A Whole Bunch of Dead Indians! Wow!

[AZ Ranger]

To find some truth about the Indians' doings, we can consult a primary source: the journal of Meriwether Lewis, one of the leaders of the Lewis and Clark Expedition. Here (with his own spelling) is an item that Lewis recorded on 29 May 1805:
today we passed, on the star.d [starboard] side, the remains of a vast many mangled carcases of Buffalow which had been driven over a precipice of 120 feet by the Indians and perished; the water appeared to have washed away a part of this immence pile of slaughter and still their remained the fragments of at least a hundred carcases [and these] created a most horrid stench. in this manner, the Indians of the Missouri distroy vast herds of buffaloe at a stroke; .

Fanny Kelly . . . experienced life not only on the frontier but well beyond it during her five months as an Oglala captive. They killed for sport, she said, killing much more than they needed: "Each man selects the part of the animal he has killed that best suits his own taste, and leaves the rest to decay or be eaten by wolves, thus wasting their own game, and often suffering privation in consequence."
Nor was it only the Sioux. Ex-trooper Phineas Towne wrote . . . "I have seen the Crow Indians shoot buffalo and let them lie where they fell, not even undertaking to remove the hide . . . ."
Krech proposes two 'religious' reasons for the earlier over-killing. It was believed (by the Piegan and Cree) that any buffalo that escaped while being rounded up in the hunt would warn other buffalo, who would then avoid hunters, so that it was necessary to escaped while being rounded up in the hunt would warn other buffalo, who would then avoid hunters, so that it was necessary to chase and kill these escapees, whether they were needed or not. Other Indians (specifically the Cheyenne and Arapaho) believed that when hunters were unable to find buffalo it was because the animals had retreated to a land underneath a large lake, from which they would eventually reappear in endless numbers. Krech concludes that, given these beliefs, the Indians did not see overhunting as a cause of any shortage of animals or the need to conserve.

[wolfgang911]

Jun 23, 2009 10:07:00 GMT -6 @conz said:

The Indians all had to take up farming, anyway, so they may as well help get rid of all those pesky bison herds.
Clair

you have ugly thoughs now and then

the plains indians culture was the most balanced finest civilisation ever and would have continued for ever with or without horses if not dramatic climate changes, droughts or other circumstances.
you just don't get any point regarding indians : you know lots of facts but you don't combine them :

>>if indians did intertribal warfare it was
first they liked it (better then to sit in front of your computer is it)
second they kept their numbers low and other tribes out of their hunting grounds doing this warfare and so reducing impact on the herds

>>the other stupid argument that comes up all the time saying the indians did not own/use the land, we migth as well take it >> they were NOMADS!!!
In that way they could go on FOREVER and they regulated their impact on the herds also
like the laps in europe, the mongols, the bedouins ...

Migrating and warfare the two means to keep on living on 1 of god's greatest gifts, endless plains filled with free meat =

[wolfgang911]

FREE MEAT = PASSION AND WARFARE

indians ruled.

and those who keep on saying that Indians were cruel killing each other....
what a horse manure again
Just because you have 30 dead crows over here and 13 oglala and 17 cheyenne and 50 pawnee and a couple of hundred more for..... 50 years recorded on the plains!!
That is what is being killed on an average day in irak or mexico city!

The Plains indians had the perfect life, did not disturb nobody
and now it is all gone for what??
this very rare self sufficiant civilisation and the land was ruined, the buffalo exterminated for what??
for cattle and wheat for hamburgers to feed fat americans
that's why.

And what is the biggest irony?
People are sitting in busses growing fat riding through yellowstone watching animals
o how beautifull!
yes americans were able to "save" and clone the buffalo.
they were able to save space for nature and animals.
but the indians had to go.
gone forever.
the modern society has to prove it will outlive the plain indians society in terms of years.
almost 200 years for the equastrian nomads who would still have been there for thousands of years if euroamericans had kept to their treaties ohio missouri boundery etc.
we are now 119 years after the last buffalo hunt.
the whole world has gone mad on the western model using up at lightning speed the planet's ressources for economic growth > including something live animals for stupid belts.
we will see in 10 years who was right and who was wrong.
this crisis will not be resolved and we all feel and know it.
except for another miracle like endlesss energy there is no hope for 8 billions humans living on this way on the planet's ressources all hoping for the american way of life.
I preferred sitting bull's way of life.
nothing to do with sentimental allthough they had the good life, just preservation of this sheer planet and it's ressources

[wolfgang911]

or in other words

"but when euroamericans slaugthered the bison to pacify the plains nomads they did not exploit the peculiar frailty of a primitive society : when they capitalized on the nomad's ecological Achilles' heel they exposed the fragiliy of all societies, including their own, that rely on the unsustainable exploitaion of nature"

from the Destruction of the Bison Andrew Isenberg

[markland]

Wolfie said:

the plains indians culture was the most balanced finest civilisation ever and would have continued for ever with or without horses if not dramatic climate changes, droughts or other circumstances.
you just don't get any point regarding indians : you know lots of facts but you don't combine them.

Wolfie, look up this word: Balderdash!

I've noticed none of the "stewards of the land" proponents have bothered addressing AZ Ranger's postings. And before they do, a word of warning: Steve is an Arizona Ranger, well-versed in conservation, wildlife and limiting factors. In other words, he lives the life you folks think you want to live.

Billy

P.S. And before Wolfie or CH start, I am not anti-Indian, only against the unreal, romantic aspirations of wanna-be's. If someone wants to live that life now, power to them. However, I think that one of the reasons the Indians lost was their dependence upon manufactured goods which made their life easier.

JMO.

[wolfgang911]

Az ranger states that indians killed more indians then whites killed indians.
do we really have to discuss this?
NDN population went from estimated population of a couple of million to a couple of hundred thousand (all estimates) vary since the whites entered so what discussion.
if it was for pure killing with weapons : come on with numbers and proof your point :
the shoshoni lost 350 in one attack by whites, more then they lost to the sioux in a century probably.
if we stick to only the plains indians al the time the figures might not be so impressive, don't forget all the competely wiped out eastern and great lake tribes, by whites.

as for AZ ranger buffalo's statement i don't get it.
he can make all the calculations he wishes i stick to the books by experts like that Isenberg fellow I quoted
"without the rise of industry in the 19th century US the bison would not have nearly extinct"
the indians did some commercial hunting but never on such a large scale as in the 70ties when they were rounded up while at the same time thousands of professional teams of white hunters roamed the plains killing for belts and not for fur.
the NDN did not have women enough to tan the hides and were too busy fighting and running and building up food for the winter anyway in those last decisive years : there was little hide trade with indians in the 70-80 years. whites went on.
it went on untill scraping the bones together left on the plains for fertilisers, yes that is PROGRESS, killing of 1 of worlds biggest nature's wonders those billions of buffalo for belts and fertilizer and a couple of ranchers.
great!
Let me be an idealist like catlin was to "preserve the indians with the herds in their pristine beauty and wildness" in a magnificent park. indians were volonteering for the job.
now you guys are going to say how dare you make/keep them backward : at the same time you critisize them on the Rez as they make often a mess of it : you would too if you would have been made DEPENDANT. (if we developped this bit I bet we would come to a point of agreement.. cut of aid and "they "would know what to do with the Badlands offered by the army).
Bison was almost exterminated by the whites but also saved by them, and nowadays whites eat more buffalo meat as indians, weird indeed ;D.

[markland]

Jun 27, 2009 16:36:16 GMT -6 wolfgang911 said:

1) Az ranger states that indians killed more indians then whites killed indians.
do we really have to discuss this?
NDN population went from estimated population of a couple of million to a couple of hundred thousand (all estimates) vary since the whites entered so what discussion.
if it was for pure killing with weapons : come on with numbers and proof your point :
the shoshoni lost 350 in one attack by whites, more then they lost to the sioux in a century probably.
if we stick to only the plains indians al the time the figures might not be so impressive, don't forget all the competely wiped out eastern and great lake tribes, by whites.

2) as for AZ ranger buffalo's statement i don't get it.
he can make all the calculations he wishes i stick to the books by experts like that Isenberg fellow I quoted
"without the rise of industry in the 19th century US the bison would not have nearly extinct"
the indians did some commercial hunting but never on such a large scale as in the 70ties when they were rounded up while at the same time thousands of professional teams of white hunters roamed the plains killing for belts and not for fur.
the NDN did not have women enough to tan the hides and were too busy fighting and running and building up food for the winter anyway in those last decisive years : there was little hide trade with indians in the 70-80 years. whites went on.
it went on untill scraping the bones together left on the plains for fertilisers, yes that is PROGRESS, killing of 1 of worlds biggest nature's wonders those billions of buffalo for belts and fertilizer and a couple of ranchers.
great!
Let me be an idealist like catlin was to "preserve the indians with the herds in their pristine beauty and wildness" in a magnificent park. indians were volonteering for the job.
now you guys are going to say how dare you make/keep them backward : at the same time you critisize them on the Rez as they make often a mess of it : you would too if you would have been made DEPENDANT. (if we developped this bit I bet we would come to a point of agreement.. cut of aid and "they "would know what to do with the Badlands offered by the army).
Bison was almost exterminated by the whites but also saved by them, and nowadays whites eat more buffalo meat as indians, weird indeed ;D.

Wolfie, I have bold-faced your paragraphs in order to better respond.

Regarding para. 1, if not for the California bastards, I think AZ would be right; or at least close.

Regarding 2; no one is saying that the Anglos (throw African-Americans, Hispanic, etc., in there) did not slaughter and not use the meat of buffalo. However, my contention, and I feel AZ's, is that the Indians were not the idealistic "stewards of the land" you wish to elevate them to. Remember the 1850's (maybe earlier) of the Pawnees killing an entire herd (I want to say in excess of 100) simply for the tongues?

As far as your expert goes, I'll take a first-person account from someone who was there over a person who evaluates actions from 150 + years' distance. Something about real experience versus book learning.

I'm sorry to say I haven't read the remainder of your post but, not doing so likely saved me a headache.

Billy

[BrokenSword]

Are we restricting this discussion of the decimation of Indian populations to the area now called the United States, or the entire Western Hemisphere? Just the Great Plains hunter gatherers, or also the highly agricultural civilizations of Central and South America as well? I suspect, most here have the Great Plains nomadic buffalo hunting tribes in mind. So, I'll toss this in....

Indians north of Mexico did not have written languages before the coming of Europeans. Accounts of Indian life were made by early explorers and settlers before the Indians themselves left ‘written’ records. However, other sources of information: oral histories, legends and archaeological finds, help provide an understanding of that part of North America before European settlement.

On the African savannah, in the jungles around the world, and across the tundras, animal populations explode when times are good, and crash when food reserves are exhausted. Are human beings some sort of exception?

Some of the ‘old ways’ of Indian civilization have carried over into the modern day and present time, sometimes with good results, like the fishing skills of coastal Indians of the Northwest. Sometimes the ‘new ways’ came with problems, like virtually forcing nomadic, buffalo hunting Plains Indians to become farmers - tied to a single piece of land.

In a way, the Plains tribes and their culture came full circle by doing so.

The Indians of the Great Plains are more properly described as a culture than as a civilization, and the creation of the nomadic Plains culture was largely the doing of the so called white man. Before the introduction of the horse, in the first half of the 1700s, a small population of Indians lived on the Plains. Most of them along rivers and streams. Making their living through very small scale agriculture, fishing and hunting small game, and by gathering roots, berries and such. As you can imagine it was a subsistence level existence. Their dwellings were the earthen structures of non-nomadic people. Buffalo hunts were a once a year event. The entire tribe participated - on foot - just as they had hunted them for thousands of years before the horse.

When horse ownership became widespread among Indians, they became full-time buffalo hunters. Following and hunting the herds became the pathway to wealth and prosperity - so to speak. Earthen lodges are difficult to carry around, so it was in the second half of the 18th Century that the ‘tipi’ was invented as the first mobile home on the Plains. A few of the Plains dwellers continued as sedentary agricultural societies, but many opted for the ‘new ways’ that the horse offered. Eastern Indians began moving out onto the Plains, eager to claim their piece of the buffalo pie and the relatively fat and happy life-style it offered.

The populations on the Plains rapidly grew beginning about 1750. The Sioux are among those peoples that moved out there to pursue the nomadic life-style of a buffalo based economy - in a manner of speaking. It didn’t matter to any of them who already occupied (rightfully ‘owned’) the best territory for hunting. If they wanted it they moved in. Some tribes spent years in continual warfare with each other for ‘stewardship’ of the land. Bitter rivalries developed and when the white man began moving onto the Plains, some weaker tribes saw opportunity to ally themselves with the latest ‘invaders’ to do battle against their more powerful rivals.

As a matter of fact, I think (could be very wrong) that the land the Cheyenne, Sioux, Arapahoes et. al were camped on at the Little Bighorn was actually land the whites recognized as Crow territory by way of a treaty with that tribe. [That might be an interesting thread. Was Custer, in effect, enforcing the terms of a treaty the American Government had with the Crow Tribe? We white guys get kicked around a lot for not honoring treaties with Indians, so maybe fair is fair.]

Anyway, horses became a means of wealth and status in the culture of the Great Plains tribes. A means of wealth introduced by white men (though unintentionally) and which lasted only about one-hundred years, to its peak, before beginning rapid decline. Give or take a decade or two. The nomadic buffalo-hunting horse culture of the Plains tribes was all but over by the 1880s.

Horses had also become the means by which the numbers of Indians on the Great Plains rapidly grew. It’s the old food supply level/population level equation. The greater the food supply level the greater a population can grow in numbers. Horses provided a way to get more food in a shorter time. An additional technological advancement made by the white man was firearms. All in all, running the herd and killing buffalo became even more propuctive, and somewhat safer (less closeness to the animal required for a kill) for the Indians.

There really just weren’t ever enough Indians on the Plains (even at their peak numbers) to greatly impact the environment and ecology, during the single century of the horse culture there. It wasn’t a matter of Indians practising sound ecological principles. Perhaps, it was just a matter of time.

M

[wolfgang911]

Billy did you read somewhere I was professing Indians were the idealistic stewards of the land? As soon as someone takes it up for Sitting Bull or the way of life he wished to defend we're classified as new age hippies.

Some people posted here earlier that the NDN was as guilty for the slaughter as were the whites. That is the most buffalobullmanure I ever red.
Just follow were the last free comanches kiowas and lakota hung out : WHERE THE BUFFALO WAS. Whites occupying an area means NO BUFFALO (except in tour busses).
Indians roaming the land ment plenty before 1880.

The indian way of life has my greatest interest and I have no blindfolds as for not knowing of all their "not so nice" deeds, as cutting only the tongues for a keg of whisky, killing only the fat cows etc. Don't forget that these indians had little bullets that they saved were possible so don't use these exemples as general hunting methods : they could not alow waste, bullets neither meat.
Sitting Bull's only demands with Miles and Desmet were to get the whites out of the area for NOT DISTURBING THE GAME.

I'm not idealising NDN as a race, on the contrary.
Like you I get tired of couch potatoe indians professing ecology whilst their rez is a mess. They had great leaders with vision though that spoke for the first time the words that we hear today again spoiling the earth and it's ressources.
Chief seattle Joseph SB, they all made better speeches as heard in Kyoto or soon in Copenhague.
They had some great men and warriors but they were as naive
as a people can be. One day you fight Miles, next day you hcout/fight your own people. Whites did never do that.

I admire though their way of life and their culture.
There was no real need to stop them except for the whites' jealousy not supporting people roaming freely the country enjoying the good life without working their ass off untill a stroke as we do. The proof is that much of the land they wanted to behold is now national park so what the f... they had to go settle on a rez for?!

Brokensword. It was the spanish that brougth the horses.
We can call tehm whites but to me they look more indian than irish or german when I cross the border..
Why is it that you use the relative short period of equastrian
plains culture as an argument?
First you are at least 50 years of if not 80 for the horse culture. There is a lot division on the subject. I red Ladonna on the american tribes board saying that their people were there before 1700 in the black hills.
Anyway you can not live in the forest lake district, encounter horses and then invent accidently the buffalo culture.
Most very early 1700" winter counts shows tipis horses and the same established ennemies (pawnee, ree, crow etc) as in 1875.
They were not living in the lake area and jumping in on the occasion around 1750.
Those horses were spanish anyway and kiowa comanche and apache comanche had them even earlier. Such a long time that the horses had time to becoming indian bred horses!
Only problem was the winters up north yellowstone could not allow breeding, this is were the raiding comes in to get new ones.
Brokensxord short or longer, surfing is cool too, who cares if the surfboard has been introduced by hawaians to lazy californians, like the horsemen they rule and let them rule.

We can be here for a different reasons :
1. custer nostalgics seeking excuses by trailing the battle chronology, pro and con's of benteen & reno, places and witness accounts to cover for his failures in indian warfare
2. plains indian nostalgics for who little big horn was the ultimate event that ended the equastrian indian horse culture, a battle that was easily won but ment devastation.
I belong to this group.

Where is Conz? Cleaning his stables?

[wolfgang911]

Jun 26, 2009 19:05:27 GMT -6 @markland said:

However, I think that one of the reasons the Indians lost was their dependence upon manufactured goods which made their life easier.

JMO.

such asa? rifles, iron arrowheads?
did those items make them lose the war? it helped them fighting for dependance..

after 1880 they had a hard time to get used to "civilisation', they were thrown backward to second hand citizens for a long time.
the proud horsemen were gone.
i don't think you were implying this : correct is to say that the US army made half of the indians dependant on... rations under Red Cloud Spotted Tail & c° : that might have made them lose the war, keeping those leaders with some of their following out of the major battles.
I'm not sure what you ment anyway. gives me a headache too!

[AZ Ranger]

Wolfie I found it and I am referring to Conz's statement below with my opinion based upon what I believe had occurred in battles. Notice I left out diseases.

"I think Conz question was regarding Indians killing more of white or Indians. Disease brought by whites doesn't fit either choice. I would guess Indians killed more Indians then they hilled whites."

So your statement below is not correct since you left out the word guess and more importantly you added the part of whites killed Indians. Since I am free to guess there is no discussion regarding Indians killing Indians versus Indians killing whites. There should be no discussion when someone posts false statements they attribute to others. Right???

So we agree that there should be be no discussion since you made up the statement.

"az ranger states that indians killed more indians then whites killed indians. do we really have to discuss this?"

Jun 20, 2009 9:02:41 GMT -6 @conz said:

Jun 19, 2009 14:23:17 GMT -6 wolfgang911 said:

I agree! You are learning fast, yo man (and contradicting your earlier "cavalry walks in and runs easily over any numerous tribe")
Can you copy it and frame it above your bed so we don't start this every day again and again!

LOL...it is nice to find common ground. I'll make that quote to:

"Cavalry walks in and runs easily over any numerous tribes with the assistance of native allies."



The Indians took the land from other Indians, period...well, really, we know that there is NO "period," except as you decide to blind yourself.

The Indians did not "own" the land...they didn't believe in ownership of land, remember (another farcical myth of Indian lore, of course...they certainly DID "own" land by the tribe...just not by the individual).

But the Indians had no legal title recognized by international courts to that land, so legally, they had no claim to it. We did, by European law. It is really silly to argue who "owned" what first, I think.

The excuse of intertribal warfare is complete horse manure, indians liked it as a sport and it was part of their ecosysteme to keep up with territory and game and horses ands continue theur w

Now THAT is really an excuse for keeping your blinders on...it is so much nonsense. Any tribe would gladly genocidally exterminate any neighboring tribe if it could pull it off, and often they did!

Cut the hearts out of their enemies and ate them in public ceremonies...this was no game...get serious.

Back to thread topic, I will bet you that Indians killed a whole bunch more other Indians than they ever killed white men, and that more Indians were killed by other Indians in their entire history, than were ever killed by immigrants to America.

Care to challenge that bet?

Indians killed more buffalo than white men did on the Plains, and Indians killed more Indians than white men did on the Plains, too...
Clair

I think Conz could support his statement. There were lots of killings going among the Indians before the white man arrived in sufficient numbers to impact the Indian populations.

Before starting that discussion you need some parameters

What time period is covered?

Does disease count if so does the person spreading it to another count? Indian to Indian (I would consider this indirect fatalities since it could be passed by women and children and none knew the immune system of Indians, although tragic I see the intent to murder especially from an infected Indian to another Indian)

AZ Ranger

[AZ Ranger]

[AZ Ranger]

Wolfie I'll stick with the numbers unless you can show more than 3 million per year average than it would not impact a popuation of 60,000,000. Even if reduced to half the population, if the habitat is there they will make a come back.

I'll stick with Aldo Leopold

AZ Ranger

[AZ Ranger]

After reading what Billy and Michael posted I concur regarding Indians impact on the environment and their presence on the plains. I couldn't say it better then they have.

Since a lot of my riding takes place around ruins and artifacts, I have been doing some reading now on the Anasazi and some theories reading cannibalism and attacks by other Indians. To what extent it had on the population I have not formed an opinion but the move to cliff dwellings is used as evidence of fear of something.

AZ Ranger

[AZ Ranger]

The buffalo's habitat was filled up with cows among other things. We slaughter approximately 35,000,000 cows per year and they still keep producing. The mammoth on the other hand is gone and the white man can not be the blame.