# Talk:Raid on Deerfield

Someone suggested changing the name to "Raid" instead of "Massacre." When women and children are slaughtered by hand, it seems to qualify as a massacre.

--As the Historic Deerfield 1704 website makes clear, the raid was part of larger military operations in Queen Anne's War, involving 5 different cultural groups with varying interests.  The term "raid" implies a history and a context to the violence that the term "massacre" (a 19th century addition to the history, as I recall) flattens and erases.  I vote for changing the name to "1704 Raid on Deerfield" or something like that.  Whenelvisdied (talk) 05:10, 6 December 2007 (UTC)
For the past 200 years, everybody has known it as "the Deerfield Massacre". Has anyone ever called it "The Raid on Deerfield"? It was, to be sure, both a raid and a massacre, but we should use the name it's known by, which is the name people will search for on the Internet too, rather than invent a new name.   — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2600:1000:B00A:E29A:DBF:2263:36BC:3385 (talk) 18:00, 8 May 2015 (UTC) 

Who is this "everybody" you speak of? Suitably focused searches of Google (web), Google Scholar, Google Books, and JSTOR (a library of scholarly journals) all return more results for "Raid on Deerfield" than they do for "Deerfield Massacre". (Not that Google hits are the best of ways to approach this, mind you.  It's at least better than a vague "everybody".) The Memorial Hall Museum, located in Historic Deerfield, calls it the "Deerfield Raid". Magic♪piano 20:19, 8 May 2015 (UTC)

The article says that some captive remained in Indian communities for the rest of their lives.  Voluntarily, or otherwise?

One was Eunice Williams.
ANother was Mary Harris born About 1694. She was also assimilated. The only known memtion of her later life was about 50 years after the Deerfield Massacre/Raid in 1754 when she was still living with the Indians in what is now Ohio, See Christopher Gist Journal p.41 and 114
https://books.google.com/books?id=O3QOAAAAIAAJ&pg=PA7&dq=Christopher+Gist+journal+of+1750&hl=en&ei=o4yGTZzcLerG0QHy6cm_CA&sa=X&oi=book_result&ct=result#v=onepage&q=Mary%20harris&f=false
Other captives who responded to assimilation were:

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mary_Jemison
Some were "redeemeded"

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cynthia_Ann_Parker
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Herman_Lehmann  — Preceding unsigned comment added by 50.5.95.215 (talk) 17:35, 30 May 2016 (UTC)

Image:Captors and Captives 1704 cover.jpg is being used on this article. I notice the image page specifies that the image is being used under fair use but there is no explanation or rationale as to why its use in this Wikipedia article constitutes fair use. In addition to the boilerplate fair use template, you must also write out on the image description page a specific explanation or rationale for why using this image in each article is consistent with fair use.
Please go to the image description page and edit it to include a fair use rationale. Using one of the templates at Wikipedia:Fair use rationale guideline is an easy way to insure that your image is in compliance with Wikipedia policy, but remember that you must complete the template. Do not simply insert a blank template on an image page.
If there is  other fair use media, consider checking that you have specified the fair use rationale on the other images used on this page.  Note that any fair use images uploaded after 4 May, 2006, and lacking such an explanation will be deleted one week after they have been uploaded, as described on criteria for speedy deletion. If you have any questions please ask them at the Media copyright questions page. Thank you.
BetacommandBot 09:29, 27 October 2007 (UTC)

Is it necessary to specify in the article's title that this is about the 1704 raid?  Were there any other raids on Deerfield? Funnyhat (talk) 05:31, 30 July 2008 (UTC)

Good point. "Raid on Deerfield" -wikipedia gets 4,050 hits, and "1704 Raid on Deerfield" -wikipedia gets 310 hits. Poking through "Raid on Deerfield" -wikipedia -1704 suggests there was not a separate raid in a different year. Kingturtle (talk) 05:39, 30 July 2008 (UTC)
I moved it. Funnyhat (talk) 21:50, 1 January 2009 (UTC)

The text claims that the reason for the 1704 raid was "revenge" for an attack of some 30 year earlier. This is a bit of a stretch when you think of it. Hard to keep mad that long, even for those guys!
A 1871 account claims that the reason was a privateer had captured a bell destined for Quebec. The bell was ultimately sold to Deerfield. That the attackers indeed carried off the bell, buried for a time near Burlington (Vermont) "as every schoolchild knows." Then was dug up and carried back to Quebed at leisure. See Gazeteer, page 25 or thereabouts. Student7 (talk) 22:58, 10 September 2010 (UTC)

The Deerfield bell story is debunked here.  It is the sort of thing that probably ought to be mentioned here anyway (as a debunked tale).
As far as the revenge thing goes, it might be a contributing factor, especially for people at formative ages during the first encounter. I can also see "recruiters" using those sorts of events as propaganda tools. Magic♪piano 23:44, 10 September 2010 (UTC)
Tried putting a few words there. I suspect that the myth was more widely circulated that the rebuttal! As usually happens!  :)  18:53, 12 September 2010 (UTC)
Authors Haefeli and Sweeney (see article for ref) note that the bell story is an important part of Kahnawake historiography.  They also go into the deep roots of some of the native participation, some of which was rooted in the loss of land in the area.  I will add some of this to the article eventually... Magic♪piano 19:00, 15 January 2011 (UTC)

This review is transcluded from Talk:Raid on Deerfield/GA1. The edit link for this section can be used to add comments to the review.
Reviewer: WikiCopter (♠ • ♣ • ♥ • ♦ • simple • commons • lost • cvu • onau) 23:07, 12 February 2011 (UTC)
Comments

Lede expansion needed.
Which Port Royal is referred to in the Captivity section? WikiCopter (♠ • ♣ • ♥ • ♦ • simple • commons • lost • cvu • onau) 23:07, 12 February 2011 (UTC)
Thanks for reviewing!  I believe I've addressed your issues. Magic♪piano 03:25, 13 February 2011 (UTC)
Johnson and Smith is listed in the biblography, but is not used. Please reticify. WikiCopter (♠ • ♣ • ♥ • ♦ • simple • commons • lost • cvu • onau) 04:51, 13 February 2011 (UTC)
See footnote 51. Magic♪piano 17:53, 13 February 2011 (UTC)
Legacy and Captivity can be combined into a section called Aftermath, as is standard elsewhere. WikiCopter (♠ • ♣ • ♥ • ♦ • simple • commons • lost • cvu • onau) 04:52, 13 February 2011 (UTC)
I've renamed Captivity to Aftermath -- I think the legacy is significant enough to warrant a separate level 2 heading. Magic♪piano 17:53, 13 February 2011 (UTC)
Well, can't find anything else. Passed. WikiCopter (♠ • ♣ • ♥ • ♦ • simple • commons • lost • cvu • onau) 21:50, 13 February 2011 (UTC)

You people should be ashamed of yourselves for the obfuscation and outright lies you tell in this article. Eunice williams, wife of Rev. John Williams was savegly[savagely] murdered by the hatchet of an indian just six miles north of what is now Old Deerfield. Thats about two hours walking time after being dragged from her home in this raid. To REMOVE that fact from this article and obfuscate her name in deciet[deceit] is just outright communist. Your[You're] the reason the wikiproject is losing all it's[its] credibility.. shame, shame, shame on you.  — Preceding unsigned comment added by 173.162.233.217 (talk) 01:46, 2 January 2012 (UTC) 

Thanks for your feedback, but you're wrong. Quoting from the article: "Williams' wife Eunice, weak after having given birth just six weeks earlier, was one of the first to be killed during the trek; her body was recovered and reburied in the Deerfield cemetery."  The reason for her "savage" slaying is also given; do you object to the explanation? (I've also taken the liberty of noting spelling and grammatical corrections in your commentary.  Some of us take pride in our attention to detail; you should too.) Magic♪piano 02:09, 2 January 2012 (UTC)
I have to agree with the first commenter. You not only left out of the article (or ignored researching) many of the most pertinent facts, including the startling brutality of the massacre and the subsequent march - in which many killed were women, elderly, and children including babies. Contempory accounts of the massacre (which is what it was!) tell of the butchery of babies and children. There are contempory accounts that turn your stomach. You also worked hard to insist that those held captive somehow wanted to be there. In truth - something you seem oblivious to - many were young girls who, once in Canada were forcibly married and impregnated. The Indians did not release a captive (after having sold her again through bargaining) and allow her to take her children. To leave would have meant young women would leave toddlers behind. For you to sit on your rather naive 21st-century throne and assume they all stayed because they were just so happy, were never abused - and never missed their families and culture of origin - is astounding. You also use very soft language - they were "assimilated", for example. Being kidnapped, forced into slavery, manual or sexual, while a child, demands that you learn to survive. This is not "assimilation" because you "love the outdoor lifestyle".  You may wonder how I know these things: I know a great deal about Deerfield (more than your article shows you do) because amongst the many murdered were several of my own family. Two young girls - possibly 3 - were kidnapped and taken to Canada. (One/two were bought back by ransom after years in Indian captivity, the other had entered a convent in Canadian territory.) You also ignore in your numbers those murdered in cold blood while in their own fields in the weeks before the raid - including three of my ancestors, Edward Allen and his sons - amongst others. I can only assume you are the product of our failed educational system, when I read such a biased article. 98.127.202.130 (talk) 11:37, 5 December 2023 (UTC)
You do realize that you are responding to a post made more than 10 years ago? Nevertheless, I would encourage you to find reliable sources that support your position and edit the article accordingly. Indyguy (talk) 16:05, 5 December 2023 (UTC)

Hello fellow Wikipedians,
I have just modified one external link on Raid on Deerfield. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20050625014244/http://www.1704.deerfield.history.museum/ to http://www.1704.deerfield.history.museum/
When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.
This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 5 June 2024).

If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.
Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 10:36, 12 May 2017 (UTC)

It should be mentioned clearly that the dates indicated in the text are based on the Julian calendar that was in use in New England during that period. For example, the 29th of February, the day of the raid, was the 11th of March in the Gregorian calendar.