This ends badly.
Last Sunday night’s Episode 5 of Season 4 of Outlander was titled “Savages.”
This season of the Clan Cornelius obsessenach show has taken Claire and Jamie Fraser into the mountains of North Carolina in 1768, where their land grant butts up against Cherokee lands. The line of settlement was constantly being adjusted and readjusted along the Appalachian chain through the 1760s and the British Crown tried to restrain the westward impetus of white settlement so as to avoid another uprising like that led by Pontiac in 1763-64.
The episode revels the kind of cultural anxiety, blindness and misunderstanding that contributed to a cycle of confrontation, often followed by atrocity and counter-atrocity, events that stained the Appalachian frontier blood red as the colonies slid into the American Revolution.
It was an interesting bit of synchronicity, for that fraught term — “savage” —cropped up Sunday afternoon as Craig Rullman, Pete Rathbun and I recorded a Running Iron Report Podcast.
We were discussing Allan W. Eckert’s book The Frontiersmen as part of a series on the “Stories That Shaped Us.” Nothing had more of a shaping effect on me than the story of Kentucky Frontier Partisan Simon Kenton.
I was describing Kenton’s capture by Shawnee Indians in 1778, while he and two companions were engaged on a mission to steal Shawnee horses. A young warrior named Bonah claimed the capture of the frontiersman, and Bonah and his comrades decided to indulge in some sport. They tied Kenton backwards on a horse, then whipped the horse through the trees and brush. That was only the beginning of a brutal, traumatizing ordeal.
Simon Kenton: The Wild Ride. Art by Doug Hall.
Craig pondered what Kenton must have been thinking, being at the mercy of a “savage” intent on inflicting as much punishment on him as he could bear.
I must have looked a bit startled — “Savage” is just not a term that gets used much anymore. Craig amplified, standing by his usage and pointing out that if Bonah showed up on our porch today, we’d all see him as a savage — a dangerous, ferociously capable, terrifying savage. Which is true. And that’s sure as hell how the frontier people saw the Shawnee and their Mingo, Wyandot and Miami allies in 1778.
The past 50 years or so of frontier scholarship has done a great deal to enhance our cultural understanding of the First Peoples of the North American woodlands, and to see the story of the 18th century frontier “looking east from Indian Country.” This is all to the good — a very good thing indeed. Eckert’s works, in fact, were part of that movement.
But while we benefit from the humanizing effect of such storytelling, it is well not to forget that the woodland peoples were terrifying in aspect and action to the frontier peoples. Their fear and loathing of the “savages” was not baseless.
A Shawnee Warrior portrayed by a Colonial Williamsburg reenactor.
A Shawnee fighter, depicted by Robert W. Griffing.
Painted for war and moving through the dark woodlands like spectres, the forest warriors appeared demonic. And their mode of warfare was exceedingly, personally violent and cruel. Tortures of the most agonizing, soul-searing stripe were part and parcel of forest warfare, and the natives occasionally engaged in ritual cannibalism.
So… yes… savage.
*
Of course, the Americans could be savages, too, a fact from which Eckert never flinched. The monomaniacal murderousness of a Lewis Wetzel, or the criminal atrocity of the massacre of Christian Delaware at Gnadenhutten, Ohio, show plainly that savagery is not racially determined.
The very nature of frontier warfare lent itself to savagery. As the early historian of the Ohio Valley frontier Lucullus McWhorter noted:
“Life on the border tried men’s souls. It gave to some the outlet for a venomous passion for blood.”
The Ohio Valley frontier of the late 18th Century saw a murderous tit-for-tat war of atrocity and retaliation. Border ruffians drunk on rum and racial hatred committed heinous crimes of rape and murder upon the Indians, and there was no effective law to stop them. Indians’ tribal concept of punishment led to reprisal attacks that did not distinguish between the innocent and the guilty. Often as not, their tomahawks fell in revenge on some random, vulnerable settler or hunter who had done them no harm and committed no crime. Such attacks — to the settlers’ eyes unprovoked — stoked white rage and fed their perception of the Indians as murderous fiends.
The “Savages” episode of Outlander is clearly posing the question: “Who is the savage here?” It’s a worthy one to ask. The creators of the show have worked hard to thread a needle in their depiction of the frontier interaction between the settlers and the Cherokee, trying to keep it realistic while not stepping into a hornet’s nest with a “woke” culture that knows nothing about its history but is quick to jump to outrage.
The reality is that the woodland cultures were steeped in lifeway that exalted not only violence of action, but cruelty for the sake of cruelty. It is important to recognize that these were deeply spiritual and politically sophisticated people who also meted out torture and who retaliated for wrongs done to them with vengeful attacks on innocents. The Anglo-American civilization that ultimately conquered them after decades of bloody resistance supposed itself to be superior — and its avatars often behaved with shocking brutality themselves.
We mustn’t be afraid to call a savage a savage — it does a disservice to the darkly heroic tale that is the history of the Ohio Valley frontier.
At the same time, it is well to note that in later years, Bonah was a guest at the Ohio dinnertable of Simon Kenton, a man he’d done his best to see burned alive. The country, by then, was civilized and the Indian and the frontiersman alike had been pushed aside by a civilization that was less savage than they, but nevertheless relentless. There is something blessed and poignant in the image of two old Frontier Partisans — a pair of savages perhaps — sharing a pipe and memories of the good old days when they sought each others’ scalp.
Matthew says
Great piece.
JimC says
Thanks Matthew.
Frankie says
I loved those Eckert books. Read The Frontiersman in the 8th grade and was hooked. Still have my battered paperback and flip through it from time to time. I thoroughly loved his series on the winning of the west, or the west at that time.
JimC says
I think Eckert has set many a moccasin down the trail of frontier history. Compelling stuff.
Reese Crawford says
As a Cherokee, I would love to see how the Tribe is portrayed in the show. I haven’t seen any of it but based on your praise, I’m sure it was done well. Unlike certain politicians who claim an alliance with us.
JimC says
The effort to accurately portray appearance and material culture is the best I’ve seen. There is a clear effort to portray them as people and not as generic “Injuns” — within the constraints of a 10-episode series trying to adapt a ginormous book. I’d appreciate a slower approach, but that’s just me wanting more immersion.
I’m thinking that I need to delve deeper into the Carolinas/Watauga/Tennessee frontier. I sampled a recent history, and I need to pick up Demand of Blood. Dragging Canoe needs to be given his proper due as a Frontier Partisan.
Breaker Morant says
I found James Alexander Thom as a young adult before I found Eckert. Without reading Eckert, I always think of them as kind of the same. For some reason, I was never able to get into Eckert.
I just started reading the Bone Rattler series and met the first Indians-They obviously come across as savages.
For some reason, the Woodland Indians have always seemed darker and more savage to me than the Plains Indians. That impression might be baked deep into our DNA as a people and as a species.
Good piece, BTW.
JimC says
Thank you. I do think the appearance of the woodland warriors made them look more frightful. And I think there’s something, as you say, baked in that feels a special horror at threats coming out of the Mirkwood.
Jim Callow says
Your ending about the settler’s being as savage as the Red man when it came to atrocities brings to mind the old saying of a friend of mine who was a combat veteran. He said “when war has stripped away the thin veneer of civilization, the barbarian in all of us will come to the surface and exact its due from the enemy.” The Settlers’ and the Indians were engaged in a war of cultures, so no one side holds all the virtue in this.
JimC says
Robert E. Howard:
“Barbarism is the natural state of mankind. Civilization is unnatural. It is a whim of circumstance. And barbarism must always ultimately triumph.”
Breaker Morant says
>>>Robert E. Howard:
“Barbarism is the natural state of mankind. Civilization is unnatural. It is a whim of circumstance. And barbarism must always ultimately triumph.”<<<<
I think that phrase is how I view the Running Iron Report. At its core, it realizes the truth of that statement. It is not really a prepper site, it just understands that barbarism can triumph, and maybe very quickly.
Whereas, most people just assume that the current lifestyle will continue without really doing anything to help it continue.
JimC says
X-ring, my friend.
Reese Crawford says
Good to know! Anytime you adapt one form of media to another things are lost but others are gained. As a man between several cultures, I apreciate the work you do. Blood Moon is a very good work on divisions among Cherokee peoples in the time before, and during the American Civil War. If I remember right, it contains some history of Dragging Canoe. I don’t have the book with me at the moment so I apologize if that ends up a wild goose chase. The book is worth the read no matter what.
JimC says
Blood Moon is on the list.
John M Roberts says
Especially surprising is that these episodes are filmed entirely in Scotland. The “Cherokee” are Canadian First Nations people flown in for filming. It might be fun to hear what a real Cherokee thinks of their accents. When “Dances With Wolves” (the first American film where all the Indians were portrayed by real Indians) was being filmed, the extras were shown dailies after the day’s filming. The Indians in the film (except for the Pawnee) were supposed to be speaking Lakota but none of the principals were native Lakota speakers. The real Lakota among the extras were alway laughing their asses off at their terrible Lakota accents.
JimC says
Bet it would be…
Reese Crawford says
I will let you know what I think after I see it. As I speak the Oklahoma dialect, I will also consult one of my friends who is fluent in Eastern Band, closer to the Cherokee language of the time.
lane batot says
Ha! A lot of people are surprised when they converse with North Carolina Cherokee, at how pronounced their Southern Appalachian English accent is, picked up from generations of living amongst Southerners! A characteristic(being a drawling Southerner myself) I’ve always loved! As to a “Cherokee accent”–there are several distinct Cherokee dialects, so it might depend which one yer talking about! I took a Cherokee language course, from a teacher at the Qualla(North Carolina Eastern band) Reservation, and in reading other accounts, I find some words, though similar, still different enough that you might not recognize unless very fluent in the language generally. And a VERY PARTICULAR language indeed! The SLIGHTEST stretching of a vowel or uplilting accent can TOTALLY change the meaning of the word–an example:”ama” is “water”, and a:ma”(the first a lengthened a bit) is “salt”!!!! Or did I just get that backerdz?
Reese Crawford says
You are very much correct on that
lane batot says
….and man, I’ve gotten BEHIND in mah computer correspondences! Quite busy at work(no time for computer daliances there) tending 9 rhinos and a lot of African Antelope hoofed stock in Winter accomodations–plenty of SHOVELING, in other words! But damn, I LOVE my job! Then at home, just too busy tending to home things to play on this contrapshun–but home today, snowing like crazy outside, some time to sit cozy with a hot cup of coffee, and visit with the Frontier Partisans! And boy howdy, is THIS subject ever one right up my alley! Except in that, rarely going into cities, I rarely encounter actual alleys…..I haven’t got to see these episodes yet–I still have yet to purchase and watch Season 3! But I will, I will, as this part of the saga is what I’ve been waiting for! Sorry I can’t throw my two cents in while it’s premiering….Anyway, one thing I regretted about the Alan Eckertt frontier series, is that he never got around to the Southeast, and the Cherokee in particular, the Ani-Yunwiya(“human beings”–what so many tribes designated themselves, OF COURSE!) had a HUGE influence and impact on the entire Southeast. I’ll make a list, Jim, of some books you’ll want to delve into as you explore this era and geography–although you already have the CLASSIC “Myths Of The Cherokee” by Mooney! That is THE excellent reference to the people and history…..to be continued….
lane batot says
….all this talk of the term “savages” as being just a white settler notion–the Indian tribes themselves had terms for their enemy tribes that were their equivilant of “savage”–and far worse! Many tribal names picked up by the Europeans from other tribes, were insulting in the extreme in some cases, or just not particularly complimentary in others! An interesting comparison(well, to me, at least), is a book I have titled “Vicious”, chronicling the persecution of wolves in North America, and the absolutely sadistic, torturing atrocities some of the so-called civilized settlers did rather unnecessarily to helpless animals in their power, simply because they COULD–that went far and beyond just eliminating “vermin”. The title of the book describing the HUMANS, rather than the “savage” animals, as one learned in reading it…..As to the notion that the Eastern Woodland Indians were somewhat more frightening and savage in countenance as compared to the Western tribes in later European expansion–HECK YEAH they were! If only because they were more equally formidable, and often the outcome of conflict could go either way–the Woodland tribes were a much greater force to be reckoned with. Later expansion in the West, though bloody and frightful, was rather a foregone conclusion(sigh) as to the eventual outcome and who would prevail. But there IS something about the depths of the shadowy forest that unnerves those not familiar with it, and certainly hides any threats much more effectively! Something I’VE used to my own advantage at times!….And speaking of the “savage appearance” of the warriors–YOU BET! They’d be THE FIRST to admit that–they went to a great deal of effort to purposefully appear that way! Also a tactic I have found useful(and dress up and use war paint like that these days, people not only think you are something of as savage, they think you are NUTS! And want as little to do with you as possible! Which can be quite useful in a conflict!) I can’t help but think of my using such tactics quite successfully back in those afore-mentioned Dog Pound raiding days on the Reservation, and my war with the Campus Bluecoats…..