|
Post by elkslayer on Jul 1, 2012 18:42:03 GMT -6
What do you think was the real cause of the Wounded Knee massacre...who was the blame? From my understanding of the story, the soldiers were collecting firearms from the Indians. The Indians claimed to have given all their arms up, but the soldiers noticed the lack of repeaters that they saw the Indians with the day before. Soldiers searched the tepees and then started with the individuals. One "crazy" or deaf guy had a Winchester and when the soldiers tried to pry it from his hands, a shot rang out... A couple of other views of this also states the "medicine man" at about this time threw some dirt into the air and several braves threw back there blankets to reveal repeaters leveled at the soldiers. If the second paragraph is true, why isn't the blame for the massacre spread around more to all participants? How much do you think the LBH porlayed in the fight? What I mean is... There were veterans of the LBH at Wounded Knee. How many of these saw/heard and told about the mutilations and probable torturing of fellow soldiers at the LBH? Knowing this, would this lead soldiers to shooting "non-combatants"?
Give me your thoughts,
Jim
|
|
|
Post by Dark Cloud on Jul 1, 2012 21:51:44 GMT -6
Groups of starving, exhausted, freezing Indian families reluctant to give up what few arms they had (because they could hardly trust the Army and a few were thinking of taking up hunting for a lark) on one side.
On the other, nervous, freezing, exhausted not terribly experienced soldiers intermixed with angry veterans of a humiliating defeat at the hands of many of those same Indians or friends and relatives of those same Indians, all there to remove the firearms from those Indians.
I see no problem. How DID this happen? Who would have thought....... Well, maybe the officers in charge might have sensed the possibility, however slim, that something not unlike this would happen. Or, you know, surely would. Of course, if they themselves were not on the scene, lesser ranks could be blamed.
Surely accurate, non emotional and detached testimony was taken and everyone told the truth because, hey, why would they fib? So.. we know.
What difference does it make? How could this have ended in any other fashion? For any excuse whatever, not excluding an infant's milk fart during the demand for weapons, there was going to be a massacre. The precise action that set it off is irrelevant. They were looking for a reason.
|
|
walsh
Full Member
Posts: 108
|
Post by walsh on Jul 1, 2012 23:55:28 GMT -6
It was essentially the perfect storm. You had mutual distrust on both sides. It was a ticking time bomb and it exploded. The Troopers are often blamed for the massacre but the Sioux didn't help matters by returning fire and attacking the soldiers with melee weapons. Truth be told, no one will ever know which side fired first. There is no excuse for the soldiers who ran down and killed fleeing women and children but in the opening stages of the fight, the firing had to be indiscriminate due to the close proximity. Hugh McGinnis gives one of the best account's i think www.ourfamilyhistory.biz/woundedknee.htm
|
|
|
Post by benteen on Jul 2, 2012 10:44:51 GMT -6
I took my post down as it can be a sore subject and cause too much controversy. I will go with what Dark Cloud and Walsh posted.They sum up my opinion on this matter but did a better job than I did in expressing it.
Be Well Dan
|
|
|
Post by crzhrs on Jul 2, 2012 10:50:22 GMT -6
If you look at the history of soldiers dealing with Indians after they surrendered you can see a patent of incompetence on the military's part:
The killing of Crazy Horse The killing of Sitting Bull (Military & Indian Agent made dump move to have Indian Police arrest SB) The Wounded Knee Massacre
Not to mention the bungling of an Apache Medicine man's arrest resulting in the deaths of many on both sides.
We could go on and on about how the military failed to learn any lessens in dealing with Indians Pre-Reservations and Post-Reservation Period.
|
|
|
Post by elkslayer on Jul 2, 2012 11:14:54 GMT -6
Thanks for the link... Jim
|
|
|
Post by bc on Jul 2, 2012 20:13:45 GMT -6
If you look at the history of soldiers dealing with Indians after they surrendered you can see a patent of incompetence on the military's part: The killing of Crazy Horse The killing of Sitting Bull (Military & Indian Agent made dump move to have Indian Police arrest SB) The Wounded Knee Massacre Not to mention the bungling of an Apache Medicine man's arrest resulting in the deaths of many on both sides. We could go on and on about how the military failed to learn any lessens in dealing with Indians Pre-Reservations and Post-Reservation Period. Long time, no hear from. Hope all is well T. Good to hear from you. bc
|
|
|
Post by crzhrs on Jul 3, 2012 10:01:58 GMT -6
I've been around but have not posted. Still some "squabbling" over personalities that turn me off, but I do read some of the relevant stuff. Fred's posts are always informative and pack a wallop when he's critiquing the "other board" members. Lots of fun!
Anyway the Apache incident was the Cibicu "Battle" in which the military bungled the arrest of an Apache Medicine Man which in turn instigated Apache scouts to turn on the soldiers over the outrage.
As for Wounded Knee it was the military's responsibility to ensure a peaceful surrender . . . instead they manhandled Indian women/children in the search for weapons resulting in an outcome that should have been obvious, especially after years of intolerable conditions on the reservation.
|
|
tatanka
Full Member
Live for today like there was no tomorrow
Posts: 125
|
Post by tatanka on Jul 4, 2012 6:41:33 GMT -6
DC is spot on. The Army was looking for an excuse, hence the Hotchkiss guns. The soldiers had never had any qualms about killing women and children. Why would it bother them now? Almost as big a crime was the awarding of medals of honour to these butchers.
|
|
|
Post by Dark Cloud on Jul 4, 2012 7:20:13 GMT -6
As an institution, the Army was looking to stay warm; individuals were certainly looking for an excuse. As for killing women and children, the Army officially despised such but not a few in the field saw no evil in doing it. But as many were disgusted, and it is through them alone that the truth about Washita, Wounded Knee, and Sand Creek emerged at some personal expense.
Even Miles, whom I do not like, stated that WK was a massacre, although as much for his own rectitude and image as justice.
Native Americans, on the other hand, saw nothing wrong with it so long as they got to perform the deeds on each other and whites. Women were possessions, children as well. This is compatible world wide with their level of existence. Awful when they alone have to endure it because it's an insult to the virility of the warriors supposed to defend them, not any concern with the mental or physical health of the captives/dead. It's all about the men.
The whites are justly damned when they succumb, not for the deeds so much as they happen in every war, everywhere, but for the hypocrisy. Christian superiority indeed.
But the facts are that at least the concept of civilized right and wrong based on individual rights to life resided with the whites, not the Indians, who with some hyperbole were only patriarchal war/street gangs in aggregate. The Indians are able to win and enrich themselves today based upon their understanding of white law, not their own concepts. Rich irony all around.
|
|
walsh
Full Member
Posts: 108
|
Post by walsh on Jul 4, 2012 19:18:47 GMT -6
I think its about time the Lakota just accept the money from the U.S. Government and stop trying to get the Black Hills back. It's never going to happen unless somehow the United Nations gets authority over the U.S. Government.
|
|
|
Post by crzhrs on Jul 5, 2012 7:58:32 GMT -6
What's the amount of money made by Big Business since the Black Hills were taken? A lot more than what the government offered back in 1876 and a lot more than what the Supreme Court stated when they sided with the Indians' lawsuit. How do you put a value on human life and suffering?
|
|
|
Post by Dark Cloud on Jul 5, 2012 16:13:40 GMT -6
The can of worms here involves the Treaty:
1. were the signatory people empowered to sign it?
2. did the Sioux actually own the Black Hills, given within memory at the time of the signing the Crows had it and the Cheyenne/Shoshone/Kiowa as well?
3. elsewhere Indians claim they don't own land; it belongs to everyone by Great Spirit
4. if the Sioux are granted ownership because it was in their possession, why can't the American government claim the same for the same reason?
5. under Indians ways, it belonged to the U.S.; under U.S. ways and laws, it might not.
|
|
|
Post by benteen on Jul 5, 2012 20:31:21 GMT -6
3. elsewhere Indians claim they don't own land; it belongs to everyone by Great Spirit . In 1854 "The Great White Chief" in Washington made an offer for a large Indian land and promised a "Reservation" for the Indian people. This is part of the reply from chief Seattle. How can you buy or sell the sky, the warmth of the land? The idea is strange to us. If we do not own the freshness of the air and the sparkle of the water, how can you buy them Be Well Dan
|
|
|
Post by Dark Cloud on Jul 5, 2012 20:52:43 GMT -6
This is what is referenced when not believing supposed quotes from Indians that sound like Carlyle, Pitt, Webster, or contemporary poets, especially contemporary British poets. I'd wager that's as fake as Chief Joseph's various quotes. It's too bad, because it supports me, but just saying....
|
|