Violence and the Comanche People

No Noble Savage, No Hobbesian Barbarian

Recommended readings:

Future Primitive: Revisited by John Zerzan.

“Return of the Warrior” & “Atassa: Lessons of the Creek War (1813–1814)” essays in Atassa.

___________________________________________________________________

I

The view on violence, and its relation to the Human condition is a divisive one. Historically, the world-builders have believed Humanity is a violent species, greedy and prideful. They believed early, primitive humanity was in a state of barbarism. In the words of Hobbes, primitive life was, “solitary, poor, nasty, brutish, and short” because individuals existed in a state of “..war of all against all.” In their own ahistorical understanding, the world-builders believed social contracts were formed, bringing about a more stable society, what we call civilization (especially in a Eurocentric understanding). Ironically, such stable societies have created, out of necessity, unique social regulators like ever growing laws and religious institutions (Judaism, Hinduism, Buddhism, Christianity, Islam..) that help us understand the human condition and keep the peace. See the Christian view:

For from within, out of the heart of man, come evil thoughts, sexual immorality, theft, murder, adultery, coveting, wickedness, deceit, sensuality, envy, slander, pride, foolishness. All these evil things come from within, and they defile a person. Mark 7: 21–23

However, there has been a tendency in anthropology circles since the 1960’s that has countered this view: That early Homos, since their split with their more violent Chimpanzee cousins, were an example of affluence, little to moderate violence, and social equity that stands in contrast to modern society. One pioneer of this anthropological revolution was/is Marshall Sahlins, with his work, The Original Affluent Society. We’ve also begun to understand since then, especially with the popularization of Marxian history, that mass societies were not a peaceful development, but one born from violence and coercion. Read The Origin of the Family, Private Property and the State by Friedrich Engels. Even before this, there was Jean-Jacques Rousseau, ideological enemy to Hobbes who stated, “Man is born free and everywhere he is in chains.”

As the debate on violence continues, anti-civilization circles must try to break with the Noble Savage analysis, as seen in my Zerzan suggested reading; but take care not to be edgy contrarians and adopt the Hobbesian view, which is but a World-Builder ideology, one that comes through in the first suggested Atassa reading I have included.

There is instead, a ‘spectrum’ of sorts. It wasn’t that one day, groups of humans woke up with new views on violence and waged war for their neighbor’s land and trading materials; on the other hand, to believe humans are “naturally” and unconditionally peaceful is simply untrue. For example, the Comanche people were in near constant conflict (endemic conflict), but the values and goals represented what some like myself consider a middle-path of the development of mass-violence. For the bulk of this essay, we will examine the Comanche people and their relationship to violence in hopes of breaking from the dogmatic view of humanity’s capacity for violence.

II

The Comanche were a nomadic people, who lacked any true central governing body. Instead, they had ever developing ‘divisions’, which can be understood as affinity tribes. The divisions were largely built on common interests such as trade, peace-making, and war. The Comanche were reliant primarily on hunting, trading, and raiding. The hunting provided basic subsistence for them, as they were a nomadic people. To understand the importance of trading and raiding within the Comanche way of life, one must understand that the Comanche identity was based within horses, and thus, ventures of trade and raids centered on obtaining more horses.

One may argue then that wealth was the center of what violence the Comanche had initiated, but I’d argue differently. Wealth here was an individual’s wealth, and his prestige. In fact, a man’s wealth was often measured by the size of his horse herd, and young boys were even taught to ride before they could even walk — further showing the cultural and economic importance of the horse in the Comanche way of life. [1] It is important to also understand the horses’ relation to the male-female relations in the Comanche way of life, as it strengthened the division of labor. Women did not have access to horses, and already were confined to ‘home-life’ typical of institutional divisions of labor.

Wealth and the social view of greed in Comanche society was similar to many pre-agricultural societies, with a hoarding of most forms of wealth being looked down upon. Material wealth and other possessions were often discarded upon death of the owner, much like their neighbors, the Kiowa. [2] Not only this, but possessions were given up during a ‘Give-Away’ ritual, where a young man had his coming of age and was announced as a warrior. Members of the band would offer up most, if not all, of their own belongings to the larger community during these rituals. This was common across the Plains Indians, and could almost be considered a rule of thumb for all nomadic and semi-nomadic indigenous people of ‘America.’ [3]

It is important to understand the view of wealth in these societies, because of the actual use of it. Since horses were a tool for hunting, war, and travel, the wealth here is tangible and visible, it has human use. [4] It is not like the flow of Capital in our industrial era, which acts as a mediator of relations. Violence, then, is a way of accumulating wealth and possessions that had use-value. This is further supported in the specific case of the Comanche, who’s raids were almost entirely focused on obtaining horses, sometimes numbering in the hundreds. [5]

Another important note is that the accumulation of wealth here, that of a communal wealth, is not quite easy to compare to those of modern nations. The fluid change of hands, and use-values represent their own ends, while wealth accumulation is a means to mediation and representation of Capital in industrial nations.

However, we must note that this accumulation is also based in the domestication process. Were it not for horses, and the Comanche’s relation to other domesticators, logically their wealth and possessions would look radically different; more so comparable to hunter-gatherer proper, whose wealth was truly negligible. This is especially true with the growing trade with European powers. As their relation to the colonists grew, so did the Comanche range of influence. A self serving cycle.

III

The other point of violence to be discussed is one’s sense of identity. I don’t mean identity in some larger-than-life ethnic construction. What I mean is one’s identity in their day to day life, and their self-realization through communal life. This could manifest in conflict with other inidigenous peoples, but I wish to focus on their anti-colonial struggles, the Comanche Wars, specifically.

In defense of their way of life, and the corresponding natural terrain, the Comanche held the region commonly called Comancheria, Comanchería, or Nʉmʉnʉʉ Sookobitʉ (Comanche land). This region spanned a large portion of modern day New Mexico, west Texas, and parts of Colorado, Oklahoma and Kansas. Conflict was between the Comanche and Spanish, Mexicans and Americans, depending on the time. [6]

Interestingly, disease, at first, failed to weaken the Comanche forces, but groups like the Apache were hit hard, and this allowed the Comanche to expand influence over the region. Some have come to call this phenomenon empire building, which I disagree with on the basis they expanded not by conquest, but because competition had left, died off, or assimilated into the Comanche.

However, drought eventually began to weaken this ‘empire’, which had also begun to expand into Mexico for resources, specifically horses. With this drought, diseases finally began to overtake the Comanche people. This weakening prompted the local non-indigenous forces to attack. Fast moving raids on forts and settlements proved to be the Comanchean solution. Assisted by horses, they began to be seen as the strongest cavalry in the world, and gained the title of “Lords of the Plains.” One such raid was the Fort Parker Massacre, where Comanche and allied indigenous peoples attacked a pioneer family, the Parkers. Several children were taken and either sold or assimilated into Comanchean culture. The most famous, Cynthia Ann Parker, a nine-year old girl was taken into her captors’ culture. There, she lived with them for 25 years and married to Peta Nocona, a chief of the Nokoni band.[7]

With Peta, Cynthia produced three children, one of them being the last chief before the Comanche were placed into reservations. She was brought back to Anglo society after her band was attacked by United States Texas Rangers. She even attempted to return to the Comanche years later, but was brought back to her home. She failed to reintegrate and eventually died of self-induced starvation after her daughter passed of influenza. [8]

There is much to be said of Cynthia choosing to live among the Comanche, and grieving the times long past, failing to return to her parent culture in a healthy way. She was not the only one of this case, and her brother had a similar fate. [9]

Returning to the main point: in fact of extinction, or assimilation, the Comanche chose conflict, violence against pioneers who encroached on their land. In what may be seen as hypocrisy, Comanche continued to trade with any and all who would benefit them, even if some of the population (Divisions) were at war with their trading partners. However, an interesting point can be made on this observation: the reason the Comanche never developed mass society and through this, mass violence, was because their culture lacked any concrete central governing body to represent the whole of the people. Instead, the Divisions, these affinity tribes, functioned by common interest, not coercion.

IV

What does this rambling history lesson mean for the anti-civilization, eco-extremist, primitivist milieu? Not much, if one continues to believe violence is a law of civilization alone. It also will mean something radically different for those who perhaps worship, or revere violence (see the first Atassa recommended reading). I hope that these circles embrace a more nuanced understanding of violence beyond the typical Leftist “class war.”

Phenomenologically speaking, war of pacification and assimilation, ie, violence by the State, or within a larger framework of what we call (industrial) civilization is radically different than “democratic” war of prestige and identity within tribal contexts. Individualist anarchism of Europe pioneered a sort of way of discerning violence of the individual and that of the State/Society, and perhaps we need to revisit that mentality in a 21st century anti-civilization context. I personally do not believe myself to be the one to define that, only to help begin the dialogue by analyzing historical trends of violence in relation to social structures.

~Sal Sobre La Heridas

____________________________________________________________

Footnotes

[1]- Spanish Colonial Horse and the Plains Indian Culture

[2]- Toby Blackstar Discusses Funeral Customs in Native American Communities

[3] Sacred Giving, Sacred Receiving, by Joseph Bruchac

[4] As an advocate of the deconstruction of the ‘Human’ or of ‘Humanity’, my reference to human use is only to help those of Marxian and LTV heritage understand my point. Material or actual use may be other ways to express the same idea.

[5] Spanish Colonial Horse and the Plains Indian Culture

[6] The Comanche Empire by Pekka Hämäläinen

[7] PARKER, CYNTHIA ANN by Margaret Schmidt Hacker

[8] ibid

[9] ibid