Alpo Posted January 9 Share Posted January 9 I was thinking of this the other day. You see it in a movie every once in a while. They did it in Josie Wales. Dig a deep hole, stick the guy in it, bury him up to his neck and leave him as a torture. Terrible thing to do to someone. But do you suppose Indians really did it? Without a backhoe, digging a hole 3 foot wide and 6 foot deep will really take a while. To make it 6 foot deep, it's going to need to be about 6 foot wide. I just have trouble visualizing Geronimo out there with a pick and shovel digging this great big hole to bury the white guy up to his neck. 3 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Tell Sackett SASS 18436 Posted January 9 Share Posted January 9 Big chief no dig hole!! Thats what braves in the background do! 5 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Subdeacon Joe Posted January 9 Share Posted January 9 Other cultures did it, no reason that American Indians wouldn't also do it. Here is an article about some of the tortures used by them. Including making one victim dig the hole. And a Daily Mail article about Depp's portrayal of a more compassionate Comanche. Take that one as you will. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Marshal Dan Troop 70448 Posted January 9 Share Posted January 9 I would think it would be hard to breathe with the dirt pressing against a persons abdomen. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Father Kit Cool Gun Garth Posted January 9 Share Posted January 9 (edited) They would tie wet leather around their head and when the sun dried it, it would shrink and then... Also bury them next to ant hills! Edited January 9 by Father Kit Cool Gun Garth Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Injun Ryder, SASS #36201L Posted January 10 Share Posted January 10 In AZ, we have these red ants whose bite is worse than a bee sting! (Ask me how I know). About 100+ bites have enough venom(?) to kill a 150 lb man so the victim would die long before being eaten by them. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
watab kid Posted January 12 Share Posted January 12 well , i needed to learn something new and that link gave it to me - amerindians - whole new term for me , not sure yet if i accept it or can embrace it , it sounds a bit woke to me and that would flush the idea of acceptance , but based on the content it was surrounded by im going to leave myself open on that topic and simply say that was an educational link that lended creed to a lot of what ive read about the little big horn and other such events , im not going to pretend it was one sided tho , wounded knee and others were equally bad , enough blame and shame to go round on both sides to last for generations - and it has , Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Alpo Posted January 12 Author Share Posted January 12 (edited) I've heard the term amerindians for at least 30 years, probably longer. Just a portmanteau of American Indian, to separate them from "Indians" or "Indian Indians" or "East Indians" or "dot Indians" (four different terms I've heard used for people on the Asian sub-continent). It was a used long before woke ever came along. I'm surprised a British paper use the term though. I thought with the Brits it was either an Indian or a red Indian. Edited January 12 by Alpo Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Join the conversation
You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.