Cactusjumper wrote
and
IPUK wrote
Interesting posts, have to agree with much, and respectfully disagree in PART.
There is strong evidence that the famous Apaches of the southwest, were really driven from the southern plains (Texas, NM) by none other than the equally famous Comanches during the 1600s, in large part due to the slave trade, as well as the other profits of a raiding, mounted culture that the Comanches had become earlier than most of the other plains tribes. The foot-bound Apaches were relatively easy targets for the mounted Comanches for over a century, driving many Apaches to the less hospitable desert southwest. Some Apaches of the plains also adopted the horse culture and proceeded to become every bit the terror that the Comanches were, and were able to 'hold their own' but a large part of their people had already moved SW. A good book that well explains the mass movement of Apaches from the plains to the desert is The Other Slavery, the uncovered story of Indian Enslavement in America by Andres Resendez.
Before someone now proceeds to blame the Spanish for buying slaves and other booty from the Comanches and thus fueling the horrific trade, I would point out that when this business started, a large party of Comanches came into New Mexico with a number of captives, mostly Apaches, to sell. When the horrified Spanish refused to buy these slaves, the Comanches proceeded to cut off the heads of their captives in front of the Spanish, which of course resulted in the Spanish agreeing to buy the slaves. Voila, a slave trade is born!
As to the fighting abilities of the Apaches, as none of us were alive when these events were happening, we are limited to viewing it through the written accounts of those that had to face them. These accounts and reports are of course biased, there is bravado, bragging, attempts to belittle the enemy, and alternatively painting the Apaches as invincible enemies, the devil incarnate. Based on the outcomes of numerous and mostly small battles, the Apaches won and lost many fights. But yet were these real victories, and real defeats? A survivor of an Apache raid that seemed to drive off the warriors, might view the outcome as a defeat of the Apaches, yet the Apaches might have already accomplished their goals and simply retreated by choice rather than suffer un-necessary casualties. By the time of the American-Apache wars, the Apache numbers had fallen precipitously, but a century earlier their numbers were quite on a par with other major tribes such as the Navajos. We have from Spanish sources several estimates of Apache numbers which may of course be far off the mark, but are logical when one takes into consideration the continual attrition loss of never-ending warfare. Most witness accounts of encounters with Apaches (battles) credited them with being very brave, able to appear to be more numerous than reality, and to engage and disengage from battle at will. Being inferior in numbers, with a very low rate of replacements for losses in battles, this strategy is both logical and best available to them.
Today the Apaches like most of the major tribes that fought against the American 'conquest' have been glorified, romanticized and greatly distorted by books and especially by Hollywood. They are painted as the noble red men, defending family and home which is partly true, and ignoring or minimising their actual record as rather vicious enemies, brutal almost beyond belief, capable of being deceitful, treacherous, capturing and enslaving enemies, committing butchery and savagery beyond most other tribes. We have eyewitness records of 'white' women that had their infant children literally torn from their arms and immediately beating the brains out of the child in front of the mothers. This is not to say that the Americans, Mexicans and Spanish did not also practice savagery and butchery against the Apaches (and any other tribe that might appear to be Apaches like the Yavapais) but unfortunately most people today have a very unrealistic idea of the Indians and that period of history. Even when not at war (which was almost never) life for the Apaches, and all other tribes for that matter, was precarious and difficult. Starvation was always lurking just around the corner, suffering through winters and the very real possibility of sudden assault by enemies made for a life that most today would find unbearable. One of the rather surprising facts of life for "wild" tribes were suicides, quite common among many tribes and especially by women, whose lot in this culture was far from admirable. It is a testament to the courage and fortitude of all Indian tribes that they were able to endure and survive, especially when you remember that some tribes were literally exterminated. Many people in the American southwest and northern Mexico wanted the Apaches to be exterminated as well.
Sorry for getting carried away there, but for anyone that may think the Apaches were not so great as fighters, I would suggest to read the accounts of the participants of the battle of Apache Pass (1862), which was a two-day standup fight, and is hardly the only such example, another would be their mass assault on Tucson, 1776 if memory serves, allied with the Navajos for that one. Many underestimated the Apaches and learned the hard way.
Last point in this very long winded post but there are good reasons why the Apaches surrendered, as with all the other Amerindian tribes. Their lives were not SO wonderful, and the deal they obtained from the US government providing them with a steady and reliable source of food, was a powerful incentive, coupled with an end to the never ending warfare in which they were usually the hunted. Let us not romanticize them, nor minimize their place in history.
Please do continue;
　
　
IPUK I would suggest to read that book posted earlier, concerning the slave trade in the American southwest. True the Spaniards did introduce slavery into the Americas, yet slavery was a thriving business among many Amerindian tribes including the Aztecs, Incas, Apaches, Sioux, Iroquois, in fact all over both American continents before any European set foot here. Also, the Comanches literally blackmailing the Spanish into buying slaves (mostly Apaches) is a documented fact. The governors of New Mexico were under strict orders not to allow slavery, and got cornered into doing it anyway rather than have their powerful Comanche neighbors simply beheading their captives at their trading fairs. Not every evil was introduced into the Americas by the "whiteys".
Please do continue;
IPUK I would suggest to read that book posted earlier, concerning the slave trade in the American southwest. True the Spaniards did introduce slavery into the Americas, yet slavery was a thriving business among many Amerindian tribes including the Aztecs, Incas, Apaches, Sioux, Iroquois, in fact all over both American continents before any European set foot here. Also, the Comanches literally blackmailing the Spanish into buying slaves (mostly Apaches) is a documented fact. The governors of New Mexico were under strict orders not to allow slavery, and got cornered into doing it anyway rather than have their powerful Comanche neighbors simply beheading their captives at their trading fairs. Not every evil was introduced into the Americas by the "whiteys".
Please do continue;
Not to take issue with any of the posts, just something to consider.
A good case could be made that the Amerindians actually WON the war of conquest. That may sound strange to you, however consider this:
A majority of Americans claim some Amerindian ancestry, which if you think about it, and remember that the Amerindians were heavily outnumbered except for the very beginning of European colonization, says something.
America adopted a model of government that is more related to the Iroquois system than to anything European. Hence we have no parliament, no house of Lords etc.
Many places (geographic) have Amerindian names, from Wyoming to Massachusetts, which means that the original people's geographic names survived this "conquest".
Many of the tribes retained at least a portion of their former lands, in the reservation systems. Love them or hate them, the reservations are a real evidence that the tribal peoples were able to hold on to at least SOME of their lands, despite being so heavily outnumbered by the "whiteys" whom were bent on seizing all of the lands.
Most tribal peoples have superior rights in the US, as they are in the rather odd position of having citizenship as US citizens, and as citizens of their tribal nations. In a real sense, they are a separate class of citizens that in many cases are still being paid simply for being members of their tribe, due to the treaty requirements. None of the 'whiteys' are able to obtain payments from the federal government completely aside from any kind of welfare or food stamps system, simply because of their ancestry.
Further, within these reservations, the tribal peoples have their own legal systems, police and courts etc. This too indicates a very tangible type of victory.
Even in our military, our forces now fight more like the way the Amerindians did, than the ancient European way; we do not see masses of men lined up to fire at the enemy for example, it is more like a series of ambushes and mobile warfare. This is just a few examples of the way the Europeans became Amerindian, right down to the very foods we eat today. (The so-called Columbian exchange)
For a comparison simply look south of the border, where the rule was to totally assimilate the tribal peoples. Their language, culture, religions etc were to be utterly erased, and forced to become Spanish speaking Mexicans. An example is in the once numerous and powerful Opata tribe, today hardly any can be identified as Opata, much less speak the language. The Spanish system might have some benefits when compared to the American system, in that eventually the tribal peoples became on a par with other citizens, but it literally destroyed their tribal culture, in some cases completely.
All of which is debatable as to whether it was good or bad - and today we should be grown up enough to realize that we are all in the same boat and live in the same land, we ought not be fighting amongst ourselves. Yet a close look at the reality of most Amerindian tribes as they existed before and shortly after contact with the Europeans, we can see some pretty horrific practices like the mass human sacrifice of the Aztecs, the never ending tribal warfare continent-wide, (not every tribe always at war with every other tribe of course) the slavery, and even cannibalism among some tribes. The Susquehannocks of PA/MD for example were enthusiastic cannibals. Would you consider that life to have been beneficial, superior to the European culture that replaced and in a very real way, melded with the tribal peoples?
This article is focused on the Comanches, but would also fit to a large degree the Apaches of the southwest:
The Real-Life Tontos: How Comanche Indians Butchered Babies, Roasted Enemies Alive and Would Ride 1,000 Miles to Wipe Out One Family - American Renaissance
