|
Post by wolfgang911 on May 10, 2009 17:16:45 GMT -6
So I do believe war crimes happened at Wounded Knee...I just think that many have accused the wrong side! Clair Well what the heck do you want us to answer to your made up topic if you had your answer by forehand and were not going to change your stupid insulting conclusion to the murdered tribe whatever the evidence we will bring up to you. A pity we can not re enact the sound of crying dying children women elderly (and also the unarmed man why not!), sick poor and starving bunch of minneconjou with the 36 fleeing hunkpapas from the Standing Rock debacle. They were all shot lying all over the place. Killing was still done while there was almost nothing left living. If you say WK is not a war crime what is, you ! You know why tragedies like WK can happen? While now and then a guy like Clair makes his way to an officer in the army to key positions. "Lieutenant what shall we do? well that deaf indian does not want to turn his gun in, that's a war crime, he's an immoral person according to the geneva convention for POW, let's level them all down and try out our new machine guns!
|
|
|
Post by Melani on May 10, 2009 22:31:48 GMT -6
Now, now, gentlemen--so much for the idea of discussion instead of debate. In case it hasn't occurred to any of you, war is a bad nasty activity where people get killed and atrocities are committed on both sides. Plenty of white women and children were killed by Indians as well. Once white people began moving in droves onto land previously occupied by a warrior culture, war was pretty much inevitable. Sending the Seventh, the "Custer Avengers," to round up their old enemies was just begging for the exact kind of trouble that happened. And it might very well have happened with a different regiment. And do you think for a minute that if the Lakota had had the resources of the whites that they wouldn't have come up with a bunch of "Crazy Horse Avengers" to go beat the cr*p out of the soldiers? If the Lakota could have driven every white out of their hunting grounds, they most certainly would have done so, but they ran out of food, energy, leaders, warriors, and everything else, while the army had seemingly unlimited resources by comparison.
White policies toward Indians started out pretty bad back on the East Coast, and went downhill from there. The whole thing was a great tragedy on both sides, and insulting each other now will not make it any better.
|
|
|
Post by crzhrs on May 11, 2009 7:42:28 GMT -6
delete
|
|
|
Post by crzhrs on May 11, 2009 7:43:35 GMT -6
< I don't see any intimation that Army war crimes are involved here, and the evidence seems to indicate that the Warriors committed war crimes at Wounded Knee against the Army>
Typical from an abuser . . . blame the victim!
|
|
|
Post by crzhrs on May 11, 2009 7:44:56 GMT -6
<You know why tragedies like WK can happen? While now and then a guy like Clair makes his way to an officer in the army to key positions>
Actually . . . has Clair ever had an military combat experience or are you just a paper soldier?
|
|
|
Post by conz on May 11, 2009 11:18:24 GMT -6
Ah, the passion...that's okay, it doesn't offend me.
I'm a trained combat officer, but have never been deployed into a combat zone...there weren't any during my active duty time (between Vietnam and the first Iraq War).
These days, I work on teams that write Army doctrine. So that is the basis for my outlooks.
My views are not much different from my compadre in the profession. We are very conservative, and take a pro-Army/military view on things. We consider ourselves to be "the good guys"...what would you expect? <g>
Can Native Americans be accused of war crimes? Or is that like accusing some African Americans of racism?
Clair The Black Knight
|
|
|
Post by Melani on May 11, 2009 17:17:55 GMT -6
I suppose it could be argued in some circles that war itself is a crime. I don't think there's been a war yet where civilians didn't die. And as for the concept of war crimes, didn't the Indian Wars predate the Geneva Convention? What was the "civilized" definition of war crimes prior to that? And what did the Indians consider to be war crimes?
|
|
|
Post by conz on May 11, 2009 18:37:16 GMT -6
And what did the Indians consider to be war crimes? That is a great question, but I'm not sure we'll ever get a Native American to discuss this dispassionately, much less their non-Native admirers. <g> Within a tribe, there was a code of conduct and code of honor, to be sure. Outside the tribe, though, I'm not sure. Beyond a certain circle of cultural neighbors, I think tribes thought of others as "subhuman," and not worthy of any consideration of rights or mercy. That would be a normal primitive attitude, I think. The necessities of trade, however, made some trans-cultural norms required, such as between Mexicans, Apache, Comanche, Cheyenne, Sioux, and Canadian half-breeds. So the simple fact that these peoples traded with each other as much as warred with each other says that some "code of conduct" existed. Clair
|
|
|
Post by Melani on May 11, 2009 20:07:11 GMT -6
I think maybe characterizing anything that happened during the Plains Wars as "war crimes" is not necessarily appropriate. It seems to me to be a judicial concept that doesn't really apply in that situation. I certainly agree, however, that killing women and children is really not nice, and that both sides did it more than once.
I have been told that the Crow do not consider it necessary to tell the truth to anyone who is not Crow, but I heard that from a white person. I would like to hear a Crow address it.
I plan to watch the last We Shall Remain segment tonight, which is on Wounded Knee. I will see what insights present themselves.
|
|
|
Post by conz on May 11, 2009 20:50:18 GMT -6
Here's an interesting parallel situation, out of one of Utley's:
"The disarming of the Mescaleros went badly. Hatch and Grierson met at the Tularosa Agency on April 12 [1880]. By the sixteenth they had succeeded in assembling about 320 Indians. The disarming had barely begun when firing broke out and the Indians stampeded up a mountainside. Grierson's cavalry charged in pursuit. A few Mescalerios fell victim to the carbine fire, between thirty and fifty escaped to join Victorio, and the rest returned quietly to their homes that night.
"Although Hatch and Grierson seized few arms, the sobering effect of this experience on the Mescaleros, reinforced by the presence of a strong guard left behind by Hatch, virtually eliminated the Tularosa Agency as a haven and supply base for Victorio."
These Mescaleros were smarter, and didn't assemble near their families when the Army came to disarm them.
Clair
|
|
|
Post by wolfgang911 on May 12, 2009 15:00:48 GMT -6
I must say I appreciate your stubborness to cover the uncoverable, the massacre of innocent children women and men by the hundreds, empoverished fleeding people that only wished to dance for an outcome. Hey Conz can you try this subject on americantribes.com ;D Anyway you're funny man seeking rules were there aren't, funny if the outcome was not that bloody. As for melanie your black white statement is completely obsolete : it could go for encounters in the 1860'. In 1890 there had not been a white settler or soldier killed scalped for 15 years. Get real with giving false wrongs rights on both side. Get a close look at the pix with piles of butchered frozen people. Sick. There is no excusing for this whatsoever. The wrongs where the 7th cavalry. In 1876 the bad guys got wiped out. Justice for once. They got what they deserved to speak in conzclair terms. Clair Calling indians to blame for 1890 is an ugly revisionist theory. I can do some revising with you though : the only Indians that were to blame was serg. red tomahawk and lieut. bullhead with the indian police who scared off what was left of the once proud hunkpapa to flee to big foot after the sitting bull murder. This has caused 30 more deaths to the long list. by the way Clair Stop using the stupid exemples of stupid warriors that did "not protect their families". Once again hostiles always turned in to protect their families. If not descendants of Geronimo and Sittting Bull would still roam out there for the same reason it is impossible to finish off the taliban in their mountains who have no family to protect either. ps If some know of a apache stronghold please mail me for vacation planning
|
|
|
Post by conz on May 12, 2009 20:20:53 GMT -6
The wrongs where the 7th cavalry. In 1876 the bad guys got wiped out. Justice for once. They got what they deserved to speak in conzclair terms. Here I agree, although not the way that you think. Combat units earn what they get...if they make mistakes, they pay for it. The 7th made mistakes here, against an enemy you could not afford to make mistakes against. So they paid for that with many of their lives. This is a lesson we well learn in the Army. Again, if you can't win, and you can't protect your families, don't fight. To fight in such a situation is not only stupid, it is also immoral...a product of arrogance and pride. There are so many wonderful Apache sites to see in Arizona, New Mexico, and northern Mexico! Hard to travel in northern Mexico right now...too dangerous due to drug gang wars...I recommend staying in America. Fly to El Paso, Texas, rent a car, and go west from there. There is the actual Apache "Stronghold" out there somewhere...can't remember which side of the border it is on though. I could look it up tomorrow probably, or you can Google it. Enjoy! Clair
|
|
|
Post by wolfgang911 on May 13, 2009 6:38:40 GMT -6
no I mean a real stronghold from where we can slip out do some raiding, test out the horses, scalp a Conz or 2 and then party and dance, admired by beautiful native women for our deeds that type of vacation. Off course you would be badly mutiliated in a sign of respect for your stubborn fighting! :-)
|
|
|
Post by wolfgang911 on May 13, 2009 6:49:58 GMT -6
Again, if you can't win, and you can't protect your families, don't fight. To fight in such a situation is not only stupid, it is also immoral...a product of arrogance and pride. Ever heard the slogan hoka hey? Please show some respect to the people that died for their beliefs. I would die for my way of life if I was an indian in 1850-1876 : if all Indians knew the poor state of 150 years of misery to come they would all be fighting till death. some believed to pick up the white ways and wealth real quick because they had big houses as quanah parker and spotted tail. You would colloborate with the nazis in France or holland in 1940 right? Weird you did not quote that allegation yet. Being a friendly towards the enemy is your standard this is what you should do.Indian communities are still sick of the colloboration 150 years ago.
|
|
|
Post by conz on May 13, 2009 6:54:24 GMT -6
no I mean a real stronghold from where we can slip out do some raiding, test out the horses, scalp a Conz or 2 and then party and dance, admired by beautiful native women for our deeds that type of vacation. Off course you would be badly mutiliated in a sign of respect for your stubborn fighting! :-) Sounds like fun, but it always ends up badly once the Army finds your trail. But as long as you aren't endangering your family, I see no problem for fighting and dying for any lost cause you believe in. Clair
|
|