They kinda did though but keep being ignorant or whatever. That was the point. "OH shit, this band's women are wearing war paint too? Let's talk this out maybe." Psyops and posturing effectively are warfare techniques. But keep being semi-semantically right, I guess.
Just because one chief, one time disguised his women to look like male warriors on the eve of a battle to deceive his enemy into declaring peace doesn't mean there's any archaeological evidence to suggest women were consistently fighting alongside the men. I can put a pitchfork in a scarecrow's hand to scare away birds, doesn't make it a warrior that has fought any battles.
Don't you think we would have found something tangible, aside from word of mouth folk tales of female Comanche warriors if it happened at all? Wouldn't there be weapons designed for women? Skeletal, or burial remains of women warriors showing they fought alongside, and were honored like men?
We don't have anything like this aside from tales told to people in history that weren't even there when it happened, and are now telling an author a second, or third hand account passed down generationally by word of mouth.
I don't like relying on that kind of history to shape inaccurate portrayals for people to draw inspiration from. That is how you end up with a female nigger Nordic Viking Jarl like in Netflix's show.
Squaws might not have been proper warriors, but they were fucking vicious, and it tended to be their job to tomahawk any prisoners who couldn't keep up. Not Comanche, I'm thinking more of the midwestern tribes here. See: Pierre Berton's accounts of the War of 1812, particularly the end of the first book, the chapter called "William Atherton's Diary" or something like that - it's the account of a white guy who was captured by ... Shawnee, iirc.
For sure.. that's why I put the wiki in parentheses, because we all know it's jew ran, and is susceptible to the editorial censorious errors that all jew ran sites are.
But by that same token.. just because it's not on there doesn't also mean it is true.
Okay..so you don't have anything showing that Comanche women fought alongside men, ever. You could have just saved yourself some time, and said that.
They kinda did though but keep being ignorant or whatever. That was the point. "OH shit, this band's women are wearing war paint too? Let's talk this out maybe." Psyops and posturing effectively are warfare techniques. But keep being semi-semantically right, I guess.
Just because one chief, one time disguised his women to look like male warriors on the eve of a battle to deceive his enemy into declaring peace doesn't mean there's any archaeological evidence to suggest women were consistently fighting alongside the men. I can put a pitchfork in a scarecrow's hand to scare away birds, doesn't make it a warrior that has fought any battles.
Don't you think we would have found something tangible, aside from word of mouth folk tales of female Comanche warriors if it happened at all? Wouldn't there be weapons designed for women? Skeletal, or burial remains of women warriors showing they fought alongside, and were honored like men?
We don't have anything like this aside from tales told to people in history that weren't even there when it happened, and are now telling an author a second, or third hand account passed down generationally by word of mouth.
I don't like relying on that kind of history to shape inaccurate portrayals for people to draw inspiration from. That is how you end up with a female nigger Nordic Viking Jarl like in Netflix's show.
Squaws might not have been proper warriors, but they were fucking vicious, and it tended to be their job to tomahawk any prisoners who couldn't keep up. Not Comanche, I'm thinking more of the midwestern tribes here. See: Pierre Berton's accounts of the War of 1812, particularly the end of the first book, the chapter called "William Atherton's Diary" or something like that - it's the account of a white guy who was captured by ... Shawnee, iirc.
You don't understand Comanche if you think it was a disguise.
Not being on wiki doesnt mean it didnt happen... surely you'd know this being in gg.
For sure.. that's why I put the wiki in parentheses, because we all know it's jew ran, and is susceptible to the editorial censorious errors that all jew ran sites are.
But by that same token.. just because it's not on there doesn't also mean it is true.