|
Post by wolfgang911 on Jul 4, 2009 16:26:44 GMT -6
conz is still not getting it that it, lost or won, it was, as always, an unfair fight. custer was getting it on a village with women and children and livestock. if he had won with says 400 lodges less, pure hasard (couple of bands hunting else where) we would have called it the massacre of the little big horn.this time your great guy met NUMBERS, AWAKE. sitting bull was pressing to keep together, keep together. stay out of the whites don't fight them untill they fight you. In that way he was the wisest of all.but he did not command the battlefield. This great man you mistreat everywhere where you can, as no one in the us army could stand in his shadow. The wisdom of LBH should be that it shows that indians could outrule the us army if united, if fighting for victory and not for individual coups, that they were used to winn on any occasion already. the tragedy is that they could not cash in on this victory and learn from it to combine their superior fighting skills with a total strategy (get more guns - stay together - no tribal warfare - get all the agency warriors in - get into negocations with force as in 1868) they would have ruled the plains and secured an indian state enforced by power and not by begging, is my day dream opinion
|
|
|
Post by AZ Ranger on Jul 5, 2009 8:50:00 GMT -6
conz is still not getting it that it, lost or won, it was, as always, an unfair fight. uster was getting it on a village with women and children and livestock. if he had won with says 400 lodges less, pure hasard (couple of bands hunting else where) we would have called it the massacre of the little big horn.this time your great guy met NUMBERS, AWAKE. sitting bull was pressing to keep together, keep together. stay out of the whites don't fight them untill they fight you. In that way he was the wisest of all.but he did not command the battlefield. This great man you mistreat everywhere where you can, as no one in the us army could stand in his shadow. The wisdom of LBH should be that it shows that indians could outrule the us army if united, if fighting for victory and not for individual coups, that they were used to winn on any occasion already. the tragedy is that they could not cash in on this victory and learn from it to combine their superior fighting skills with a total strategy (get more guns - stay together - no tribal warfare - get all the agency warriors in - get into negocations with force as in 1868) they would have ruled the plains and secured an indian state enforced by power and not by begging, is my day dream opinion Wolfie- Conz gets it. There is nothing about being fair in war. Fair is something your grandmother takes a pie too. A soldier does his duty and it his countries leadership that decides what war to engage. It is the soldiers obligation to do it better than the other guy and the officers to have trained and practiced the soldiers. The means to accomplish success in war takes on many strategies some are distasteful but must be done. Don't kid yourself there is no way the Indians were going to win. The Indians had their best fighters since the village contained the whole of the warrior population whereas the cavalry did not have all the best the US had to offer in a fight. The constraints alone of weight and size should be a hint that there could be better close quarter battle fighters. Even with in the ranks of the cavalry they could put together an "A" team if they wanted to. Without living in those times we only use hindsight to look at a way of life that appeals to many that could not coexist with others. The other reality is that people fled tyranny and were going to make the own way of life and fight for it if necessary. I don't know about others but if you kill someone in my family or my friends because of trespass or whatever you will pay for it many fold. There is no fair when you feel that way. Your belief is to make sure no one else on your side has to feel the way you did because of the lost life. I believe those feelings are what is missing when trying to understand some of the reasons of how things happened. It doesn't matter if it your interpretation that a greedy government or whatever caused or allowed it to happen. I think if you read Custer you can see he appreciated the Indian way of life but the soldier in him had a duty to do and persons such as Buffalo Bill spoke out the feelings that I talked about. Our own 911 is a good example. The outrage immediately following the attack is certainly different than a lot of the complacency of today. Good thing the US troops remain focused on the mission. AZ Ranger
|
|
|
Post by zekesgirl on Jul 5, 2009 12:30:49 GMT -6
Well put, Steve.
|
|
|
Post by wolfgang911 on Jul 5, 2009 15:55:57 GMT -6
az this last response jumps just from one tree to another. if we compare fighting methods and abilities you can not say that one party has the same chances when it has children women and livestock to take care off, that is what I call unfair and that is what you would call unfair if 800 sioux raided denver trying to destroy it all. It is the us army that did your "trespassing" so he finally paid ones for it" many fold". further Custer may have written what he want what counts are his deeds towards indians : -washita -opening up the black hills (thank him for speeding up the end of the lakota nation in all regards) -final opus on the LBH
|
|
|
Post by AZ Ranger on Jul 5, 2009 16:27:50 GMT -6
Wolfie I am consistent with my statements. Do you really think Custer took it upon himself to start out on his own campaigns. You must first find them to fight or allow a surrender. There was no other options as far as the US was concerned.
|
|
|
Post by wolfgang911 on Jul 5, 2009 16:51:46 GMT -6
Without living in those times we only use hindsight to look at a way of life that appeals to many that could not coexist with others.AZ Ranger That is YOU and Conz & C° minds , outnumbering massively at the middle of the 19th century deciding for a lot of native people for a long time how to live. Better spell : you dont WANT to coexist. SB & CH were avoiding all confrontation and could co exist. Imagine 1 moment in your mind america living up to their 1868 treaty.... Would America be a lesser or greater nation with the Black Hills, Powder River and the hunting permission kept in indian hands? What did America win? Some temporary gold searching, a couple of ranchers, a couple of lazy towns and some tourist resorts? For me Custer has it's importance in my readings to understand how his misdeeds & his opening up of the black hills speeded up the end of the lakota. This hasty behaviour was him fatal at LBH. Without the gold in the BH we would have a good chance having the Rez as big as your Navaho's! Which would have contributed to a really great america with lesser dark pages. And in 2009 the whole world would envy this co existing of cultures, which is a sign of greatness in many old cities. On this site where there are many army fans, progress & civilisation are white and unidirectional, 1 must be crushed. Well... Russia has it's NENETS (look up on youtube very close to plain NDN's ). China has Mongols, Brazil loads of indigenous reserves living almost as they used to be. Indonesia has tons of Papous. Africa has Massai, Pygmee, Dogons, Bedouins. Just by the top of the head that come to mind. Even in Europe we have Laps! In Africa, South America, Australia, Asia all that left their tradionnal ways for the american dream (little shortcut I admit) are crapped up in bidonvilles in HUGE numbers by the trillions. And will be there for the next couple of hundred years as there are no ressources on thos planet to give this people the life of the 'other' 10%. As for your grandmother : she did not have to bake a pie to tell fair from unfair. As long as there are survivors to tell the story we can easily skip the good the bad and the ugly. On this site the army seems to be neutral as only obeying to orders, I got that. Well just wait, in 20 years we will have robots fighting for neither fair or unfair, how sounds that? Pretty cool or horrifying?
|
|
|
Post by AZ Ranger on Jul 6, 2009 7:46:10 GMT -6
Wolfie In our form of government the leaders can sign a treaty for all. Not only could the Indians not do that for each other they did not have all of leaders to sign. Did Crazy Horse and Sitting Bull sign the 1868 treaty? No treaty can supersede our Constitution so the powers to protect people and declare war are not trumped by a treaty.
As far as imaging, I find it funny that someone imagines in another continent and country how things should be. Since it was the people that set out to this country to form a country that get to make the rules and use their imagination to build it.
Lets take your standard of living. What is the criteria by which we measure. Do they have the best lands or the left over dregs that no one else wants? Do they have food on the table or do they receive food grown somewhere else?
To me the bottom line is that I live in the present day and make the best of it. It will never go back to the way it was. Arizona is not the same as it was 35 years ago.
I am not sure that all the natives you listed would chose to live only where they live now. Seems to me feeding a family is important and if the land can't produce its time to go where it can unless constrained by other forces. So you really think it something to proud of in Africa on how they take care of the hungry. Is there commercials in your country on starving Indians in this country?
I understand what went on in the eastern part of this country and your agruement would hold more water with me if your view included them. I am not convinced that the west was full of Indian populations with the density of east. I am also not convinced that the plains culture was not horse dependant to a large degree.
The vast majorlty of the Indian population in Arizona seems to have disappeared before the current white man arrived. In order to have this imaginary view you have you would have to control the weather and climatic changes. The buffalo could be reduced in population with abrupt weather change such as drought.
SB & CH were avoiding all confrontation and could co exist.
How do you explain the Battle of Rosebud? How do explain they were invading Crow land?
Some temporary gold searching, a couple of ranchers, a couple of lazy towns and some tourist resorts?
Wolfie are you talking about the whole western US or some smaller subset?
I guess we are all different I chose to ride horses and ride in pickup trucks with my rancher and Navajo friends and protect the state's wildlife populations. We all have families to feed and work in a self satifying jobs and enjoy each others friendship. I would never depend on a bus riding tourist in a life or death situation but I would and have by Navajo officers in the preformance of our duties.
AZ Ranger
|
|
|
Post by wolfgang911 on Jul 6, 2009 17:20:56 GMT -6
You seem to have a great job and most of your arguments balance but you should take mine's out of it's historical context. I'm not saying that indians TODAY would massive go for a tradionnal way of life, no way. I'm saying AT THAT TIME (this is a historical board) both cultures could have co existed if treaties were kept. Their great leaders wanted it and fought for it, so my theories spring off from there.. what if... And most plain indian would still be there is my firm belief, if the territories and hunting permitted it, especially seen the hardship they endured for decades after 1880. This board is discussing all the time what if Reno had not retreated what if benteen had joined all those minor details that make no sense for the end result, wipe out : so may I suggest one can also discuss without being treated as a new age indian freak 'what if treaties were kept, what if smallpox had not wiped out 50%, what if SB had joined forces with red cloud and spotted tail, and another trillion possibilites of what if's that would changed the outcome or timing of the indian wars. Thanks. You in 2009 and the white invaders believe they did not have the right to exist in their ways : no religion, no language, no tradionnal way of life > get a white man's life, go farming or work in a plant! Great. Does not sound very happy compared to their warlords of the plians life. The best pick indeed in 2009 would be to have the chance to work with an AZ ranger for a navaho. As we are discussing events of the past 140 years ago you are as far away from those people who invaded as I am through time and genes, even if I live in another continent. Living in arizona does not give you a better position to judge things from the past 2000 miles up north. Worse. In divorces people from outside see more clear then those fighting with mingled interests. As for your arguments on Arizona indians, the buffalo, starving Africa etc... Well the sioux and cheyenne were surely starving on their rez lots of winters after 1868. Drought is a major factor with buffalo but please correct me gives fluctuations in population but will not exterminate it. Drought has also been caused by extensive farming and grazing by white farmers this century or by arizona indians using up to much trees before 1500. Yep the nomadic life of the plains would have been the most certain bet for a millenium to come Hey AZ do you have a job in your paradise I promise i will not start discussions with tourists on the bus ;D
|
|
|
Post by conz on Jul 6, 2009 18:49:55 GMT -6
WG,
To be sure, the Indian Warriors would not want to lose their power. Whether their women would prefer that primitive life, IF they could understand what modern women could do, I'm not so sure. But I'm quite sure many, if not most, of the men would have preferred to stay in the state they were in before the Europeans arrived. But without horses? Hmmm...maybe not.
The Afghan warlords would like to keep their women subjugated and ignorant, too, and would like to keep pumping their opium into the world unmolested.
The Iraqi Sunnis and Shias would like to keep killing each other for several more generations.
The Hutu's and Tutsi's want the freedom to chop each other up in horrendous bloodlettings at will.
There comes a time, though, when more civilized people need to step in and put a stop to this, don't you think? Do you care about the state of being of your fellow humans, all over the world?
What is "superior" are the cultures with more peace, and more rule of law, so that disagreements can be settled without resort to violence. Isn't that our goal?
The Indian tribes in the West stood in the way of that goal. I wish we could have "pacified" them more gently than we did...but we were not up to that challenge. We aren't that much better, today. But we were, and are, "superior" to the society they lived in, by most human's standards, I think.
Now break cultural aspects apart, and can we say that some parts of their outlook and lifestyle were superior to ours, and we could learn something from them? Yes, I believe so.
I don't begrudge your admiration for those better sides of traditional Indian life and philosophy. I'm there with you, brother.
But to have the darker aspects of that society continue to exist in this world when we have the moral obligation to eliminate those particular things...I think we had to. There was no coexistence possible.
Clair
|
|
|
Post by wolfgang911 on Jul 9, 2009 17:02:09 GMT -6
OK I'm totally stupid to get into this again but Conz I warn you last time I proved you loads of times NDN were less violent with less death toll then the average saloon on their annual tribal raids. I showed you dozens of times that any european country killed their neighbours by the 100.000's. US civil war was a carnage, a bloody tribal war in fact with again 100.000' death toll. Still you keep to your argument NDN had to leave while you were superior as YOU, your party had superior & more peacefull ways. It is such a total non sense. You just wanted the land, the ressources, the greed for gold, kill off the buffalo to the very last. Stop that bullshit with superior this or that. Nothing is superior. It is only different. We all know it was the great indian leaders who made the first speaches Al Gore could only dream of. This was not a hasard. We don't know where this society is going. Further I try to read global through all books and events and draw my own lines. I come to different conclusions. Most of the time the NDN had just sheer bad luck. We don't know if without Custer opening up the black hills for gold there would be any LBH and non keepîng of the treaty. Towards 1880 the american society got ripe for national parks, bison protection and voices were heard for indians too, louder and louder. The media got stronger on their side. With 10 years more we could have kept the big sioux indian rez, like SB wanted it to stay and no wounded knee and a nation made to beggars forced to sell their land, starved, just to get their earlier negociated rations. Would it be superior? I don't know what superior is but beauty is a great indication. Beauty is an indian tribe camping out on the Big Horn with their hundreds of horses and it's warlords in full regalia with their proud women in a totally independent lifestyle. Beauty is not what you mention all above. Your american superior society with 70% overweight, diabetes and ugly suburbs In my opinion western civilisation has only surfing and windsurfing that could match such coolness and beauty. This seems totally off, those who practice will understand.
|
|
|
Post by AZ Ranger on Jul 9, 2009 19:31:30 GMT -6
With 10 years more we could have kept the big sioux indian rez
we?
|
|
|
Post by conz on Jul 10, 2009 7:06:01 GMT -6
WG,
I won't begrudge your beautiful vision. Keep the faith, my friend. The world needs a few kind souls like you.
Clair
|
|
|
Post by wolfgang911 on Jul 15, 2009 14:16:20 GMT -6
yes we can just like the ghostdancers
|
|
|
Post by AZ Ranger on Jul 16, 2009 7:10:51 GMT -6
"Some people spend an entire lifetime wondering if they made a difference. The Marines don't have that problem."
|
|
|
Post by wolfgang911 on Jul 17, 2009 14:41:59 GMT -6
warriors rule, robots don't
|
|