Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Apr 2, 2014 16:19:14 GMT -6
DC and QC, appreciate the replies about Sherman's attitude. I'll read more about him.
Reading the thread leads me to ask: What was the Indian concept of ownership?
Surely one owns horses, weapons and such but as I understand, they believed no one could own the land.
Tough to treaty away what one doesn't own, isn't it?
Seems to me control and ownership were deemed the same by the US.
|
|
|
Post by tubman13 on Apr 2, 2014 16:42:33 GMT -6
DC and QC, appreciate the replies about Sherman's attitude. I'll read more about him. Sherman does not matter here, Grant does.
Reading the thread leads me to ask: What was the Indian concept of ownership? None, pertains to your next line as well!
Surely one owns horses, weapons and such but as I understand, they believed no one could own the land. If they gave it away, it was legal, in everyone's mind. no one else owned it. See next.
Tough to treaty away what one doesn't own, isn't it?
Seems to me control and ownership were deemed the same by the US. 10/4
Regards, Tom
|
|
|
Post by fred on Apr 2, 2014 16:59:47 GMT -6
... 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'. Andy, I don't know if you remember this guy, but back around 1976 or so, when Jimmy Carter was giving back the Canal Zone to Panama, the California senator, S. I. Hayakawa-- one of my all-time favorite politicians-- objected to Carter's generosity by saying, "Hey, we stole it fair and square." Seems the comment may be applicable to more than just the Panama Canal. Very best wishes, Fred.
|
|
|
Post by crzhrs on Apr 3, 2014 4:42:03 GMT -6
Re: Hollywood Mania:
From USA Today: Not since The Ten Commandments and Ben-Hur more than a half-century ago has the film industry bankrolled religious-themed pictures as it has this year, with four big-studio Christian films storming the multiplex, along with dozens of art-house titles.
Audiences have been faithful to the stories thus far. Son of God, 20th Century Fox's $22 million film about Jesus, has collected $56 million since its Feb. 28 release. God's Not Dead stunned analysts last weekend by taking fourth place at the box office with $9.2 million.
And more tales are flocking to theaters:
• Noah (out Friday). The story of the apocalyptic flood and the man who navigated it stars Russell Crowe.
• Heaven Is for Real (April 16).Greg Kinnear stars in this story about a boy who has visions of heaven in a near-death experience during surgery.
• Exodus (Dec. 12). Ridley Scott directs this story of Moses, starring Christian Bale.
Hollywood has found profits in its prophets before: Mel Gibson's The Passion of the Christrang up $371 million in 2004 and 1998's The Prince of Egypt rose to $101 million. Christian-themed Veggie Tales has spun off two feature films and several TV shows and videos.
Still, scholars say the industry's recent conversion came mostly because of divine grosses.
|
|
|
Post by crzhrs on Apr 3, 2014 4:46:35 GMT -6
Re: Legal Ownership: Although the principle is an oversimplification, it can be restated as: "In a property dispute (whether real or personal), in the absence of clear and compelling testimony or documentation to the contrary, the person in actual, custodial possession of the property is presumed to be the rightful owner. The rightful owner shall have their possession returned to them; if taken or used. The shirt or blouse you are currently wearing is presumed to be yours, unless someone can prove that it is not."
|
|
|
Post by crzhrs on Apr 3, 2014 4:48:28 GMT -6
<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?>
Living up to treaty obligations comes to mind.
|
|
|
Post by crzhrs on Apr 3, 2014 4:51:35 GMT -6
Re: Stealing land. Agree that Indians "stole" lands from other Indians. HOWEVER, once treaties were signed between Whites & Reds then it became real stealing when Whites continually broke or "altered" treaties to suit their needs, i.e., Treaty of 1868 which said no new treaties could be agreed on unless 3/4 of adult males (Indians) signed, which they didn't do when the Black Hills were "transferred" to the Whites.
|
|
|
Post by crzhrs on Apr 3, 2014 6:56:37 GMT -6
Re: Buffalo Bill and Wild West Show: While BB did show Indians in scenes of everyday life he was a shrewd enough businessman to know that's not what the public wanted to see. They wanted to see what audiences want to see now, violence & sex. Many of his shows had Indians attacking Whites (Soldiers & Settlers) with BB coming to the rescue. Buffalo Bill used his poetic license to both glorify himself or others while heightening the villainous mischievousness of the “bad guys” (Indians) and to embellish each situation for theatrical enhancement.
How much that benefited Indians is open to debate . . . but he did continue the negative image of Indians as blood-thirsty killers of Whites and perpetuating the believe that the Government should do what it thought right in dealing with Indians before, during and after the reservation period.
|
|
|
Post by Yan Taylor on Apr 3, 2014 7:18:37 GMT -6
Buffalo Bill and his WWS played in Salford, which is not that far from here, it went down well apparently. Seeing that some of you guys have mentioned religious movies in your last few posts, well I must admit that they are not my cup of tea, with the exception of “Life of Brian” of course, I suppose it came from watching the movie “The Greatest Story Ever Told” as a kid and seeing this; It doesn’t work for me, but ..now this I can relate to; Much better. Ian.
|
|
|
Post by Dark Cloud on Apr 3, 2014 7:42:18 GMT -6
crzhrs,
You got me. Had never heard of those movies. So I looked them up. From the Ebert site.
"Last year, the History Channel aired a mini-series called "The Bible", executive produced by husband and wife Mark Burnett and Roma Downey (who also played Mary, Jesus' mother). The mini-series was nominated for 2 Primetime Emmys and received high audience ratings. "Son of God" is the Jesus section of that mini-series, brought to large screens in the hopes of finding an even wider audience."
Doubt that. They want the same audience to pay to see it again. In any case, to call this 'Hollywood' is dubious. It's the History Channel, beloved here as the font of Truth. High ratings? Compared to what?
As a theater film, it's promoted through church groups, as the Passion of the Christ was. The problem here is that churches buy huge numbers of tickets for congregations and to give out as a form of high tech preaching. But there is a discrepancy between tickets bought and attendance. Gibson's flick never had the actual audience that it claimed, and theater groups sued to get compensated for the lack of bodies in seats buying the items upon which theaters depend today. (Also, block buys get reduced rates, but the income was based upon amounts as if all sales were ad hoc purchases, which cost more. Eating popcorn during such films is like viewing Schindler's List as a date movie (Seinfeld) but such is our world. Theaters won.
It's like politicians' books. Their party and flacks buy them up and give them away. Always high sales for books nobody reads. There are exceptions, as with the Clintons and Obama's books before he was elected, but Cuomo, Carter, Dole, Bush or Byrd's books were more of the type.
Given the block buys, those are low figures. Also, movie analysts are not stunned by anything except that such low and padded income was fourth place.
Also, movies that sound like John Denver's "Oh God" with Greg Kinnear are not religious films. It's likely Exodus - as Noah - will be barely religious and more an action flick.
"Still, scholars say the industry's recent conversion came mostly because of divine grosses." Okay, that's a flack for the movies.
I still can't agree these are mostly religious, nor that 'Hollywood' has a mania for them. More a mania to use cgi for period drama which costs so much less than alternatives and is so much better.
Which do you think would cost more lives? Enforcing the treaties or what happened? And there's dubious value in treaties signed by people not so empowered.
|
|
|
Post by fuchs on Apr 3, 2014 9:57:36 GMT -6
DC and QC, appreciate the replies about Sherman's attitude. I'll read more about him.
Reading the thread leads me to ask: What was the Indian concept of ownership?
Surely one owns horses, weapons and such but as I understand, they believed no one could own the land.
Tough to treaty away what one doesn't own, isn't it?
Seems to me control and ownership were deemed the same by the US.
ARTICLE II. The United States agrees that the following district of country, to wit, viz: commencing on the east bank of the Missouri river where the 46th parallel of north latitude crosses the same, thence along low-water mark down said east bank to a point opposite where the northern line of the State of Nebraska strikes the river, thence west across said river, and along the northern line of Nebraska to the 104th degree of longitude west from Greenwich, thence north on said meridian to a point where the 46th parallel of north latitude intercepts the same, thence due east along said parallel to the place of beginning; and in addition thereto, all existing reservations of the east back of said river, shall be and the same is, set apart for the absolute and undisturbed use and occupation of the Indians herein named, and for such other friendly tribes or individual Indians as from time to time they may be willing, with the consent of the United States, to admit amongst them; and the United States now solemnly agrees that no persons, except those herein designated and authorized so to do, and except such officers, agents, and employees of the government as may be authorized to enter upon Indian reservations in discharge of duties enjoined by law, shall ever be permitted to pass over, settle upon, or reside in the territory described in this article, or in such territory as may be added to this reservation for the use of said Indians, and henceforth they will and do hereby relinquish all claims or right in and to any portion of the United States or Territories, except such as is embraced within the limits aforesaid, and except as hereinafter provided. This treaty didn't mention the concept of "ownership", if anything it is implicated that the United States already owns the territory in question (which it did according to "White" law), but graciously grants a specified group of Indians the right to exclusively use and occupy it. As in later section becomes clear, granting it in perpetuity until/unless this treaty were changed by consent of 3/4 of the adult males of the signatory Indians And nothing more than the concept of right of usage and occupation are required to make such a treaty work. And quite clearly the Indians had such a concept, in fact disagreements/misunderstandings/deceptions what rights exactly were transferred/shared by a specific agreement or treaty were/are a main cause for White/Indian frictions, dating right back to the (in)famous "selling" of Manhatten for a few glass beads. Therefore it seems the question if or if not the Indians had a concept of "ownership" of land, or what other Indians occupied that land 50 or 500 years ago is entirely irrelevant. Even if in common parlance we talk of "selling the land" in private law, it's not entirely correct either. Ultimately the state grants you a specific set of rights on that piece of land, but you are far from free to do with and on it as you please.
|
|
|
Post by crzhrs on Apr 3, 2014 10:14:22 GMT -6
DC: My intentions are never to "get someone" but to try to show another side of the issue. Of course there are exceptions like the former Swiss Miss who I always tried to infuriate with outlandish comments, but someone like you, I know better.
<Which do you think would cost more lives? Enforcing the treaties or what happened?> I have to wonder just how much money the government spent on killing Indians as opposed to treating them properly. How much would it have cost to provide the proper food, clothing, shelter and good land for Indians to transform from Hunter/Gatherers to an Agricultural base and to slowly acclimate Indians to White ways, rather than trying to make them into White People overnight.
Fuchs: I wonder just how much of what the Whites told the Indians about treaties compared to all the fine print that you mentioned. After all the Indians couldn't read or write the White Man's words . . . they just had to go by what they were told and I think most of us will agree that the White Man mostly told the Indians all the good stuff as opposed to all the bad stuff they had to comply with. All the Legalese in the world won't right a wrong in today's courts but back then the Indians didn't have lawyers to advise them or to tell them to beware before putting an "X" on anything.
|
|
|
Post by fuchs on Apr 3, 2014 11:07:51 GMT -6
I have to wonder just how much money the government spent on killing Indians as opposed to treating them properly. How much would it have cost to provide the proper food, clothing, shelter and good land for Indians to transform from Hunter/Gatherers to an Agricultural base and to slowly acclimate Indians to White ways, rather than trying to make them into White People overnight. In the long run it would probably have been less expensive to simply exterminate the Indians. But in the short run much more expensive. And we all know that politicians are strongly biased to consider the consequences of their actions only up to the next election. Thinking less cynically, the US policy towards the Indians in that period was to make them into White people (with a slight tan), and fully expected it to be accomplished within a few decades, not overnight. The military actions where (mostly) not aimed at killing Indians as a goal by itself, but to speed the transformations Indians --> Apples along. Or simply the White version of revenge raids to satisfy a White electorate howling for Indian blood after specific "Outrages" or "Depredations" or "Massacres" The people devising and implementing that de-Indianization process were (mostly) good intentioned, and honestly thought what they were doing was the best for the Indians. But as the saying goes, the road to hell is paved with good intentions. Those people were driven more by ideology than by expertise though, and the politicians actually deciding about politics towards the Indians were mostly interested in getting it done cheaply and quickly, and letting the Indians keep only a minimal amount of land. At least at the Cheyenne and Crow reservations the Indians managed to build up a reasonably working economy based on horse raising (what a surprise!), not entirely sure about the Sioux reservations, and it might have been also cattle ranching in addition. Ideology demanded that the Indians were to be subsistence farmers on an allotment a similar size as the homesteaders got, no matter if economically feasible in the almost half-desert climate of the western plains and for novice farmers, so the Horses were taken away and the reservations shrunken and "surplus" land sold for a pittance to White ranchers. Might be a bit oversimplified, but this or variations of this where what ultimately doomed the Plains Indians reservation to perpetual economic dependency. Certainly not the fine print, but "you can stay and life on that and that part of the land until the stars go out, white men (apart from government folks) are not allowed there. but on the other hand you cannot hunt and live on that other part of the land anymore, and for compensations we will give you such and such stuff, and help you change your lifestyle to survive without the buffalo and as friends of the Whites." or somesuch won't be to difficult, no? And there wouldn't be much point in not telling the Indians about the not so nice things, as the treaties were usually expected to work out at least for a time. Of course, if a treaty was intended for cheating the Indians right from the start, and said Indians to weak to have any chance to resist anyway ... And it wouldn't need a detailed understanding of legalese to notice that some of the very same Generals solemly putting their signature unter a legal document less than a decade later had leading roles in a military campaign that blatantly violated spirit and letter of said legal document. "Officer's honor" apparently wasn't worth much when dealing with "savages". ARTICLE XVII. It is hereby expressly understood and agreed by and between the respective parties to this treaty that the execution of this treaty and its ratification by the United States Senate shall have the effect, and shall be construed as abrogating and annulling all treaties and agreements heretofore entered into between the respective parties hereto, so far as such treaties and agreements obligate the United States to furnish and provide money, clothing, or other articles of property to such Indians and bands of Indians as become parties to this treaty, but no further. In testimony of all which, we, the said commissioners, and we, the chiefs and headmen of the Brule band of the Sioux nation, have hereunto set our hands and seals at Fort Laramie, Dakota Territory, this twenty-ninth day of April, in the year one thousand eight hundred and sixty-eight. N. G. TAYLOR, W. T. SHERMAN, Lieutenant General WM. S. HARNEY, Brevet Major General U.S.A. JOHN B. SANBORN, S. F. TAPPAN, C. C. AUGUR, Brevet Major General ALFRED H. TERRY, Brevet Major General U.S.A. Attest: A. S. H. WHITE, Secretary.
|
|
|
Post by crzhrs on Apr 3, 2014 11:36:25 GMT -6
Fuchs: You are sounding like what the White Man must have said to the Indian . . . I can't figure it out and I'm fairly literate!
It's possible the Indians may have been much more successful at livestock ranching than digging in the earth which most loathed! Of course that would have been much more similar to their original ways than the Whites. Can't have the Indians still being too much like an Indian.
In the end the White Man expected the Indians to fully grasp any legal document just like any other White Person . . . except the Indian had no idea what the White Man was talking about other than all the good stuff promised.
|
|
|
Post by fuchs on Apr 3, 2014 11:43:44 GMT -6
Fuchs: You are sounding like what the White Man must have said to the Indian . . . I can't figure it out and I'm fairly literate! Sorry for the stilted Denglish That's an excellent summary of what went wrong with the US Reservation Indian policy up to almost the 1980s You might be interested in this: Final Promise: The Campaign to Assimilate the Indians 1880-1920Hopefully better to comprehend than my ramblings.
|
|