History I Shouldn't Write - Vol. II

Last month, I started a discussion on the History I Shouldn't Write - Vol I. I talked about how research unveils truths that may not be popular in our modern culture.

Today I'm going to take that to a deeper level. A disturbing level.

In my research into first-hand accounts penned during Pontiac's Rebellion in 1763, I uncovered two separate accounts of the practice of cannibalism among the Native American tribes. I'll spare you the details, which were well laid out in the journals, and suffice it to say that it was not an uncommon practice.

I've known for a long time that this was true among the native tribes, but I thought it was more of a ritualistic type of behavior stemming from a belief system of some tribes. That narrative doesn't fit with my current research. And again, this is from reading two separate first-hand accounts involving two distinct tribes. In a third journal, it was also reported from second-hand accounts.

Because I have no wish to shock the reader, no wish to make my books into something dark and controversial, I will not include these findings in my books. But it's good in the research phase to look at history as it was - and not as how we wished it had been. Even when looking at it hurts. That's true of Native American cannibalism as much as it's true of European slave trading.

We should avoid - at all costs - comparing and contrasting the evils of different people or people groups in the past. That's an exercise in futility. People group A's evil doesn't enhance or diminish people group B's evil. That type of Monday-morning quarterbacking serves no purpose.

Not even in fiction.

 PeggThomas.com