Announcement

Collapse
No announcement yet.

Custer got Siouxed

Collapse
X
 
  • Filter
  • Time
  • Show
Clear All
new posts

  • #16
    Originally posted by Pumpkin QAAD View Post
    I'm not good at paste and clicking links. If it's not formatted well I apologize.

    These are some of the things I have read or at least was able to find on the internet of what I have read in the past. The one thing that stood out to me was that the US government did ally themselves with the tribes that are have said to have been displaced by the Sioux so the story may have been remembered less favorably.

    I'll read your link. I look at this as no different than Saxons, Gauls, sea people or European Americans moving around vying for resources. I wrote a whole thing about Custer but it would've been a "too long didn't read" post from me.

    Everything below here is copy and pasted:

    http://www.ohranger.com/badlands/new...-national-park

    For eleven thousand years, American Indians have used this area for their hunting grounds. Long before the Lakota were the little-studied paleo-Indians, followed by the Arikara people.

    By one hundred and fifty years ago, the Great Sioux Nation consisting of seven bands including the Oglala Lakota, had displaced the other tribes from the northern prairie.






    The Sioux also raided those tribes frequently, particularly the Mandan, Arikara, Hidatsa, and Pawnee, actions that eventually drove the agriculturists to ally themselves with the U.S. military against the Sioux tribes.
    Originally posted by Pumpkin QAAD View Post
    http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Black_Hills

    Native Americans have inhabited the area since at least 7000 BC. The Arikara arrived by 1500 AD, followed by the Cheyenne, Crow, Kiowa and Pawnee. The Lakota (also known as Sioux) arrived from Minnesota in the eighteenth century and drove out the other tribes, who moved west.[4] They claimed the land, which they called HeSapa (Black Mountains). The mountains commonly became known as the Black Hills.
    No mention of "annihilation" which you stated in the post I disagreed with. Also the Black Hills covers most of Western SD and into Wyoming, but not the badlands.

    Also the badlands link that you quote has some glaring errors. Stating that the "Sioux nation" is made up of three separate groups. There are in fact three different groups as the state. However, the three do not comprise "The Great Sioux Nation". There is no "Great Sioux Nation". There are the "Seven Council Fires of the Lakota", Sicangu, Oglala, Hunkpapa, Miniconju, Black Kettle, Blackfoot (Not to be confused the the Blackfoot nation), Itazipco, each considered a separate "Nation". There are also subdivisions of the Dakota and Nankota.

    As far as the Wikipedia article on the Black hills I can punch many holes in that. Among the most glaring "The major tourist spots include Mount Rushmore, Custer State Park, and Crazy Horse Memorial and the Sturgis Motorcycle Rally, both located in Custer, South Dakota." The Sturgis Motorcycle rally is not located in Custer, nor in Custer County. It is located in Meade County. Based on that error alone, the accuracy of other information should be suspect.

    Remember, Wikipedia is not the Encyclopedia Americana.

    Hawk
    "If future generations are to remember us with gratitude rather than contempt, we must leave them more than the miracles of technology. We must leave them a glimpse of the world as it was in the beginning, not just after we got through with it." Lyndon B. Johnson

    Comment


    • #17
      You deny that the Sioux migrated. One statement you say how peaceful they were then how great and warlike they were. Your own link says they replaced and made war on neighboring tribes. If it werent for a warlike, fractious, clanlike nature the american indian may have had a viable state created. Instead they were taken out piecemeal and by eachother. Similar to the etruscans, mayans and many other cultures that could not creat a national identity. You can remember the past as you wish, but historically the sioux were warlike, preyed on their neighbors and forcefully migrated to what eventually became "sacred" ancestral land very late in american history. Sorry if the truth contradicts your idyllic image.
      Last edited by Pumpkin QAAD; 06-08-2011, 10:22 AM.
      A society grows great when old men plant trees whose shade they know they never shall sit in

      Comment


      • #18
        Originally posted by Pumpkin QAAD View Post
        You deny that the Sioux migrated. One statement you say how peaceful they were then how great and warlike they were. Your own link says they replaced and made war on neighboring tribes. If it werent for a warlike, fractious, clanlike nature the american indian may have had a viable state created. Instead they were taken out piecemeal and by eachother. Similar to the etruscans, mayans and many other cultures that could not creat a national identity. You can remember the past as you wish, but historically the sioux were warlike, preyed on their neighbors and forcefully migrated to what eventually became "sacred" ancestral land very late in american history. Sorry if the truth contradicts your ideallic image.
        Lets see, where did I say that we were "Peaceful"? We were like most other hunter gatherers, claiming and protecting territory. What I took issue with was that you said that we "Annihilated" most of the original tribes in the badlands and you specifically mentioned the Arikaka.I did in fact say we migrated with this line from an earlier post. "They migrated North about the same time the Sioux were migrating West (originally from the Ohio Valley). They arrived at the Missouri River in SD about the same time as the Sioux."

        So please show me specifically where I say that we did not migrate and please show me where I said that we were "peaceful"

        I agree with you that because of our tribal nature we were unable to put up a unified front against the interloper.

        So, I don't have ay romanticized notion about my culture. I know that we were warlike when necessary and that we were considered fierce. Proud of the fierce part in fact. We got the name Sioux from the French and Blackfeet because of our stealth and ability to strike quickly (like a snake in the grass). We call ourselves the Lakota, Pronounced Lah-Kow-tah which means friend or ally.

        I do not believe that we were any more warlike then most of the other plains tribes, in fact the Comanche and the Pawnee were considered more warlike then we were. The "Fiercest" tribe was probably the Blackfoot, they didn't like anyone but because they were stuck up in Northern Montana, there was less contact from other tribes and whites that prevented them from getting the reputation that some of the others got.

        The Navajo & Hopi were also "warlike" until the 1800's. But many people think of them as always having been peaceful.

        I am well aware of my history, much of it was taught to me as a child and though there were some embellishments, it was factual unlike what the whites put in their history books which has been revised over and over in modern times to tell the truth. I have also spent a lot of time learning the history and culture of other tribes often getting much of the information from the oral histories of them as well as museums and reliable historians. Not Wikipedia, which has as much misinformation as it does facts. I have also studied United States History in detail and not just the Plains wars.
        I have given talks in schools in NY and Connecticut on the Plains tribes and have even given lectures to American History Classes at a couple of universities.

        I'm really enjoying this conversation with you. I often find that some of the information people have been taught or read about the American Indian is incorrect. Probably a good 40% of what most people think is wrong. I try to correct that so people will understand the truth because we should walk in wisdom, not in ignorance. But please, do not put words in my mouth that I did not say.

        Hopefully we can continue this dialog so that we may all understand each other better. I never forget that I am also 25% white. I have been able to walk in both worlds without bitterness understanding the whys of what happened to the Sioux and the Nez Perce (I'm 50% Sioux, 25% Nez Perce and 25% white). Nothing will ever change what took place but it doesn't change the fact that we were cheated. That's a historical fact. Not one treaty has ever been honored.

        Hawk
        "If future generations are to remember us with gratitude rather than contempt, we must leave them more than the miracles of technology. We must leave them a glimpse of the world as it was in the beginning, not just after we got through with it." Lyndon B. Johnson

        Comment


        • #19
          This is quite interesting and informative.
          Do you know if there is any factual information regarding the numbers of Native Americans that died from smallpox, etc. I was told a long time ago by a medical doctor that more died from smallpox that were killed by the US Cavalry. I doubt that there are any actual records regarding the numbers so it's probably an estimate of some range of numbers of the population. I am inclined to think it's true as the actual numbers of people killed in battle are relatively low - that is, they can at least be counted - compared to an epidemic.

          Comment


          • #20
            As cheated as the Saxons were at York by Danes that displaced invaders from a hundred years prior. I'm sure the Danes would set aside land for the Saxons to live on....oh wait maybe not.



            Go back and read your posts where you claim the Sioux just wanted to live in peace (ironically on land they took by force from other tribes just a generation prior). Those that live by the sword eventually run into a badder dude with a bigger sword. Sitting Bull had visions of white soldiers falling on their heads and was predicting a great military victory, he was not dreaming of doves.


            Americans have just as much right to dwell in the Black Hills as any Sioux even in the 1850's. You also disregard the fact that the Black Hills were occupied when the Sioux "migrated" in the 1750's just as American's "migrated" in the 1850's. American's clearly just wanted to live in peace why couldn't the Sioux just realize that?

            Our website has recently been updated – but that does not mean what you’re looking for is gone! Unfortunately, we could not find the requested page. This may be due to: An out-of-date bookmark/favorite A search engine with an out-of-date listing A mistyped address   Helpful Links Looking for our list of Databases?


            What happened to those natives that had once lived where the Sioux migrated were they treated like the American settlers were in Minnesota ? Is this the description of how Sioux ride around and maybe take a few horses to strengthen their tribe? Did the name Sioux come from their enemies and means something like a snake?



            There's never been an official report on the number of settlers killed, but estimates range from 300 to 800. Historian Don Heinrich Tolzmann says until the terrorist attacks of Sept. 11, 2001, it was the highest civilian wartime toll in U.S. history.


            You have a hostile, aggressively expanding tribe that utilized advantages in mobility and firepower to occupy the land and drive out, enslave or annihilate neighboring tribes. Exactly what Americans inevitably did to the Sioux!
            A society grows great when old men plant trees whose shade they know they never shall sit in

            Comment


            • #21
              Originally posted by dockless View Post
              This is quite interesting and informative.
              Do you know if there is any factual information regarding the numbers of Native Americans that died from smallpox, etc. I was told a long time ago by a medical doctor that more died from smallpox that were killed by the US Cavalry. I doubt that there are any actual records regarding the numbers so it's probably an estimate of some range of numbers of the population. I am inclined to think it's true as the actual numbers of people killed in battle are relatively low - that is, they can at least be counted - compared to an epidemic.
              EStimates are they over 75% of the native populations of North and South America were wiped out because of disease.

              There is a great book title "1491" that shows a completely different scenario of the new World before Columbus and then afterwords.

              Hawk
              "If future generations are to remember us with gratitude rather than contempt, we must leave them more than the miracles of technology. We must leave them a glimpse of the world as it was in the beginning, not just after we got through with it." Lyndon B. Johnson

              Comment


              • #22
                Originally posted by Pumpkin QAAD View Post
                As cheated as the Saxons were at York by Danes that displaced invaders from a hundred years prior. I'm sure the Danes would set aside land for the Saxons to live on....oh wait maybe not.

                http://www.lastvikings.com/vikings_in_york.htm
                Don't compare Euro_Caucasian behavior with Aboriginal American behavior. They were completely different.

                Go back a
                Originally posted by Pumpkin QAAD View Post
                nd read your posts where you claim the Sioux just wanted to live in peace (ironically on land they took by force from other tribes just a generation prior). Those that live by the sword eventually run into a badder dude with a bigger sword. Sitting Bull had visions of white soldiers falling on their heads and was predicting a great military victory, he was not dreaming of doves.
                Sitting Bulls vision of soldiers falling dead from the sky was jus prior to the battle of the Greasy grass. Guess it was a powerful vision, eh?

                The Sioux had displaced, not annihilated other tribes that continued to live on the periphery of their territory. The Sioux had originally been displaced by the members of the Iroquois Confederation, and then by the Ojibwa (or Chippewa as they were also know) before finally settling west of the Missouri river. And Yes, in principle Peace was much better then war and that is what we would have preferred. Is it any different with America? Yet America invade countries like Iraq, and Afghanistan, Somalia (where they got there butts kicked), Vietnam (where they also got their butts kicked), Mexico, the Philippines, Haiti, etc. So based on your criteria I guess we could say that the US does not seek peace but is a warlike nation.

                Originally posted by Pumpkin QAAD View Post
                Americans have just as much right to dwell in the Black Hills as any Sioux even in the 1850's. You also disregard the fact that the Black Hills were occupied when the Sioux "migrated" in the 1750's just as American's "migrated" in the 1850's. American's clearly just wanted to live in peace why couldn't the Sioux just realize that?

                http://library.ndsu.edu/exhibits/tex...s/dakotas.html
                Because in a treaty for consideration of certain lands, the United States promised that the Black Hills would forever belong to the Sioux and in that same treaty they also promised to protect the land from incursion by whites.

                A treaty is International law it was approved by Congress (The only legislative body that can make a treaty, the president doesn't have the power.). So legally No the White Settlers did not have a right to settle in the Black Hills.As far as ethicically goes, the land was stolen because it was ours by treaty. Morally, guess there wasn't any once gold came into play.

                Originally posted by Pumpkin QAAD View Post
                What happened to those natives that had once lived where the Sioux migrated were they treated like the American settlers were in Minnesota ? Is this the description of how Sioux ride around and maybe take a few horses to strengthen their tribe? Did the name Sioux come from their enemies and means something like a snake?

                http://news.minnesota.publicradio.or...-m/part4.shtml
                Yep "Sioux means "Snake in the Grass" as I posted earlier. It was given because of our stealth and how uicky we could strike. As far as the treatment of the tribes that were displaced, they were allowed to live as they wished. As I reported earlir, there were conflicts with the Arikara as well as times of peace and also alliances.

                Originally posted by Pumpkin QAAD View Post
                There's never been an official report on the number of settlers killed, but estimates range from 300 to 800. Historian Don Heinrich Tolzmann says until the terrorist attacks of Sept. 11, 2001, it was the highest civilian wartime toll in U.S. history.
                More settlers were killed by Mormans then were killed by Sioux. And Mormans were killed by other "Christian" groups beforew there migration to the west. So much for religous tolerance, eh?

                How many non-combantant Indians were killed by Settlers as well as by the army?

                Originally posted by Pumpkin QAAD View Post
                You have a hostile, aggressively expanding tribe that utilized advantages in mobility and firepower to occupy the land and drive out, enslave or annihilate neighboring tribes. Exactly what Americans inevitably did to the Sioux!
                What advantages in mobility and firepower? And once again, show me any documentation of the "Annihilation" of any tribe by the Sioux.

                And you are mistaken, The Sioux were NEVER, EVER defeated in the field by the US government. We never lost an engagement. If the US had been able to subjugate us with Military force there would have been no need for the treaties. It was the US that sued for peace and wanted the treaties. Then they took the signature of a few Indians, most of them not chiefs and none having the authority to speak on behalf of all the Sioux nations.

                Hawk
                "If future generations are to remember us with gratitude rather than contempt, we must leave them more than the miracles of technology. We must leave them a glimpse of the world as it was in the beginning, not just after we got through with it." Lyndon B. Johnson

                Comment


                • #23
                  We ? Are you not American ?

                  The hostile Indians surrendered because they couldn't feed themselves. I'd call that a loss for them. Besides there were no real battles the Indians always fled. It's a lot tougher fighting the US Calvary than scattering and displacing neighboring tribes.

                  You also fail to mention that the Sioux violated the Black Hills treaty by killing people. Those killings led to a siezure of the land.

                  Imagine if the ADKExplorer editor decided to paddle the Single Shanty brook. If the landowners tried to stop him and they shoot him dead and mutilates his body. I'm sure the defense that he was trespassing on sacred ancestral homelands will hold up. Shoot those families on single shanty held that land almost as long as long as the Sioux held the Black hills prior to the Americans coming. One of the families once jotted down cave art that said they had emerged from the Single Shanty Brook along with the White Tail Deer and that land has always been there's since the beginning of time.

                  Edit: The U.S. Government decisively won the Battle at Wounded Knee, I'm sure there were many others I just don't feel like looking them up and posting them.
                  Last edited by Pumpkin QAAD; 06-08-2011, 02:48 PM.
                  A society grows great when old men plant trees whose shade they know they never shall sit in

                  Comment


                  • #24
                    Originally posted by Pumpkin QAAD View Post
                    We ? Are you not American ?
                    In fact I am. Seventy five percert of my blood is Original American, the other 25% is from Immigrants.

                    Originally posted by Pumpkin QAAD View Post
                    The hostile Indians surrendered because they couldn't feed themselves. I'd call that a loss for them. Besides there were no real battles the Indians always fled. It's a lot tougher fighting the US Calvary than scattering and displacing neighboring tribes.
                    Yep they surrendered because of the fact that the United States Slaughtered millions of Bison, taking away their livelihood. They chose that solution because they were unable to defeat the Plains Indians on the field of battle.

                    Originally posted by Pumpkin QAAD View Post
                    You also fail to mention that the Sioux violated the Black Hills treaty by killing people. Those killings led to a siezure of the land.
                    The people killed were interlopers who were forbidden from entering the Black Hills because of the treaty. Many of them also killed Indians on sight without provocation. Had the United states protected the Black hills as they promised in treaty, the sioux would not have been forced to defend their territory. Incidently, one of the first to violate the Black hills treat was George Armstrong Custer who took a troop of calvary in to search for gold, which they found. The Sioux defending their land was used as an excuse to further violate the treaty and steal the Black hills. The proof that the Black Hills treaty was violate and the lannd stolen from the Sious lies in the fact that on June 30, 1980, after decades of legal wrangling, The Supreme Court upheld an award to the Great Sioux Nation of $17.1 million for the illegal taking of the Black Hills, plus $88 million in interest. Since then, that total has multiplied five-fold. Look it up. That's the Supreme Court of the United states that made that decision. I believe that trumps any of the propaganda that has been thrown about.


                    Originally posted by Pumpkin QAAD View Post
                    Imagine if the ADKExplorer editor decided to paddle the Single Shanty brook. If the landowners tried to stop him and they shoot him dead and mutilates his body. I'm sure the defense that he was trespassing on sacred ancestral homelands will hold up. Shoot those families on single shanty held that land almost as long as long as the Sioux held the Black hills prior to the Americans coming. One of the families once jotted down cave art that said they had emerged from the Single Shanty Brook along with the White Tail Deer and that land has always been there's since the beginning of time.
                    First of all you are talking about land that belonged to Indians long before ot was ever inhabited by white settlers. Land that was taken illegally.

                    You are also talking about a different time. But take your story and add the fact that the editor of the ADK Explorer fired shots at some of the Shanty Brook people on the trip and you have a different story.


                    Originally posted by Pumpkin QAAD View Post
                    Edit: The U.S. Government decisively won the Battle at Wounded Knee, I'm sure there were many others I just don't feel like looking them up and posting them.
                    Surrounding Indians who were trying to get to safety at the Red Cloud Agency, disarming most of them and then gunning them down with Hotchkiss guns and riding down the women and Children and ANNIHILATING them is hardly a battle. In fact it was an atrocity. History bears that out. Please read "Moon of the Popping Trees" and do so with an open mind. You will see that it is written in a manner that tries to show both sides of the equation.

                    These were peaceful Indians who left the Sitting Bull Agency where the Ghost Dancing was taking place. The Indian Agent paniced and gave the impression that the Sioux were preparing for war (which was not true). Black kettl and the Miniconjou band (My band) left the Standing Rock Reservation to get to safety at the Red Cloud Agency (now Pine Ridge). They were encountered and surrounded at Wounded Knee Creek by the Seventh Calvary (who maybe had an axe to grind?). The next morning they parleyed with Black kettle and told him that the Indians must give up their guns. Most did so. However one Indian wrestled with whoever was trying to take his gun and it went off. Immediately the cavalry opened up on mostly unarmed (by this time) warriors and women and children. They rode them down often impaling the babies on their sabres. Most of the Indians were shot in the back. For this action all involved were awarded the Congressional Medal of Honor.

                    You figure it out.

                    I stand on my statement, Other then when troop attacked villages, many peaceful or populated mostly by women, children and elderly, the Sioux never lost a battle to the the US Cavalry.


                    Grattan, the officer who ordered his troop to open fire on Indians for not returning the Quakers cow (which had been eaten. The chiefs had offered good horses in repayment but the Quaker insisted on the cow) was wiped out to a man.

                    The battle of Fort Laramie was a decisive Sioux victory resulting in the Army under Colonel Carrington vacating the fort which the Sioux burned to the ground.

                    The Fetterman engagement at Fort Phil Kearny resulted in the loss of every man (100) in his command. Fettermen had boatsed earlier that iof he were given one hundered men he would ride through the Sioux nation.

                    Just before the battle of the Greasy Grass, Crazy horse defeated the troops under General Crook who were driving to meet Custer.

                    What you call running would be called by military tacticians, "strategic withdrawals" . A method that has been employed by Americans in every war they fought. The difference is in the case of the Sioux, they withdrew after winning the battle, they did not flee from it.

                    So, I really would like you to find anything that documents the Sioux ever being defeated by the US Calvary in the field. You can search to your hearts content but you won't find anything. The fact is that that the Crow and the Blackfeet among others were more formidable then the U.S. Army.
                    Last edited by redhawk; 06-09-2011, 12:30 PM.
                    "If future generations are to remember us with gratitude rather than contempt, we must leave them more than the miracles of technology. We must leave them a glimpse of the world as it was in the beginning, not just after we got through with it." Lyndon B. Johnson

                    Comment


                    • #25
                      Hayfield is one and Wagon box is a second.

                      Go look them up.

                      Considering Sioux women were involved in mutilating fallen soldiers I don't blame them for the turkey shoot. The lesson learned at wounded knee is that magic powder won't make you bulletproof. A lesson learned the hard way by the Sioux it appears.

                      If the Sioux didn't have a vast superiority in numbers they fled. It is a valid tactic in guerilla warfare but it certainly doesn't count as winning and in fact the Sioux were severely defeated in the end.

                      I did find something interesting, while reading about some of the battles it appears the Sioux and Cheyanne would regularly mutilate the bodies of the vanquished. Disembowling, castrating, scalping all that bad stuff, however from time to time they would leave 1 of the enemy untouched and even clean the body and cover it. Strange custom that is believed to reward the fallen enemy for valor.
                      A society grows great when old men plant trees whose shade they know they never shall sit in

                      Comment


                      • #26
                        Originally posted by Pumpkin QAAD View Post
                        Hayfield is one and Wagon box is a second.

                        Go look them up.

                        Considering Sioux women were involved in mutilating fallen soldiers I don't blame them for the turkey shoot. The lesson learned at wounded knee is that magic powder won't make you bulletproof. A lesson learned the hard way by the Sioux it appears.

                        If the Sioux didn't have a vast superiority in numbers they fled. It is a valid tactic in guerilla warfare but it certainly doesn't count as winning and in fact the Sioux were severely defeated in the end.

                        I did find something interesting, while reading about some of the battles it appears the Sioux and Cheyanne would regularly mutilate the bodies of the vanquished. Disembowling, castrating, scalping all that bad stuff, however from time to time they would leave 1 of the enemy untouched and even clean the body and cover it. Strange custom that is believed to reward the fallen enemy for valor.
                        Read about the atrocities that the "civilized" whites did on the bodies of American Indians? How about using biological warfare?

                        The Chivington massacre also involved mutilation of bodies including the wearing of woman's genitals around their necks as trophies. Guess it's good they weren't "savages" eh? In fact this was a cavalry made up of God Loving Methodists, who now have a repatriation day to atone for the atrocity.

                        And in general the Sioux and the Northern Cheyenne did not disembowel or mutilate. There were cases like the Greasy Grass where a message was meant to be sent.

                        Scalping was actually introduced by the whites, taking scalp to collect bounties on Indians killed. It was very common for whites in the Northeast to go on "scalping missions" and in most cases they attacked villages when warriors where out on the hunt and took the scalps of women and children.

                        The majority of the warriors in the Hayfield conflict were Northern Cheyenne, not Sioux. Same goes for the Wagon Box engagement. Although it has been named "Red Clouds (A Sioux chief) War" many of the skirmishes involved primarily Northern Cheyenne and in a few cases Arapaho. In both of those cases, the Army had the new repeating carbines and they were firmly entrenched and the warriors withdrew.. However both of those skirmishes were parts of ongoing battles at Fort Phil Kearny. In fact it was at Fort Phil Kearny that Fettermen and his 100 soldiers were wiped out by the Sioux under Crazy Horse. Eventually the Fort was abandoned and then burned by the Sioux. So I ask you, who won the battle?

                        The first day at Gettysburg the Confederate Army carried he day forcing the union soldiers to withdraw and take up positions on Cemetery Ridge, Big and little Round Top etc. Who one the Battle of Gettysburg?

                        At the Little Big Horn, Reno's men retreated under fire and took up positions on high ground and was reinforced by Benteen's Troop. The Sioux did not displace them from the hill and they were able to withdraw (Run away from a superior force? ). Who won the battle?

                        I've read that we won the Vietnam War. If anyone had been with me when we were protecting high ranking Americans pushing each other out of the way to get into helicopters at the fall of Saigon, they would think differently.

                        Get your facts right. You stated above "The lesson learned at wounded knee is that magic powder won't make you bulletproof. A lesson learned the hard way by the Sioux it appears. "
                        There was no magic Powder Involved, nor did the belief that bullets would not harm you have anything to do with the Ghost Dance. The Ghost Dance was brought to many tribes by a Northern Paiute Holy man. "Wovoka's vision entailed the resurrection of the Paiute dead and the removal of whites and their works from North America. Wovoka taught that in order to bring this vision to pass the Native Americans must live righteously and perform a traditional round dance, known as the Ghost dance, in a series of five-day gatherings. Wovoka's teachings spread quickly among many Native American peoples, notably the Lakota. The Ghost Dance movement is best known for its role in the Wounded Knee Massacre, in which it caused Indian Agents, Soldiers, and other Federal officials a great deal of consternation and helped to predispose them towards a cautious, wary, and defensive posture when dealing with the Sioux. Important to note is that Wovoka’s preachings included messages of non-violence, but that two Miniconjou, Short Bull and Kicking Bear, instead emphasized the possible elimination of whites which contributed to the already defensive attitude of the federal officials who were already reacting with fear of the unknown to the Ghost Dance movement."

                        So it had nothing to do with magic powder. That is some crap out of Hollywood. Crazy Horse did believe that if he painted his horse a certain way, bullets would not touch him. He rode into battle, right up to the soldiers many times and was never wounded. He also had a vision that he would be killed by his own people. He was stabbed by a Sioux named Little Big Man (who was not played by Dustin Hoffman ). This is what I meant earlier when I said that much of what people believe about the American Indian and the Indian Wars is wrong.

                        Unfortunately it seems to me that what has started of as a good thread has turned into an attempt to deny and at the same time justify that the whites were the aggressors, that they committed many atrocities, that they broke their word and their treaties and that they stole the land. In spite of the fact that revised and factual history states otherwise.

                        Your statement that the Sioux were "severely defeated" is not true. Crazy Horse brought his band in because of the winter and the fact that he did not want his people to starve. He came in with the understanding that he and his people would be cared for in the agency. In fact, they tried to jail him and when he struggled (unarmed) he was stabbed by Little Big Man. Sitting Bull was murdered when an attempt was made to arrest him. He too was unarmed. Red Cloud had taken his band of the Oglala to the agency that bore his name, long before the end of the "Sioux Wars". His message to the people behind his reasoning was this: "More and more whites will come. they are like the tide. Their words mean nothing, they have no honor. They have to own everything they see. Here on this land, which has no value to them we may survive, unless they choose to break their word again." That is part of the oral history of the Oglala. As history has proven, his words were true. What was once the Red Crow Agency is now the Pine Ridge reservation. It has the highest mortality rate in the world, higher then any third well country and the lowest life expectancy. This is spite of the promise in the treaty that for ceding their lands, the Sioux would be taken care of in perpetuity .

                        Hawk
                        "If future generations are to remember us with gratitude rather than contempt, we must leave them more than the miracles of technology. We must leave them a glimpse of the world as it was in the beginning, not just after we got through with it." Lyndon B. Johnson

                        Comment


                        • #27
                          "Unfortunately it seems to me that what has started of as a good thread has turned into an attempt to deny and at the same time justify that the whites were the aggressors, that they committed many atrocities, that they broke their word and their treaties and that they stole the land. In spite of the fact that revised and factual history states otherwise."


                          I've been following this thread and was wondering where it was going. I don't see how anybody having read history can come away from the fact that the U.S. systematically planned and brutally executed the plan, to exterminate the native population. Everything else is detail. One can be proud of their country and still acknowledge parts of their history that they are not proud of. Who cares who won what battle? It doesn't matter to the dead.
                          “Once there were brook trout in the streams in the mountains. They smelled of moss in your hand. On their backs were vermiculate patterns that were maps of the world in its becoming. Maps and mazes. Of a thing which could not be put back. Not be made right again. In the deep glens where they lived all things were older than man and they hummed of mystery.”
                          ― Cormac McCarthy

                          Comment


                          • #28
                            Unfortunately it seems to me that what has started of as a good thread has turned into an attempt to deny and at the same time justify that the whites were the aggressors, that they committed many atrocities, that they broke their word and their treaties and that they stole the land. In spite of the fact that revised and factual history states otherwise.
                            Originally posted by Glen View Post
                            I've been following this thread and was wondering where it was going. I don't see how anybody having read history can come away from the fact that the U.S. systematically planned and brutally executed the plan, to exterminate the native population. Everything else is detail. One can be proud of their country and still acknowledge parts of their history that they are not proud of. Who cares who won what battle? It doesn't matter to the dead.
                            Actually, I never thought this thread would make it this far.

                            A white (my assumption, correct me if I'm wrong) man and a native American are discussing the history of the Indian Wars and they are in disagreement about the interpretation of that history. What a shocker.

                            Not unlike an oil company executive and an ecologist discussing the science behind gloabal warming.

                            Thumbs up to the participants for being so civil.
                            The best, the most successful adventurer, is the one having the most fun.

                            Comment


                            • #29
                              The title of this thread is Custer got Siouxed which could be interpreted as killed and subsequently mutilated along with half his troopers. That actually infuriates me and I'm sick and tired of having to tip toe around issues when its quite alright to publicly flaunt atrocities that are committed against Americans. As dumb as Custer was he still was a Civil War hero for America and if you want to cry and scream about how the Sioux had land they had stole, stolen from them the entire history should be accounted for. Not the garden of eden blanket of revisionist history some would like to believe. I am not trying to make my arguments based on race but rather as national because the "white" side did have support from western tribes that had been displaced and were suffering under raids by the Sioux such as the Arikara scouts that were killed and mutilated alongside Custer.

                              I guess my point is that throughout history its been human nature to take resources and typically it's been a culture that develops a unique competitive advantage. In the case of the Sioux, it was through the use of the horse and rifle that they were able to expand and dominate the northern prairie, just as Americans used nationalism and technology to do the same to the Sioux a hundred years later. That is how I justify the treatment of Native Americans, specifically the Sioux, by the US Government. Considering the vision of Sioux leadership was the eradication of "whites" (as well as Tribes like the Crow) how would the situation played out if the Sioux actually had "won" the war.

                              If you notice from your posts hawk the common denominator is that the Sioux did not take prisoners. How would you possibly expect soldiers who lost comrades in such a horrific fashion to treat the sioux when they did eventually surrender. At the same time I realize why the Sioux were so vicious as well because they were fighting for survival and the cycle of revenge becomes deeper and deeper.

                              The image that Native Americans, especially the Sioux, were living in peace and harmony prior to American settlers coming is very far from the truth. It is also incorrect to state that Americans or "whites" taught the Sioux how to scalp. There has been much archeological evidence supporting the fact that scalping was a tactic employed by pre-columbian Indians in North America.

                              Now the Sioux want money for land they had taken from another tribe a century earlier, and as a taxpayer I have to pay for that? Or even more ironic still is that Sioux turned down money plus interest after they were defeated because they want more for land they gained and subsequently lost in a war. It actually sounds Israeli-Palestinianesque.

                              I am going to stop posting in this thread however as I realize my viewpoints may offend people and much of what I have been saying is in response to the title and it's implication.

                              If anyone cares here's a pdf link about Custer's scouts. It's not White vs Indian it's America vs the Sioux.
                              A society grows great when old men plant trees whose shade they know they never shall sit in

                              Comment


                              • #30
                                I am going to stop posting in this thread however as I realize my viewpoints may offend people and much of what I have been saying is in response to the title and it's implication.
                                How about that.
                                When I moved the 4 posts from the Marcellus shale thread to the Fireside I had to come up with a title and not knowing what to use I grabbed Hawk's quote, which I assumed was made tongue in cheek.

                                Originally posted by redhawk View Post
                                You don't always need lawyers. We "Siouxed" Custer without them.
                                Hawk
                                Question:
                                Is tribal warfare mostly about getting and controlling the other guy's resources so that your resource-hungry woman will be more inclined to sleep with you?
                                The best, the most successful adventurer, is the one having the most fun.

                                Comment

                                Working...
                                X