|
Post by crzhrs on Apr 1, 2014 14:08:25 GMT -6
A hundred years ago and even more there were a number of people who stood in defense of the Indian and spoke out against the government and the military's policy and treatment. John Wesley Powell spoke of creating a huge Buffalo Preserve for the Indians until they slowly became part of White Society. Ely Parker, Pres. Grant's Commissioner of Indian Affairs (and a Native American) urged Grant with a go slow approach to dealing with the Western Indians but Grant was intimidated more by Sherman/Sheridan and buckled under pressure. There are people who believe what is right and what is wrong regardless of the period or times. There are always people who have a dream even if most others scoff at it. "You may call me a dreamer, but I'm not the only one" (John Lennon)
Most people don't go coveting others' spouses or their farms, most people are decent, honest and trustworthy, sometimes to a fault because they believe anything a politician tells them (or talk show hosts). I have more faith in humanity than others . . . and I do believe some day we will change . . . but it will take time.
|
|
|
Post by Dark Cloud on Apr 1, 2014 14:32:47 GMT -6
Really? You think Grant quivered before Sherman and Sheridan? Really? If anything, it was reversed. And, by the way, they owed him everything. Neither Grant, Sherman, nor Sheridan wanted to slaughter anyone absent accomplishing a job, at which point they did not care. Sherman hated everything about the west, and the policies that kept him there. He hated Congress and Washington and left it for St. Louis while head of the Army.
Don't mistake those who threw their saddle across a cause to ride it to some personal benefit with those who actually accomplished stuff. Bill Cody fought and killed Indians, did ill, but did anyone do more to popularize their mythic stature and grant them respect than he did in his wild west shows? It was fake, yeah, but did anyone leave those shows vowing to kill Indians? Rather few left less than impressed with what they'd seen and thinking about stuff. All over the world and big in the US, he did a lot to benefit the Indians, generally intentionally. Certainly more than their 'chiefs' did (or could, really, but for the point).
|
|
|
Post by quincannon on Apr 1, 2014 14:45:03 GMT -6
Horse there are people in all times who speak out against whatever it might be they feel a moral wrong. I was speaking not about them, but more of the norm of the times
I believe must people good as well, but as long as there are those that covet the problem will be nearly eternal. You can't find a way to completely eliminate it, nor can I or anyone else. All we can do is call it out for what it is when it occurs.
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Apr 1, 2014 15:34:12 GMT -6
Sherman hated everything about the west, and the policies that kept him there. He hated Congress and Washington and left it for St. Louis while head of the Army. DC,
Help me out here. I know squat about Sherman and his attitude about the west. What's the source for that? Best, c.
|
|
|
Post by quincannon on Apr 1, 2014 16:14:40 GMT -6
Sherman once remarked that if he owned both hell and Texas, he would rent out Texas and live in hell.. Figure by that he would not be all that crazy about New Mexico, Arizona and most of the rest. Tell you the truth I don't think Sherman particularly liked Sherman.
|
|
|
Post by Yan Taylor on Apr 1, 2014 17:15:11 GMT -6
Well from a British view of things I cannot see the difference between what went on in America to what went on in England during the Roman, Viking and Norman invasions, the invaders all changed the face of the country to suit them and if the locals objected they got a pasting, except for the Vikings, we finally fought them to a standstill.
The Romans went through Europe in the same way as the whites in America, they brought civilisation along with the sword, either you let them build roads and cities all over the place or you paid the price, the Visigoths paid them back though with interest, but that is how the world worked back then.
Ian.
|
|
|
Post by Dark Cloud on Apr 1, 2014 17:54:28 GMT -6
"We fought one war with Mexico to take the southwest, we should fight another to make her take it back." Rau, General of Night, page 78
I've seen southwest, Arizona, New Mexico, and he probably uttered it more than once with variations. Whichever, his view is certain.
He hated the whites for being thieves and treating the Indians poorly. He hated the Indians because they were his problem and there was no good solution since the nation wanted the land. He accurately forecast they'd either have to be killed or sustained as perpetual paupers. That was not advocacy, that was accuracy. He hated farmers who didn't want to pay taxes or anything for the Army protection. He had no huge budget, and had to deal with 'demands' from yokels all over hell and gone quivering over Indians that hardly were a threat to anyone.
He was also accurate about western settlement: that it was fake to pretend there was a plausible market for all the proposed growth, and in fact the market was the army itself supporting the railroads to bring the grain east. Markets were developed, so he was wrong in the end, but at the beginning he thought it a self justifying wheel, as the only reason the army was there was to protect settlement for product lacking a market but the army became the market. Until refrigeration cars, there were issues.
Cannot tell you where all that is, but I've read it and suspect it's in his memoirs, although I was recently wrong about them. So, there.
The difference, yantaylor, is the US fantasized the Indians as sovereign nations within our own, an idiocy we've not fully explained to ourselves, especially since they are not. We have fantasy treaties that are legal and with which we're stuck today. Originally the Indians hated the treaties, starting with the fact no one person could sign for a tribe, among other issues. Now they love them, poetic justice, but some tribes welcome the future and are on top, some are just street gangs.
|
|
|
Post by alfakilo on Apr 2, 2014 8:24:36 GMT -6
I think a very short and to the point answer to my own question would be: To remove all Free Roaming Indians from the Northern Plains and to stop all Reservation Indians from leaving said Reservations and to stay out of the way of the Great White Race's hurry to alter the Northern Plains as they were known, to build towns, cities, have ranches, farms, gold mines, etc. and to top it off create likenesses of 4 White President's in the Black Hills, just to rub it in. Works for me. AK
|
|
|
Post by alfakilo on Apr 2, 2014 8:25:12 GMT -6
Would it be correct in saying that the Indians who inhabited North America did exactly the same as what the white settlers did hundreds of years later, and that was to expand and multiply, and if anyone got in their way they fought with them, the only difference I suppose is that the whites did it on an industrial scale. So does this. AK
|
|
|
Post by crzhrs on Apr 2, 2014 10:11:27 GMT -6
RE: Buffalo Bill: He was a showman and a entrepreneur . . . plain and simple. Like anyone in entertainment he would go with what was popular to make money and since he was familiar with Indian and the "Wild" West took advantage of his knowledge. Sorta like the current Hollywood mania for making religious films (Noah!) You actually think there are God-fearing and Bible thumping Hollywood Bigwigs who are doing these type of movies for religious purposes?
Re: Sheridan: On November 3, 1875 at a White House meeting, Phil Sheridan claimed to the President that the Army was overstretched and could not defend the Sioux tribe from the settlers; Grant capitulated (my emphasis); ordered Sheridan to round up the Sioux and put them on the reservation. (The Peace Policy of US Grant, Smith, 2008)
Grant tried his Peace Policy by giving Quakers and other religious groups an opportunity to do what the military couldn't: a more peaceful solution to the Indian problem but Big Business had more influence than God (apparently) on politicians and along with corrupt and/or inept agents, traders, scandals, lies, etc. the policy failed.
Of course we have the famous "The only good Indian is a dead Indian" attributed to Sherman/Sheridan(?) and the other famous word used by one of them was "exterminate" after the Fetterman Massacre. Grant was not for extermination and/or killing Indians needlessly but Sherman/Sheridan had enough pull to get their old war buddy to finally see their way.
|
|
|
Post by crzhrs on Apr 2, 2014 10:19:18 GMT -6
As far as Indians and treaties go . . . do you actually think Whites told the Indians everything that was in the treaties? How about only the good things and not the fine print? Obviously the treaties were a sham but it made the US government look good when they said they had treaties with the Indians and it's all legal. Now, many decades later Indians have found out exactly what all the fine print is about and yes, they are using all the fine print to get what was promised (The US still won't give back the Black Hills which was illegally taken when the US failed to abide by the stipulations in the treaty but offered money which the Sioux refused, still in litigation) As for "Indian" gangs . . . just as many black gangs, white gangs and all other colored gangs out there, so see no reason to include that.
|
|
|
Post by crzhrs on Apr 2, 2014 10:20:43 GMT -6
<I believe must people good as well, but as long as there are those that covet the problem will be nearly eternal. You can't find a way to completely eliminate it, nor can I or anyone else. All we can do is call it out for what it is when it occurs.>
Can't disagree with that.
|
|
|
Post by Dark Cloud on Apr 2, 2014 12:33:08 GMT -6
crzhrs,
1. There is no Hollywood mania for making religious films. Noah is not a mania. It's one movie. The Passion of the Christ was a decade ago. Further, nobody thought Ben Hur was particularly religious, and in any case the most devoted Christian films were made by Jews, who proclaimed no conversion. Nobody ever thought Hollywood was awash in religion. Great stories need no excuse to be told.
2. Buffalo Bill, buried down the road from me, was indeed a showman. His presentations of the Indian were no more false than everything else he put on stage. But, who did more for the public perception of the native Americans: Cody or their own chiefs at the time?
3. Grant did not capitulate to Sheridan or Sherman but to reality. The fact they had the meeting demonstrates they were not set on a course previous. What were their options to prevent war, many white deaths, and then the inevitable cries for killing all the Indians BUT the reservations?
4. I know there isn't a lot of coverage, but there was and is a lot of money and enthusiasm to 'save',convert, or include Indians in the nation. Had the army set about to kill them, that would be a huge error, politically and criminally.
5. "...do you actually think Whites told the Indians everything that was in the treaties?" No, nobody thought that ever. The bigger problem was the legal one about who spoke for the Indians who could sign away rights and land and influence. Nobody, it turns out.
6. Not all or maybe most treaties started out as a sham, but an honest effort. Also, conquest was not a dirty word back then, understood and legal, and in any case that was the Indian way more than the white, which had dealt with long running diplomacy and treaties for centuries.
7. Legally, did the Sioux ever own the Black Hills? The Crow beg to differ.
|
|
|
Post by alfakilo on Apr 2, 2014 12:44:08 GMT -6
6. Not all or maybe most treaties started out as a sham, but an honest effort. Also, conquest was not a dirty word back then, understood and legal, and in any case that was the Indian way more than the white, which had dealt with long running diplomacy and treaties for centuries. 7. Legally, did the Sioux ever own the Black Hills? The Crow beg to differ. From what I can gather from Googling the subject, it would seem the Sioux nation history is one of being pushed westward by other NA peoples. One could conclude that the Sioux should use care when accusing others of 'stealing their lands'. AK
|
|
|
Post by tubman13 on Apr 2, 2014 15:24:56 GMT -6
crzhrs, 1. There is no Hollywood mania for making religious films. Noah is not a mania. It's one movie. The Passion of the Christ was a decade ago. Further, nobody thought Ben Hur was particularly religious, and in any case the most devoted Christian films were made by Jews, who proclaimed no conversion. Nobody ever thought Hollywood was awash in religion. Great stories need no excuse to be told. Not at all a bad movie, effects very good, mention of God not so much! I have to wonder if Crazy has even seen. 2. Buffalo Bill, buried down the road from me, was indeed a showman. His presentations of the Indian were no more false than everything else he put on stage. But, who did more for the public perception of the native Americans: Cody or their own chiefs at the time? Dead On. Perception is real, great job, B.B.3. Grant did not capitulate to Sheridan or Sherman but to reality. The fact they had the meeting demonstrates they were not set on a course previous. What were their options to prevent war, many white deaths, and then the inevitable cries for killing all the Indians BUT the reservations? Dead on again, nation had huge financial issues, even today that trumps nearly all!4. I know there isn't a lot of coverage, but there was and is a lot of money and enthusiasm to 'save',convert, or include Indians in the nation. Had the army set about to kill them, that would be a huge error, politically and criminally. 5. "...do you actually think Whites told the Indians everything that was in the treaties?" No, nobody thought that ever. The bigger problem was the legal one about who spoke for the Indians who could sign away rights and land and influence. Nobody, it turns out. 6. Not all or maybe most treaties started out as a sham, but an honest effort. Also, conquest was not a dirty word back then, understood and legal, and in any case that was the Indian way more than the white, which had dealt with long running diplomacy and treaties for centuries. 7. Legally, did the Sioux ever own the Black Hills? The Crow beg to differ. As much as it pains me, I can't disagree with anything.
|
|