Talk:Comanche/Archive 1

This is an archive of past discussions. Do not edit the contents of this page. If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the current talk page.

Archive 1

Archive 2

Picture: Comanche camp or Arapaho camp?

ATTN: The picture depicting a "comanche camp" appears also on the Arapaho page ... where it depicts an "arapaho camp". conflicting sources. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Image:ArapahoCamp_1868.jpg http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Image:Comanchecamp.jpg

I have sent an email trying to determine the correct tribe. Hopefully we can sort this out. Rmhermen (talk) 04:54, 14 January 2008 (UTC)

I am pretty sure this is *not* a Comanche village as the tipis are three rather than Comanche four-pole. For the difference, see:

Kavanagh, Thomas 1991 Whose Village. Visual Anthropology

and/or

Domestic Architecture at the Comanche Village on Medicine Creek, Indian Territory, Winter 1873 ( http://php.indiana.edu/~tkavanag/asoule.html)

(Note there is a difference between Comanche 4-pole and Crow/Blackfoot 4-pole)

I also have one citation of it as a Cheyenne village.

68.196.108.164 (talk) 15:25, 6 June 2010 (UTC) Thomas Kavanagh, PhD

Feedback from peer review

I am placing this at the top for ease of access: please move to the end and remove this statement if you feel the deviation from normal organization is insufficiently warranted.

First feedback addresses somethign which has been in the back of my mind for some time - the article is mostly historical in nature, with the Culture section addressing mostly past practice. My thought: Create a new article Comanche nation and move content which is post-Comanche treaty of 1835 there. [1] KillerChihuahua 14:13, 4 December 2005 (UTC)

Comanche Flag?

i looking for a flag of Comanche please contact me at : [email protected]

Comanche Homes?

I looking for a web site on comanche homes Please tell me by posting it

Needs Cleanup

i think this page needs to be cleaned up, ans wikified. --Zephirum 12:14, 20 September 2005 (UTC)

There's a markup for that... =) -LlywelynII (talk) 20:39, 18 February 2010 (UTC)

Picture: Comanche camp or Arapaho Camp (#2)

I'm not sure if this was intentional, but the Arapaho article and this (Comanche) article use the same picture to showcase their respective villages! "Arapaho camp, 1868", and "Comanche camp, c. 1870." Which camp is it? --errantmind 14:44, 1 August 2007 (CST)

Encyclopedia textdump needs fixing

The information copied from the encyclopaedia needs to be deleted. This article at a quarter of what it is now would be too long. Jockmonkey 11:37, 22 September 2005 (UTC)

Thank you for your suggestion! When you feel an article needs improvement, please feel free to make whatever changes you feel are needed. Wikipedia is a wiki, so anyone can edit almost any article by simply following the Edit this page link at the top. You don't even need to log in! (Although there are some reasons why you might like to…) The Wikipedia community encourages you to be bold. Don't worry too much about making honest mistakes—they're likely to be found and corrected quickly. If you're not sure how editing works, check out how to edit a page, or use the sandbox to try out your editing skills. New contributors are always welcome. Jockmonkey - we could use the help! KillerChihuahua 19:17, 22 September 2005 (UTC)

Dating the Comanche

It is a little worrying that the article begins with the statement "The Comanches emerged as a distinct group shortly before 1700..." and yet the Timeline starts at 1500. The 1700 date seems to be borne out by some other sources I found, but I am not confident enough to change anything. Someone with some subject knowledge needs to address. - Matt 29-Sep-05

This is certainly problematic. Going only by the information available here, it seems to me that the Shoshone divided around 1500, with the Comanche splitting from the Shoshone people living along the upper Platte River around 1680. If this is the case, the timeline should be edited to refer to "Shoshone" rather than "Comanche" before 1680, and perhaps even moved to the Shoshone article, or an article dealing with that specific Shoshone group. Some sort of confirmation would be good.... TheMadBaron 21:04, 5 October 2005 (UTC)

Copyright?

I am getting increasingly worried that large chunks of this seem to be virtually identical to other sources, especially

http://www.tolatsga.org/ComancheOne.html
http://www.dickshovel.com/ComancheTwo.html
http://www.dickshovel.com/ComancheThree.html

which is clearly marked copyright.

Article too big: Needs breakup

At 109 kilobytes, this article is way too long. I propose moving the entire history section to a new article (Comanche History, or similar), leaving only the timeline here. Good idea? TheMadBaron 09:27, 4 October 2005 (UTC)

Concur. I propose having a brief history here, with link to Comanche History. I was thinking of that myself last time I was able to get on - glad you are thinking along the same lines. KillerChihuahua 12:49, 4 October 2005 (UTC)

Okay, created Comanche History, which is also too long, so please go edit. Elements of the Bibliography should probably also be moved. Now, howabout we replace that timeline with a link to [2]? TheMadBaron 18:56, 4 October 2005 (UTC)

Um, might not be such a good idea since the external link you reference no longer exists (or does not exist at the time of this post, anyway.) Create Comanche History Timeline, perhaps? There is precedent. KillerChihuahua 15:30, 5 October 2005 (UTC)

The link is working fine now. FWIW, I think having a seperate history and a seperate history timeline would be excessive. TheMadBaron 20:31, 5 October 2005 (UTC)

Hmm, second thoughts, it would be nice to get that timeline out of this article, and it would be a shame to lose it. What's the precedent? TheMadBaron 01:29, 7 October 2005 (UTC)

Well, there are lots of examples, such as Haiti Timeline which is part of Category:History of Haiti, which also includes History of Haiti as well as over a dozen other articles. The Comanche were much smaller, of course, but we could still move the darn timeline. Afghanistan is another good example of having a country article, a history article, and a timeline article. Afghanistan, tho, has about 80 separate timelines - month by month since 2000, and divided by years before that. I can give more examples if you want - the two I listed here are countries, but there are others, such as the Early Nazi Timeline which is listed for cleanup, btw.

Anyway, I moved the Comanche Timeline (no consistency on naming these things so Move to Timeline of Comanche History if you want, and add redirect from Comanche History) KillerChihuahua 15:01, 10 October 2005 (UTC)

On second thought, seeking input. Should we call the darn thing:

Comanche History Timeline
Timeline of Comanche History
Comanche Timeline (current name)

would love second opinion. Again, not much consistency here across WP. KillerChihuahua 15:06, 10 October 2005 (UTC)

Comanche sexual norms

Extracted from: Index -> Americas -> North America -> North American Natives -> Comanches

http://www2.rz.hu-berlin.de/

COMANCHES (North-American Natives)

Wallace and Hoebel (1952:p128)[1][39] state that small children play ?chief? choosing wives. ?The more precocious dallied in sexual experimentation. ?One day we played at being married. I did my best to make a baby with my wife?, said Post Oak Jim?. ?Although youngsters were not subject to moral censure for sexual activity, it was encouraged. Boys, during the period of their preadolescent gang life, ignored the girls to a great degree?. At adolescence, when they become ?positively bashful?, this changes: the girls visit the boys. Linton (1945:p75)[2][40] states the following: ?Sexual play between children began at an early age, and was carried out on quite freely as long as the two children were not brother and sister. The Comanche paid no attention to virginity; they took these childhood relations more or less for granted?. Further (p138, 156), free masturbation would decline after acquisition of the loin cloth, the children would ?imitate? adult modesty. Much clandestine sex play, both heterosexual and homosexual, occurred; children would imitate adult obscenity. Children?s behaviour indicated a knowledge of the relation between copulation and conception (p138).

?Generally girls married young, sometimes even before puberty. Colonel Richard I. Dodge wrote of attending a Plains Indian dance where the ?belles of the evening? were ?two little girls of about ten years old, who, he believed, where already beginning ?to feel matrimonial hankerings?. One Comanche chief, Sanaco, he declared, had as a wife ?a pretty little maid of about ten years, of whom he was very fond?. Chief Sanaco may, or may not, have had sexual relations with his ten-year-old bride. To have done so would not have been unheard-of, as will be apparent later. [?] [Berlandier] entrusted to his journal the method by which an older Comanche husband prepared a child wife for future sexual relations. The warrior purchased the little girl for a horse or a mule when she was seven or eight years old. The child continued to reside with her parents for the time being. When she was nine or ten, her husband began coming to her father?s lodge to sleep with her, without attempting to initiate intercourse. For a long time, on each occasion fist greasing his fingers, he masturbated her, using one finger then two, ?in order to dilate the uterus?. When at last his two fingers entered her easily, he considered the child ready to take up her wifely duties and brought her home with him to his lodge[3]?[4].

Janssen, D. F., Growing Up Sexually. VolumeI. World Reference Atlas. 0.2 ed. 2004. Berlin: Magnus Hirschfeld Archive for Sexology

[1][39] Wallace, E. & Hoebel, E. A. (1952) The Comanches: Lords of the South Plains. Norman: University of Oklahoma

[2][40] Linton, R. (1945) The Comanche, in Kardiner, A. (Ed.) The Psychological Frontiers of Society. New York: ColombiaUniversity Press. 1956 reprint, p47-80

[3] Berlandier, Indians of Texas, 61, n.56 [orig. footnote]

[4]Noyes, S. (1993) Los Comanches: The Horse People, 1751-1845. Albuquerque University of New Mexico, p94, 219

Um, this is a little dated isn't it? KillerChihuahua^?!? 19:20, 11 May 2006 (UTC)

I would assume it's a historical document and not talking about Comanche practices circa 1950. -LlywelynII (talk) 20:47, 18 February 2010 (UTC)

Big Killer Cannibal Owl! Oh no!

I namechecked the Mupitz in the growing up portion. I recall stories my grandmother and hutsi'i would tell me about the big dark terror that would eat you if you left the house at night. I never put two and two together on it meaning owl at all, either! Surprisingly, there were enough big freakin' owls up by lawton that it was reinforced and I was blanche-white in fear of this big flapping beast, hunched over and red-eyed. Whoooooo, scary! (Actually, forgive me for joking about it, heh... I do NOT want to get eaten) --_Alex¯^Jon 07:34, 5 October 2005 (UTC)

Oh excellent, I was wondering about the Big Killer Cannibal Owl. KillerChihuahua 15:28, 5 October 2005 (UTC)

The pia mupitsi is a proper legend in the comanche lore as I remember, but to clarify from what my grandmother was telling me, the more proper bogeyman of comanche legend was the mupits, a giant hairy man who was afraid of water. That's all I know, though, so it is not as fleshed out as the killer cannibal owl. Which still freaks me out. -- (Also known as Alex-jon)

Please, no original research. Use published sources. See Wikipedia:Attribution. --Bejnar 19:15, 10 March 2007 (UTC)

Comanche language

Should we split off the Comanche language to another article, like Kiowa language? KillerChihuahua 16:57, 5 October 2005 (UTC)

I was thinking the same thing.... TheMadBaron 20:47, 5 October 2005 (UTC)

Done it. TheMadBaron 01:27, 7 October 2005 (UTC)

Trimming: Article still too long

As this article is overlength, when editing, try to trim wherever possible.

Oh and btw, it's good to see you back, Matt - I really wish you would register, you're a great editor. Please post why you don't want to on my talk page? KillerChihuahua 13:38, 10 November 2005 (UTC)

Actually, I am just a terrible fiddler. Most of my edits involve taking out commas and then putting them back in again with little net gain. I don't register because I am not keen on other users being able to access a complete list of all the edits I have ever made. It's not a big deal, just a privacy thing.

It's difficult to know how to trim this article as there seems to be little repetition or waffle. I don't find it over-long, but perhaps the culture could be summarised, and a separate "Comanche culture" article created to contain the full text. I don't feel strongly enough about it to do this, however. Matt 16:43, 10 November 2005 (UTC).

Actually, I would like less trimming and more spin-offs, like Comanche language above. --Bejnar 21:09, 4 January 2007 (UTC)

get more things on this website

You need to put in info about housing, kids, familys, and stuff like that .I look at this all the time and never can find this. Please do it, lots of people look on this website.

You can find information on all of those subjects on the main article page Comanche. Please see the Culture section. KillerChihuahua 19:46, 27 November 2005 (UTC)

Is there a possibility of adding more regarding spirituality? If there has already been this disussion please forgive me. 74.60.110.192 21:46, 3 January 2007 (UTC)

Why don't you research (library not original) and write an article on Comache religion. Then you could link from here using Template:Main, --Bejnar 21:09, 4 January 2007 (UTC)

Comanche homes? (#2)

I need a web page on the Comanche's homes

i need a web page on Comanche homes,please list the web site if you find one THANKS I'm looking for the web page.

See Comanche#Habitation. TheMadBaron 22:21, 28 November 2005 (UTC

GA status

First, a side note; this article is rated as A-class by its project, but A-class is above Good Article on the assessment scale. I think it has the core of and could be FA with some work. This article currently needs work to get to GA status and is on hold for 7 days for these reasons: lead is too short and the second paragraph forks into a discussion of word origin--the lead should summarize the article, for a 37k article there are too few wiki links, the bibliography is great but there are no footnotes-these should be in cite php format, section headings should not have the name of the article ("History" is fine without Comanche), alphabetize categories and interwiki links (I did this for you). Rlevse 22:38, 5 August 2006 (UTC)

Failed GA, no action taken by editors. Rlevse 12:53, 13 August 2006 (UTC)

Origin

I changed the map legend from pre-contact to c. 1750, since the available evidence is that they did not enter the southern great plains from the north until about 1700. See quote below summarizing origin, from Flores, Dan (September 1991) "Bison Ecology and Bison Diplomacy: The Southern Plains from 1800 to 1850" The Journal of American History 78(2): pp. 465-485, pp. 467-8. --Bejnar 16:40, 23 February 2007 (UTC)

At the beginning of the nineteenth century, the dominant groups on the Southern Plains were the two major divisions of the Comanches: the Texas Comanches, primarily Kotsotekas, and the great New Mexico division, spread across the country from the Liano Estacado Escarpment west to the foothills of the Sangre dc Cristo Mountains, and composed of Yamparika and Jupe bands that only recently had replaced the Apaches on the High Plains. The Comanches’ drive to the south from their original homelands in what is now southwestern Wyoming and northwestern Colorado was a part of the original tribal adjustments to the coming of horse technology to the Great Plains. There is reason to believe that the Eastern Shoshones, from whom the Comanches were derived before achieving a different identity on the Southern Plains, were one of the first intermountain tribes of historic times to push onto the Plains. Perhaps as early as 1500 the proto-Comanches were hunting bison and using dog power to haul their mountain-adapted four-pole tipis east of the Laramie Mountains. Evidently they moved in response to a wetter time on the Central Plains and the larger bison concentrations there.

These early Shoshonean hunters may not have spent more than three or four generations among the thronging Plains bison herds, for by the late seventeenth century they had been pushed back into the mountains and the sagebrush deserts by tribes newly armed with European guns moving westward from the region around the Great Lakes. If so, they were among a complex of tribes southwest of the lakes that over the next two centuries would be displaced by a massive Siouan drive to the west, an imperial expansion for domination of the prize buffalo range of the Northern Plains. and a wedge that sent ripples of tribal displacement across the Plains.

Among the historic tribes, the people who became Comanches thus may have shared with the Apaches and, if linguistic arguments are correct, probably with the Kiowas the longest familiarity with a bison-hunting life-style. Pressed back toward the mountains as Shoshones, they thus turned in a different direction and emerged from the passes through the Front Range as the same people but bearing a new name given them by the Utes: Komantcia. They still lacked guns but now began their intimate association with the one animal, aside from the bison, inextricably linked with Plains life. The Comanches began acquiring horses from the Utes within a decade or so after the Pueblo Revolt of 1680 sent horses and horse culture diffusing in all directions from New Mexico. Thus were born the “hyper-Indians,” as William Brandon has called the Plains people.

"related groups" info removed from infobox

For dedicated editors of this page: The "Related Groups" info was removed from all {{Infobox Ethnic group}} infoboxes. Comments may be left on the Ethnic groups talk page. Ling.Nut 16:48, 19 May 2007 (UTC)

Vandalism of Bibliography

A vandal (71.125.199.89 on 15 Oct '07 at 22:39) erased the bibliography, which I corrected: if that is the reason for the notice at the top of the article that there are no references for the article, then that can be removed now. Richiar (talk) 02:25, 18 December 2007 (UTC)

I have removed the bibliography section as our article do not generally have them and these sources were not used as references to write the article. I repost it here as potentially useful sources for expanding the article (which can then be properly referenced.) --Rmhermen (talk) 01:26, 17 October 2008 (UTC)

I agree that Bibliography sections, so named, are not in the majority of Wikipedia articles; there may be no more than a couple of thousand articles that have them. The more frequently used section is the Further reading section, which is encouraged. See, in general, Wikipedia:Layout. I have restored the bibliography under that title, with corrections. --Bejnar (talk) 21:52, 17 October 2008 (UTC)

Native Americans in Nebraska

I find this designation a little strange. The area the Comanche controlled was mostly in modern-day Texas (see Comancheria). I think that instead of a template for Nebraska, one for Native Americans of Texas or Native Americans of the Southwest would be more appropriate. Pzleton (talk) 20:22, 15 May 2009 (UTC)

Horses

By the mid-19th century, they were supplying horses to French and American traders and settlers, and later to migrants passing through their territory on their way to the California Gold Rush. Many of these horses had been stolen, and the Comanches earned a reputation as formidable horse, and later, cattle thieves. Their victims included Spanish and American settlers, as well as the other Plains tribes, often leading to war.
While it may be true that "many of the horses had been stolen" it should not be forgotten that vast herds of wild horses were also available to the Comanche. U S Grant in his memoirs mentions, while crossing Texas during the 1840s, coming upon a herd of wild horses that covered the land from horizon to horizon. Nitpyck (talk) 06:52, 29 June 2009 (UTC)

Comanche Raids into Central America!?

Although the claim is sourced I think this claim is so exceptional that it would need a VERY exceptional source as well. If any one knows more about these supposed comanche raids into central america - and can provide sources then that would be very interesting. But if more specific sources can't be found i think it would be best to leave it out.·Maunus·ƛ· 22:24, 29 June 2009 (UTC)

I agree, unless Central America is supposed to include Mexico, in which case it is a needless claim. In any case it is hard to imagine the Comanche cavalry-style raids even being able to operate in the jungles. Pfly (talk) 03:20, 30 June 2009 (UTC)

As written the claim is they rode and raided at least 1,000 miles down and then 1,000 back during the full moon (Comanche Moon). As for an exceptional source I'd be happy to see even an exact cite. What page says they raided central america? Nitpyck (talk) 22:56, 10 July 2009 (UTC)

Edit:claim cited, but can anyone verify that's what the book actually says? What were the dates & places of these raids of the Plains Comanche under the shadows of the Mayan ruins? & why hasn't anyone made a movie? -LlywelynII (talk) 20:53, 18 February 2010 (UTC)

Yes, Wallace ahd Hoebel state that, but their evidence is, well, poor (to say the least). It consists mainly of the presence of quetzal feathers in Comanche and (mainly) Kiowa loot. I've always been skeptical of any claims that the Comanche got even as far south as Veracruz. I changed the wording to what is better attested. Wallace and Hoebel were anthropologists who believed just about anything the Comanche told them. Kavanagh is a better historian. (Taivo (talk) 00:39, 19 February 2010 (UTC))

Much better, thanks. For what it is worth I found the book cited online, or at least a more recent edition. It took a few tries to find because the cite has the title wrong. The cite here simply says: "The Comanches: Lords of the Southern Plains. University of Oklahoma Press. 1952." Google Books has it (no preview though), The Comanches, Lords of the South Plains. (3. print.). Ernest Wallace, E. Adamson Hoebel. University of Oklahoma Press, 1958. They also have the 10th edition, published in 1987, The Comanches: Lords of the South Plains. 10, reprint, illustrated. University of Oklahoma Press, 1987. This edition has limited preview, so you can do text searching. I've searched for "central america", raids, moon, and other such terms; and now also "quetzal", feather, feathers, Kiowa, loot, and anything else I could think of that might lead me to this info--but have not been able to find it in this book. Maybe some text was cut since the 1958 edition. Maybe it's from some other book by Wallace and/or Hoebel? Anyway, it's not important now that the text has been edited and the extreme claim gone. Still, I'm curious now that I spent time trying to find it! No biggie though. Pfly (talk) 04:28, 19 February 2010 (UTC)

I'm actually thinking that I read about the Central American raid in Mildred Mayhall's book, The Kiowas (also published by U of Okla Press). Since the Kiowa and Comanche raided a lot together, I can see how someone might assume that the Comanche were along for "the ride". But I still seriously doubt that either tribe got even as far south as Veracruz. Tamaulipas, Coahuila, Chihuahua, and Durango were their principal targets in Mexico. I've misplaced my copy of Wallace and Hoebel, as well as Fehrenbach's Comanches, the destruction of a people. He might have mentioned it in there, but I'm seriously thinking I saw it only in Mayhall's book. (Taivo (talk) 09:02, 19 February 2010 (UTC))

death rites contradiction

Appears to be a condtradiction. "After he died, the Comanches immediately buried his body by piling rocks on top. His knees were folded, bound in this position with a rope, and then bathed. The face was painted red and the eyes sealed with clay." Which is it? did they immediately bury them or did they do that whole process first? 128.197.81.26 (talk) 19:51, 16 November 2009 (UTC)

Moreover, if they did the process at all, they didn't bury him immediately. But I don't know which is right. -LlywelynII (talk) 20:55, 18 February 2010 (UTC)

Kidnapping?

No real mention in the article of the practice of taking captives during raids on both other tribes and anglo settlers. Would be worth a mention if it was just hollywood made-up The Searchers (film) or if it did occur on a large scale http://www.legendsofamerica.com/na-commanche.html http://www.findingdulcinea.com/news/on-this-day/May/Cynthia-Ann-Parker-Kidnapped-by-the-Comanche.html http://www.texasindians.com/comanche.htm while the article does mention "and the adoption of significant numbers of women and children taken captive from rival groups", seems a bit weaselly to characterize the capture, enslavement, and murder of folks as "adoption" 68.50.103.5 (talk) 20:30, 12 May 2010 (UTC)

"Kidnapping" is not the appropriate term. That is a modern word for a criminal activity which involves the planning and execution of an act to take another person against their will. Comanches did not go out with the intention of capturing other people to bring home. The phrase "taken captive" is most appropriate for the random taking of prisoners during raids. Your characterization of this as "capture, enslavement, and murder" is rather, well, 19th century. Captive children were not typically "enslaved", but were adopted into families and raised as Comanche. There was no social distinction made between captives who grew up as Comanches and native-born Comanches. Women were also not "enslaved" in a Comanche sense. While white women might have considered life as a nomad's wife to be enslavement, to a Comanche, it was simple marriage. Socially, captive women were also not treated any different than native-born Comanche women. It was only from a white perspective that they claimed to be "enslaved". Remember that when Cynthia Ann Parker was "liberated" as an adult, she wanted nothing more than to return "home" to her Comanche husband and children. Basically, she died of loneliness once she was returned to her white family. (Taivo (talk) 20:51, 12 May 2010 (UTC))

"Comanches did not go out with the intention of capturing other people to bring home"... What, they accidentally captured people on raids? If a significant portion of the population growth of the commanche population was from the capture of others, why does the article refer to this only as adoption? 68.50.103.5 (talk) 22:17, 13 May 2010 (UTC)

"A significant portion of the population growth" is absolutely false. Population growth among the Comanche was principally through natural birth. The Comanche never went on "captive raids"--ever. They would go out and if a warrior happened to see a kid whose parents he had just killed he might pick up the child and return home with it. When he got home, that child became one of his own children. Same with young women--they were incidental to the purpose of the raid--which was usually to either 1) stop frontier expansion or 2) steal horses. Why don't you read some actual anthropological and historical sources instead of just sensationalistic, racist materials from the 19th century. (Taivo (talk) 01:49, 14 May 2010 (UTC))

ok, so how about citing some sources and adding all that to the article? Heck, there are 5+ paragraphs on childbirth, why not add a few sentences about how 19th century perception of the Comanche through the 1950s is wrong? Quote some sources and be bold, otherwise its all OR and your opinion. 68.50.103.5 (talk) 04:49, 14 May 2010 (UTC)

Actually, you're the one wanting to talk about kidnapping using 19th century sources. That's revisionist. You can read what I've written in any 20th century anthropological or historical text on the Comanche. The text is fine with me as it currently stands. (In other words, the text as it currently stands is accurate anthropologically and historically.) But if you need some references for your instruction on Comanche life and culture, you can read the chapter in the Plains volume of the Handbook of North American Indians and Fehrenbach's Comanche: Destruction of a People. There are also a couple of decent biographies of Quanah Parker. (Taivo (talk) 06:08, 14 May 2010 (UTC))

Photo

A photograph entitled "19th century Comanche child" is dated 1908. Even so, I am beginning to wonder about its authenticity. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 86.132.155.7 (talk) 15:05, 14 May 2010 (UTC)

Tipis?

I don't know if he is saying something else, but the cone shaped houses that Planes Indians lived in were tepees. If he is saying something else, please do tell me. And also, what made this a not-good article? It looked fine to me, except for the tipis.I just looked it up in the dictionary to see if I was mislead, but it is, infact, spelled tepee. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 2much2soon (talk • contribs) 23:41, 15 October 2010 (UTC)

Hämäläinen

Hämäläinen won many top prizes by the history profession--such as the 2009 Bancroft Prize-- for his interpretation of Comanche history. The prizes and the very favorable book reviews demonstrate that his view point is mainstream. Therefore it has to be given central attention in the article according to Wikipedia rules. His articles have been cited favorably for years (see DeLay in Journal of the Early Republic 27.1 (2007)), now the book has pulled it all together to very favorable reviews. For example, Bauer in Journal of World History (June 2010) says "Hämäläinen successfully places the Comanche experience within the study of global empires....this book deserves all the accolades it has and will receive. It is certain to be on reading lists for years to come." Spady in Journal of Colonialism and Colonial History (Fall 2009) says "Ten years ago Hämäläinen argued in a successful article for the Western Historical Quarterly that the Comanche developed a "Western Comanche Trade Center" ... Hämäläinen builds on these earlier positions in this book and the extended argument is provocative and persuasive in many instances." Bowes in Reviews in American History (Sept 2009) says "Although most historians who have dealt with the Comanches have written about their power and prowess, no one has so effectively related the ways in which the Comanches created an 'indigenous empire' that overshadowed and overpowered European imperialism....One of the great strengths of this book is the comprehensive examination of the origins and early maintenance of the Comanche imperial project....while every work is subject to some measure of faultfinding, there are few problems here. Hämäläinen's argument and supporting structure deal capably with the material....an impressive work that deservedly won the Bancroft Prize in 2009." Cashion in The Journal of Military History (April 2009) says: "most convincingly. Comanche Empire is an impressive, well-written, and important study that should significantly influence future metanarratives, whether they include all or parts of Texas, the West, the Borderlands, or even general histories of the United States and Mexico." Farmer in Reviews in American History (Dec 009) says his "portrayals of indigenous supremacy work best in the middle of the continent from roughly 1750 to 1850." Harvard's Maier in South Central Review (2009) concludes that "historians are starting to analyze them more rigorously, as Pekka Hamalainen has done in his splendid book on the Comanches", Juliana Barr in Pacific Historical Review 78.4 (Nov. 2009) says: "Hämäläinen has given us an entrancing portrait, both panoramic and intimate, of imperial-scale Comanche power that not only ruled over 250,000 square miles of the continent but also eclipsed neighboring European colonies, making them tributaries or extractive wastelands that funneled wealth into Comanchería.....Hämäläinen's thoughtful and thought-provoking work will leave readers reconsidering their most basic assumptions about the narrative of American history." Rjensen (talk) 07:59, 20 January 2011 (UTC)

I read his book, a couple times, and was thorougly impressed--not just by the table-turning notion of a Comanche Empire that subjugated the Spanish Empire as much as vice versa--but by the meticulous and scholarly nature of the work. I had never been drawn to Comanche history until reading his book. It was definitely a major eye-opener. Seems odd that a Finn would be the one to retell this history so well, but there you have it. But what, I wonder, are you suggesting be done here? I've added bits and pieces from his work to relevant pages--but only bits and pieces. Do you have something broader in mind? Pfly (talk) 10:35, 20 January 2011 (UTC)

So I just looked at some of your recent contributions, such as at Comancheria, where you wrote that Hämäläinen calls the Comanche domain as "empire". But doesn't he also take pains to point out the differences between the Comanche "empire" and the traditional English notion of "empire"? The first example that comes to mind is "monumental architecture", the second a specific political structure the Comanches lacked, although I'm sure there are others (it's been a while since I read the book). If I recall, in the preface Hämäläinen even admits to using the term "empire" in part for "shock value", while pointing out how the term is in part appropriate and in part not. No? Pfly (talk) 10:47, 20 January 2011 (UTC)

Hämäläinen agrees that it does not look much the like the Roman/British/Russian empires. For him empire means power and control (think "American Empire") But he makes the "empire" point over and over again through the book (130 times in all); that's noted by most reviewers, so I included it. The nomad empires of the Huns or the Mongols might be a better model (and they are called "empires") but Hämäläinen mentions them only very briefly (p 243). I studied western history at Yale years ago (and live in the west) but the book was pretty fresh for me. (I'm not planning on working this topic right now--I'm in the middle of some other projects that have deadlines) Rjensen (talk) 12:15, 20 January 2011 (UTC)

Hamalainen has some good points, but just because it is the most recent history of the Comanche doesn't mean that it should be highlighted to the point that the second paragraph of the lead should focus on it and its conclusion so prominently. Incorporate his conclusions into the history section passim. Don't just put "Hamalainen says" as the second paragraph. Read WP:BRD. It says that if you make an addition and another editor reverts it with disagreement, take it to the Talk Page and work out a consensus before you add it to the article again. I disagree with the use of the term "Empire" as well. The definition of "Empire" is a multinational state run by a single group--so the Roman Empire was run by the Romans, but included many nationalities within its borders. The Comanche were not an empire in that definition. The trading aspects of their culture can be highlighted more in the History section and that is a good contribution from Hamalainen, but focusing on the word "empire" is a distraction from the point of this article. As I said, just because Hamalainen is the latest in a long line of historians to cover the Comanche doesn't mean he's the best or deserves second paragraph focus. His points are not new, but are generally newer expositions of previous Comanche historical literature--and I've read most of it over the last 30 years. --Taivo (talk) 12:27, 20 January 2011 (UTC)

Torture and Rape

This article doesn't mention that the Comanche were the most bloodthirsty and warlike of all the Plains Indians and were feared and hated by most of the other tribes. According to the book Empire of the Summer Moon: Quanah Parker and the Rise and Fall of the Comanches, the Most Powerful Indian Tribe in American History by S. C. Gwynne, the Comanche mastered the use of the horse and would use the horse as a shield in battle, draping one leg over the horse's back and gripping the horse's mane while hanging onto the side of the horse. When they took captives from battles, they would torture the men for days before killing them and wouldn't treat their captives' battle wounds. This harsh practice led the warriors of other non-Comanche tribes who were defeated in battle to try to kill themselves before they could be taken captive by the Comanche. They also took the enemy tribes' women and repeatedly raped them before making them their slaves. Unlike other American Indians, who adopted and fully incorporated the captured women into their own society, the Comanche kept their captured women as slaves who were never equals with them. The Comanche did these things to all their enemies, both Native Americans and Europeans.

Culture and technology: before they were introduced to the horse by the Spanish, the Comanche were one of the most primitive, if not the most primitive, of the Native American peoples. They still used stone spear tips, unlike the Lakota (Sioux), who had obsidian spear tips. They also didn't have feathered headbands, and their language was very basic, the bare minimum of what could constitute a language. In fact, before the Comanche discovered horses, they were very similar to the stereotypical "caveman," except they didn't live in caves. They also never really had an organized tribe, and different bands of Comanche often warred with one another. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Quanah Parkerr (talk • contribs) 02:12, 1 February 2011 (UTC)

It's probably not in there because that is mind-numbingly POV and unverifiable. -Uyvsdi (talk) 02:16, 1 February 2011 (UTC)Uyvsdi

How is that "mind-numbingly POV and unverifiable"? I just said it was from the book Empire of the Summer Moon: Quanah Parker and the Rise and Fall of the Comanches, the Most Powerful Indian Tribe in American History, written by a modern historian, S. C. Gwynne, and first published on May 25, 2010. Here's the book at Amazon.com: [3]. The caveman part is my opinion. The author didn't mention anything about cavemen.

Because statements like "most bloodthirsty and warlike" and "one of the most primitive" are subjective and because Sam Gwynne is a Time magazine journalist, not a Southern Plains scholar or a member of the Comanche tribe. Prior to contact, metallurgy was limited throughout the Plains, and, before the arrival of horses, Comanches didn't even live on the Southern Plains. -Uyvsdi (talk) 02:32, 1 February 2011 (UTC)Uyvsdi

The comment "their language was very basic, the bare minimum of what could constitute a language" is the stupidest comment I have ever heard. It is utter and complete crap and is something to be expected from a racist Indian-killer white from the 19th century. Unless you are indeed a 19th-century Indian-killer white man who is visiting us from a time warp, you need to have some serious remedial education in basic human history. The Comanche language is just as complex as any other human language and is far more interesting than the variety of English that you spew out on a regular basis, I'm sure. --Taivo (talk) 04:49, 1 February 2011 (UTC)

This is an archive of past discussions. Do not edit the contents of this page. If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the current talk page.

Archive 1

Archive 2

Assessment comment

The comment(s) below were originally left at Talk:Comanche/Comments, and are posted here for posterity. Following several discussions in past years, these subpages are now deprecated. The comments may be irrelevant or outdated; if so, please feel free to remove this section.

In need of minor cleanup and wording enhancements. Lacks illustrations and general copyedit. Phaedriel - 12 Feb 06

The photo of the Comanche camp is identical with the "Arapaho camp"-photo in the Arapaho-article. 217.184.142.207 22:55, 16 February 2007 (UTC)

Last edited at 15:48, 21 November 2007 (UTC). Substituted at 20:20, 2 May 2016 (UTC)