|
Post by wolfgang911 on May 19, 2009 14:27:51 GMT -6
I get the sense that they were mostly stubborn and afraid, and just too independent to live on the rez. I get that... what I abhor is how their families suffered for it. I'm all about the women and children, as you have seen consistently. Clairwhat a hypocritical ego seeker you are by all this greasy arguments you bring out, non of which makes sense except for you. you start a topic on wounded knee were hundreds of women and children got killed, of a poor minneconjou band with almost no arms, ready to go back to the agency. you try to blame the indians for it all over the topic, even sitting bull or whoever and you try to have this horrible event classified as NO war crime, and if it was it was a war crime, it was the fault of the indians (you said it all over the previous pages) and now you start playing the nice guy weeping for the poor children pfffffffffffffffffffffffffff
|
|
|
Post by conz on May 19, 2009 14:38:42 GMT -6
Czyhrs...
I agree, and we dealt with them as separate bands. In most campaigns, the Army had Warriors fighting with them from the same tribe that they were fighting against...just different bands, at war with each other.
Yes, and smart Warriors listened to them. <g> Most of the surrenders, I believe, came from the influence of the women and mothers, not from Warriors who were "tired" of fighting. These men went to the rez with their families, that influenced them to do so.
For some reason, Sitting Bull and Crazy Horse resisted the call of their women to surrender...care to conjecture as to why they held out, when MOST leaders went to the rez?
Eh...not quite as bad as you portray. You could not "beat" your wife and usually get away with it. Remember that Crook angered the Apache for forcing them to stop beating their wives? It was a big deal. I do know that in the Army, you did NOT beat your wife in that day...officers would get cashiered from the Service if they abused their wives in the 1860s and 70s. There was a code of conduct, chivalry, and honor, especially toward women.
The relationship between a Soldier and his wife, and a Warrior and his wife/wives, was a very different thing. It would be very interesting to explore that in a thread, if anyone here is capable of that. I can take the one part, but the other...would just be a lot of guesswork. But we could quote out of "experts" histories. <g>
Or that woman could have her nose cut off, or a cuckholded husband might murder the transgressor. Remember the Crazy Horse trouble? Not as easy as you imply, here...
LOL...now your are stereotyping ME. Very dangerous. I believe Indian women and men could love each other very deeply, as much as any Western couple. No difference in depth of love, I think.
That's a good recommendation, and from a good source, I think. I'll put those on my list.
Actually, I am more ignorant about the differences between Indians and Americans than I am about how they are the same. I usually assume too much that our peoples were alike...what I need to study more is the ways that they were different.
Clair
|
|
|
Post by Melani on May 20, 2009 10:57:09 GMT -6
I get the impression that there were different standards for officers and enlisted men for social behavior. It is certainly true that women had very few rights in the 19th century. Libbie had trouble making a living because of the social standards of the time--suppose she had, say, tried to open some kind of retail business, based on her knowledge of what was really needed and wanted by families on Western Army posts--that would most certainly have been frowned upon, primarily because of her social status, but also because any woman in business would be considered unfeminine.
And then there was Wallingford, who was court-martialed for "publicly consorting with enlisted men" and "notorious prostitutes and lewd women." The "enlisted men" part was Army regs for purposes of discipline, of course, but I don't really think anybody cared too much if an enlisted man consorted with prostitutes, as long as it didn't get out of hand or contagious. And single officers like Keogh and Tom Custer were certainly getting together with somebody, probably not the nice girls who came to visit Miss Libbie, but if they were discreet, they didn't get into trouble over it. Wallingford's problem was doing it openly.
The difference in Indian society, as I see it, is that there was a lot less social stratification. Influence in the tribe was more for merit than heredity--Jack Red Cloud was ridiculed for wearing his daddy's warbonnet, full of feathers he hadn't earned. Also, in a subsistence society, everybody had responsibilities that were part of the group's survival strategy, which made the women's work more obviously important. A woman could get her nose cut and her husband might kill her lover, but she owned the tipi and could also throw her husband out of it. I might be suffering under a misapprehension, but I get the impression that women had more equal rights to men in Indian society than in white.
|
|
|
Post by wolfgang911 on Aug 9, 2009 15:46:01 GMT -6
People who are so easily drawn into violence usually get what they deserve...live by the sword, die by the sword, we say. Clair and many more great quotes may your words be remembered hereafter holy what did we do to deserve such opinions in 2009
|
|