Supposedly, given the strictly patriarchal nature of European society in the 1600s/1700s, there are records of European women being captured by Native Americans and, upon assimilating into the tribe, choosing to stay with them due to the more free, egalitarian role women played in their society. (I realize I'm representing a broad time period and a broad group of peoples, but then again, the source I remember reading was also broad.)
Any light you can shed on the topic would be interesting. Was this indeed a real documented phenomena, and what examples are there?
One of the best known colonial women captured by Native Americans certainly didn't choose to stay and live with them. Hanna Duston waited until her captors were off guard and asleep, then killed 10 of them with a hatchet, scalped them, and made her way back home.
In 1697, during King William's war, Abenaki Indians, allied with the French, raided Haverhill, Massachusetts, killing 27 colonists. They captured Hanna and her youngest infant daughter, and took them back towards Canada, killing the infant by smashing her head against a tree along the way.
Near Boscowan, New Hampshire, Hanna led her servant Mary Neff, and another captive, 14 year old Samuel Lennardson in an escape. Hanna and her fellow captives killed 10 Indians with tomahawks they seized, and escaped back to Massachusetts by canoe, carrying the scalps of their captors with them.
The story of Hanna Duston was well known, as it was related by Cotton Mather, Nathaniel Hawthorne, John Greenleaf Whittier, and Henry Thoreau.
I actually read (and subsequently wrote about) an article from the William and Mary's Quarterly back in undergrad that went over this particular subject (though it was focused on the general attitudes held by European captives rather than just focusing on women). I'll post some of what I wrote about the article (The White Indians of Colonial America by James Axtell) here as well as a link to the article in question.
The basic summary, is that the majority of the captives stories studied by Axtell, tended to refuse to reintegrate into European/Colonial society when given the opportunity to do so. His take on this is that it was primarily due to the Natives living a much less rigid lifestyle in comparison to the colonists, and as your question asks, a more egalitarian society from what they were used to. Though Axtell concludes that their is no catch-all answer as to why many captives chose or attempted to stay with their native captors, the nature of Native Society was certainly a prime factor. Obviously though, as /u/mormengil points out with his answer, there were certainly cases where this wasn't always true, and that captivity didn't necessarily happen under the best circumstances to begin with.
One of my favorite parts of the article is the story of how European colonists often commented that almost immediately after being kidnapped by natives, they were given a pair of moccasins that felt far more comfortable to walk in than their hard-heeled shoes. Granted, this didn't win them over to Native society right away, but Axtell concludes that it was a start to that process.
Without further ado, my take on the Axtell article.
James Axtell’s article, The White Indians of Colonial America, is about the capture and assimilation of white colonists into Indian tribes and the eventual effort to re-assimilate the colonists back into colonial society. Axtell provides the analysis that the majority of the time when these white colonists were returned to colonial society, they would often tried to return to their adoptive native societies. While Indian children adopted and raised by whites would often reject colonial society the majority of the time and often seek return to their native families. Axtell’s main thesis asks what it was about Indian societies that would cause the majority of those captured and raised by Indians to desire a return to Indian life while those who were Indian born and raised by colonists would often have the same desire of returning to an Indian lifestyle.
Axtell opens the article by quoting a Cotton Mather, using Mather’s quotation to show that the majority of Europeans looked down on Indian society as quite uncivilized and unappealing to any person who had lived in European society. Axtell goes on to explain the first European to make a published view on the situation was Cadwallader Colden, who wrote the book History of the Five Indian Nations of Canada in 1747. Colden described the situation at the end of hostilities between the French and the Iroquois in 1609, where French captives were given the opportunity to return to French colonial society. However, many captives decided to stay with their adoptive Indian tribes. No reasonable explanation can be given says Colden. Colden explains that attributing the colonists decision to stay with the Indians due to a tyrannical French crown and turmoil in French Society at the time would not be the correct assessment as the English had just as many difficulties in persuading whites to return to colonial society when they encountered similar situations.
Axtell explains that the majority of those taken captive by the Indians were often young children and women to replace deceased relatives. He also explains that in the beginning one and half century of white versus Indian conflict, any and all colonists were taken by Indians, regardless of sex or age. Axtell provides evidence showing that more often than not, at first the capture of white colonists was done to obtain a ransom rather than to replenish their tribes families. Although the capture of colonists for adoption was still consistent at the time. He explains that later on, as peace developed this process of obtaining money for the tribes gradually dies down as conflicts between colonists and Indians become seldom over time. However, in 1753, with hostilities between Indians and colonists flaring up again, the process of capturing whites begins to heighten in an effort by the Indians to replenish their tribes deceased members. Axtell explains that ransoming petered off around this time since “The Indians of Pennsylvania, southern New York and the Ohio country had no Quebec or Montreal in which to sell their human chattels to compassionate French families or anxious English relatives.” Thus the enhanced effort to use captive white children and women to replenish their societies began.
Axtell then describes that with the end of Indian and White hostilities, treaties enacted upon the defeated Indians that called for the return of English captives often saw that when returned to their colonial families, they would present a strong notion of resentment at returning to their former colonial lifestyle. He goes on to show that when the captives were returned back to their colonial families, the bonds that had formed were very apparent, even to the degree that some of their adoptive Indian relatives continued to visit them after their return to colonial society. Many former captives made attempts at reverting back to their acquired Indian lifestyles. Axtell explains that while it was understandable for young children who had lived a majority of their lives with the Indians to desire a return, it still left the question unanswered when adult colonists, typically women, returned to or attempted to return to their adoptive Indian families. Axtell also shows that Indian children captured by white colonists rarely made any kind of objection to the notion that they return to their native Indian societies.
Axtell attempts to give us perspective on what white colonists encountered when they were initially captured and assimilated into Indian society. This appears to be done so that the reader can try to understand why it was the captured colonists often desired a return to Indian society after being returned. He shows that within the first moments of being whisked away by their captors, colonists, who were often fearful of the unknown fate that awaited them, encountered their first transitions from colonial to Indian society on the journey to the Indians village. Axtell describes the colonists first step was to remove the hardened European styled shoe worn by the colonists for the softer and more comfortable moccasin giving captured colonists their first taste of the Indian lifestyle. Upon arriving to their captors villages, the captives often felt a sense of overwhelming fear during their indoctrination ceremonies, failing to realize at first they were not being ceremoniously executed but being welcomed into tribal society. Often upon hearing a live-shout, which many often misunderstood and only heightened their fear, as Axtell describes “A noise that naturally frightened many captives until they learned it was not their death knell.” From there on, Axtell describes that as the initial fears of being killed by their captors subsided as their captives began to treat them as family. The colonists often eased into their newly acquired Indian lifestyles within a few days or weeks of capture. Axtell also goes on to describe that many of the captives were given as many freedoms and opportunities as a native would have been given.
A prime example given by Axtell of the white colonists becoming fully entrenched in Indian society is that of Thomas Peart. Peart, who was captured and raised by the Seneca’s at the age of three, eventually became known as Old White Chief in Iroquois Society, despite his origins as a white colonist. Peart describes being raised and treated from the time he was taken by his captives as one indifferent from that of one naturally born to the Indians, save for his capture. Axtell uses Peart's first hand account to show that often captives were able to achieve positions of greatness in Indian society so long they possessed the talents and the intellect to perform their duties well. In contrast, European society rarely allowed those not born into the correct class or family to enter positions of leadership or reverence within their societies, and most especially not natives or non-white peoples living in European or Colonial society.
Axtell’s Article concludes that while it is easy to understand that captured children desired to stay with their captors due to their easier social and psychological malleability, this is not often seen with Indian children who were captured and raised by white colonists. Axtell’s conclusion is that it’s hard to gauge what exactly possessed captives to remain with their adoptive Indian societies. Evidence provided by former captives who did make the return and readjustment to colonial society, provided that it was “..they found Indian life to possess a strong sense of community, abundant love, and uncommon integrity- values that English colonists also honored, if less successfully."
I'd like to add a question if I may: it seems from several of the summaries in other answers that white captives were sometimes adopted and sometimes married to prominent members of the tribe they lived with (I assume that even if a chief isn't always a chief anyone who can be an effective leader and warrior would be respected). Was there no sense of the white captives as being inferior? I can't help but think that the white settlers were more likely to take captive natives as slaves than adopt or marry them.
Another worth while read is Boy Captives. Hard to find outside of Texas, but a fabulous first hand account of Comanche life for abductees.
Two brothers were captured by Comanche raiders. One became the adopted soon of Chief Tosacadowi, the other was traded to, and adopted by, Geronimo. Both were returned after 7 or so years. The younger of the two readjusted very slowly. Neither were too eager to be back.
He also tells a story of another boy from their town that he fought with in battles. He says the boy never fully readjusted and eventually fled back to his tribe.
I highly recommend the read.
I did a paper on Captivity Narratives in college. Its quite the fascinating topic.
Unfortunately census information did not exist in those bygone times, so there is no means for us to review how many women - among all people - were taken from "western homes". Further still any work on how many women were taken is purely speculation.
What we do have is a body of varying narratives about the subject from numerous authors throughout decades.
The best part is that these works is that they are nearly all public domain. In fact, even Librivox.org has some of them converted to free audio books.
As for why it has been portrayed that many of those captured did not wish to leave, this is the case on occasion.
Both men and women in these accounts displayed varying levels of sympathy with their captors. Change of lifestyle was only one among many reasons.
Project Gutenburg (Gutenburg.org) compiles public domain texts and Librivox.org provides many of these in audio books also for free. YOu can volunteer to read a book for the latter as well.
I really cannot extoll the value of these websites enough. If you never have, please check them out (and save yourself some money at college to boot).
I want to add a question if that is alright? I've been told that at least during the spanish colonization, there was harsh laws to deter europeans from going native and join some tribe outside the colony. Is this true, and if it is, wouldn't that suggest that people where doing it, at least infrequently?
I just did a semester-long project on the comanche indians, so this comment is related to that native group specifically:
The comanches were well-known for taking captives^1, particularly from Mexico when the country tried to expand into Comanchería, the comanche territory. According to Stanley Noyes^2, the treatment of captives depended on the relationship between the people who had captives taken and the comanches; it also depended on the individual. So some captive-takers would let them go if they asked, while others refused to release prisoners. Even further, some prisoners chose to stay with the group, even when given the chance to leave.^3
Related questions:
How often do captives sympathize with captors?
Stockholm syndrome is well known, but is it common among captives?
Was bride kidnapping a widespread practice in Native American societies?
What were the Native American attitudes towards colonial women?