PART II: The New Censorship


Screen Shot 2015-06-16 at 7.24.34 PMPart II of III:

It is the current trend of historians to downplay the impact of the slave trade of the Barbary Coast, and white European slavery for several reasons.  One of those reasons is, like the tale of my great-grandmother’s family, it is not politically correct.  Western Europeans are to be portrayed as the evil ones, enslaving individuals from Africa, which many were.  But… There’s one little problem here.  The Barbary slave trade preyed upon Europeans, with well over three million white Europeans sold into slavery in Africa.  Also, there is an inconvenient fact that there a tremendous number of white slaves (many indentured) in the Thirteen Colonies.   In fact, people don’t realize the United States Marines were founded in 1801 by Thomas Jefferson, who dispatched them to Tripoli to take out the Barbary pirates who were holding American sailors hostages – ergo…from the shores of Tripoli.  Like my Reidhead ancestor,  thousands of Scots were sold into indentured servitude in America.  My Reidhead ancestor was impressed into the British Navy.  If you know anything about the process at that time, you will know how brutal and deadly it was   Another politically incorrect topic is the enslavement of Jewish women.  Also, it appears that one of the new taboo topics is any discussion about how First Nation’s peoples had a very viable slave trade, well after the Civil War.  The treatment of orientals (by their own people) in this country was a nightmare.  For some strange reason history tends to completely ignore the tens of thousands of Navajo who were captured, enslaved, and sold by both the Hispanic and Ute culture.  Also one of the other forbidden topics is the capture of white settlers for the slave trade by First Nation’s people.  How do I know?  It happened to an ancestor of mine.

There is a movement to remove the statue of a patroness ancestor of mine, Hannah Dustin. It is a sign of white, Christian, atrocity. Never mind that her 2-week-old infant was slaughtered, and she was enslaved and raped, repeatedly. The story is no longer viable because it hurts people’s feelings.

Google News
Google News

I guess you can see that I’m disgusted by the way the politically correct culture looks at her story. Maybe this might put a little perspective to it.

“…Twenty-seven persons were slaughtered, (fifteen of them children) and thirteen captured. The following is a list of the killed:-John Keezar, his father, and son, George; John Kimball and his mother, Hannah ; Sarah Eastman [Daughter of Deborah Corliss and grand daughter of George CORLISS]; Thomas Eaton ; Thomas Emerson, his wife, Elizabeth, and two children, Timothy and Sarah ; Daniel BRADLEY’s son Daniel Bradley, his wife, Hannah (she was also Stephen DOW’s daughter), and two children, Mary and Hannah ; Martha Dow, daughter of Stephen DOW; Joseph, Martha, and Sarah Bradley, children of Joseph Bradley, another son of Daniel BRADLEY ; Thomas and Mehitable Kingsbury [Children of Deborah Corliss and grand daughter of George CORLISS]. ; Thomas Wood and his daughter, Susannah ; John Woodman and his daughter, Susannah; Zechariah White ; and Martha, the infant daughter of Mr. Duston.” Hannah Dustin’s nurse Mary Neff, daughter of our ancestor GEORGE CORLISS, was carried away and helped in the escape by hatcheting her captors. Another captive who later wrote about the adventure and was kidnapped a second time ten years later was Hannah Heath Bradley, wife of Daniel BRADLEY’s son Joseph, daughter of John Heath and Sarah Partridge, and grand daughter of our ancestor Bartholomew HEATH….”

Hannah dared to fight back. Because she had been raped, she knew the only way she could get anyone to believe her story was to take back the scalps of the MEN who raped her. She did. Only, today, according to the Abenaki, she was captured and transported, raped, her infant slaughtered for her own good.

“…“It’s almost like the Geneva Conventions, when you think about it. Hannah betrayed the Abenaki Geneva Conventions. It wasn’t while she was in the midst of warfare that she did these supposedly brave acts. It was while she was in the care of a family,” Bruchak said. “If she had merely escaped, there probably would be very little story to tell, but the fact that she escaped, then stopped and went back to collect scalps – the bloody-mindedness of it is really quite remarkable. …”

Yep, the modern, politically correct way of looking at things is that Hannah betrayed her captors, who had slaughtered her infant and raped her. She betrayed them. She became a heroine.

“…“She became a hero because of it. The Colonial Puritan society which saw the killing of white children as an unpardonable sin that required the death penalty saw the killing of Indian children as a glorious act that turns someone into a hero,” she said….”

Unfortunately, for what she did, she is now branded a murderer and a racist. Her story, if the names and locations were changed, would today have her hailed as a hero. If she were a woman captured by ISIS, and took out a half dozen of them, she would be celebrated. But, she dared fight back against her captors, the ones who raped her and murdered her baby. For that, she is now considered crazy, or even evil. Frankly, I think the Abenaki, take on the story, today, is pure, dripping evil. For those interested, you will find a fascinating, unemotional and unbiased take on Hannah at Miner Descent.

I go back and think about the way minorities are treated today. We forget, that, during the life-time of Hannah Dustin, she was part of a minority. European settlers were greatly outnumbered by First Nation’s peoples at that time. If we were to look at her story in today’s terms, as a minority, her home burned, captured, and her infant slaughtered by the powerful majority, it would be a scandal. She would be heroic. But, today, she’s considered a murderous monster. I don’t know about you, but I’m sick and tired of censorship, and the rewriting of history so that people feel good about themselves. The real story is that the Abenaki are now trying to rewrite history in their favor to obscure the fact that they were marauding murderous monsters, rapists, and baby killers. They were slavers. She was to be sold into slavery. Had she been of a different race, today her story would be socially acceptable. Instead, we’re to believe the psychopath Abenaki version of the tale.

Something else. You must put history into context. My favorite part of her story, the most tragic part is that her sister, having committed adultery with an ancestor of Alan Ladd, delivered of triplets, premature. She buried them. She was the only woman hung in Boston Commons for her adultery. Her sister knew, by the virtue of having been repeatedly raped, she ran the risk of being hung, just like her sister – for adultery. If Hannah had not returned with the scalps, she might have suffered the same fate as her sister, Elizabeth.

There is a reason for my rant and rave.  Today, the Abenaki see no problem with their history capturing their enemy, brutalizing them, butchering them, selling them into slavery, raping the women, and murdering babies.  We are told this is due to the encroachment of white settlers.  Yet, when ISIS does the same thing, it is cause for horror.

Would someone please explain the difference to me?

My great-whatever grandfather, John Godbey owned a large plantation and owned slaves.  Around the time of the Revolutionary War, he became a Quaker.  He was horrified over what he had done, the lives he had ruined.  Realizing it would not work just to manumit his slaves, he also taught each and every one of them how to read and write and how to do their sums.  When he was sure that they could survive, he divided his property between them, giving each of them a legal portion of his land.  he gave them almost all the remainder of his money and his possessions.  Taking his children, his wife, a team of oxen, several horses, a few changes of clothing, and enough supplies to survive, he moved his family, following Daniel Boone, into Kentucky. (The fact that the Hatfields are also his descendents is another story).

Before leaving for Kentucky, he was able to talk his BFF into freeing his slaves.  No, he would not free them immediately, but he promised he would, at the death of he and his wife.  His BFF was named George Washington.  He did.  Unfortunately, Godbey was not able to talk another friend of his, a brilliant writer by the name of Thomas Jefferson, into doing the same thing.

My point?  Let’s stop trying to censor history, to cover it up, and pretend things did not happen.  We are all better if we just deal with it.

The series concludes tomorrow.

The lineage:

  1. Me
  2. Albert P. Reidhead = Sarah Jane Froehlich
  3. Ruby Perkins = Paris W. Reidhead
  4. Alma Dustin = Albert Perkins
  5. Amos Dustin = Kate Miller
  6. Moses Dustin = Janette Hill
  7. Timothy Dustin = Sally Little
  8. Paul Dustin = Betty Shannon
  9. Timothy Dustin = Sarah Johnson
  10. Thomas Dustin = Hannah Webster



4 thoughts on “PART II: The New Censorship

  1. Ho, ho, ho. Such a small world! Hannah Dustin was MY 8th Great- grandmother! So we are cousins! My liine came down through HDs daughter, Hannah Dustin, who married Daniel Cheney. My Great Grandmother was a Cheney, she married a Irving Bates, their son Vincent was my Grandfather.

  2. I find it so amazing how inbred (for want of a better word) these old New England families are. The other day I was going through some of my mother’s sterling. Discovered that one very old spoon was part of Hannah’s belongings. Evidently the family split everything up, fascinatingly, and just kept splitting things. My father remembers his Ladd relatives (Nancy Ladd his ggrandmother ended up with part of the scalp cloth!). We have the Ladd dresser that came over on the Mary and John. I get that. I’m discovering with the Dustins, nothing is a small world. Nice to meet you, cuz.

  3. I noticed from your blog that you are in New Mexico… I live in Albuquerque! Smaller world.

Comments are closed.