’re not comfortable in the pagan world, or they weren’t welcome. I didn’t ask.


    3. You don’t need archaeologists to dispute it. There is plenty of evidence within recorded history that the native Americans were not all peace loving hippies. They had their wars with each other frequently enough. They weren’t all egalitarian either, some of their societies had strict class and caste lines. The mound building Mississippian cultures were a prime example of natives with a stratified society and large settlements. Or if you count them, the native Polynesian societies in places like Tahiti or Hawaii. Very strict class and caste lines, also strict separation between genders, and often expansionist as well. Not that any of that bothers me. It is normal.

      One major difference is that these people weren’t out to destroy everyone else, like the Abrahamic religions want to do. They did not consider themselves the owners of the whole world, or the “chosen people” in some universal sense, as far as I can tell.

      As a whole, they were a lot less greedy and treacherous than many of the European settlers showed themselves to be. What happened to the Cherokee particularly disturbs me. They used the American system and the American rules, had their set land and a constitution, and won their case. They were not our enemies at all, had done nothing but try to make a fair deal with us. They were still removed by force. Not keeping your sworn word(and under your own rules), that is only a bit above killing a guest or betraying your family. Completely dishonorable. I would not blame any of the other peoples among them for refusing to deal with us, after seeing a betrayal like that.


      1. If I could pin this massive collection of journal entries down to a phrase it may be; the Christians who came to the new world were under the impression that their Christianity made them special. Then, evidenced through faith they still believed that, even betraying their own eyes.
        “Never judge the quality of your abilities til you’ve seen the competition”. Reminds me of this experience.


    4. Becky, this is just ONE of the many massacres we Native Americans went through at the hands of Christians.

      The Treaty of Fort Laramie in 1851 first defines Southern Cheyenne and Arapaho territory as the lands between the Rocky Mountains and western Kansas, including present-day Wyoming, Nebraska, and Colorado.

      Conflicts still arise, but the treaty stands for nearly a decade. Still, by 1861 the westward expansion is marching on. America’s rapid population growth in the West has federal authorities keen to redefine Southern Cheyenne and Arapaho territories once again.

      And with few options, the chiefs of both tribes agree to sign the Treaty of Fort Wise, ceding most of the lands designated to them in the Fort Laramie treaty. Their new territory is less than a tenth of the size of their previous reserves.

      In exchange for giving up the bulk of their native land, the Southern Cheyenne and Arapaho are promised peaceful asylum in a designated safe zone — near a tributary of the Arkansas River called Big Sandy Creek.

      The camp at Sand Creek contained approximately 100 lodges and an estimated 500 Indians were residing there under the assumed protection of the U.S. Army. At the time of the attack, the vast majority of the warriors were out hunting. The males who stayed at the camp were either too young or too old to hunt. The remainder were women and children.

      But Col. John Milton Chivington doesn’t believe in peace treaties.
      Chivington’s Attack

      The Christian Butcher, Col John Milton Chivington:

      The Methodist preacher turned Civil War hero is still raw after spending years fighting Confederate flag-waving soldiers and treaty-waving Indians. He’s tasted blood, and now he’s on the warpath. With hundreds of unsuspecting American Indians just around the corner, he’s found his perfect opportunity.

      Colonel Chivington led a force of approximately 700 men overnight to the Southern Cheyenne and Arapaho camp at Sand Creek, arriving on the morning of November 29 1864. Major Anthony, now with a sufficient force to attack, commanded 125 troops of the Colorado First from Fort Lyon. Lieutenant Wilson led a further 125 men of the Colorado First, and Colonel Shoup led 450 men of the Colorado Third.

      He stands to address his men, knowing full well that the Arapaho and Southern Cheyenne pose no threat.

      “Damn any man who sympathizes with Indians!” he says. “I have come to kill Indians, and believe it is right and honorable to use any means under God’s heaven to kill Indians.”

      And then, for emphasis: “Kill and scalp all, big and little.”

      He does just that. It’s a violent affair from the start.

      As the chaos begins, the American Indians raise American and white flags — symbols of peace. But Chivington ignores the plea, instead raising his arm for attack.

      On seeing hundreds of soldiers on horseback riding towards the camp, Black Kettle hoisted a large American flag, with a smaller white flag tied to it, over his lodge, which had been given to him by the Commissioner of Indian Affairs, A. B. Greenwood four years earlier. Greenwood had told Black Kettle to raise this flag when approached by soldiers to indicate that they were peaceful. Special Indian agent and interpreter, John Smith, who was camped with the Indians at Sand Creek at the time of the attack, ran out to the oncoming soldiers, but instead of stopping, they opened fire.

      Cheyenne chief White Antelope, also ran out, waving his hands frantically, shouting for the soldiers to stop, before realising the futility of his efforts, stood, arms folded, chanting his death song before being shot and killed. The troops scalped his head and cut off his ears and nose. The small number of warriors fought as best they could to hold off the attack, so that others, including Black Kettle, could escape.

      Cannon and rifle fire rain down upon the village. Indians scatter. The hysterical militiamen charge, chasing down men, women, and children, killing them cruelly and without mercy.

      The unrelenting attack lasts most of the day. The militia uses more than 1 ton of ammunition.

      But once the shooting ends, the bloodshed doesn’t cease. Chivington wants victory, not prisoners. So, as the smoke clears, his militia slaughters the wounded. They scalp the dead, mutilating women, children, and infants. They cut off the women’s breasts and cut out their vaginas. They stripped the skin off the children’s backs to cure as leather. They cut off the men’s and boy’s scrotum’s to use as tobacco pouches and to wear as trophies around their necks. They ransack the village, taking supplies and livestock. Whatever is left, they destroy and burn.

      In all, Chivington’s men scalp, rape, and murder hundreds of Southern Cheyenne and Arapaho people. Meanwhile, the militia loses fewer than 10 men, mostly due to friendly fire and sloppiness.

      According to Congressional testimony in 1865 by John S. Smith, an American interpreter present at the time of the attack, the carnage was ghastly.

      “I saw the bodies of those lying there cut all to pieces, worse mutilated than any I ever saw before; the women cut all to pieces … . With knives; scalped; their brains knocked out; children two or three months old; all ages lying there, from sucking infants up to warriors … .
      By whom were they mutilated? By the United States troops.”

      Andrew J. Gill, a volunteer aid to Chivington later testified in a military investigation into the massacre at Sand Creek that Chivington gave a speech just prior to the attack where he said, “Now boys, I sha’nt say who you shall kill, but remember our murdered women and children.” Captain Silas Soule, who opposed Chivington’s attack against peaceful Indians, refused to take part in the fighting and ordered his men not to fire.

      Soule recounted in a letter written to Major Wynkoop a couple of weeks after the massacre, that he had witnessed little children, who were on their knees surrendering, having their “brains beaten out” by soldiers, and a wounded squaw having her arm cut off with a hatchet while trying to defend herself, before the soldier “dashed the hatchet through her brain.”

      The subsequent investigations into the massacre revealed other atrocities carried out on the day. One eye witness reported seeing an Indian child of about three years old, “perfectly naked,” who was walking behind the Indians who were fleeing the attack, being shot at by three different soldiers in turn before the “little fellow dropped.”

      By the end of the fighting over one hundred Indians had been killed. Two-thirds of them were women and children. All of the dead were scalped, some had up to half a dozen scalps taken from their heads. Most were mutilated, some had their fingers cut off to steal their rings, while the chiefs as well as others had their genitalia cut off and taken as trophies.

      The mutilations were:

      1. Cutting off of women’s breasts for use as hats and as tobacco pouches.

      2. Cutting out of women’s and girls vaginas which were worn again, as hats and used as saddle decorations.

      3. Cutting off of men’s and boys ball sacs and used for trophies to wear around their necks and to use as again, tobacco pouches.

      Over the following weeks, Chivington and his men were lauded in the Denver press by the editor of the Rocky Mountain News, William Byers, who wrote in December, “Among the brilliant feats of arms in Indian warfare, the recent campaign of our Colorado volunteers will stand in history with few rivals,” and that they had carried out a “thousand incidents of individual daring” and “once again covered themselves with glory.” Chivington led the victory parade of the now named Bloody Third Regiment into Denver to a hero’s welcome.


  7. Part of my family history speaks to the so-called warfare between different tribes of indigenous people in the Americas. There are certainly stories that speak to violent wars, but for the most part warfare was not about murder and killing, but about taking women and children to bring fresh blood into tribes that would otherwise be inbred. The People, as we would have called ourselves had we known English, might not have known about genetics, but they knew that the tribes would suffer without new blood.
    I am not condoning this type of warfare, I am sure there could have been other ways of accomplishing this need, but this was the most prevalent cause. And everyone participated.
    Animosity was not a regular part of our warfare. There were many “wars” where no one died.

    Liked by 2 people

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in: Logo

You are commenting using your account. Log Out /  Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out /  Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out /  Change )

Connecting to %s

%d bloggers like this: