|
|
Post by conz on Apr 29, 2009 21:52:36 GMT -5
It backfired, poor devils.
It only made the Soldiers more determined to kill as many Indians as they could, as soon and quickly as possible. Knowing that Indian women did much of the mutilating didn't soften their attitudes as they overran Native villages, either.
Mutilations and rapes of white women by Warriors were especially motivating for the Soldiers.
These mutilations ended up causing many more deaths of Native Americans, probably, that would have happened had they treated the dead and their captives with respect.
Clair
|
|
|
|
Post by conz on Apr 30, 2009 8:42:57 GMT -5
I'm not so sure about that. America wanted the land and would (and did) use any means to get it. Whether Indians mutilated or not, the Army would have used violence to take the land. Yes, certainly. The only question is the level of violence involved. Its pretty certain that the harder the fight, the harder the treatment of the losers. When mutilations are involved in a campaign against a particular group, the treatment of the losers will be especially harsh. That's human nature, and it also serves to temper the actions of combatants with respect to civilians and bodies of the dead. If you mutilate your opponents bodies, and rape his women, do not expect any mercy in return, eh? Kinda useless to whine about how you are treated when you do such things to your opponents people, I think. Yes, just so, and I think we can find direct cases where Indian violence became much worse because of American atrocities against their people. So it worked both ways, and it escalates, as you say. Oh yes, I think it very much did! The defeated Warriors and families of tribes that didn't have a reputation for being especially violent or disrespectful were much more likely to be taken prisoner rather than shot down in cold blood, I perceive. Same the other way...Warriors would treat white groups that weren't as rabid as others with greater respect and mercy, as well. I think you will find that both sides are similar in this regard. One thing that I've found interesting in my studies of these wars is that the Army officers and men really did come to see the difference between tribes, and treated them different according to their perceptions of that tribe's conduct. We treated Pawnees, Arapahoes, Crows, and Shoshone eventually, much better than we ever treated Sioux, Cheyenne, Commanche, and Apache, overall. Even within tribes, we grew to understand that some bands were more hostile and violent than others, especially among our allies such as the Shoshone. Clair |
|
|
|
Post by "Hunk" Papa on Apr 30, 2009 10:41:01 GMT -5
1) I'm not so sure about that. America wanted the land and would (and did) use any means to get it. Whether Indians mutilated or not, the Army would have used violence to take the land. 2) Did mutilations cause more deaths? Maybe, but if so, the reverse is probably true too. Atrocities on the part of Americans (soldiers or civilians) likely caused further violence by Indians, and vice versa. There would have been a heavy amount of violence on both sides, regardless of mutilations. 3) Indians often did treat their captives with respect, but that didn't equate to any lessening of violence on the part of the Army.
1) Jimmy, you are quite right here. The most obvious case in point is the alienation of the Nez Perce who had been friendly to the whites since first contact with Lewis & Clark in 1805. In 1877 following continuous pressure from the U.S. Government who wanted their land and despite every effort by Chief Joseph to use diplomacy, white encroachment brought on retaliation from some young warriors resulting in a war against these peaceful people. Chief Joseph with 145 warriors and 500 non-combatants tried to get to Canada, travelling 1,200 miles and fighting all the way, losing warriors in each engagement, eventually surrendering to Nelson Miles in Northern Montana. As for being able to differentiate between tribes, the military could not tell the difference between the various bands of the same tribe, resulting in many attacks which punished innocent victims. Col. Harney in 1855 attacked the peaceful village of Little Thunder's Brule at Bluewater Creek. In 1870, Maj. Eugene M. Baker, looking for the Piegan band of of Mountain Chief who had been causing trouble, attacked instead the villages of Heavy Runner, Black Eagle, Big Horn and Black Chief despite being told by a scout that it was not Mountain Chief's people. In response, Baker said "One band or another of them; they are all Piegans and we will attack them." The result was 173 killed, 20 wounded, 140 captured, the horse herd taken and the camp burned. Not surprising against little resistance. Those are just two examples of the army's indifference to who they were killing. 2) There is no evidence that mutilations on either side caused any greater violence or atrocities than would otherwise have been the case. In the heat of battle, it is kill or be killed, there is no time for recollecting past events. 3) The NDN's did treat brave opponents with respect, even adopting individuals as one of their own, but the nature of the conflict in the United States was such, that the NDN's distrusted the whites, whether civilian or military, and the army generally viewed the NDN's with contempt. In such a climate, when engaged in fighting, the army, for the reason of its existence , was violent. Hunk |
|
|
|
Post by "Hunk" Papa on Apr 30, 2009 12:16:16 GMT -5
I just have to say something about this comment. While rapes occurred on both sides, white men had much more access to Indian women than Indian men had to white women. I doubt many Indian men were going to get on a train and head east to find a white woman to rape. The amount of rapes perpetrated by Indian men (or black men of the same period, for that matter) is grossly over exageratted.
Right again Jimmy. When white women were raped it was 'an outrage' but apart from the occasional report from some intrepid journalist, rapes of Indian women were not considered newsworthy. Even if they were known about, as with Sand Creek, it was considered to be 'what they deserved'. The hypocritical views of the white society of those times can be seen in their attitude to white female captives who were rescued and returned to their families. The latter almost invariably thought that their wretched relative would be better off dead, whilst the so called friends and neighbours considered the poor woman to be of loose morals for letting Indians have intercourse with her rather than killing herself. They call that a civilised society!! Hunk |
|
|
|
Post by conz on Apr 30, 2009 12:54:07 GMT -5
I just have to say something about this comment. While rapes occurred on both sides, white men had much more access to Indian women than Indian men had to white women. I doubt many Indian men were going to get on a train and head east to find a white woman to rape. The amount of rapes perpetrated by Indian men (or black men of the same period, for that matter) is grossly over exageratted. Regardless of what the real facts may be, the Soldiers certainly had many examples of the rape and murder of white women captives emblazoned in their minds as they rode into Indian villages, right? Did that cause more violence against Indian women, do you think? Should it have? Clair |
|
|
|
Post by conz on Apr 30, 2009 13:01:41 GMT -5
Right again Jimmy. When white women were raped it was 'an outrage' but apart from the occasional report from some intrepid journalist, rapes of Indian women were not considered newsworthy. Even if they were known about, as with Sand Creek, it was considered to be 'what they deserved'. Who thought that?! I don't know any military person, to be sure, and probably next to no civilians either, who felt that raped women got "what they reserved." Rape is a moral sin, regardless of the person, and I guarantee you that the military felt that way. That is true of ALL rape for some people...it has nothing to do with being raped by Native American Warriors. And many of these raped white women assimilated back into their societies with less problems than others...it was very situationally dependent, in the cases I've read about. Well, ALL societies are "civilized." It is really a matter of level of civilization, always defined by your own civilization. <g> Clair |
|
|
|
Post by "Hunk" Papa on Apr 30, 2009 17:47:19 GMT -5
Right again Jimmy. When white women were raped it was 'an outrage' but apart from the occasional report from some intrepid journalist, rapes of Indian women were not considered newsworthy. Even if they were known about, as with Sand Creek, it was considered to be 'what they deserved'. Who thought that?! I don't know any military person, to be sure, and probably next to no civilians either, who felt that raped women got "what they reserved." Rape is a moral sin, regardless of the person, and I guarantee you that the military felt that way. That is true of ALL rape for some people...it has nothing to do with being raped by Native American Warriors. And many of these raped white women assimilated back into their societies with less problems than others...it was very situationally dependent, in the cases I've read about. Well, ALL societies are "civilized." It is really a matter of level of civilization, always defined by your own civilization. <g> Clair
What a load of horse manure you do spout and in generalities too. I see from another thread that you don't consider that written historical records reflect much that is factual so I am not surprised you have 'never heard' of many of the things the rest of post as they have been filtered out by your bias system. I do not propose to debate with someone who has not read about the general history of the times we discuss, as the social mores of that time are unknown to you, therefore beyond your ability to comment on in any meaningful way. So please, only post a reply when you have educated yourself on the subject matter at hand. Hunk |
|
|
|
Post by conz on Apr 30, 2009 19:45:54 GMT -5
So Hunk, you think you are more well read on these subjects than I am?
Or do you just believe everything that you read?
Histories don't contain ANY facts...they contain historian's judgments and opinions about evidence, and creative interpretations of what is missing in between existing evidence.
If you think otherwise, you are going to be too gullible in your studies. The only way to improve your filters as to what might be more truthful, and what might be less truthful, is to think for yourself, and not what historians lead you to believe.
Clair
|
|
|
|
Post by WY Man on Apr 30, 2009 21:35:24 GMT -5
|
|
|
|
Post by "Hunk" Papa on May 1, 2009 17:56:01 GMT -5
1) So Hunk, you think you are more well read on these subjects than I am? 2) Or do you just believe everything that you read? 3) Histories don't contain ANY facts...they contain historian's judgments and opinions about evidence, and creative interpretations of what is missing in between existing evidence. 4) If you think otherwise, you are going to be too gullible in your studies. The only way to improve your filters as to what might be more truthful, and what might be less truthful, is to think for yourself, and not what historians lead you to believe. Clair
My response to 1) is, yes, judging by your lack of knowledge on a wide range of matters, though it may simply be that you have read a lot but understood little. 2) I don't believe anything I read until I have been able to double check it from other reliable sources. The yardstick for measuring veracity under that discipline is, if some data appears only once, doubt it but don't discard it, if it appears twice be prepared to accept it, if it appears three or more times accept it until proven otherwise. 3) More horse manure. 4) Already covered in 2) and 3). Clair, I suggest that you adopt a more disciplined approach to your study of history and stop discarding large chunks of what you read merely because it does not jibe with your personal agenda. Hunk |
|
|
|
Post by markland on May 1, 2009 22:28:49 GMT -5
So Hunk, you think you are more well read on these subjects than I am? Or do you just believe everything that you read? Histories don't contain ANY facts... False. Historians use facts and evidence to support their arguments or disclaim others. Historians use judgment based on a preponderance of the evidence. Historians (except amateur historians) are highly trained to find and use sources, build on the arguments and evidence of other historians (or refute them). Historians do not inject their opinions into historical work unless those opinions coincide with the preponderance of evidence. If everything historians do is wrong, why were you bragging above about how much you read? You must be looking at the wrong kind of stuff. The work of real historians is peer-reviewed and contains all of their sources of information. Part of the historians training is to be able to evaluate other works - their arguments and sources of evidence. It is true that you should think for yourself, but just because you don't agree with the assesment of a historian does not mean they are wrong. A real historian does not make a claim without evidence to back it up. Again, if you think historians are lying, why are you bragging about how much history you have read? Or do you just disregard everything that does not fit your agenda? The problem with history is that anybody can write it, not just trained historians. Though there are many good and credible amateur historians, there are many others (especially concerning LBH) that should be taken with a grain of salt. You are right in that we should all improve our filters, but those filters should not be based on our personal opinions or agendas, but based on the evidence a historian uses and the conclusions drawn from the use of that evidence. Anything from a university press or a scholarly journal has been peer-reviewed and has been found by the experts in the field to be reliable. That does not mean you have to agree with them, but you can't just disregard them until you have researched a similar body of evidence. Jimmy 1, Conz 0 Jimmy, while I do not totally agree with everything you have said, you have enough right to deserve kudos. Yours truly, Amateur Historian Billy P.S. I left a mistake in one of my posts from earlier and was wondering if and who would discover it. So far, no one has, especially the Army. |
|
|
|
Post by conz on May 2, 2009 21:58:20 GMT -5
False. Historians use facts and evidence to support their arguments or disclaim others. I respectfully disagree, Jimmy, although it greatly depends upon what your definition of a "fact" is. One definition is that a historical fact is the truth of what happened in the past. Another is that a fact is something that many professional historians BELIEVE is the truth about what happened in the past. I ascribe to the latter definition. We don't know if the historians properly vetted and analyzed the evidence to pronounce something a "fact." We take their word for it, because they have a PHD after their name. While they may be somewhat correct most of the time, I think we ought to be more critical of their pronouncements of facts than you indicate in your statement here. Soldiers are genetically <g> prone to this attitude because of the multitude of histories that are written that we participated in that have no relationship to what we participants perceived to be the "facts" of those episodes. This leaves a bitter taste in our collective mouths for the products of professional historians. So we are quite skeptical of "military history" as written being close to the "facts" of reality. LOL...you must be young. Be more skeptical of your ivory tower academics, is my advice, from the trenches. You'll learn, if you stay in this business long enough... Peer-reviewed by fellow ivory tower academics. How many histories are peer-reviewed by professional Soldiers? Looking at the sorry lot of military histories out there, I'd have to judge damn few. But we do NEED historians, professionally-paid history investigators and "lessons learned" writers, to feed us evidence of the past. I have no problem with this...the rest of us have jobs and not the time to do all that. Just don't expect us to buy hook, line, and sinker the judgment of these learned men concerning subjects they were NOT trained to analyze, such as military science, politics, or other professional specialties they have no experience in. That is right, and what you have to do is take the evidence propagated by historians and apply your specialty to that to create superior judgments to theirs, due to your own experience, be it in the military, or in politics, or medicine, or Native American society, or any other specialty. Historians aren't experts in these things...they are ONLY experts in digging up "history." They aren't Soldiers, and they aren't Native Americans. They can't analyze evidence as well as the specialists can. The historians that DO use such collaborations with other specialists to improve their products are the best ones to seek out. Look at it as I described above...if you want to study a history of plumbing, there better be a plumber involved, and not just an ivory-tower egg-head of a historian. If you want to study the history of art, you should consult with professional artists to see if the historian properly interpreted the evidence. If you want to know if a historian got judgments right pertaining to the study of military operations, that historian had better consulted with a lot of Soldiers to ensure that his/her interpretation of military events, attitudes, and causes and effects was proper, according to the military professionals. Otherwise, your military history is going to be lacking in SO many ways. Clair |
|
|
|
Post by conz on May 2, 2009 22:07:10 GMT -5
My response to 1) is, yes, judging by your lack of knowledge on a wide range of matters, though it may simply be that you have read a lot but understood little. Understood, by which I mean that I don't agree with your interpretations and don't hold your moral viewpoint. So I must not know what I am talking about. <g> Trouble is, many, if not most, historians use each other as sources! So you get one myth or misinterpretation, and it is repeated over and over in many histories. Suddenly, you have a vast "body of expert historians" that all say the same thing, so it MUST be true, even though it is all based on a lie or misinformation. Don't you see this? See, I am an EXPERT in horse manure. I doubt AZ or our resident horselady know more about manure than I do. <g> I shovel more crap in a day than most, and I analyze it and can tell a lot about my horses attitude, past day, and health by it, over a wide range of different kinds of horses, than most in our business. Okay...I need to write a book, but what manure specialists can I consult with? <BG> LOL...lecturing a West Pointer and professional Army officer about discipline. I BLEED discipline...some might call me a martinet. <g> Anyway, that's cute, but I never discard any evidence...I keep it all at hand in the mix. As more evidence comes in, it gets reviewed again as I constantly re-evaluate my judgments. But Hunk, if the evidence is contradictory, you HAVE to believe one thing, and not the other, right? How can you believe two opposite things when making a judgment as to which is the "truth?" You just don't like it because I believe the truth to be the opposite things than YOU do, right? It must be nice to be so confident in the truths that you believe...but the reason for this forum is that I am always willing, and enjoy, hearing why you believe something is right, and the other thing is wrong. I really do always learn something from that, even if I don't agree with you. And perhaps my explanations will show you something, even if you don't agree with me? Clair |
|
|
|
Post by conz on May 3, 2009 10:11:14 GMT -5
This is incorrect. That Little Big Horn occurred is a fact. That Custer and a couple hundred soldiers died is a fact. That Sitting Bull was present is a fact. These are obviously simplistic facts, but also obviously blows your argument out of the water that historians don't use facts. Historians lay out the facts, then analyze them for their greater significance. Historians never claim that their conclusions are facts. They claim that their conclusions are probably truth based on the study of the evidence. These conclusions are often debatable, and as historians we know this and don't deny it. What historians usually fail to do is establish what facts are very solid and reliable as reflecting truth, which are "probable" to some extent, and which are less reliable. Like a computer gamer can't tell what the formulas are in the program to tell how the game works, the history student can't always tell what "facts" the historian is using as evidence for his/her conclusions may be shaky. No, but it definitely makes you better at interpreting evidence as you put together the puzzle with many missing pieces as to how the Army worked back then. I can't write history...I haven't spent my life developing those skills, nor do I have the patience necessary to follow that path. I rely on trained professional historians to find me all the evidence of factors that impact military events so I can learn lessons about the Art of War. All that is important is that you have an inquisitive and open mind, which you present well. I agree. What choice do I have? I spend much of my money and my time with historian's products. I rely on them to bring me the events of the past in a product I can use to deduce lessons for the future. My walls are lined with their works. Every single one of them has some falsehoods in them, but I cherish them all nonetheless. Just so. Or, more poignantly, the historian should be better than us at taking historical evidence and putting together a whole package of what happened and why, considering a wide multi-disciplinary set of influences. Historians have the investigative skills of the reporter, the diction skills of a writer, and the packaging skills of a project manager. Histories should really be a product of teams, not of individuals. Aw...good history is hard. <g> I think you MUST collaborate with every specialty that influences your particular historical subject. To do less is lazy. You don't use these people to determine history...you use them to evaluate the truth of evidence and how that evidence should affect your conclusions/judgments. If you were writing a history of a plumbing disaster that killed a lot of people in the 1800s, after you gather what evidence you can as to how the accident happened and how it could have been prevented, you had better consult a professional plumber. And there may be union and training issues for plumbers involved, and he would have priceless insights into the "world of plumbers" as well, that no historian could guess at. Historians are skilled at producing historical products, but the accuracy and usefulness of such products is suspect where professional expertise is needed outside of the historian's experience. Reading about being a Soldier can never give any historian what they require about how armies really work...you HAVE to have been a Soldier to understand that properly. And if it pertains to staff work and decision making, you need to be an officer with some staff experience. A historian without that can consult with such to get much of what he needs to properly interpret evidence and draw conclusions from that. Without such consultation, you get quite skewed uses of evidence in the product. Some topics probably need less consultation than others. But if the historian is concerned with how Army units work, how they are trained, how decisions are made, and the influences within military society, they should not trust their own readings on the matter...they should consult with the modern version of the real thing. I am in awe of the great work historians do in dedicating their lives to digging up evidence and putting it into perspective. There is great value in being a historian, and learning the skills so necessary to develop history products. I'm down with that. That others have different evaluations on the evidence, be they other historians, professionals with skills to know better, or the true man on the street with a different moral perspective, should come as no surprise and doesn't undermine the historians fine work. My advocacy is simply to not believe everything a historian tells you...sometimes not the facts he/she presents, and often not the evaluations they make. I think I can do this without trashing the profession, which I apologize for sounding like above to make my point. As I've said before, professional historians, especially those that produce military history products, are my favorite people and I spend lots of money on them, spend as much time with them as I spend with my attractive wife, and line my walls with their products. I'm a military history junkie...not all military officers are, but many are. I hereby thank and praise historians for their contributions to our society and our military, and appreciate the individuals that make this profession their life's work. Do it better...no excuses! <g> Clair |
|
|
|
Post by "Hunk" Papa on May 3, 2009 16:14:18 GMT -5
1) Understood, by which I mean that I don't agree with your interpretations and don't hold your moral viewpoint. So I must not know what I am talking about. <g> 2) Trouble is, many, if not most, historians use each other as sources! So you get one myth or misinterpretation, and it is repeated over and over in many histories. Suddenly, you have a vast "body of expert historians" that all say the same thing, so it MUST be true, even though it is all based on a lie or misinformation. Don't you see this? 3) See, I am an EXPERT in horse manure etc., 4) LOL...lecturing a West Pointer and professional Army officer about discipline. I BLEED discipline...some might call me a martinet. <g> Anyway, that's cute, but I never discard any evidence...I keep it all at hand in the mix. As more evidence comes in, it gets reviewed again as I constantly re-evaluate my judgments. But Hunk, if the evidence is contradictory, you HAVE to believe one thing, and not the other, right? How can you believe two opposite things when making a judgment as to which is the "truth?" You just don't like it because I believe the truth to be the opposite things than YOU do, right? It must be nice to be so confident in the truths that you believe...but the reason for this forum is that I am always willing, and enjoy, hearing why you believe something is right, and the other thing is wrong. 5) I really do always learn something from that, even if I don't agree with you. And perhaps my explanations will show you something, even if you don't agree with me? Clair
1) Of course you don't, we are different people living different lives, but it is not for those reasons that you don't know what you are talking about; you simply don't know what you are talking about. 2) There are historians who use primary sources and there those who use the writings of other historians. The trick is to know which is which and that is achieved by knowing what the primary sources are and as I said before, double checking all you read. The mere repetition of information does not make it a fact and a discerning reader learns how to root out what can be relied upon. 3) You just need to shovel it with a lot more subtlety. 4) I am not lecturing you at all, simply making an observation and the discipline I referred to was in the study of history. Military discipline is a different thing being concerned with matters martial. The fact that you never discard evidence etc., is just a repetition of what I said in the quote at 2), and is a pointer to indisciplined thinking. If evidence is contradictory you research further until you can be reasonably certain which argument should prevail. If the contradiction remains you make no judgement either way. In no circumstances is it acceptable to plump for the argument that suits your own way of thinking. I have no likes or dislikes where your beliefs are concerned but where you cite something as the truth without sufficient evidence to endorse your point of view, I feel constrained to furnish facts to the contrary. Neither do I have any corner on the 'truth' only knowledge gleaned from my studies which I am persuaded has more merit than the many unverified opinions that you expound. I do not think in terms of information that is right or wrong generally speaking, only in the balance of probability, backed up by the sources I have used in my research. 5) Whatever makes me think, whether I agree with it or not, results in crystallising my understanding of the subject matter. I can but hope that the same enlightenment reaches out to you. Hunk |
|
