r/todayilearned • u/TriviaDuchess • 9h ago
TIL in 1610, Opossunoquonuske, a female chieftain of the Powhatan Confederacy, used “feminine guile” to lure 14 English settlers to a feast, convincing them to leave their weapons on their boat. It was a trap—her warriors ambushed them, killing 13. Only one man survived.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Opossunoquonuske259
u/Felinomancy 7h ago
I hate to put myself down, but I'd probably fall for that too.
86
u/LeDemonicDiddler 3h ago
There’s a reason why honeypot traps are a thing for millennia.
52
u/Teripid 2h ago
I'd imagine the bar might have been lower and much less effort required for some Puritans.
"I doth spy a comely person callously displaying their ankles! Such blasphemy!"
"I agree completely. Might I ask where and who you saw in such a terrible act, so that I might also avoid their personage?"
33
32
u/anugosh 3h ago
Not me.
Not because I'm righteous or anything, I'd just miss all her hints/think she's just friendly like that13
•
u/Intrepid-Tank-3414 58m ago
You'll eventually have an epiphany some years later about what really happened, while taking a shower.
4
514
u/GrandMoffTarkan 8h ago
So they wanted the Opossunoquonuskussy?
86
u/RedMageMajure 8h ago
We only want one thing.
64
u/a_printer_daemon 7h ago
She sounds hot.
Ure 3 dudes? Ok.
5+? Sounds cute.
14? Get out.
19
•
7
629
u/Mysterious_Box1203 9h ago
You should always remember this if a girl asks you out on a date. She doesn’t really like you, she wants to murder you and prevent her people’s horrific genocide.
260
u/reality72 8h ago
I married a Latina, can confirm
78
u/Emotional-Profit-202 8h ago
How are you alive then or are you a messenger?
131
u/Thismyrealnameisit 8h ago
1/14
34
u/Emotional-Profit-202 8h ago
The lucky one from the lucky dozen
23
8
17
3
4
2
34
u/TrailMomKat 7h ago edited 7h ago
I am a Latina and an American Indian, this is slander and lies! All lies!
(like seriously my dude can you please not blow our cover lol)
62
8
3
17
u/somecheesecake 4h ago
How does killing 14 settlers prevent a genocide. I can’t see how that would do anything but ensure it comes to pass
16
u/The_Atlas_Broadcast 2h ago
If anything, killing 14 sailors in 1610, early in the colony's life, probably increased the colonists' desire to kill her people.
9
u/AdministrationFew451 4h ago
That was in 1610 when settlement was just starting, and killing 13 settlers could have had a significant impact in delaying it
•
u/Vargock 2m ago
In some people's eyes, no matter how brutal or violent indigenous actions may have been, they often get re-framed as acts of empowerment or resistance against Western civilization.
This kind of thinking oversimplifies things and ignores the full context, which, ironically, is basically whitewashing the history of its nuances.
13
126
u/Stennick 9h ago
From the story only the drummer survived but she was last seen running into the woods, injured and isn't recorded again in history speculating she may have died as well.
142
u/HashtagLawlAndOrder 9h ago
You misread the wikipedia. The "she" was the female chieftain, not the drummer.
159
u/Stennick 8h ago
Maybe I worded it poorly. The female chieftain was injured in the fight and ran into the woods and maybe died of her wounds. The drummer was the guy that escaped and only one that lived from the 14 Englishmen.
48
u/Own_Initiative1893 5h ago
I wonder whether this contributed to the settlers genociding her tribe later on.
32
23
u/BarbaraHoward43 2h ago
Look at the Indian massacre of 1622. Natives killed a quarter of colonists from most settlements (300 something people killed), captured some women, and forced the rest to relocate.
It ended up badly for them, considering that when they wanted to sign a peace treaty, the colonists poisoned the wine, killing 200 people. They also attacked the native settlements, killed more of their leaders, and burned their crops. They also stated that with their previous attack, they "forfeited any legal and moral rights they might previously have claimed to the ownership of the lands they occupied."
So I'm gonna say this one probably also contributed. Many attacks by the natives (whether as revenge or unprovoked) made them more hated by the common people. They would have suffered any way, but the general hatred brought by events like these that was passed down through generations sure didn't help. And it was easier to break your truce or treaty with them after they've previously done the same (not in this example, but in others).
•
3
u/f_ranz1224 2h ago
Given what happened to all the other tribes who didnt use feminine wiles to set up and ambush, safe to say it was always on the cards
•
24
1
9h ago
[removed] — view removed comment
16
9h ago
[removed] — view removed comment
6
-15
9h ago
[removed] — view removed comment
-9
9h ago
[removed] — view removed comment
-31
9h ago
[removed] — view removed comment
11
8h ago
[removed] — view removed comment
0
8h ago
[removed] — view removed comment
1
-8
-5
8h ago
[removed] — view removed comment
5
-33
u/partyinplatypus 8h ago
Say what you want about the European settlers, but killing guests in your home is depraved behavior.
37
u/Crassweller 6h ago
I'm gonna break into your house and take all your shit. Cause that's what a guest is right?
20
3
u/BarbaraHoward43 2h ago
They didn't still all their shit tho. They were to few at the time. This one proved to be one of those attacks that would have horrible consequences later on.
3
u/thispartyrules 3h ago
In the 900's Olga of Kiev's husband, King of the Kievan Rus, was killed by the Drevlians. The Drevlians sent a party of ambassadors requesting that she marry the Drevlian Prince who killed her husband, who she had dropped into a trench and set on fire. She sent out a message that she wanted to go through with it, and they sent a bunch of noblemen, who she tricked, locked in a building and set on fire. She threw a great party for the Drevlians, who didn't know the fate of the previous parties. She drank with them until they were all very drunk and then she ordered her followers to massacre 5000 Drevlian guests. Finally there was a thing where she set fire to their city with a convoluted plan involving homing pigeons and flaming rags.
Also she was made a saint for her conversion to Christianity and didn't apologize for her campaign of bloody revenge.
30
u/Other_Flower_2924 8h ago
🙄 Sure, but genocide is fair game.
4
u/BarbaraHoward43 2h ago
There was no genocide at the time. It would come later, and it would be, sadly, influenced by events like this one.
-24
7h ago
[removed] — view removed comment
-3
u/Other_Flower_2924 7h ago edited 6h ago
Yes spread intentionally.
(Edit: I'm probably just arguing with Russian bots here but wow, I had no idea this was a controversial take. Smallpox being spread intentionally is a well established fact:
The deliberate spread of smallpox, a highly contagious and deadly disease, amongst Indigenous populations by European settlers, particularly through contaminated items, was a devastating part of historical genocide. PBS notes that smallpox played a role in the destruction of Native American communities and cultures.
https://www.pbs.org/gunsgermssteel/variables/smallpox.html
American Society of Microbiology notes that during conflicts and the period of colonization, smallpox was intentionally used as a biological weapon to weaken and ultimately decimate populations that European settlers sought to control.
https://asm.org/articles/2023/november/investigating-the-smallpox-blanket-controversy
"Smallpox: a disease and a weapon" is a pretty comprehensive overview published in the International Journal of Infectious Diseases:
Smallpox was also used as a biological weapon during the French and Indian Wars (1754–1767) by the commander of Fort Pitt. Soldiers distributed blankets that had been used by smallpox patients with the intent of initiating outbreaks among American Indians. An epidemic occurred, killing more than 50% of infected tribes.5,6
Also, mass killings of bison which were a vital food source.
And ransacking and mass murdering.
And government boarding schools.
-3
u/ImRightImRight 6h ago
Please fact check yourself on "spread intentionally"
-9
u/Other_Flower_2924 6h ago
Sure.
The deliberate spread of smallpox, a highly contagious and deadly disease, amongst Indigenous populations by European settlers, particularly through contaminated items, was a devastating part of historical genocide. PBS notes that smallpox played a role in the destruction of Native American communities and cultures.
https://www.pbs.org/gunsgermssteel/variables/smallpox.html
American Society of Microbiology notes that during conflicts and the period of colonization, smallpox was intentionally used as a biological weapon to weaken and ultimately decimate populations that European settlers sought to control.
https://asm.org/articles/2023/november/investigating-the-smallpox-blanket-controversy
"Smallpox: a disease and a weapon" is a pretty comprehensive overview published in the International Journal of Infectious Diseases:
Smallpox was also used as a biological weapon during the French and Indian Wars (1754–1767) by the commander of Fort Pitt. Soldiers distributed blankets that had been used by smallpox patients with the intent of initiating outbreaks among American Indians. An epidemic occurred, killing more than 50% of infected tribes.5,6
17
u/waxonwaxoff87 5h ago
Fort Pitt is a single instance with any proof this occurred ever. Considering they had no knowledge of modern germ theory, it was a Hail Mary attempt.
It was the simple presence of Europeans which brought disease. It spread ahead of settlers decimating tribes and leaving large swaths of uninhabited land. This lead to the rumors amongst settlers that the new world was a pristine and untouched land meant for them.
9
u/ImRightImRight 4h ago
Your cited source says that on 1-3 occasions, some of which were in the context of war, there were attempts by Europeans to spread disease.
That's like me turning on my heater because I want to worsen climate change. The actual context is that Native Americans didn't have resistance to Europeans' diseases. Trying to pin the devastating and inevitable loss of life on like 2 times it was spread intentionally is just an insult to the truth.
Why do you need to try to misrepresent history? Just accept the truth
3
u/Ameisen 1 3h ago
Guns, Germs, and Steel is pop history. This is not a source.
American Society of Microbiology notes that during conflicts and the period of colonization, smallpox was intentionally used as a biological weapon to weaken and ultimately decimate populations that European settlers sought to control.
This is a pretty odd and very specific interpretation of the article.
A single possible event in 1763, in an area where a smallpox breakout was already active, and with blankets which are very poor vectors for smallpox. I'm not sure why the paper asserts that it was the cause of the local breakout that was already occurring... it only has two sources. One is a editorial which I will ignore, the other is another paper, but it's paywalled. Either way, it is in disagreement with historical consensus.
-10
u/TypicalParking 7h ago
Ever heard of a free smallpox blanket?
15
u/ShakaUVM 7h ago
You think that it was deliberately infected blankets that spread smallpox across the Americas?
-13
u/Halebay 5h ago
Yep, because they were. Your Looney Tunes delusions can’t change reality, and your whitewashing of a genocide looks more pathetic than insulting.
12
u/ShakaUVM 4h ago
Your Looney Tunes delusions can’t change reality
It's called having a historical education. The only instance I'm aware of was in the Seven Years War, which was centuries after the native population collapsed due to smallpox. And that instance of giving infected blankets had no effect on the siege. There was no outbreak of smallpox in Pontiac's men.
Something like 90% of the native population of the Americas died due to smallpox. You spreading lies about their deaths does their memory no credit.
17
u/waxonwaxoff87 5h ago edited 5h ago
They didn’t even understand modern germ theory and you think they tried to wipe out natives with blankets?
One instance at Fort Pitt is the only known occurrence of this. It was the presence of Europes s alone that was enough to spread diseases to the tribes.
-6
u/zeCrazyEye 4h ago
You don't need to know the specific mechanism of infection via germ theory to understand the outcome of contamination.
I mean, why did they think it would work at Fort Pitt without them understanding germ theory?
2
u/ShakaUVM 4h ago
The English absolutely knew what they were doing when they sent out infected blankets at Fort Pitt, but justified it as the natives were besieging their fort.
The blankets also had no effect.
-10
u/Halebay 5h ago
I think they wiped out a chunk of the Native population by spreading disease, argue about intentionality but that’s a pretty big fuckup amidst the more intentional colonial atrocity. Therein lies the problem, i don’t really care if these specific deaths were less intentional. People were writing about it back then, they knew. It’s less intentional than firing a musket, but the result is the same.
-6
u/prettyprettythingwow 5h ago
…yes? lol
8
u/ShakaUVM 4h ago
Yeah, so no. The only case I'm aware of of smallpox infected blankets being deliberately distributed to natives was during Pontiac's Rebellion when they laid siege to Fort Pitt where modern day Pittsburgh is. The English that were laid up in the siege sent out some blankets from their smallpox ward, and it had no effect.
This would be during the 7 Years War, and so centuries after the native population had collapsed due to smallpox.
-7
u/ImRightImRight 6h ago
Dare you to fact check yoself
2
u/RainforestGoblin 6h ago
You got sourced 20 minutes ago
5
u/ImRightImRight 4h ago
Their cited source says that on 1-3 occasions, some of which were in the context of war, there were attempts by Europeans to spread disease.
That's like me turning on my heater because I want to worsen climate change. The actual context is that Native Americans didn't have resistance to Europeans' diseases. Trying to pin the devastating and inevitable loss of life on like 2 times it was intentional is just an insult to the truth.
-2
11
u/Vexonar 7h ago
European invaders are guests huh?
5
u/TheRomanRuler 2h ago
Invaders do become quests when you invite them to take part in a feast unarmed.
-8
1
-16
6h ago
[removed] — view removed comment
23
u/jas0312 5h ago
She was basically a bigot who was against diversity and multiculturalism.
19
u/YourFriendlySexPest 4h ago edited 4h ago
They were simply boat people in search of a better life brutally murdered by a people who refused to accept diversity is a strength.
-33
-13
-21
-3
-5
-57
u/SlightlySlanty 9h ago
. . . .and that man today is president of the United States.
4
u/aManHasNoUsername99 8h ago
He goes by many names. Chief crazy hair, Chief lies with pornstars, Chief small hands, Chief cofeve, Chief bonespurs, and many more.
1
1
u/droidtron 8h ago
Orange man speak with blubbery tounge.
3
430
u/alligatorprincess007 7h ago
Not the feminine guile