|
|
Post by wolfgang911 on May 5, 2009 19:03:42 GMT -5
[quote author=conz board=milk thread=2744 post=65431 time=1241457234Didn't these tribes, despite the trail of tears, end up with the best lands, homes, even owned slaves, etc., at the end of their ordeal. Besides that, they mixed their blood with a good part of the white population of the states that they travelled through...seems like most Kentuckians and Tennesseans have some "Cherokee" blood in them.
These tribes may have ended up better off than any I can think of, in terms of standard of living, education, and assimilation into American society. There may be more Cherokees today than any other tribe with pHDs, business owners, that are millionaires, etc. If anyone has information on that, it would be interesting to know.
Yeah great no language no blood no civilisitation left. Great big money for 1/16 indians. The job is done.
The only good thing about the poor rez in the dakotas is that there is room for different & maybe better who knows. I would vote for the Lakota Republic if I could.
The Crows own the Little Big Horn valley today, right? The one the Sioux lost at the end of the LBH campaign, even though they won the battle? I spoke to a Cheyenne guide at the field once that was still quite bitter about it...the LBH valley is some of the best land in that part of Montana.
I'd say the Crow got the better treatment, all around, compared to the Sioux after the wars.
If Hitler had won the war you'd also better be with the NSB or Vichy to get some rewards. I preferr those who stand up for their way of life.
It is amazing that this forum discusses any minute of the and occupations of reno benteen terry & custer to see if something could have changed the story if they had joined
while nobody wonders what if all your peacefull non violent (no to say corrupt) chiefs had joined the LBH, all the Brulé, Blackfeet, and Red Cloud's Oglala added to complete the people of the nation of the 7 tribes / there would be nothing left of custer and reno and benteen or terry! And nothing to run for for at least a year or so, no army left, they would have such a stronghold that they could have easily negociated the LBH instead of being a crow rez, the ultimate humilation indeed.
LOL...good "hostile" perspective. Even the great Red Cloud, though, figured out the best way to secure his tribe's future, and it was not on Sitting Bull's path.
Well my path would have been behind SB and CH.
What is the deed of the great RedCloud by the way?
Did he win any battle i'm not aware off?
The greatest Native heroes should be the appeasers and surrenderers, not the Warriors and unrecalcitrant "freedom fighters." All they did was get their people killed.
Yeah right ask what happened to the people of these white friendlies :
Conquering Bear White antelope, Black Kettle chief Joseph, Big Foot trying to join red cloud, chief Sagwitsch, Mountain Chief must I add the whole list to this horse manure reader to show em that hunkpapa or hunkaptillas 'hostiles' had little or no victims. Most attacks occured on the peaceful camps
It was the chiefs that accomodated that kept their tribes alive after the wars. Were it not for them, nobody would be speaking Lakota, today, right?
Yep in exchange for power, big houses they were primary responsable for sending their kids to schools to forget their culture and language and dividing the lands sold or rented till the very acre to white ranchers. What is the % of speaking lakota today as first native language you said?
Clair[/quote]
my pleasure cola
wolfgang
|
|
|
|
Post by wolfgang911 on May 5, 2009 19:15:00 GMT -5
It would make for a good study to see how the tribes that allied themselves with the American fared compared to those that didn't. I gave my current opinion and thesis...we can all challenge that.Didn't these tribes, despite the trail of tears, end up with the best lands, homes, even owned slaves, etc., at the end of their ordeal. Besides that, they mixed their blood with a good part of the white population of the states that they travelled through...seems like most Kentuckians and Tennesseans have some "Cherokee" blood in them. These tribes may have ended up better off than any I can think of, in terms of standard of living, education, and assimilation into American society. There may be more Cherokees today than any other tribe with pHDs, business owners, that are millionaires, etc. If anyone has information on that, it would be interesting to know. Being millioniaires, no language, no culture, no memory, 1/16 blood or so great signs of progress or total annilation? The job is done.
The only good thing about the poor state of the dakota rez is that they might improve to something different and better if sometime their people would unite. The Crows own the Little Big Horn valley today, right? The one the Sioux lost at the end of the LBH campaign, even though they won the battle? I spoke to a Cheyenne guide at the field once that was still quite bitter about it...the LBH valley is some of the best land in that part of Montana. I'd say the Crow got the better treatment, all around, compared to the Sioux after the wars. It is amazing that this forum discusses any minute of the occupations of reno benteen and custer to see if something could have changed the story ..
while nobody wonders what if all your peacefull non violent (no to say corrupt) chiefs had joined the LBH, all the Brulé, Blackfeet, and Red Cloud's Oglala added to and there would be nothing left of custer and reno and benteen or terry! And nothing to run for for at least a year or so, no army left, they would have such a stronghold that they could have easily negociated the LBH instead of being a crow rez. It is indeed the ultimate humiliation for the lakota, but how could they know the agency promises of 3 stars that made CH come in were bull? au plaisir clair |
|
|
|
Post by markland on May 6, 2009 1:00:48 GMT -5
It would make for a good study to see how the tribes that allied themselves with the American fared compared to those that didn't. I gave my current opinion and thesis...we can all challenge that.Didn't these tribes, despite the trail of tears, end up with the best lands, homes, even owned slaves, etc., at the end of their ordeal. Besides that, they mixed their blood with a good part of the white population of the states that they travelled through...seems like most Kentuckians and Tennesseans have some "Cherokee" blood in them. These tribes may have ended up better off than any I can think of, in terms of standard of living, education, and assimilation into American society. There may be more Cherokees today than any other tribe with pHDs, business owners, that are millionaires, etc. If anyone has information on that, it would be interesting to know. Being millioniaires, no language, no culture, no memory, 1/16 blood or so great signs of progress or total annilation? The job is done.
The only good thing about the poor state of the dakota rez is that they might improve to something different and better if sometime their people would unite. The Crows own the Little Big Horn valley today, right? The one the Sioux lost at the end of the LBH campaign, even though they won the battle? I spoke to a Cheyenne guide at the field once that was still quite bitter about it...the LBH valley is some of the best land in that part of Montana. I'd say the Crow got the better treatment, all around, compared to the Sioux after the wars. It is amazing that this forum discusses any minute of the occupations of reno benteen and custer to see if something could have changed the story ..
while nobody wonders what if all your peacefull non violent (no to say corrupt) chiefs had joined the LBH, all the Brulé, Blackfeet, and Red Cloud's Oglala added to and there would be nothing left of custer and reno and benteen or terry! And nothing to run for for at least a year or so, no army left, they would have such a stronghold that they could have easily negociated the LBH instead of being a crow rez. It is indeed the ultimate humiliation for the lakota, but how could they know the agency promises of 3 stars that made CH come in were bull? au plaisir clair For some strange reason, people disregard the fact that the Sioux were very aggressive in taking land. The land that LBH is on was historically Crow territory, yet, the Sioux ran them out. Even though during the Ft. Phil Kearny segment it is stated in an affidavit that the Sioux tried to get the Crow to turn against the Anglos. Billy |
|
|
|
Post by crzhrs on May 6, 2009 6:41:06 GMT -5
No one is saying there was peace and love between various Indian tribes. They fought each other in the most violent of ways with non-coms being killed just as well as "fighters".
The Sioux won the land from the Crows and were enemies long before Whites arrived on the scene.
The Crow sided with the Whites, not because they loved them but figured the US would eventually defeat the Sioux and the Crow would be safe.
The same thing happened to the Aztecs. The Indians that were subjugated by the Aztecs sided with the Spanish. There combined forces eventually defeated the Aztecs. The Indians that sided with the Spanish eventually fared no better than the Aztecs or the Crows.
The Indians never realized who the "real" enemy was.
When the US military attacked villages everyone was a target whether intentional or not.
|
|
|
|
Post by conz on May 6, 2009 9:04:47 GMT -5
crzhrs
That's irrelevant...what do we care what people think of us?
That he could have his say at all speaks volumes, doesn't it?
I'm sure that you are right. What's love got to do with it? It is about survival.
Of course they would rather be the owners of their own lands. I'm sure the Natives that they took those lands from felt the same way, and the ones before them...
But I think they would rather be alive in Oklahoma, than dead in the Carolinas, right? That's rather the whole point. And getting to Oklahoma with the least deaths to your people as possible becomes the primay goal, if you can't fight. The Indian leaders that enable this to happen are the real heroes...THEY kept their people alive...not the Sitting Bull's of this world, romantic as those Warrior figures are.
Yes.
So you agree that it is a very dispicable practice and should be punished and eradicated, right?
What I admire is that they are ALIVE. Their genes have survived into this era. Many defeated people's haven't. Fighting when you know you are going to lose doesn't usually get you very far.
Maybe they don't appreciate enough what the "appeasers" and "collaborators" did for their people to allow them to exist today. They should have more respect for the peacemakers among them, and less reverence for the Warriors that got so many of them killed, I think.
Clair
|
|
|
|
Post by conz on May 6, 2009 9:20:04 GMT -5
That's what cowards do. They only fight when they're sure they'll win. I disagree...that is what winners do, cowardly or brave. For whites, it is more about the outcome than the style. Warriors often worry too much about style, and not enough about outcome and consequences. <g> They didn't "win" all their fights, but they weren't killed or captured if that is what you mean. The Army doesn't care, as long as they surrender, which they did. Didn't happen, so you needn't bother. But we can argue the issue in the Wounded Knee section, if you wish. I haven't played in that sandbox yet on this forum. More sterile? More efficient? Much better than wearing fingers around your neck, to the white way of thinking. Anyway, we tend to eradicate cultures that do such mutilations. So if you don't want your tribe eradicated, don't wear fingers and ears...it is rather a white man's rule. I'm sure that is not true, but I do get your point. We almost eradicated the Mormons, too, you'll find. It is not a racial thing...it is a "grossiosity" thing. We don't allow it, and since we have the power, we make the rules, eh? I agree...still, not much of a defense for not getting eradicated. Chivington wasn't Army. Don't recall Connor's details off the top of my head...which West Point class was he an alumni of? Show me a West Pointer that took a scalp, and I'll bow to your argument. Those were criminals and the Army prosecuted the whole lot of them. PROVING that the Army is against such behavior. Of course..."Native justice." Did it help their people, though? I would enjoy that...but better over in the war crimes thread in the Wounded Knee section, I think. Thanks, Clair |
|
|
|
Post by crzhrs on May 6, 2009 9:26:47 GMT -5
<That's irrelevant...what do we care what people think of us?>
When people have a good opinions of you, they usually are willing to help out, which we have found out to our detrement during the previous administration. We now have someone who does care what others think of us and guess what, people aren't throwing shoes at our President but cheering him.
<But I think they would rather be alive in Oklahoma, than dead in the Carolinas, right? That's rather the whole point. And getting to Oklahoma with the least deaths to your people as possible becomes the primay goal, if you can't fight.>
The Cherokees had legally binding treaties with the US that were not honored by the government. They did what they were supposed to do. By the way it was the Cherokee "heirarchy" that signed the treaty against the will of their people. Out of 12,000 Cherokees only 2,000 willingly went to "Indian Territory" The other 10,000 were forced out at gunpoint, without any of their posessions, loss of their homes & land that they had transferred into some of the best farms and ranches in the SE . . . this after becoming "Good" Indians. I'm sure those patriotic Indians were greatful to the "appeasers" who sacrifice them.
<So you agree that it is a very dispicable practice and should be punished and eradicated, right?>
You might want to tell that to some of my Vietnam buddies that cut off the ears of VC and wore them as souvenirs.
<Fighting when you know you are going to lose doesn't usually get you very far>
I guess it was better for US soldiers (appeasers?) to have surrendered at Corrigidor . . . that didn't get them very far either unless if you like torture, starvation, disease, and beheadings.
Apparently the defenders of the Alamo were stupid to resist against overwhelming odds when they knew they weren't going to win either . . . just like Custer & Fetterman.
|
|
|
|
Post by conz on May 6, 2009 9:34:35 GMT -5
If Hitler had won the war you'd also better be with the NSB or Vichy to get some rewards. I preferr those who stand up for their way of life. You can't stand up if you are dead, my friend. I agree completely...it would be a good discussion indeed. Now that is rather theoretical, and the real discussion would be why it did not happen. But there are lots of considerations about LBH we could examine from the Native perspective, rather than the Army one. I, too, get tired of the one-sided view. Let's go Native! I would have been with CH too...I'm a warrior, not a lover. Well, maybe both. <g> BTW, Custer wrote that he would have died fighting rather than go to the reservation as well...and he DID die fighting, while Sitting Bull and Crazy Horse surrendered to the reservation, and not even in battle. Ironic, isn't it? Red Cloud is perhaps the only Native chief to ever win a military campaign against the United States of America...right? Sitting Bull and Crazy Horse never did that...yet Red Cloud, after visiting Washington, decided that his people would only be eradicated if they continued to fight...so he became the tribe's greatest accomodater, even though he despised the whites. To me, Red Cloud is perhaps the Native American's greatest hero and finest leader, among a very long list of fine leaders through America's history. There is not such thing as a peaceful camp if it has one scalp in it. Hopefully none...that would be barbaric. Speak your country's language first, and your native language second. I myself speak (poorly) Russian, German, and Korean. Wish I spoke Spanish, though. <g> But I'm glad my first language is English...better jobs that way, and I make more friends in America. While some of the "loafer" leaders may have had greed or standard of living as a motivation, I think you should acknowledge that the majority of them, Warriors all, saw that fighting would only get their tribes eradicated. They wanted wives who didn't worry about being shot in a dawn attack, children to grow up with a better standard of living than they had, and their lines and history to go on into the future. In this, hard as it was for them, they succeeded. Clair |
|
|
|
Post by conz on May 6, 2009 9:41:26 GMT -5
czhrs
But no one is "helping out," either. They are just taking advantage of us. I prefer to be disliked, then. Not unlike the French. <g>
I agree, but this changes nothing. They are still alive, when if they hadn't moved, they would be dead.
So you think that is a good thing? Or should it be despised and eradicated?
Don't I know it! But once it was of no benefit to fight, you surrender. That is an Army rule.
Custer and Fetterman thought they were going to win. And even if you know you will lose, if you KNOW they are going to kill you anyway, you may as well keep fighting and take as many of them with you as you could...that will benefit your side later in the war.
Custer and Fetterman probably would have surrendered eventually if they thought the Natives wouldn't just kill them anyway. Would have saved a lot of Warrior's lives, don't you think?
Clair
|
|
|
|
Post by crzhrs on May 6, 2009 10:27:42 GMT -5
<while Sitting Bull and Crazy Horse surrendered to the reservation, and not even in battle. Ironic, isn't it?>
Not really . . . they never got beaten during battle . . . why surrender when you are winning battles?
Red Cloud's "War" is a completely different scenario. In 1866 the Northern Plains were basically still in the hands of the Sioux/Cheyenne with few Whites in the area. They were able to defeat Fetterman and attack soldiers whenever they felt like it. They had closed down roads and kept the military holed up in forts.
The US decided it was not the right time for a prolonged campaign, especially so soon after the Civil War. Red Cloud held the cards at the time. They US decided to give Red Cloud what he wanted . . . for now . . . and Red Cloud who believed the US would honor agreements signed a treaty and moved his people to a reservation. He may not have been fully aware of all the "conditions" of the treaty . . . and since the Indians didn't have lawyers on their side they may have been told only the "good" things they would get rather than all they had to give up.
By 1876 the Free Sioux/Cheyenne were not in denial as to what was taking place. They were familiar with reservations and by then fully conscious of how the White Man acted with "agreements".
According to Bray's Crazy Horse the Indians were convinced if they stayed united and formed a "Northern Alliance" of Free Indians they could hold out and get a better deal rather than submit weakly and be forced to take whatever the White Man gave them which Red Cloud found out the hard way. By then Red Cloud was not the force he once was and had no sway over the Free Indians who threatened any reservation Indians if they sold more land.
One could say it's better to be alive than dead . . . but if anyone has gone to an Indian Reservation, especially the Sioux/Cheyenne one has to wonder if this was really what the Indians thought would be in their best interests when giving up.
|
|
|
|
Post by conz on May 6, 2009 12:01:49 GMT -5
<while Sitting Bull and Crazy Horse surrendered to the reservation, and not even in battle. Ironic, isn't it?> Not really . . . they never got beaten during battle . . . why surrender when you are winning battles? Both men lost more battles than they won...why do you not think so? Need a list? I agree, yet Sitting Bull in Canada didn't look like he was angling for a better deal. He was just afraid to surrender. Crazy Horse didn't make ANY deals when he surrendered...it was unconditional. So maybe in tribal councils they may have said they would stay out and fight until they got a better deal, but I find no evidence that they even tried to do this once they were out there, and Red Cloud and company was left behind at the reservations. So that means they stayed out, and got their women and children killed, for NOTHING. Pride? Arrogance? Fear? Yes...that is why they stayed out and fought. And their choices were? Perhaps if they had cooperated and succombed more to the white men's ways, their condition may have been better. Or it may have been worse. At any rate, what were they doing to make their condition better, other than starving their own families outside the rez? These tribes are a stubborn bunch, aren't they? Clair |
|
|
|
Post by crzhrs on May 6, 2009 13:03:03 GMT -5
<These tribes are a stubborn bunch, aren't they?>
Stop trying to goad people!
If my freedom was threatened I would do everything in my power to ensure that I stayed free.
If you want to roll over and stick your backside up that's up to you.
|
|
|
|
Post by markland on May 7, 2009 0:11:40 GMT -5
Horse, Crazy Horse was defeated at Wolf Mountain. Sitting Bull, during the campaign of 1876, was more of a spiritual leader rather than a war leader. Plus the fact that Miles's troops defeated he and his followers at least two times after LBH while they were trying to get to Canada.
Billy
|
|
|
|
Post by crzhrs on May 7, 2009 7:22:30 GMT -5
I don't think the Wolf Mt. battle was a defeat for CH. The Indians instigated the battle and after the village got away the Sioux fell back.
If a village can get away with its possessions and little casualties I would not consider it a "defeat" in a military meaning.
While SB was a spiritual leader at the LBH he was considered the one to look to for guidance and direction. There were many warriors there who should be considered part of the victory.
SB was chased by Miles and while there were skirmishes I don't believe there was any defeat of Indians . . . they did get away with little damage.
|
|
|
|
Post by crzhrs on May 7, 2009 7:24:41 GMT -5
<He was just afraid to surrender>
I don't believe SB was afraid of anything . . . if so he would have come in way before the LBH and been an "appeaser" a la Chamberlain (England, WWII)
By the way would you consider Chamberlain a hero for giving in to Hitler rather than fighting for his freedom?
|
|
