Hannah Dustin and the Cycle of Violence in King William's War

CORRECTIONS: As a Penobscot viewer (and King William's War reenactor, to boot) pointed out in the comments, I called the late-17th century sachem of that nation Mokawando – his name was in fact Madockawando. Somehow I misplaced an entire syllable. Sorry about that, y'all.

A buddy of mine, also a Native reenactor, caught another error. We actually do know of a woman who ran the gauntlet, Susanna Johnson, a New Hampshire woman taken by the Abenaki in the 1750s. Having heard how horrible the ordeal was, the heavily pregnant Johnson expected the worst – but to her immense relief, the warriors only tapped her lightly on the shoulder with their weapons as she passed by. According to my buddy this is because the gauntlet was "meant to ritualistically kill the individual . . . to make them a new person in the eyes of the community."

Brilliant. Great way to present history.

Watching this a year later, it has an eerie similarity to what is happening in Israel and Palestine now. It also confirms my theories that times change but human behavior does not. And the word 'history' should be replaced with the phrase 'humans behaving badly'. Always enjoy watching your work. Especially being born and raised in Virginia. Yes the Civil War was about slavery. GASP!

always really enjoy these videos

Wonalancet was baptized by John Eliot in 1674 and his conversion most likely had a profound effect on his pacifism. There is no evidence his
nephew, Kankamagus, who planned the successful attack on Waldron’s garrison, followed this path. Hannah and her two collaborators certainly had as good provocation to kill their kidnappers as the Natives did to revenge themselves on Waldron. Hannah Dustin was no Mary Rowlanson. Wonalancet wasn’t hanged by any merciless Puritan court but taken care of until he passed away by his English friend Jonathan Tyng.

Kudos for correctly pronouncing my hometown...Haverhill. (You missed on Saco though...it's "Saw - koe")

I grew up right next to the Hannah Dustin house. Now I live down the street from the Salmon Falls Massacre. The echoes of these conflicts are all around us and nearly no one even knows about them.

Why so much language? I thought I had found a great new history channel but this video has way to many "F's" for me.

BULLSH…T!!!!

Believe all Women!

The similarities between the first few Indian Wars and...a certain conflict in a certain country in the Middle East that just massively escalated are striking

Pretty sure they started the journey back to Haverhill, then went back for the scalps. Hannah needed the reward/bounty now that her husband was gone and they presented the scalps in Boston and were paid. Great video

Hannah wasn't the only relative of mine (6th ggm) to claim bounty on Wabanaki scalps, nor is her tale (as told by herself and Cotton Mathers) all that unique in the mythologies of New England families. Another relative, Obidiah Albee Jr, who murdered Sachem Hegen aka "Sacary Harry" of the Norridgewock (a Wabanaki confederated tribe) as Hegen and other tribal emissaries left the Falmouth Peace conference in 1749, essentially caused Massachusetts' scalp bounty to be reactivated due to how popular his crime proved to be in the colony and despite the rather measured Wabanaki response the English reply was aborted justice and instead war and slaughter. And in justification for my cousin's crime many New Englanders invented a story of how he had seen his own mother slaughtered before him by Wabanaki and how he had as a little boy wept alone beside her body. This was in no way true as his mother outlived him by many decades, but inserting a tale of wanton, miscreant slaughter to justify the same was then de rigueur.

It's so surreal to learn about this period of history where my ancestors were on both sides... One of my direct male ancestors was slain on Vaughn Island in 1720, around the time of either this war or the previous one...

Ah I see the view point is from that of the English coloniest thus the warning because some people will shit a brick over this but in this case its necessary as to show that while natives where done wrong to they as well committed horrors upon early coloniest that set the seed of fear that would last for centuries after and of course evolving from fear and the need to take on them or be destroyed to something far worse

They where just normal human beings , and you know what stinkers they are ! ♈⚓⚓♈

I despise this video on a conceptual level. Without any evidence other than speculation and guessing, you attempt to muddy the waters surrounding a notable historical event. In my opinion, this video is not made in good faith as an extension of historical curiosity. It appears to be an attempt at historical revision through a misleading reframing of the situation.

The idea that Hannah Dustin lied about everything and killed 6 children out of greed is based solely upon speculative reasoning extrapolated upon incomplete information about an event that took place almost 400 years ago.

Your evidence is misleading, and the framing of the video even more so. Not a single speck of evidence provided in any way contradicts the established story. All it does is provide the circumstantial possibility that maybe this other theory could be true instead. Worse than that is the framing of the video. Even if we (without justified cause) assume that Hannah Dustin lied about her story, what does that even mean? I guess Hannah is a piece of shit, but that doesn't venerate the Indians in ANY way. They still killed a bunch of innocent people and forced the settlers they didn't immediately kill into a death march across harsh terrain in the Northeastern winter. If you faltered, they killed you mercilessly. If you made it, they would sell you into slavery. No part of that is justifiable. Both the relocation and subjugation of the Indian peoples and the massacre and enslavement of the settlers is worth condemnation. One does not justify the other. Even if we assume your theory to be true, all that does is reflect poorly on a single woman and make the Indians responsible for the death of a baby due to deliberate inaction instead of active killing. That's like, one notch down on the evil scale.

So far, I've only talked about the circumstances surrounding the theory, and not the theory itself. However, I have some things to say on that topic as well. The assumption that Hannah Dustin 1. Lied about the death of her baby, 2. Killed 6 children, and 3. Scalped said children, is such an immense stretch. First off, do you have any idea how brutal and gory the process of scalping is? Do you really think that a woman, herself a mother, would be mentally or emotionally capable of not just killing 6 children without proper cause, but also then individually scalping each one of them? That is beyond highly unlikely.

On a similar note regarding assumptions, what is a more natural assumption? That an Indian warrior already taking part in the mass killing of innocent people is capable of killing a child if he knows it won't survive anyways, and it is actively annoying him, or that a housewife and mother of 8 is capable of murdering and desecrating 6 innocent children without reason? It's quite obviously the first, and considering that your evidence to support the latter theory is primarily guilt by association or speculation, I'm confident in standing by the first former.

Another thing I take issue with is using the monetary aspect as a point of doubt to Hannah's story. How exactly does receiving compensation after going through an experience as traumatic as hers indicate guilt? Of course you would try and turn in the scalps, the people those scalps belong to murdered your baby and put you through hell. If you can, you're going to use their death for all it's worth. And the use of her family members to imply that she was crazy is particularly dishonest in my opinion, literally guilt by association. Her father was wrongfully hanged as a witch in the Salem trials, and her sister was accused of infanticide and considering the time period, I don't exactly trust the legal system of the time.

Before I conclude, I want to state this; I'm not necessarily saying that the theory proposed in this video is false. What I'm saying is that the theory is not supported by anything other speculation and assumptions. Furthermore, those assumptions are not logical leaps to make, and remain firmly in the realm of possible but not probably. To hold the theory of Hannah's deception as the truth, one must assume that it's more likely for a housewife mother of 8 to kill and dismember 6 children in cold blood than it is for a confirmed murderer to kill an infant which almost certainly would have perished along the way and whose presence was both a burden and a massive annoyance. Which of those scenarios is more likely?

Beyond even all of that, I take issue with the fundamental motivation behind the creation of this theory, and how it is framed in the video. In no way, shape, or form does the theory exonerate or excuse the Indians. Even in the best case scenario, they actively murdered dozens of people in cold blood and were complicit in the death of an infant though refusing the mother any sort of assistance. Yet in the video, this is framed as "a cycle of violence", which is misleadingly neutral. The Settlers committed a serious injustice against the Indians. The Indians drastically escalated the situation through merciless slaughter and enslavement. A victim of that enslavement and slaughter, who did not participate at all in the original injustice, killed her captors so she could escape and took their scalps as revenge for the death of her baby. The term cycle of violence is intentionally void of judgement for one side or the other. That is not applicable to the situation here.


I want to make clear that the atrocities committed against the Indians Tribes during the colonization and expansion of the Americas were truly and utterly reprehensible, and the single worst part in American history. It is genuinely outrageous and heartbreaking to hear about events such as the Sandcreek Massacre. However, that does not mean the Indians were entirely flawless and innocent either. Both sides can commit injustices against each other and there can still be an immense discrepancy in the severity and frequency of injustices between the sides. Indians that scalped innocent settlers were evil, just as the Military leaders who broke their own treaties were evil. One of those evils is greater, but that lesser act is still evil in its regard. I find the dishonest presentation of a theory lacking in any justification outside of speculation and unfounded assumptions to be indicative of a subconscious narrative. I don't think it was intentional but I believe that it was done for a particular purpose.

Cognitive dissonance is a hell of a drug. It is the natural human inclination to assign comprehensive moral labels to sides of a conflict. One is bad, one is good. There's a reason WW2 is talked about 10 times more than WW1. The Axis were unquestionable villains, the Triple Entente merely were. In fact, it can be reasonably argued that Canada of all countries was the "worst" in WW1.

Basically what I'm trying to say is that downplaying the injustices committed by the "victim" side in a conflict is a natural inclination when attempting to express the abhorrence of the atrocities committed. One has a responsibility to keep that inclination in check, and I strongly believe this video has spectacularly failed to do so.

Anglo-Saxons would consider a neutral power who signs a treaty and then harbors their enemies as treacherous. So I see no difference in motives. Revenge always has it's motive and in the end it means nothing.

The Shuar Indians of Ecuador had a badass one liner as well. When the Shuar Indians defeated their Spanish colonizers in 1599, one Indian is documented as saying (paraphrasing) “Here! Have all the gold and silver you want!” As they pour molten metal down his throat and eye sockets.

I grew up learning about Hannah Dustin at school in Haverhill. 74 to 82. Thankful for my teachers.

Well done, the most balanced telling of the Hannah Dustin story I’ve heard. I dig your shit

The virgin metatron vs the chad atunshei

I might kill as many of my captors as I could if I was in Hannah's position to keep them from pursuing and recapturing me. Any vengeance would be incidental.

❤

People in the olden days weren’t that attached to their new born kids compared to today. Considering how many they would have over time for labor and how few would grow up past the infant stage. It was sorta like not naming a dog you just found because you don’t know if someone is gonna come get it in a couple days.

I am a descendant of Hannah Dustin but this does a good job of highlighting the lengths the Abenaki took to maintain peace.

Not many people know this but Hannahs brother and his family were also killed in the attack. Possibly she saw this as they were being led out of town and this also may have contributed to her desire to see her captors killed. Can't say I blame her at all. I am a decendant of Hannah and can honestly say I am very proud to say so. She survived and did what she had to do to return home to her family, can anyone honestly say they wouldn't do the same?

She killed children for money and attention?!?! But anti vaxxers weren’t around yet!

WOW! The youngest of my Toothaker witches was also taken up in the hostages of the Wampanaug in King William's War from modern day Andover. I knew a lot of the general info but these details were great! BTW one of the last native speakers of western Abenaki and an elder in northern Vermont is another of my Toothaker cousins. (I am 100% european) thanks again for the history from the Indigenous perspective.

👏👏👏

Actually, you strike me as the type who is perfectly willing to advance the "Noble Savage" fallacy, while simultaneously claiming that you're above doing such a thing! Agenda über Alles, so who could blame you for bending the truth here and there? The playing field was so lopsided for so long that, as a white person, a little historical "rehabilitation" is the LEAST that you can do, right? If you think that it is not very well documented that many Native American warriors took absolute giddy delight in killing white non-combatants, including women and children, well... what is that people say? I've got a bridge to sell you in Brooklyn!

Man, I thought nothing could beat Checkmate Lincolnites, but this is some damn good stuff!

As a Christian I believe on forgiveness. The world is great and large, there would be more land elsewhere. Although such ideas would shock Natives of most nations.

On the basis of this version of New England history, a definitive conclusion emerges. The peoples of that deadly and benighted region, wherever they came from on the planet and however long they may have lived there, are not nor will they ever become, advanced enough for self-governance. The violence-prone region should be governed as a disenfranchised League of Nations mandate. Its residents, of whatever civil status, must be disarmed and reduced to a servile helotry, for their own protection.

I'm an amateur genealogist. My husband is French Canadian and has many Filles du Roi and Filles a Marier in his ancestry. Once you stumble past the 1850s, you can find his family in the "Quebec, Genealogical Dictionary of Canadian Families." In the dictionary, I found a woman named Elizabeth Corse, whose birthplace was Deerfield, Massachusetts. It was a startling find, it was unlikely that she had moved to La Prairie, New France, from Deerfield, MA, but there was no further information in the dictionary. Wonder why? It took one minor Google search using the name Corse and Deerfield to stumble upon the Deerfield Massacre.
A fascinating discovery, and I agree with you that indigenous involvement is not what it seems. Sure, the native peoples, who were the soldiers, are depicted in contemporary pictures, but the New France military leaders, helping guide and direct the massacre, are not. I am still trying to trace Elizabeth Corse's life in Quebec. The official list of the captives and what happened to them seems boring. Some died during the march northwards, mainly babies, toddlers and women over 30. The vast majority returned to Massachusetts within a couple of years. A few stayed in New France, and even fewer remained with the native peoples. The captives were taken to repopulate the tribes; why didn't they stay with them? Part of it was the British had had enough of the French and their indigenous friends' massacres and demanded the captives be returned, which the French did after the British paid ransom for them. It is funny now, but it wasn't funny then, I am sure.

If Atun-Shei had an Indian name it would be (Eats Much Soy)

Cycle of violence is such a bad faith framework. In settler colonialism, there are the aggressors, the settlers, and there are the resistors, the indigenous. To claim that indigenous resistance lead to a "cycle of violence" is to claim that Jewish people are to blame for the Holocaust.

This is really enlightening!

Outstanding presentation. Really enjoyed it.

Ironically, I'd consider what happened to willaim to be faaaaar more savage if the vikings did it. Especially if it happened after a certain king of Northumbria killed some viking raider in battle and his little shits invaded the kingdom with a giant army then killed him

This was a great video I grew up in Massachusetts and I remember learning a lot about the colonists view of these events. I do not remember learning about the perspective of the native Americans. The only Native American information that was taught was their farming practices, society structure, and a trip to Plymouth to see the village they had set up there to re-enact pre-pilgrim society. The things that were left out are almost more revealing then the things they taught.

Wow, that second story "taking the native perspective into account" (let's be honest, it's just attempting to justify a native raid against unarmed women and children) has to be one of the more ridiculous things I've ever heard. So this lone woman was captured by a native raiding party then overpowered the group of warriors and murdered 10 people including her own newborn all on her own for money and status? I can't believe that is being put forward as a serious alternative telling of events. I particularly enjoyed the completely random attempt at character assassination with unsupported claims of mental illness to try and poison the well around her first-hand account of events. Disgusting.

The Barry Lyndon like lighting is awesome!

Speechless. All of it. Accents, acting, costumes, story telling skill, knowledge, and the ability to see a larger narrative than I have ever been presented with before. I am no doubt among people much brighter than I am here. But oh, my delight at your videos! Slowly working my way through. Just, all my heart, thank you. Thank you for teaching me.

ah ! the War of the League of Augsburg !

Me: finally gets the baby to quiet down

The rest of my Abenaki war party: 😳

Dover, NH has a wonderful history museum including a fortified cabin from that period that was lifted onto logs and rolled to the museum in the 1800’s I believe. You can still see the bullet holes in the timbers.

I know this video is old, but I just want to say that this is by far the best take I've seen from Atun Shei. I will disagree with him on his notion that every ante-bellum southerner was a racist, but I think he is fair in pointing out that scalping was a practice amongst settlers and that natives only adopted it after they found out that the colonists would pay them for it. The gauntlet, however, was a longstanding practice amongst the north eastern tribes and he acknowledges that. I think his speech in the last few minutes sums up my view on history excellently: nobody is really justified, we're all kind of scum.
Cheers on another miserable St. Valentines day.