|
|
Post by conz on Jun 17, 2009 19:18:39 GMT -6
<I, personally, can outfight most any Indian Warrior, in most any circumstance, I believe> And the Titanic is unsinkable . . . "There are not enough Indians on the North American Continent to defeat the 7th Cavalary" . . . Pearl Harbor? 9/11? Be careful what you think . . . reality can be cruel. Aye...that's another good reason to study LBH...anything can happen. But mostly, it didn't, and we won all the Indian Wars handily. But it certainly does not pay to get careless, no matter how good a unit you are or how good a fighter you might personally be. Doesn't change the point, though... Clair |
|
|
|
Post by conz on Jun 17, 2009 19:20:55 GMT -6
Apparently the Indians weren't the cold-blooded killers some said they were and would leave those defeated enemies to lick their wounds. Yes . . . some would say that may have cost them . . . but maybe they were more humanitarian than we think. LOL...where do you see evidence of this? And I would really like to see your concept of "humanitarian." I'll admit that I have read some isolated incidents of human kindness toward non-tribal members, but they are FAR, FAR, outweighed by the hideous and inhuman treatment all the Indian tribes doled out to one another, much less against the Americans, Mexicans, or other whites. Pretty "inhumane" world they lived in, I must say. But were some capable of some kindness outside their tribe...yes, I've read about it, in between the gore. Clair |
|
|
|
Post by conz on Jun 17, 2009 19:26:08 GMT -6
most of the time the greatest warriors they just lured them in with false promises and then send them to prison to rott in oklahoma, i expect that is what you're able to do indeed  So...you believe that they were very strong, but not very smart? Were they all so easily fooled, then? Clair |
|
|
|
Post by crzhrs on Jun 18, 2009 6:47:54 GMT -6
<LOL...where do you see evidence of this?>
I believe Sitting Bull advised not killing all the soldiers on Reno Hill.
Many captured Whites ended up being part of a tribe and in a number of cases wanted to stay with their "new" family rather than go back.
Cynthia Anne Parker is famous for starving herself to death when she was "re-patriated".
And let's not forget some of the "kindness" shown to Indians after surrendering and/or being captured:
Magnas Colorado shot dead after complaing about soldiers putting hot bayonets on his feet . . .
Colonists setting viscious dogs on captured Indians . . .
Colonists shooting dead Indians as they fled from a burning village rather than taking them prisoners . . .
Colonists murdering the "Praying Indians" when guilty Indians could not be found . . .
White schoolteachers/administrators whipping Indian children for speaking their native tongue and still wanting to be "Indians" . . .
And of course . . . Sand Creek.
I'd say the Whites were just as kind in between the gore as well.
|
|
|
|
Post by crzhrs on Jun 18, 2009 6:49:42 GMT -6
<But mostly, it didn't, and we won all the Indian Wars handily>
Who's "we"?
Handily? It cost more to kill Indians than treat them fairly . . . it woud have been a lot better to pay less than winning "handily" at the expense and suffering for all involved.
PS: I believe "we" are still paying the cost for winning so handily.
|
|
|
|
Post by crzhrs on Jun 18, 2009 6:50:48 GMT -6
<So...you believe that they were very strong, but not very smart? Were they all so easily fooled, then?>
Gee . . . maybe Indians believed someone when they made a promise or an agreement.
Fooled? No . . . deceived is more like it!
|
|
|
|
Post by conz on Jun 18, 2009 8:12:43 GMT -6
<LOL...where do you see evidence of this?> I believe Sitting Bull advised not killing all the soldiers on Reno Hill. I think that was a cop out...just saving face because his own Warriors wouldn't face the rifles anymore. They DID try to wipe out Reno, and failed, losing a bunch of Warriors doing it (which they never admitted, I think, but we have ample testimony for that). So I don't think it had anything to do with his desire to spare American lives in an act of compassion... Are you talking about white women sex slaves?!!!!!!! Ever heard of Stockholm syndrome? And the reception some white women got in American society after being "used" by so many Indians might cause any woman to want to go back to her "family," or even kill herself. Not forgotten, but at least it was criticized. On a scale of one to ten of "inhuman acts," with 10 being the worst, the Indians consistently performed an 8, and the Americans consistently performed a 2, I would have to judge. They both did every different type of inhuman act we can list, but the proportion is GREATLY different, and this is the number one reason the two societies could not co-exist on the same continent. Clair |
|
|
|
Post by crzhrs on Jun 18, 2009 10:42:17 GMT -6
<They DID try to wipe out Reno, and failed, losing a bunch of Warriors doing . . .> No proof they losed a bunch of warriors . . . they attempted half-hearted attempts at infiltrating the lines, but by then the command was dug in with lots of ammo. The village was not at risk so there was no need to do anything but ensure the soldiers stayed put . . . which they did. The warriors did pick off a number of soldiers by long range fire which puts to bed some of them were not good shots. White sex slaves? You mean like the "Red" sex slaves many officers had? <And the reception some white women got in American society after being "used" by so many Indians might cause any woman to want to go back to her "family,"> That says a lot about the racist attitudes of Whites. Many Whites were welcomed whole-heartedly into Indian culture. <They both did every different type of inhuman act we can list, but the proportion is GREATLY different, and this is the number one reason the two societies could not co-exist on the same continent> It had to do with a lot more than that . . . As in prior posts about who did what to who and who was the worse . . . we will just go round in circles. In the end all cultures/races are fully capable of violent and hateful acts to achieve their goals. Even the great "civilizations" throughout history commited atrocities to reach their "golden age". |
|
|
|
Post by conz on Jun 18, 2009 19:08:58 GMT -6
Gee . . . maybe Indians believed someone when they made a promise or an agreement. Fooled? No . . . deceived is more like it! You don't believe that the Indians deceived each other? That they were naive to the deceptions of whites?! Do you believe that the Indians deceived each other as much as the whites deceived them, or that they deceived whites all the time? They did have that reputation..."never trust an Indian" was quite a common rule back then, right? Wouldn't every Indian recite, from birth, since the early 1600's, "never trust a white man?" Yet you believe that they were trusting and deceived. Are you pulling my leg? It is my belief that the Indians NEVER, EVER, trusted any Americans, and that they NEVER, EVER, believed in any treaty we made with them, and vice versa. These treaties were only done because they were forced, not because they were ever believed by either party. Any tears of betrayal are crocodile tears...it was expected. Tears for the poor treatment, though, are the real ones. Clair |
|
|
|
Post by crzhrs on Jun 19, 2009 7:48:24 GMT -6
All paraphrased:
Red Cloud:
The White Man made us many promises . . . but kept only one. They promised to take our land and they did.
Black Kettle:
We were told as long as we flew the American flag we would be safe.
<"never trust an Indian">
After decades of the US breaking every treaty you have the never to quote that?!?!?
|
|
|
|
Post by conz on Jun 19, 2009 13:01:00 GMT -6
My point, crzhrs, was that neither side trusted the other...they NEVER did.
The Indians NEVER trusted the whites and later the Americans.
The Americans NEVER trusted the Indians.
I don't think we disagree, do we?
Clair
|
|
|
|
Post by wolfgang911 on Jun 19, 2009 14:23:17 GMT -6
WG, I don't think the Indians were bad fighters, nor bad horsemen. I admire much about their way of life, and I certainly admire anyone who fights to win or maintain their freedom. The American Army certainly did not defeat the hostile tribes by themselves. They had some civilian help, and some environmental help, but mostly they had other Indian help. It was the American Indian allies that most enabled the American Army to defeat the hostiles and bring peace to the American West. Clair 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! CRZHRS don't let yourself be harassed by all the in between the line quoting of conzclairsky. Conz we don't care if NDN's did some bad things, they had the land and the whites were the invaders period. That being said he whites are always the bad guys in that period as the germans were in holland or france in 40-45 :who cared if the resistants killed nazis and how. The bad and the good was as easy on the plains. 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 |
|
|
|
Post by wolfgang911 on Jun 19, 2009 14:24:03 GMT -6
their way of life.
end (sorry..)
|
|
|
|
Post by conz on Jun 20, 2009 9:02:41 GMT -6
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. 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 |
|
|
|
Post by AZ Ranger on Jun 20, 2009 9:14:33 GMT -6
Since when has there been a boundary system establishing who gets what based upon who got there first? What year was this established? For example if Alexander states the whole world is his what part is left out. I don't want to get into genetics or evidence of early North America occupations because I don't believe it proves ownership.
Unless you know something I don't we are all the same species. So you would have to draw some artificial line in time to establish at this point in time forward it belongs to subset smaller group of a species. It is the same problem with the endangered species act. It tries to freeze time.
|
|
