Talk:Mary Maverick

"Anderson writes..."
Anderson's argument, that Miss Lockhart had not been disfigured, because an officer did not mention it, is ridiculous. That certain persons did not mention Lockhart's condition may as well be due to the fact that mistreatment of captives by the indians was normal. On the other hand, there ARE witnesses of her release who report on her body. J. Wilbarger ("Indian Depredations in Texas", 1890, page 4) states that "the ladies who examined her wounds after her reclamation (some of whom are yet alive) stated that there was not a place on her body as large as the palm of a hand that had not been burned with hot irons." - It is okay to condemn white conquest of native Indian lands and report on white crimes committed on Indians. But that does not vindicate the suppression of facts concerning the treatment of white captives by Indians. For further corroboration of the facts see blog-entry "Five children captured by Indians", Jan 4, 2018, with an account of Mrs. Elizabeth Mitchell (born Putnam) which she gave in 1912.

As to the general argument, "it cannot have been because it was not mentioned": Marco Polo (and historians are by now sure he really was in China) did not mention the Chinese Wall. Does that mean, according to the above argument, that the Chinese Wall does not exist?? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2A02:1206:45B4:73B0:3111:39AC:B4B6:9C5E (talk) 19:41, 12 September 2020 (UTC)