|
|
Post by conz on May 8, 2009 5:56:32 GMT -5
Your failure to give credit to Indians is what resulted in a number of defeats by soldiers, including Gratton, Fetterman, Crook, & Custer. Yeah...that'll get you into trouble. Forsythe at Wounded Knee may have gotten into similar trouble...there are many indicators that the Natives never really intended to surrender their weapons, and lured Forsythe into an ambush...premeditated murder of a negotiator. We could actually have a Native American war crime at Wounded Knee. That was the Army initial version of events, looks to me. Clair |
|
|
|
Post by crzhrs on May 8, 2009 9:36:36 GMT -5
<Yeah...there was a priest translating and trying to keep the Natives calm. They stabbed him to death>
After the fighting started . . .
We should include the fact that Indian woman & children were chased down and killed.
Looks like both sides committed "war crimes"
Of course "war crimes" is ridiculous charge . . . war itself should be called a crime. Once a war starts who makes up the rules?
|
|
|
|
Post by crzhrs on May 8, 2009 9:39:44 GMT -5
<there are many indicators that the Natives never really intended to surrender their weapons, and lured Forsythe into an ambush...premeditated murder of a negotiator>
Read once again:
General Colby:
"These remnants of the followers of Sitting Bull . . . were naturally suspicious
and uneasy. They had witnessed the tragic fate of their old chief and medicine man. Many of them believed that they were to be put to death, and naturally supposed that their disarming was simply to render them defenseless; others believed they were to be disarmed, then imprisoned and held for years in Florida, North Carolina, or Alabama as their brothers, the warlike Apaches, had been treated years before. The whole proceedings of this morning intensified their feelings, and confirmed them in their belief in regard to the terrible fate which awaited them."
Apparently you were not a Boy Scout who's motto is "Be Prepared"
|
|
|
|
Post by conz on May 8, 2009 11:27:14 GMT -5
Looks like both sides committed "war crimes" Perhaps, and my jury is still open to hear evidence on this, but I don't see overwhelming evidence for Soldier war crimes here...I do think we can make a better case for Indian war crimes at Wounded Knee, though. They violated civilized rules of war...I may bring up formal charges out of Geneva mandates if I get the time. See the "Cavalry Training" thread for some reflection on this question. As to who makes up the rules, we all do, and the ones we must pay attention to are the ones the majority of humans on our planet somewhat agree to, like the ones developed in Geneva. After that, we can consider the morality of the major religions involved in the fighting, including Native American morality when charging them or the Cavalry with war crimes. We can use Native American standards against the cavalry, and we can apply American standards of ethics and conduct to the Natives. Or we can just use each group's own mores only upon themselves, and have separate standards for the Cavalry, and for the Natives. Mostly what I see around here are people inventing their own standards and applying them against the Cavalry, and not against the Natives. <g> Ignoring commonly held moral codes like Geneva, and giving the Natives a pass on having any such morals. Clair |
|
|
|
Post by conz on May 8, 2009 11:29:42 GMT -5
Apparently you were not a Boy Scout who's motto is "Be Prepared" Then you are saying the leaders were preparing to get their people killed? Remember, the Natives fired FIRST. They started the shooting, by ALL accounts, and the Cavalry was unprepared for it. The Cavalry was AMBUSHED. A huge firefight ensued, and lots of people on BOTH sides were killed. Who really committed the war crime here? Isn't it the party who fires first? Clair |
|
|
|
Post by crzhrs on May 8, 2009 11:47:34 GMT -5
<Then you are saying the leaders were preparing to get their people killed?>
No . . . they were trying to prevent the soldiers from killing their people.
The cavalry was unprepared for it? What kind of cavalry is that?
They just happened to bring cannons along. So I don't think they were unprepared.
We can also say the military goaded and prodded the Indians into an act of violence . . . maybe that's what the re-made 7th wanted all along. Then they could say: "See those savages started it. . . and us poor soldiers had to defend ourselves with cannons and then chase down & kill woman and children who were unarmed and defenseless."
If, in your mind the Indians started it then it should have ended just as soon as the warriors in the meeting were gunned down.
Why then did soldiers continue to fire into the village and chase after defenseless non-coms?
|
|
|
|
Post by conz on May 8, 2009 16:56:57 GMT -5
<Then you are saying the leaders were preparing to get their people killed?> No . . . they were trying to prevent the soldiers from killing their people. Then the smart, and moral, course was to give up all their weapons willingly. The Trooper knew they were hiding most of them, because they had seen them carrying Winchesters the day before, and they weren't in the surrender pile. Not good to lie to the people pointing guns at you and your family. One that made a mistake, and was criticized by their higher commander (Miles) for it in his report. Its commander was charged with the crime of incompetence and insubordination over the episode, but not with any war crime. I'll quote Utley's judgment on this below, and you will see. Then the Indians should have been ESPECIALLY careful not to fire the first shot. This rather negates any claim to untoward conduct by the Soldiers. Had this been a prevalent attitude, a couple dozen Soldiers would not have been killed. Obviously, they were not ready, and not expecting any kind of fight. They were ambushed. There is no real evidence that noncombatants were killed in cold blood. Can investigate it in the Wounded Knee section, if you like. No, because EVERYONE was firing on the Native side...fire was coming from the village, and most of the men in the initial fight fled back to the village and got more weapons to keep fighting. THAT was when the artillery opened up and leveled the village...after all the casualties in the initial fight, the Soldiers weren't about to go "door to door" and suffer more. So we just shelled the village until all shooting stopped. Just like we do in Iraq and Afghanistan in such situations, sometimes. Because they were all mixed in with fighting, armed, Warriors. So the civies get NO defense at all in such situations...they all die together, and there is little Soldiers can do to prevent that. Clair |
|
|
|
Post by wolfgang911 on May 10, 2009 16:59:28 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. You would rather have your family killed, than to submit to a hostile force that had taken all of you prisoner? Might as well just committ suicide first, and kill your mother, wife, and kids, too, before they get to you. This is not a morally sound position, I think. If you can't win your fight, and there is no positive reason for fighting and sacrificing your people except out of pride or arrogance, don't fight. Submit.Clair you're really of a weird planet man. I'm sorry for starting to quote like you did but you write so much bull it is impossible to compete the quoting. Anyway you're repeating the same thing over and over 'those damn red devils should submit or die".* In this quoting of CRZHS you show many of your whirlpool arguments that make no sense : let 's try it once more : you can not accuse Sitting Bull and Crazy Horse of being dumbasses because they fought instead of giving in right away whilst on the other they only surrendered to save their people with very few losses in their akicitas and lodges finally, they were very smart warriors and men with vision. And stop saying the bullshit that they surrendered without conditions. They never knew that their horses and arms would be taken and they were promised more or less agencies close to their homeland with rations for their starving people cause they had people to feed, not as the army. Anyway they were superior and should have won if united and if fighting on the same conditions. If they did not have a whole tribe with horses wintersupply women eldelry children to take care off they would still be there just like Massoud vs the Russians and the taliban that will never be beaten. They know the land and have faith. As to Dark Cloud, if you're comparing in a way the plains tribes cultures to islamic extremists what a blind guy you are to the beauty of one of the most beautiful civilisations that ever walked this earth. Dead today. |
|
|
|
Post by wolfgang911 on May 10, 2009 17:34:33 GMT -5
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?
WHAT A COMPLET BULL. IT IS NOT IRONIC BUT SICK HOW YOU PORTRAY SB AND CH. CUSTER WAS AN IDIOT RIDING INTO A FINALLY TOO BIG CAMP THINKING TO MEET AN EASY WASHITA JOB WHILST SITTING BULL AND CRAZY HORSE WERE GREAT MEN THAT FOUGHT FOR THEIR PEOPLE. THEY NEVER GOT BEATEN AND WHEN THEY TURNED IN (NOT SURRENDERED) IT WAS TO TO AVOID STARVATION AND WITH SOME PROMISES... THEY WERE BOTH SAD VICTIMS OF THE MOST DESPISABLE BETRAYALS OF BOTH THE ARMY AND THEIR OWN PEOPLE helas! You can not put those men on the same level as a carreer army officer
conz >
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...
wolfgang>
NO NOT RIGHT WHAT WAS RED CLOUDS ROLE AT THE SUBJECT OF THIS TOPIC ANYWAY, KEARNEY? DID HE KILL SOMEONE, PLEASE RECALL ME WHERE HE WAS EXACTLY AT THE FIGHT.
RED CLOUD WAS JUST HANGING AROUND AT THE RIGHT TIME RIGHT PLACE TOUCHING PENS ON PAPERS FOR POWER LIKE SPOTTED TAIL[glow=red,2,300]The Conz Quote of the year runner up for the General Sheridan Award 2009 >>
There is not such thing as a peaceful camp if it has one scalp in it.wolfgang >
[glow=red,2,300]WELL THAT WAS JUST PART OF THEIR WAY OF LIFE SOFTIE![/glow][/glow]Are you allergic to hair or something? Who cares.
Is that the only argument you have to destroy villages and finally a complete culture. What's your hair problem? I would love your scalp and the finger that scrolls your mouse by the way.NB Neither The Northern Shoshone nor the Piegan had any white scalp for your record before being butchered and raped.
Hopefully none...that would be barbaric. Speak your country's language first, and your native language second. Clair  Ok clair I had it for today! Too much does it. goodnight! |
|
|
|
Post by wolfgang911 on May 10, 2009 17:52:29 GMT -5
A smart soldier knows when to fight and when not to, especially if your family is fighting alongside you, unlike professional soldiers who did not have to worry about their families, which again, you fail to understand when we discuss how Indians fought and having to fall back, even after victory to ensure the families were safe. The Indians left the LBH on their own terms . . . in fact many warriors wanted to stay and fight. A number of soldier accounts stated they saw what appeared to be mounted soldiers in formation which turned out to be warriors trying to lure Terry into a trap. Your failure to give credit to Indians is what resulted in a number of defeats by soldiers, including Gratton, Fetterman, Crook, & Custer. I applaud CRZHRS for the excellent analysis of LBH aftermath and Wounded Knee Anyway we can resume the attitude of Conz and Darkcloud that in case we in Europe in a shorter future then America will be run over with islamic culture we will have to submit rather than fight, and then breed in , lose our language, untill nothing is left and then we will be called the good guys. Let me fight untill death and hide out in the Pyrenee mountains. |
|
|
|
Post by conz on May 11, 2009 11:52:34 GMT -5
you're really of a weird planet man. I'm glad you have discovered new territory. <g> My view is very prevalent in my circles, of course, and most of the American military and conservative movement, so it would behoove you to understand it, I think. Almost...either submit or fight, and if you fight, you had better be sure it is worth the cost you pay for doing so. That is the morality of warfare, in a nutshell, for the white, red, or any other color Man, don't you agree? I can't tell what you are trying to say here...sorry. I am questioning why Sitting Bull and Crazy Horse stayed hostile after Red Cloud surrendered...it makes no sense. Are they animals, or are they thinking men? What were they thinking, then? That they could win? That they could improve their tribes condition? Their bands suffered more than any other Native tribe I can think of, directly because of their prolonged resistance. Wrong on all accounts, I think: 1. They knew that they would be disarmed and dismounted. It had already happened to the surrendered tribes so they knew it would happen to them, too. 2. They knew they had no guarantees as to where they would be settled. They eventually did get better reservations after much suffering, but if they had surrendered earlier, they would have been treated better, I believe. 3. There was no chance for them to win any contest against the American Army. We defeated them with one hand tied behind our backs...hardly used any force at all. What is worse, Sitting Bull and CH KNEW this, yet led their people into slaughter anyway. How smart is that? How moral is that?! Sorry, but none of those can stand up to the American Army. They simply aren't developed enough. Faith can't substitute for Army training and organization, and a more developed officer corps trained in the Art of War. Quite the partisan, aren't you? That is okay...every society needs a few. <g> There is much to admire in those primitive societies, and much to despise, as well. Overall, I believe modern civilization offers mankind more than the primitives did...but then, our culture was just like theirs at one time, and evolved into what it is today. Left on their own for a few centures, the Native Americans would have evolved into today's civilization, as well...it is the normal course of human progress. One thing for sure, though, the Native culture could NEVER be allowed to stand next to modern civilization...not on the same continent. It had to go...the only moral question is how best to accomplish that. Clair |
|
|
|
Post by crzhrs on May 11, 2009 12:19:17 GMT -5
<Are they animals, or are they thinking men?>
Apparently anyone who fights for their freedom when others give in are animals.
List of animals:
"Give me liberty or give me death" (Patrick Henry)
"This nation will remain the land of the free only so long as it is the home of the brave." (Elmer Davis)
"Men love their country, not because it is great, but because it is their own. " (Seneca)
"Each man must for himself alone decide what is right and what is wrong, which course is patriotic and which isn't. You cannot shirk this and be a man. To decide against your conviction is to be an unqualified and excusable traitor, both to yourself and to your country, let men label you as they may." (Mark Twain)
"He is a poor patriot whose patriotism does not enable him to understand how all men everywhere feel about their altars and their hearthstones, their flag and their fatherland. "(Harry Emerson Fosdick)
Just a few of the "Animals" who believed Freedom is worth dying for even when the odds are against you.
|
|
|
|
Post by crzhrs on May 11, 2009 12:21:05 GMT -5
<Left on their own for a few centures, the Native Americans would have evolved into today's civilization, as well...it is the normal course of human progress>
If the White Man never arrived in the New World the many Indigenous People would certainly have not changed that much.
Some were more advanced than others (Aztecs & Mayans among a number of Southern Hemisphere people) . . . but they certainly would not become like Europeans.
Guess what? When Europeans finally did come the Indigenous People did everything they could NOT to become like White People.
|
|
|
|
Post by conz on May 11, 2009 12:28:08 GMT -5
<Are they animals, or are they thinking men?> Apparently anyone who fights for their freedom when others give in are animals. List of animals: "Give me liberty or give me death" (Patrick Henry) Yeah, but we won, and knew that we could. <g> And I'm not sure he was speaking for his family and his neighbors. It is a noble thing to sacrifice yourself on the alter of independence, but to put your wife and kids there...not so noble, I think. I take it that YOU do? I'm down with that...the only question is whether the risk is worth the gain? In all the cases above, the men knew they would eventually win their people's freedom, even though the cost would be high. That isn't true for most of our Native American tribes, is it? Especially after Red Cloud surrendered, in our case. Clair |
|
|
|
Post by conz on May 11, 2009 12:29:54 GMT -5
Guess what? When Europeans finally did come the Indigenous People did everything they could NOT to become like White People. What do you mean? They look pretty much like Europeans, today...same dress, same language, same government and systems. In the military, there is no difference between white Warriors and red Warriors...we are ALL just American Soldiers. And we are all very proud of that, red, white, and whatever. Clair |
|
Ok clair I had it for today! Too much does it. goodnight!