| Author |
 Topic  |
|
joseph wiggs
Brigadier General
Status: offline |
 Posted - January 26 2005 : 9:06:08 PM
|
"The Sioux didn't understand the value of the Black Hills, they were told the White's wanted it."
It is true that the Sioux did not understand the White man's value of precious metals, nor would they comprehend the unholy, contemporaneous value placed on the almighty barrel of oil we experience today. As a result, they are not, have not, and never will be hostage to OPEC as the "White's" of today currently are.
Instead, these "ignorant savages" viewed the Black Hills as "The place called the heart of all things." These mountains were the spiritual center of the Lakota world.
"They were told the White's wanted it."
Not exactly. They watched as the "White" man encroached upon their sacred world in the form of greedy miners, and military excursions who thought soley of those precious metals, previously mentioned, as a justification for attempted genocide. During the "Council to steal the Black Hills," the U.S. Government threatened, cajoled, and deceived a minor group of Indians (they had no prominant authority to treat)into signing an agreement to sell their land. The very same land (Black Hills) which had been guranteed, by the U.S. Government, as belonging to the Indian for eternity.
To assume that these people had no concept of the value of this land because they refused to sell it is an egocentric assumption that one's personal value is elevated above the value of another. As Wild succintly pointed out, the law of "supply and demand" clearly revealed to the Indians that they possessed something of great value to the "Whites." A value they were absolutely aware of. That Euro-American sense of merit was negated, in the mind of the Indian, by his ponderous, spiritual need. The ability to select spirituality over wealth is the primary reason some refer to the Red man as a "savage" today. After all, anyone who don't love money must be crazy!
The commonly held precept that anyone, or group who would prefer a spiritual connection with the land over a dollar would be considered an "idiot" is a sad comentary of our current society but, it ain't neccessarily so. |
  |
|
|
wILD I
Brigadier General
Ireland
Status: offline |
Posted - January 27 2005 : 09:08:00 AM
|
Wiggs
I forgive you for stealing my thunder for that was quiet brilliant.
DC
As wiggs has addressed the issue of conflicting values I will confine myself to your contention that the Indian was incapable of strategic thought.
To suggest such a thing is to suggest that the Indian and I include his present day descendents are lacking in cerebral function.
Really this is a racist vista too awful to contemplate.
As we have seen, tactically the Indian was a match for anything the US sent against him.Crook recognised this and hired them by the dozen if not hundreds.Perhaps it's an urban myth but I believe that the study of the fighting retreat of the Nez Perce Indians was mandatory in many military colleges.
The only difference between tactical thinking and stratigic thinking is one of scale.Strategy deals in greater quantities of time,space,materiel.No one ever suggested that a hunter gatherer people could ever deploy anything remotely near the resources of the US but they did use time and spaceand politics to their advantage.The greatest stratigist of the time Lee was defeated in 5 years.It took The US 25 years to conquer the plains Indians.Both sides operated within the constraints of their societies but to equate power and complexity with the ability to think strategically is ludicrous
You say in support of your arguement that the Indian had no long term goals.I would suggest to you that preservation of his way of life would qualify as a long them goal.You say he had no central command.Granted and it proved to be one of his strenghts.The armies of Crook,Terry and Co needed complex systems to sustain them,not so the Indians.The Indian was defeated because of the massive resources and overwhelming numerical superiority deployed by the US.Judging a conflict between civilizations using only the criteria of one side will only give a distorted image and to blame the Indians defeat on his mental capacity is insulting to put it mildly.
The sort who'd want to provide for and improve the lot of his children, family, and people. There was no genicide, Wild, we went through that.
An agency life was an improvement?And where in 1876 were these concentration camps of beign enlightment to be found ?You don't mean those hell holes administered by an ignorant ,incompetant and corrupt Indian bureau? What was Sitting Bull's Taunt---You are fools to make yourselves slaves to a piece of fat bacon,some hard-tack,and a little sugar and coffee?
The US stole their lives that is genocide we discussed this.
Lots of Indians saw the 7th
I think you posted that several bands/parties saw the 7th. You now post a watered down imprecise version of "Lots of Indians".Do the research and give us a precise figure.
My thanks for a more temperate post |
|
|
|
Dark Cloud
Brigadier General
USA
Status: offline |
Posted - January 27 2005 : 11:34:40 AM
|
No, can't get away with that. The Sioux had barely been in the Black Hills. It had been the spiritual center of their world since Tuesday, in historic terms. Other tribes had recently been there before the Sioux knocked them out after they themselves were clobbered by the Ojibway/Chippewa up north. It is less likely the spiritual nature of the Hills thrilled them as much as the game, wood, and water.
Just as Bourke said the United States would be better off not going to Defcon 45 every time some Indian medicine man announced he could raise the dead, gullible PC types would be better off not believing at face value assurances of Native American spiritual depths having existed forever by people who didn't keep track of time, write, or had any history of their people beyond campfire songs and the like, especially when the espoused spiritual sites had such material benefit associated with it. My lord, it is now claimed that the site of SB's sundance on the Rosebud is sacred. When did they discover that? Are the sites of all sundances sacred? You bet.
I never said the defeat of the Indians was due to his "mental capacity", and to hide behind that false assertion is dishonest. There is a difference between ignorance and stupidity. Given all their advantages, the white man was often guilty of stupidity.
If your bizarre reading of bazar trading equals in your mind adequate economic understanding, so be it.
No, Wild. There was nobody in Sioux society empowered to do that sort of thinking and order it carried out. Lee was not the greatest strategist in eastern Virginia after 1863, much less "of the time." The United States was so concerned with Indians it devoted the immense number of 8k men out of an Army of 25k to conquer the tribes in land the size of Europe. If they'd shoved the Cavalry units of the CW west to beat up on the Indians it would have taken till lunch to do it.
Yes, agency life was a vast improvement over being chased through winter without clothing and slaughtered in the snow, I'd think. Life vs. death to no point. You'd have to ask the women and children, adjuncts to the heroic males, for their opinion.
Several parties equals lots of Indians - more than is needed to report to the camp, which they did not do . Huh.
Again, genicide is physical slaughter. It did not happen outside of arguable battles. |
Dark Cloud
copyright RL MacLeod
darkcloud@darkendeavors.com
www.darkendeavors.com
www.boulderlout.com |
|
|
|
wILD I
Brigadier General
Ireland
Status: offline |
Posted - January 27 2005 : 2:57:45 PM
|
I never said the defeat of the Indians was due to his "mental capacity", and to hide behind that false assertion is dishonestIt is an assertion I drew from your posting that the Indian had no strategic sense.I'm sorry but this indicates to me that his mental processes were not up to long term planning.That when confronted with a complex situation involving numerious varibales he could not cope or are you saying that it was just that he had not attended Sandhurst or Westpoint and thus was ignorant of the methods of the whiteman?
I believe that he was well aware of the limitations of his way of life and that within those limits he utilised his advantages in leadership,knowledge of terrain,mobility,natural combativness and allied to his use of time and space and ability to live off the land ,strategically as well tactically did everything possible to preserve his way of life.
If your bizarre reading of bazar trading equals in your mind adequate economic understanding, so be it.
This just epitomises your thinking on this subject.How can bartering be bizarre in a stoneage society?
If they'd shoved the Cavalry units of the CW west to beat up on the Indians it would have taken till lunch to do it.
What a joke.Another one of your throwaway claims.You will recall that Custer had 15 days of provisions with him then after that he and particularly his horses would begin to starve.And what railway would have sustained this hugh cavalry army?
Yes, agency life was a vast improvement over being chased through winter without clothing and slaughtered in the snow, I'd think. Life vs. death to no point. You'd have to ask the women and children, adjuncts to the heroic males, for their opinion.
An offer they couldn't refuse? An offer of a living death and from what I'v seen on TV of to-days reservations they were right to fight.
Several parties equals lots of Indians - more than is needed to report to the camp, which they did not do . Huh.
Give us the figures for confirmed sightings of the 7th by hostiles
Again, genicide is physical slaughter. It did not happen outside of arguable battles.
Slaughter,robbery,transportation,confinement,destruction of culture,denial of civil rights is genocide.As for arguable "battles"anything off the reservation was hostile and fair game.A veritable free fire zone. An early form of etnic cleansing. |
|
|
|
Dark Cloud
Brigadier General
USA
Status: offline |
Posted - January 27 2005 : 4:01:35 PM
|
1. Wishful thinking, Wild. It indicates his few years with the horse hadn't really expanded his thoughts that much, and they still lived as they had only somewhat faster plus women didn't carry as much. He could, indeed, not cope - he lost badly. Despite your convenient belief, he wasn't aware of the limitations of his life, how could he be? How could anyone until confronted with fact? It was one thing to be told the white men bred like flies and had huge guns and were coming, like it or not, and another to be confronted with it. They didn't adapt at all till utter defeat because they didn't believe it till too late. Further, they could not agree on lunch, much less unite to fight the white invaders. All that before "strategic sense."
2. I didn't say that, of course. You equate their barter mindset with economic comprehension of the Black Hills' value, and that's absurd.
3. It's called hyperbole, Wild, and yes it would take some time but if the tens of thousands of exquisite Union cavalry had been told to cleanse the west and kill every Indian - genicide - it would not have taken long at all. And Grant's color coded supply system would have worked fine without railroads. It's far less deceptive than your claim the United States took 25 years to win as indicative of its strength vs. the Indians ability to fend it off. The Indians were lint in so far as the attention they absorbed from the US. It would have cost us a lot less to slaughter them.
4. Life vs. death. Hmmmm.
5. Why? I couldn't know. All I can prove is that the Army said they saw any number of Indians and not one of them notified the camp. It is unlikely that every Indian that saw them, they saw. Your contention that the camp kept track of the 7th and this was indicative of their organization is utterly bogus.
6. No Wild, only intentional slaughter (as opposed to unintended disease) qualifies and only if there is no other goal. Robbery, transportation(?), confinement, destruction of culture, denial of civil rights is not genicide, which means 'kill men.' It is only robbery, transportation (?), confinement, destruction of culture, and denial of civil rights. They're alive. To use the term 'genicide' to mean something other than physical death because of demographic is - ! - hyperbole.
That's why the camps designed to gas the Jews are different, because the Jews were actually killed with that as the desired goal for men, women, and children. Previous, they'd merely been periodically robbed, transportated (against their will, which is the same as...),confinement, had their culture nearly destroyed, and were way past mere denial of civil rights because they had none. American Indians were not subject to genicide. |
Dark Cloud
copyright RL MacLeod
darkcloud@darkendeavors.com
www.darkendeavors.com
www.boulderlout.com |
|
|
|
joseph wiggs
Brigadier General
Status: offline |
Posted - January 27 2005 : 7:59:52 PM
|
| Wild, even when I don't agree with you I find that your logic and common sense approach to these issues is enviable; damn right I stole from you! |
|
|
|
whistlingboy
Lieutenant
USA
Status: offline |
Posted - January 28 2005 : 01:19:09 AM
|
Some of you have sent me personal emails explaining that I was probably not the only one receiving a message about 'getting along' and therefore was not being 'singled out' for whatever reason. I appreciate your candor and interest in my participation and my future interaction with the forum and I thank you. My wife's been telling me that I am getting 'sensitive' in my old age and I'm not even 60 yet. hehe
I have said it, I'm sure, more than anyone wants to hear it, but I think this forum is comprised of an astute group of individuals with an uncanny ability to banter vociferously one moment and then compliment each other the next, creating an atmosphere of "wild, exciting, 'can't believe he said that', spontaneously generated responses" facilitating fascination, learning and a sense of comradery.
Anyone can be an expert on any subject, with or without a degree, if they devote the time and commit themselves to the research it takes to excel in the study of that subject. To the degree that we all research the answers to a given question will, undoubtedly, affect each of our interpretations and our individual way of thinking in regards to that question. This board is probably served by persons with degrees as well as persons without a degree; persons well-read and some not as well-read; persons with analytical minds and those less analytical in their thinking; etc. But by being here, everyone is sharing in a common interest and by offering detail, opinion, documents, etc. each one motivates another to react through challenge, curiosity, defiance, intrigue or emotion and this enables each of us to be 'educated' or 're-educated' in some new aspect of this common interest we share. We can continue to be enriched in our lives even though our 'differences' must be respectfully tolerated.
My apologies to anyone who may have been offended by any of my past posts. My best regards and my thanks.
|
|
|
|
wILD I
Brigadier General
Ireland
Status: offline |
Posted - January 28 2005 : 10:57:16 AM
|
DC
Permit me to borrow one of your "sighs".
Sigh. Unlike others I have no problem knowing where to start in replying to your post.My problem is knowing where to end.I'm not conducting Tutorials in military science,economics,antropology and English prose here DC.It would be of great service to all concerned if your posts came accompanied by a modicum of research.
Wishful thinking, Wild. It indicates his few years with the horse hadn't really expanded his thoughts that much, and they still lived as they had only somewhat faster plus women didn't carry as much.
What's a few years in anthropological terms?For the first time they had a beast of burden.This in time would have resulted in a massive increase in food production leading on to settled communities.
They didn't adapt at all till utter defeat because they didn't believe it till too late
Here I have to agree with you.Confronted by a race of people long accustomed to living in their own filth and now immune from but carriers of such infectious disease and lethal killers as smallpox,measles,influenza,plague,tuberculosis,typhus,cholera,malaria the Indian had no chance.
You posted early in the dicussion that "the Indian lacked stratigic sense"
The following strategic decisions were taken and acted upon in Sitting Bulls war.
Agencies abandoned and tribes mass in the LBH region in defiance of known government policy.
Tribes take the offencive and inflict tactical defeat on Crook.
After counter attacking Custer tribes avoid combat with Terry and disperse.
2. I didn't say that, of course. You equate their barter mindset with economic comprehension of the Black Hills' value, and that's absurd.
And you suggest that because they used a barter system they were economically naive.Perhaps the words of Spotted Bear might relieve you of such a notion."Our Great Father has a big safe,and so have we.This hill is our safe".
Life vs. death. Hmmmm.
Can I take it that the "Hmmm" is the sound of you hitting intellectual rock bottom?
But it does show your complete lack of understanding of the plains Indian.His life style gave him freedom.Deprive him of that.Place him on putrid festering reservation.Give him the dole and let him watch the soldiery abuse his women.Hmmm.
All I can prove is that the Army said they saw any number of Indians
"Severial groups","lots of Indians" and now "any number of Indians???If you are trying to prove a point do the research and save yourself a lot of embarrassment.
No Wild, only intentional slaughter (as opposed to unintended disease) qualifies and only if there is no other goal.
Pass me another "sigh" there DC if you wouldn't mind.
What you are describing is mass murder.
Lemkin who fought for years to have the crime recognised describes it as a term to include assaults on all aspects of nationhood -physical.biological,political,social,cultural,economic and religious.Now what among that lot was not inflicted on the Indian?
Further your country accepted that definition as recently as 1988.A bit late because it was feared that it might be used retrospectively Hmmmm ?
|
|
|
|
joseph wiggs
Brigadier General
Status: offline |
Posted - January 28 2005 : 11:17:19 AM
|
| Whistlingboy, it is a real pleasure to hear from you again. Yes, the pendulum swings with great celerity and, sometimes, barbarously on this forum. It appears to be in a mode of civility right now. The question is how long? |
|
|
|
bhist
Lt. Colonel
Status: offline |
Posted - January 28 2005 : 11:44:54 AM
|
quote:
Originally posted by joseph wiggs
Whistlingboy, it is a real pleasure to hear from you again. Yes, the pendulum swings with great celerity and, sometimes, barbarously on this forum. It appears to be in a mode of civility right now. The question is how long?
Tick, Tock, Tick, Tock, Tick, Tock... |
Warmest Regards,
Bob
www.vonsworks.com
www.friendslittlebighorn.com
www.friendsnezpercebattlefields.org |
|
|
|
joseph wiggs
Brigadier General
Status: offline |
Posted - January 28 2005 : 4:44:16 PM
|
| Now that was funny!!! (LOL) |
|
|
|
Dark Cloud
Brigadier General
USA
Status: offline |
Posted - January 28 2005 : 6:50:36 PM
|
by paragraph Wild.
1. They had the dog as a beast of burden. And Sioux and Cheyenne culture despised farming. The Mandans, Arikarees, Pawnee were all despised for farming as well.
2. They were just as bad. They killed way too much buffalo for their needs before the horse (and sometimes after) because you can't stop a herd from running off a cliff. They just picked up and left their filth for nature to clean up. They weren't successful enough as a civilization to build up a population that would require losing nomadic economic irresponsibility.
3. fine
4. No, Wild. By the standards of the white man they were economically ignorant. They didn't think in terms of metals and wood for construction of vast cities, they didn't understand the concept of zero, couldn't write, had nothing to account, depreciate, accumulate, manufacture, or harvest for sale and you're saying they aren't economically ignorant? You're silly to argue this.
5. No, I don't claim to "understand" the Indian. You do, I take it. As awful as the thousands of square miles of reservations were, if it were the Aztec or the Mongols, they'd simply have been slaves and/or killed. Like they did to each other, in fact.
6. Not embarrassed. You used the alleged tracking of the Gibbon Custer Terry column as indicative of their sophistication, somehow. In fact, if any of it was tracking, and that's a guess, it resulted in absolutely no advantage because the village wasn't warned because Custer surprised them. How 'bout that? There's hardly huge variance in those phrases you misspell.
7. A desire for a group to die out as uncontested policy of government. In the US, there was always a large and politically strong support group for native Americans from the beginning. Go here http://www.pbs.org/wgbh/pages/frontline/shows/rwanda/reports/dsetexhe.html - from which:
"....Thus, using the definitions of both Lemkin and the Convention, and placing them within the context of the larger category of crime against humanity in general, there have really only been three genuine examples of genocide during the course of the twentieth century: that of the Armenians by the Young Turks in 1915, that of the Jews and Gypsies by the Nazis and, in 1994, that of the Tutsis by the Hutu racists."
Except for the few psychotics in every culture, we wanted to steal from the Indians and live on their land. We had no burning desire as a people to see them all dead. I realize some did, but the reverse was true as well, and was the basis of the Ghost Dance.
They were our Noble Savage of Rousseau and reflective of America being Eden, which sounds stupid now but took up a lot of paper then.
From the earliest, the Indian life spoke to us very differently than actual genocidal thugs would receive it. For example, during the Munich putsch, Hitler and the Nazis didn't dress as Orthodox Jews and empty out government drawers and dump beer the way Bostonians dressed as Indians and dumped tea. No German soccer team was called the Nuremberg Osterjuden or the Fighting Zealots! Nor was any secret Nazi society called some name in honor of Jews. See? They were serious about wiping them out, and any trace of their existence. Speer would not want his children to attend lectures by Jewish professors, or have his kids hang with Jews, or run into them at an athletic event.
Different here. Been at the battlefield and seen little Anglo and black kids just wide eyed and slack jawed seeing their first real Indians? They are thrilled beyond measure (and it is rude, yes, but staring in a respectful way, I'd think) and this is not the reaction of children in genocidal cultures where generations of hatred has built up. Everybody wants to be an Indian at some point, in theory anyway.
Throughout the colonies there were secret societies and political movements and clubs with Indian names, just as today our sports teams are named for Indians. From the beginning, Indian names were given states, cities, land, towns, ships, and anything else we wanted to honor. These are hardly signs of disrespect or race hatred. Although I certainly can see how it offends Indians to have a team called the Redskins when none are called the Honkies or the Fieldslaves, they have to admit that when clearly Anglo fathers and African American fathers tear up and cry in happiness that their college boy has been drafted by the Redskins - "My son is a Redskin!" - it is not a blow against their race, and neither does respect for their culture suffer when 75k people - dressed silly, yes, and with rubber hatchets - scream "Gooooooooo REDSKINS!!!!" to a tom-tom beat from a 1930's movie. This is all testament to their warrior ethic and our respect for it. They are proud of that team, the one that represents the nation's capital. I'd change the name to the Thorpes, myself, but it's the same thing.
In fact Franklin and Jefferson commented how many settlers seemed to take off and join the Indians willingly.
My heritage is Scot. Recall the Thrifty Scot motel chain? I do. It was there into the seventies, anyway. And it bothered me not at all and I understand the impetus was far more benign than if it had been called, and forgive me, The Cheap Jew motel chain although on surface there's no dif. And I'd bet we all recognize the difference and sense it. That difference is that genocide thing.
Indians fascinated America and permeate our literature and culture as both good and bad people. This wasn't the ground for genocide to flourish, despite slavery, despite all the racist horror we inflicted on people. There were always powerful defenders and advocates as well as murderers and bastards of the first water. Not in Nazi Germany. Not in Armenia in the 1920's. Not in Rwanda. |
Dark Cloud
copyright RL MacLeod
darkcloud@darkendeavors.com
www.darkendeavors.com
www.boulderlout.com |
Edited by - Dark Cloud on January 28 2005 7:15:33 PM |
|
|
|
joseph wiggs
Brigadier General
Status: offline |
Posted - January 28 2005 : 9:16:28 PM
|
Example of a support group for the Native American authored by that great military leader and Civil War General William Tecumseh Sherman:
"We are not going to let a few thieving, ragged Indians check and stop the progress of the railroads...I regard the railroad as the most important element now in progress to facilitate the military interests of our Frontier. We must act with vindictive earnestness against the Sioux."
In 1866 Sherman wrote to Ulysses S. Grant, "even to their extermination, men, women, and children. The Sioux must feel the superior power of the Government." Sherman vowed to remain in the west, "till the Indians are all killed or taken to a country where they can be watched." Sherman also avocated: "Soldiers cannot distinguish between male and female, or even descriminate as to age."
There may have been a large group of advocates looking out for the Indians during these turbulent times but, they must have experienced an up hill battle as we hear nothing of them.
It does not take a great deal of effort to understand another group of human beings, even when you do not understand their language or culture. All people experience a hierarchy of needs which include love, sustenance, and shelter. An eskimo is completely aware that if an African does not eat he will grow hungry. A chinese citizen can be sure that a Dane must be protected from the elements in order to survive, all of us comprehend that all of them experience love in one fashion or another. It is not necessary to micro-examine every thought or habit of another to accept his humanity.
Powerful advocates and defenders of the Native American did not exist during the Indian wars. Had they existed, the wars would not have occurred. All good hearted people who may have found U.S. Government policy,regarding the Native American, as deplorable were stifled by the nationally accepted concept of "Manifest Destiny." An ideology that literally professed that it was "God's" will that the Euro-American rule this land from coast to coast. All indigenous inhabitants were to be subdued or removed as "God" had ordained that they were not to be recipients of this glorious gift.
The Native American had no political or financial clout during the 1800's. It should be apparent to everyone that without such powerful shields, your "good" name may be mis-used in evey way imaginable. The improper and immoral usage of a group's nomenclature does not suggest that the "group" gives consent and, does not suffer irreparable harm. It does not infer that the namee is all a flitter because his name is being used to sell products of a demeaning nature. It simply means that the entire matter is completely out of his/her hands. If any owner of a basketball team, football team, or baseball team dared to designate their teams in a manner demeaning to Afro-Americans, there are several powerful black organizations who would leap to the fore and bring down the mountains of retribution upon the heads of individuals who were so foolish to do so. What powerful organization spoke for the Red man at the time the Washington football team selected their moniker; Russell Means?
The Ghost Dance was an Indian Messianic movement wherein it was believed that if the Indians continued to dance, the hated "Wasicun" would disappear from the earth and all would be as it was and, should be. |
Edited by - joseph wiggs on January 28 2005 9:25:57 PM |
|
|
|
BJMarkland
Colonel
USA
Status: offline |
Posted - January 29 2005 : 06:49:45 AM
|
quote:
In 1866 Sherman wrote to Ulysses S. Grant, "even to their extermination, men, women, and children. The Sioux must feel the superior power of the Government." Sherman vowed to remain in the west, "till the Indians are all killed or taken to a country where they can be watched." Sherman also avocated: "Soldiers cannot distinguish between male and female, or even descriminate as to age."
There may have been a large group of advocates looking out for the Indians during these turbulent times but, they must have experienced an up hill battle as we hear nothing of them.
Wiggs, to offer a little clarification for you. Sherman said that after the Fort Phil Kearny (Fetterman) "massacre" in outlining his plans to defeat Red Cloud's forces once and for all. The "non-existent" group of advocates you can not find actually prevented that from happening and instead of commanding an operation against Red Cloud, Sherman found himself sitting on a Peace Commission. There was a very active coalition of pro-Indian advocates during that era. Don't let your pro-Indian bias, while noble, blind you to that fact. Grant's Indian policy was pretty much written by those non-existent pro-Indian advocates.
You know, if Sherman had been allowed to follow-through on his operations, the LBH in 1876 would not have happened. Perhaps there would have been some other event to compare, although I doubt it.
Best of wishes,
Billy |
|
|
|
whistlingboy
Lieutenant
USA
Status: offline |
Posted - January 29 2005 : 10:32:10 AM
|
If I may, I want to 'detour' just briefly from the fine posts above to mention a tidbit that has relevance to an upcoming event.
When General Custer led the 7th Cavalry out of Ft. Lincoln on June 22, 1876, it had the air of a summer social event as many of the officers' wives side-saddled along as well as the 16-piece brass regimental band mounted on matching white horses playing 'Boots and Saddles' and 'Garry Owen.' When the 7th and its entourage reached the confluence of the Powder and the Yellowstone, General Terry did dispatch 'explicit' orders to Custer to send the band back to Ft. Lincoln. General Custer did, however, keep one bugler and the white horses and the band departed on foot back 'home.'
Thus, the New England Patriots won the Super Bowl in 2002 and 2004.
Many of you know this tidbit, probably, but those of you who don't might find it 'timely' interesting. |
|
|
|
joseph wiggs
Brigadier General
Status: offline |
Posted - January 29 2005 : 11:04:49 AM
|
Billy, you are right. There were many advocates for the Native American. The eastern portion of the U.S. grew them by the thousands. Naturally, people who never suffered an arrow between the eyes, or a scalping while still alive, or being raped by young bucks had no concept of the realities of life on the western front. They viewed the Native American as the "Noble Savage" which he was neither, noble nor savage.
I have posted, on prior occassions, that both groups were guilty of the most horrific atrocities. Both groups possessed advocates who were certain that their perspective groups were correct in what they did. My point, when reduced to its basic premise, was that the advocates for the Indian were ineffective for the most part despite their good intentions. They had insufficient political clout to make a difference. You may have sympathetic groups spouting "hallelujah" for your cause until the cows come home but, to what advantage if nothing changes? This is a reality that has nothing to do with my perceived naivete.
I am aware of the timing of Sherman's remarks. You and I would, in all probility, experience the same intense emotions that Sherman experienced. We understand why anyone would be angered. The problem with this scenario is that the emotions and words of a man of Sherman's political stature and authority became, on occassion,state policy.
"The only good Indian I ever saw was one that was dead" evolved into the infamous, "the only good Indian is a dead one." If I'm not mistaken, and I could be, that remark was created by Sherman at a time when no masscre, by Indians or whites, were recent.
Billy, thank you for the opportunity to clarify a few points on my earlier post. |
|
|
|
whistlingboy
Lieutenant
USA
Status: offline |
Posted - January 29 2005 : 12:09:07 PM
|
Personally, I don't think Grant's government had the 'mentality' to devise a plan of 'genocide' let alone the ability and know-how to carry it out. Genocide is the wrong term in its purest sense, don't you think, because it implies great 'organization' and the fact that Grant's administration was so corrupt would certainly indicate great turmoil and confusion within the 'ranks' which is not to say that there were those in the Army who mustered up 'thought' in such terms. In its strictest sense, genocide is a 'systematic annihilation' of a people and certainly strongly implies 'extermination' of lives, not thinking. Grant was not smart enough to be a dictator because he didn't have the charisma to attract the 'intelligencia' types of his day. The fact that the 'plan' called for placing the hostiles on reservations was a compassionate approach to removing them from being an obstacle in the path of progress. Now if after a while they started killing every Indian on the reservations then that would be a plan of genocide. Did the government destroy their way of life? Sure, but not their life. There is a difference. Not all Indians were nonsensical and hostile. I'm sure some were sensible and practical thinkers who, without choice, made the best of their new 'situation' and valued 'life' above 'death.' Six million (the popular figure) jewish men, women and CHILDREN had no choice.
|
|
|
|
lorenzo G.
Captain
Italy
Status: offline |
Posted - January 29 2005 : 1:19:16 PM
|
Yes yes yes. Completely agreed. What we should call the West maybe is "cultural imposition". At the worst. Then, must be said that War must be made in two. And that this moving toward West, was meaning life for thousands and thousands of people, struggling hunger in Europe. To be correct in considering this matter, we must forget the wonderful indian all coloured, standing up in the mountain, with the moon behind,(much paintures still are so and selled by markets and new age shops)and look instead at what that movement of human beings ment really.
Hitler did'nt ask to Jews to conform themselves to the German way of life. He just made them slaves and kill them all. Indians were asked for a new way of life, in order to create a connivence between two different cultures. Indians that accepted the new way of life were well included on the american society - today, in spite of some "warpath" movement, there are a lot of root-indians that live well in the USA.
The difference between jews and indians then are great. Also, jews never burned houses, posts, killing traders,violing women and torturing children; making a tradition of cut noses and fingers to don't say the worst... |
If it is to be my lot to fall in the service of my country and my country's rights I will have no regrets.
Custer |
|
|
|
wILD I
Brigadier General
Ireland
Status: offline |
Posted - January 29 2005 : 2:18:46 PM
|
They had the dog as a beast of burden. And Sioux and Cheyenne culture despised farming. The Mandans, Arikarees, Pawnee were all despised for farming as well.
In evolutionary terms the dog was about as relevant as the Muscovy duck.
However I'm not going down that road as your grasp [and mine]of the conditions influencing the development of North American societies vis-a-vis European society is rather rudimentry and in your case extreamly biased.
But just to answer one point you made It indicates his few years with the horse hadn't really expanded his thoughts that much,On the contrary .Thanks to the plains Indian's mastery of horses and rifles he fought off invading whites for longer than did any other Native Americans.
They were just as bad. They killed way too much buffalo for their needs before the horse (and sometimes after) because you can't stop a herd from running off a cliff.
That is not wanton killing.Just a fault in the system.On the other hand the killing 1250000 head of buffalo [just for hides ]in one year alone led to it's virtual extinction.
They just picked up and left their filth for nature to clean up.
The point being?
No, Wild. By the standards of the white man they were economically ignorant.
Both societies were ignorant of aspects of each other's values.Different cultures,different environments.The Indian may have been ignorant of the finer points of banking. The white man ignorant of the skill to survive in the wild.So what?
. No, I don't claim to "understand" the Indian. You do, I take it.
No but I have some inkling of the kind of freedom he enjoyed.There are a few outdoors men on the board here and Im sure they know what I'm talking about.I know very little of the life of the plains Indian but I imagine it was exquisitely free,intense and brief.That compared to a living death on a reservation?????
As awful as the thousands of square miles of reservations were, if it were the Aztec or the Mongols, they'd simply have been slaves and/or killed. Like they did to each other, in fact.
How does that comparison help your case?The US to whom the Indians represented nothing more than an irritant,a piece of lint did you say ? This great modern forwardlooking society of limitless resources could only resolve the problem by resorting to barbarism.
Not embarrassed. You used the alleged tracking of the Gibbon Custer Terry column as indicative of their sophistication,
I think I gave Custer credit for his approach march.But the point here has nothing to do with my suggestion but your overstating of the case in reply. So yet again I say you grossly overstated the case.
[i][b]"....Thus, using the definitions of both Lemkin and the Convention,
DC your defence of the US against my claim that it was guilty of genocide is really lovely,and nice,and aw shucks we didn't mean to be so robust and there there now here's your rubber tomahawk back [someone pass me a bucket I'm feeling sick],
Do you accept the definition of genocide in the UN convention ?
And if so why does it not apply to the US ?
|
|
|
|
wILD I
Brigadier General
Ireland
Status: offline |
Posted - January 29 2005 : 2:22:12 PM
|
| Oops sorry about the highlighting |
|
|
|
joseph wiggs
Brigadier General
Status: offline |
Posted - January 29 2005 : 2:33:08 PM
|
In agreement regarding a systematic attempt to kill Indians comparable to what occurred in Nazi, Germany. What did occur was indiscriminate killing. In some cases, no destinction was made between peaceful Indians and those considered to be hostile. Indians who did value their lives and resigned themselves to a new life (one in which they detested) were still shot down like deer.
I can not but ask myself, what is existence when all that you hold dear is taken from you by force? The dispossession of the Indians from their homes and way of life was not the act of misguided but, well intended "parents." It was the final act of a series of dastardly, government enforced policies, that resulted in the death of hundreds of peaceful and practical Indians.
Let us review the legacy of the peaceful and practical Indians:
In 1830, the Indian Revoval Aact forced all remaining Indian tribes east of the Mississippi River to move to an area now known as Oklahoma. When gold was subsequently discovered, a lottery was initiated to began to auction mining rights to whites. The Indian was prevented, by law, to mine for gold.
In 1835, The Treaty of New Echota, which ceded all Cherokee land east of the Mississippi to the U.S. for $5 million, although only 20% of the Indians signed. More than 15,000 Cherokees opposed the treaty but, Congress ratified it in 1836.
November 1838, over 15, 000 Cherokee began a 800 mile forced march to the Indian territories. Many died along the way. It has been estimated that as many as 4,000 did not survive, many of them children and the elderly.
At wounded Knee, Union troops surrounded a camp led by Big Foot. They were there to arrest him. While doing so, shots ran out. When it was over, 300 Sioux and 25 soldiers were dead.
Who is not familiar with the Black Kettle saga and his peaceful tribe. I'm sorry to disagree with you Lorenzo, but I must. I live in Oklahoma and, with rare exceptions, the Indians here live slightly above the poverty level. The exception would be a few who have totally assimilated into white society and, have denied their cultural heritage.
It is not my intent, although some would find me guilty of it, to stand upon a soapbox and declare that the Native American were lofty beings of peace who were exterminated to a man by a callous American people. Never said that.
However, in order to understand why these battles occurred, why Indian and whites alike committed such atrocities, we need to understand the cultural conflicts between the two groups of people that precipitated and facilitated such a deplorable time in the history of a great Nation. This prevents us from being locked into a mental state wherein one individual can be accussed of creating, starting, and becoming a foolish victim to the debacle that became known as the Battle of the Little Big Horn. In doing so we do away with myth and re-discover truth. |
Edited by - joseph wiggs on January 29 2005 2:37:11 PM |
|
|
|
wILD I
Brigadier General
Ireland
Status: offline |
Posted - January 29 2005 : 2:35:31 PM
|
Whistlingboy
Now if after a while they started killing every Indian on the reservations then that would be a plan of genocide. Did the government destroy their way of life? Sure, but not their life.The destruction of their way of life was genocide.That destruction included massacre,ethnic cleansing,transportation and confinement.It is estimated that the Indian population fell by 95% during this pogrom. |
|
|
|
bhist
Lt. Colonel
Status: offline |
Posted - January 29 2005 : 2:43:28 PM
|
quote:
Originally posted by whistlingboy
When General Custer led the 7th Cavalry out of Ft. Lincoln on June 22, 1876, it had the air of a summer social event as many of the officers' wives side-saddled along as well as the 16-piece brass regimental band mounted on matching white horses playing 'Boots and Saddles' and 'Garry Owen.'
Did you mean May 17 and not June 22?
May 17 the troops left Ft. Lincoln with wives as far as Heart River. June 22 is when Custer left the Yellowstone and headed up the Rosebud.
|
Warmest Regards,
Bob
www.vonsworks.com
www.friendslittlebighorn.com
www.friendsnezpercebattlefields.org |
|
|
|
Dark Cloud
Brigadier General
USA
Status: offline |
Posted - January 29 2005 : 4:58:48 PM
|
Good. Rather then sending another post with an "ooops", correct it in the original. You have 90 minutes after posting.
1. In evolutionary terms? What are you talking about? You said no beast of burder, you're wrong, the dog was a mainstay. Along with women. Further, you postulate that it would lead to sedate farm life was bogus. The Sioux had just left the forests and relatively settled communities, Wild, when they got the horse and left it.
2. As late as the 19th century Indians would sometimes kill bufallo for tongues alone (in Connell). Of course, they did not waste ammo to kill for no reason as the piggish whites. The only 'genocide' in the West was of the buffalo.
3. The point being you inferred they were cleaner than the whites in their cities.
4. The finer points of skill in the wild is only that, not economics. They had only barter and were nowhere near able to ascertain material value to whites in order to benefit themselves. They were economically ignorant, as any nomads are. Still on page one.
5. Maybe you do, maybe not. Certainly the women were slaves and worked to death to pamper their big boys. Their life was a constant dice with death. It was all they knew, and they couldn't even read of past situations (the Sioux living in forests back north and east). Exquisitely free to be a young man, probably. Less so for the women, maybe.
6. It helps my case, Wild, rather obviously because they stayed alive and together as a people - if they wanted - and have moved into a new world again where many tribes are rich and powerful. Some, like the Sioux, are not. All this talk about the horror of losing a life of freezing in the snow, starvation, some sort of unexpected violent end doesn't seem to attract anyone in any numbers at any time. How many Indians really want to go back to that now? How many in 1900? And of course, I used the lint analogy to express the threat level the Indians represented to the Army and nation, which is why the Army was so small, and the soldiers assigned the frontier a ridiculous few.
7. Wild, Custer made a loud, dusty approach of 650 men and mules and the camp didn't do anything about them. Despite the Indians who you point out tracked the Gibbon/Terry meeting - it would take one (1) - puttering about to warn the camp about Custer, but didn't happen. That's not strategic, tactical, basic life affirming savvy at any level. The camp was a slow witted dinosaur, and only the coincidence of information falling into the hands of motivated people at a convenient time led them to attack Crook. They bolluxed the Custer episode by any standard, and won only because the 7th was far worse.
8. I gave up an URL from Frontline - and where is your documentation, Wild? - the described conditions that need to have been met were not by the United States in its handling of Indians, given we signed treaties, broke them, signed new ones. You don't do that with people you're going to kill.
We employed mass murder, we stole, we tried to convert them, but the image of the peace pipe and wigwam and Thanksgiving and Tecumseh (Sherman was named for him, which to complete the accusation is the equivilant of Adolf Cohen Hitler) was simply too strong. If the Indians settled down and went back to the farm, Sherman and Sheridan and 99% of America couldn't have cared less and would wish them well, unless gold was discovered or something, or an attractive young woman caught the eye. Chivington or his like risen to power might well have killed all Indians, but there were too many others who wouldn't allow anything like it. Free press, church groups, decent atheists aplenty.
The Highland Scots, also considered sub-human, were thrown off their land, forbidden to play their music, wear their actual tartans or traditional clothing, squeeze oranges, own bagpipes, and all on pain of death both in the United Kingdom and in the colonies. Women and children were slaughtered at Culloden Moor by George III's brother, the Duke of Cumberland, called affectionately to this day The Butcher. Those hundreds of captured campfollowers of Bonnie Prince Charley were sent to the colonies as house slaves, apparently. Was that an attempt at genocide or just mass murder and slavery? |
Dark Cloud
copyright RL MacLeod
darkcloud@darkendeavors.com
www.darkendeavors.com
www.boulderlout.com |
|
|
|
lorenzo G.
Captain
Italy
Status: offline |
Posted - January 29 2005 : 6:54:46 PM
|
Joseph, why to be sorry? We are both human being but of course, we can't agree on everything.
You know, all what you said is true, but there are circumstances back that background the events you quoted. A truth, removed by her own context can change even sense. You called for exemple peacefull camp of Black Kettle. Well, I said that Black Kettle was in peace but not all the camp. There are proofs. What were found, the bags of post coming from the raid, various stuff coming from that kind of activities, scalps and white child murdered etc. Black Kettle could have been accused of "conspirancy of silence" as he lodged in his camp groups of hot heads and murders. His wife, tryed several times to convincing him to make stop the raids. He did'nt. He had to move his camp, he did'nt. All this give another light to the events.
You claim that all tribes in Oklahoma are poors. It would'nt seem so from their own words. The Chief of Delaware:If you could go back and live the way your ancestors did would you? Why?
Our Culture Preservation Committee has discussed this and we think some people would enjoy trying it, perhaps like some type of camp for a week or two during the summer. Most of our people now live in the same modern world as everyone else. We have televisions, air conditioners, cars, and of course, jobs. Another example of how we keep up with technology is shown by the fact that a member of our Tribal Council and a member of our Trust Board are both pilots. Our late chief, Lewis Ketchum , had a multi-million dollar oil-field pipe and supply company in Tulsa with 480 employees and an eight-story office building.
The QuapawThe 1900s began very favorably for the Quapaw when rich lead and zinc deposits were found on their land. This led to the mining of over five million dollars worth of deposits. Because the Quapaw were generous by nature and took care of each other like a big family, the rich members of the tribe shared their wealth with the poorer members. Another major force in Quapaw life, the Peyote religion, also began in the early 1900s. This religion was introduced by a Caddo man named John Wilson. The Quapaw version of the Peyote religion was strongly influenced by Wilson's vision of being transported to the moon, which he experienced during a trance. Their version of the Peyote religion also included Christian rituals and symbols. The Peyote Religion, which later became known as the Native American Church, held important the principles of generosity, charity, and unity among the Native American tribes. This is another factor that influenced the richer Quapaw to share their wealth with the poorer members of the tribe.
The Tonkawa are owner of Casinos, Markets, and have their own schools, gobernment etc
Cherokee The Cherokee were the only Iroquian-speaking member of the five Civilized Tribes of the southeast United States. Although it is difficult to ascertain what privilege in treatment they received for being classified as "civilized", their achievements were remarkable and accomplished almost entirely through their own efforts. During the early 1800s, the Cherokee adopted their government to a written constitution. They established their own courts and schools, and achieved a standard of living that was the envy of their white neighbors. Particularily noteworthy was the invention of written language by Sequoyah (George Gist) in 1821. Utilizing an ingenious alphabet of 86 characters, almost the entire Cherokee Nation became literate within a few years. A Cherokee newspaper, the Phoenix, began publication in the native language in February, 1828. Prominent Cherokees are too numerous to list but include Senator Robert Owen and Will Rogers. Despite all they have endured, the Cherokee level of education and living standard ranks among the highest of all Native American tribes.
the Cherokee became citizens in 1901 and were finally allowed to vote.The present government of the Cherokee Nation was formed in 1948 after passage of the Wheeler-Howard Indian Reorganization Act (1934). In 1961 the Cherokee Nation was awarded $15,000,000 by the U.S. Claims Commission for lands of the Cherokee Outlet.
Osage In 1870, Congress sold the rest of the Osage lands, turned the money over to the tribe and opened a reservation for them which later became Osage County.
Before long, oil was struck on this land and the Osage became the wealthiest people per capita in the United States.
Finally: When Indian and Oklahoma territories achieved statehood under one banner, Indians and settlers joined efforts to develop the state's cultural and economic assets.
According to the 1990 census, Oklahoma's Indian population is 252,420, the largest of any state. Currently, 35 tribes maintain tribal councils in Oklahoma.
Although Indians in Oklahoma are an active part of modern society, many tribes continue their customs and ceremonial rites in powwows scheduled throughout the year. These colorful powwows feature Indians dancing in native dress and are generally open to the public. Many major Indian events and museums are found in Oklahoma, providing an authentic glimpse at one of Oklahoma's most important pieces of history.
text courtesy of the Oklahoma Department of Tourism and Recreation, "A Look at Oklahoma"
I agree completely with your final, Joseph. Just one thing I would change: if deplorable was, it was a deplorable time in the history of TWO great nations. |
If it is to be my lot to fall in the service of my country and my country's rights I will have no regrets.
Custer |
|
|
|
Topic |
|
|
|
Custer's Orders
