Adirondack Forum  
Rules Membership Donations and Online Store Adkhighpeaks Foundation ADKhighpeaks Forums ADKhighpeaks Wiki Disclaimer

Go Back   Adirondack Forum > General Forum Related Topics > "By the Fireside"
Register FAQ Members List Calendar Search Today's Posts Mark Forums Read

Reply
 
Thread Tools Search this Thread Display Modes
Old 05-31-2011, 06:30 PM   #1
redhawk
Senior Resident Curmudgeon
 
redhawk's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jan 2004
Location: In My Memories
Posts: 10,933
Custer got Siouxed

You don't always need lawyers. We "Siouxed" Custer without them.

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
redhawk is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 06-06-2011, 03:37 PM   #2
Pumpkin QAAD
Whachu talking about
 
Pumpkin QAAD's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jun 2007
Posts: 1,324
How'd that work out?
__________________
A society grows great when old men plant trees whose shade they know they never shall sit in
Pumpkin QAAD is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 06-06-2011, 06:34 PM   #3
redhawk
Senior Resident Curmudgeon
 
redhawk's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jan 2004
Location: In My Memories
Posts: 10,933
Quote:
Originally Posted by Pumpkin QAAD View Post
How'd that work out?
Ask Custer.

It postponed the inevitable for a while, and once again showed that the US Cavalry was not as invincible as people seemed to think. In fact, in warrior vs warrior warfare with the Cavalry the Sioux were undefeated.
__________________
"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
redhawk is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 06-06-2011, 07:54 PM   #4
Pumpkin QAAD
Whachu talking about
 
Pumpkin QAAD's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jun 2007
Posts: 1,324
Quote:
Originally Posted by redhawk View Post
Ask Custer.

It postponed the inevitable for a while, and once again showed that the US Cavalry was not as invincible as people seemed to think. In fact, in warrior vs warrior warfare with the Cavalry the Sioux were undefeated.
Warfare is more than bullets. If you cant feed yourself you lose. Ironically many of the sioux involved had to return to their agencies to try and get fed from the US govt. Bad idea.
__________________
A society grows great when old men plant trees whose shade they know they never shall sit in
Pumpkin QAAD is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 06-06-2011, 09:56 PM   #5
dockless
citizen
 
dockless's Avatar
 
Join Date: Oct 2008
Posts: 119
The US Cavalry actually had little to do with the war with Native Americans. Many of the tribes were as good as warriors as the US Cavalry.

Most of the tribes were destroyed by things like smallpox, etc.
Came up the Mississippi, Missouri, etc and wiped out tribe after tribe, destroyed entire nations.

Custer himself was simply a bad leader - should never have been put in charge.
dockless is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 06-06-2011, 11:21 PM   #6
redhawk
Senior Resident Curmudgeon
 
redhawk's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jan 2004
Location: In My Memories
Posts: 10,933
Quote:
Originally Posted by Pumpkin QAAD View Post
Warfare is more than bullets. If you cant feed yourself you lose. Ironically many of the sioux involved had to return to their agencies to try and get fed from the US govt. Bad idea.
You're Right."The Final Solution" adopted by William Tecumseh Sherman was to slaughter the Buffalo which provided food, shelter, clothing and tools for the Plains tribes.

Guess when you can't defeat them in the field tou swich to more devious tactics. I wonder, would that be considered "Terrorism" today is another country did it?
__________________
"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
redhawk is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 06-07-2011, 09:22 AM   #7
Pumpkin QAAD
Whachu talking about
 
Pumpkin QAAD's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jun 2007
Posts: 1,324
I guess, hard to find any clear victories for the Sioux, seems mostly ran away when they didn't have a vast numbers/tactical superiority. Even the Battle of Greasy Grass the Sioux left the field to the US. Of course that is the right tactic considering the supply and firepower disadvantage. Unfortunately for the Sioux, it's tough to forage when you are on the run and hiding.

But typical of the US government instead of finishing off the enemy they allow them back and even feed them after all the slaughter and mutilation on both sides. The animosity between the Sioux on the reservation and the soldiers must've been very remarkable and led to several unfortunate incidents.

The term would be scorched earth and I think the major difference is that you don't have one side peaceful, there are clearly two beligerants. There are quite a few documented incidents of atrocities that even if sensationalized were quite terrible. Everyone cries about wounded knee but a lot happened prior to that like the slaughter/torture to death of civilians at the hands of the Sioux in Minnesota during the Civil War. Karma is a cruel lady.
__________________
A society grows great when old men plant trees whose shade they know they never shall sit in

Last edited by Pumpkin QAAD; 06-07-2011 at 09:59 AM..
Pumpkin QAAD is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 06-07-2011, 10:58 AM   #8
redhawk
Senior Resident Curmudgeon
 
redhawk's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jan 2004
Location: In My Memories
Posts: 10,933
Quote:
Originally Posted by Pumpkin QAAD View Post
I guess, hard to find any clear victories for the Sioux, seems mostly ran away when they didn't have a vast numbers/tactical superiority. Even the Battle of Greasy Grass the Sioux left the field to the US. Of course that is the right tactic considering the supply and firepower disadvantage. Unfortunately for the Sioux, it's tough to forage when you are on the run and hiding.

But typical of the US government instead of finishing off the enemy they allow them back and even feed them after all the slaughter and mutilation on both sides. The animosity between the Sioux on the reservation and the soldiers must've been very remarkable and led to several unfortunate incidents.

The term would be scorched earth and I think the major difference is that you don't have one side peaceful, there are clearly two beligerants. There are quite a few documented incidents of atrocities that even if sensationalized were quite terrible. Everyone cries about wounded knee but a lot happened prior to that like the slaughter/torture to death of civilians at the hands of the Sioux in Minnesota during the Civil War. Karma is a cruel lady.
The first thing that needs to be considered is who the teller of the story is. In the case of "Indian Confrontations", it was the press. People need to remember that there was only one side to the story reported. History shows us that in most cases, the facts were not represented at all.

There was the "Fetterman Massacre" in which members of the U.S. Army pursued some Sioux and the troop was wiped out to the man. They were led into an ambush by a leader (Fetterman) who disobeyed orders by chasing a small band who led the soldiers to where a larger band of Sioux were waiting. Hardly a "massacre", but that's how it was reported by the press.

The Battle of the Greasy Grass (or The Little Big Horn) was also reported as a massacre. Yet an experienced military officer failed to reconnoiter, listen to his Crow scouts, disobey orders to wait for additional columns that were coming and rode into the camp of vastly superior numbers. The day before Crazy Horse had stopped another troop of soldiers and supplies cold. Yet it was reported all over the country as a "massacre" when it was in fact a military engagement.

On the other hand, "The Battle of the Wa****a River" was called a battle although the Calvary rode down on a village of Indians who were not only peaceful, but who's chief "Black Kettle" had a presidential peace metal. Custer had been pursuing "hostiles" (A "hostile" being an Indian who was not on the reservation as designated by the US). As it turned out, there were many other camps in the areas and Black Kettles people were not the ones Custer had been following.

Incidently Custer had developed a new field strateg: Women, children, the elderly or disabledwere targeted for capture to serve as hostages and human shields. Custer's battalions intended to "ride into the camp and secure noncombatant hostages and the warriors to surrender". These tactics were tried at the Wa****a River. Today they are practiced by people like Ghaddafi and other dictators who are designated as "terrorists".

The of course there was the "Battle of Sand Creek". The Sand Creek Massacre (also known as the Chivington Massacre) was an incident that occurred on November 29, 1864, when a 700-man force of Colorado Territory militia attacked and destroyed a village of friendly Cheyenne and Arapaho encamped in southeastern Colorado Territory, killing and mutilating an estimated 70–163 Indians, about two-thirds of whom were women and children. Many of the soldiers cut out the genitals of the women and wore them around their necks as trophies.

As for the Indians leaving the field after the Battle of the Greasy Grass: They knew that there were forces approaching from the South and the West and they dispersed. They had not gathered for war, but to try to live their way of life in peace. The camp was comprised of Sioux, Northern Cheyenne and Arapaho who had their women, children and elders with them.

In addition, the Indian way of war was not to annihilate the enemy. It was the Whites who used that tactic. Indian warfare prior to the incursion of whites was to have skirmishes
and try to steal horses or sometime to kidnap people from their enemies to make their own tribe stronger and more capable of survival.

Lets not forget that the whites used biological warfare in the form of smallpox infested blankets. Today that's considered a "war crime".

The case you are talking about in Minnesota was perpetrated by some youths, against the wishes of the tribe. Yet the "justice" meted out was to publicly hang a number of Chiefs who were not responsible for the youths behavior.

The facts are that there were thousands more white non combatants killed by other whites then by American Indians.

What needs to be addressed is that the Whites were the interlopers, who were infringing upon and stealing lands from other Sovereign Nations. The only way a "Christian" people could do this was to find ways to vilify their victims in order to justify the theft and genocide that was being perpetrated in the name of God, but in reality it was only greed.

History has finally come around and reported a good deal of the truth and dispelled many of the myths and lies about the "Indian Wars".

Yet, atrocities till continue to this day, and still the US tries to take Indian lands in various ways as well as try to prevent them from various means of livelihood.
__________________
"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
redhawk is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 06-07-2011, 12:14 PM   #9
Pumpkin QAAD
Whachu talking about
 
Pumpkin QAAD's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jun 2007
Posts: 1,324
Great post hawk. Did the women participate in Greasy Grass? Some historians have looked at Custers tactics and said he was attempting to capture the women and children (fleeing from the initial feign attack by his other company) in order to get the warriors to stop fighting. A tactic that had worked in the past.

There were of course atrocities committed by both sides, you have only posted one side. You however forgot to post what started the Sioux or Dakota wars which was the massacre of men, women and children to the tune of 400-800+ in Minnesota in 1861 committed by peace loving tribes.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dakota_War_of_1862

This predates all of the actions you mentioned and clearly targets women and children non-combatants. Can the same be said of the women at the battle of Greasy Grass, where they non-combatants ?

But I do agree with most of what you wrote, the Indians tactics had not evolved to confront modern warfare at that time. But it is interesting that the Sioux did anhialate the original tribes found in the badlands area after the sioux discovered mounted warfare and gunpowder in the late 17 and 1800's

Seems that is human nature once an advantage is created. Maybe we should consider that historical theme as we confront future wars and utilization of limited resources (oil!). America will be easy pickings if our black food gets cut off.
__________________
A society grows great when old men plant trees whose shade they know they never shall sit in
Pumpkin QAAD is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 06-07-2011, 06:19 PM   #10
redhawk
Senior Resident Curmudgeon
 
redhawk's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jan 2004
Location: In My Memories
Posts: 10,933
Quote:
Originally Posted by Pumpkin QAAD View Post
Great post hawk. Did the women participate in Greasy Grass? Some historians have looked at Custers tactics and said he was attempting to capture the women and children (fleeing from the initial feign attack by his other company) in order to get the warriors to stop fighting. A tactic that had worked in the past.

There were of course atrocities committed by both sides, you have only posted one side. You however forgot to post what started the Sioux or Dakota wars which was the massacre of men, women and children to the tune of 400-800+ in Minnesota in 1861 committed by peace loving tribes.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dakota_War_of_1862

This predates all of the actions you mentioned and clearly targets women and children non-combatants. Can the same be said of the women at the battle of Greasy Grass, where they non-combatants ?

But I do agree with most of what you wrote, the Indians tactics had not evolved to confront modern warfare at that time. But it is interesting that the Sioux did anhialate the original tribes found in the badlands area after the sioux discovered mounted warfare and gunpowder in the late 17 and 1800's

Seems that is human nature once an advantage is created. Maybe we should consider that historical theme as we confront future wars and utilization of limited resources (oil!). America will be easy pickings if our black food gets cut off.
Actually the start of the "Sioux Wars" was over a Quakers Cow and the slaughter of a band of Sioux by the US Cavalry.

If you want to read an exceptional book, the most factual and even handed about the Sioux wars, pick up "Moon of the Popping Trees" by Rex Alan Smith. It begins with the Quakers Cow and ends with the massacre at Wounded Knee Creek. It's the best book I have ever read (and I've read about all of them) about the Sioux Wars. I recommend it to everyone who has an interest.

I am going to disagree with your statement about the annihilation of "the original tribes in the badlands area".
I'm curious as to where you came up with that bit of information, I've never come across a hint of it. Other tribes like the Crow may have been displaced, but to my knowledge no tribes were ever annihilated. The crow, Pawnee and Blackfeet where the natural enemies of the Lakota and their territories were on the periphery of the Sioux territory.

As for your question about the women being non-combatants at the greasy grass, they were. However after the battle they were responsible for the mutilation of Custer's Corpse. They pierced his ears with their awls because he had not listened to their warnings about trying to steal the Paha Sapa (Black Hills) which were sacred to the Lakota people.

To the best of my knowledge, there were only two female warriors. One was Northern Cheyenne and the other was Blackfoot.

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
redhawk is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 06-07-2011, 07:05 PM   #11
geogymn
Member
 
geogymn's Avatar
 
Join Date: Feb 2007
Posts: 1,910
Interesting discussion! A little closer to home and the Adirondacks............... Just finished " Bloody Mohawk" by Richard Berleth. Talk about being nasty and getting screwed on all four sides, the loyalist, the patriots, the divided six nations. Any war is hell but these combatants were particularly nasty. It's a good read concerning local history.

PS Read some of the customer comments concerning this book on Amazon.
__________________
"A culture is no better than its woods." W.H. Auden

Last edited by geogymn; 06-07-2011 at 07:16 PM..
geogymn is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 06-07-2011, 08:03 PM   #12
Pumpkin QAAD
Whachu talking about
 
Pumpkin QAAD's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jun 2007
Posts: 1,324
The arikara were displaced by sioux tribes from the minnesota area that were armed by french fur traders. Ironically, an Arikara was a scout for Custer. The Lakota didnt move into the black hills until after 1776 and then it suddenly became their forever sacred homeland. I get it they are good war río ors and took advantage of their neighbors weakness and their own strengths but certainly not the original tribes of the dakotas or the black hills they eventually claimed that led to war with the US.

Just saying, karma is a cruel lady.


I will read both suggested books, thx.
__________________
A society grows great when old men plant trees whose shade they know they never shall sit in
Pumpkin QAAD is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 06-07-2011, 08:58 PM   #13
redhawk
Senior Resident Curmudgeon
 
redhawk's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jan 2004
Location: In My Memories
Posts: 10,933
Quote:
Originally Posted by Pumpkin QAAD View Post
The arikara were displaced by sioux tribes from the minnesota area that were armed by french fur traders. Ironically, an Arikara was a scout for Custer. The Lakota didnt move into the black hills until after 1776 and then it suddenly became their forever sacred homeland. I get it they are good war río ors and took advantage of their neighbors weakness and their own strengths but certainly not the original tribes of the dakotas or the black hills they eventually claimed that led to war with the US.

Just saying, karma is a cruel lady.


I will read both suggested books, thx.
The Arikara originally from Much further South then the badlands. In fact they may well have been an offshoot of the Pawnee. 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. Both tribes fought each other, had periods of peace and were even allies at times. They were hardly annihilated by the Sioux. There were still present on the Upper Missouri, alng with the Mandan and Hidastawhen Louis and Clark and the Corps of Discovery winter camped.

To go further, In 1823 the Arikara attacked an American trader's boats, killing 13 men and wounding others. This led to a war with the US for a period of time.

You might check out this page on Arikara history. It will most likely change your thoughts about the Arikara and the Sioux.
So, they did not inhabit the Badlands area at any time and they were not wiped out by the Sioux.

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
redhawk is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 06-07-2011, 10:41 PM   #14
Pumpkin QAAD
Whachu talking about
 
Pumpkin QAAD's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jun 2007
Posts: 1,324
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.

http://www.us-parks.com/badlands-nat...k/history.html


http://www.history.com/topics/sioux

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.
__________________
A society grows great when old men plant trees whose shade they know they never shall sit in
Pumpkin QAAD is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 06-07-2011, 10:46 PM   #15
Pumpkin QAAD
Whachu talking about
 
Pumpkin QAAD's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jun 2007
Posts: 1,324
Sioux Everybody!

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.
__________________
A society grows great when old men plant trees whose shade they know they never shall sit in
Pumpkin QAAD is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 06-08-2011, 01:25 AM   #16
redhawk
Senior Resident Curmudgeon
 
redhawk's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jan 2004
Location: In My Memories
Posts: 10,933
Quote:
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.

http://www.us-parks.com/badlands-nat...k/history.html


http://www.history.com/topics/sioux

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.
Quote:
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
redhawk is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 06-08-2011, 08:12 AM   #17
Pumpkin QAAD
Whachu talking about
 
Pumpkin QAAD's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jun 2007
Posts: 1,324
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.
__________________
A society grows great when old men plant trees whose shade they know they never shall sit in

Last edited by Pumpkin QAAD; 06-08-2011 at 11:22 AM..
Pumpkin QAAD is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 06-08-2011, 11:51 AM   #18
redhawk
Senior Resident Curmudgeon
 
redhawk's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jan 2004
Location: In My Memories
Posts: 10,933
Quote:
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
redhawk is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 06-08-2011, 01:53 PM   #19
dockless
citizen
 
dockless's Avatar
 
Join Date: Oct 2008
Posts: 119
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.
dockless is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 06-08-2011, 01:55 PM   #20
Pumpkin QAAD
Whachu talking about
 
Pumpkin QAAD's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jun 2007
Posts: 1,324
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

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?

http://library.ndsu.edu/exhibits/tex...s/dakotas.html

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

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
Pumpkin QAAD is offline   Reply With Quote
Reply


Currently Active Users Viewing This Thread: 1 (0 members and 1 guests)
 
Thread Tools Search this Thread
Search this Thread:

Advanced Search
Display Modes

Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

BB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is Off

Forum Jump


All times are GMT -4. The time now is 09:23 AM.


Powered by vBulletin® Version 3.8.4
Copyright ©2000 - 2018, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.

DISCLAIMER: Use of these forums, and information found herein, is at your own risk. Use of this site by members and non-members alike is only granted by the adkhighpeak.com administration provided the terms and conditions found in the FULL DISCLAIMER have been read. Continued use of this site implies that you have read, understood and agree to the terms and conditions of this site. Any questions can be directed to the Administrator of this site.