|
Post by conz on May 10, 2009 6:21:38 GMT -6
Moral and legal issues are pervasive in any discussion of dealings between the Native Americans and the Europeans. Here is a section where those interested in exploring the moral considerations of their interactions can play...
As reflected in other threads, there are many levels of morality that can be considered...
...the whole issue of whether it was moral, or not, for the Europeans to come to America in the first place. Does this make everything done thereafter automatically immoral, or just wrong in your eyes?
...whether the Army, or government leaders, acted in illegal or immoral ways toward the Natives.
...whether the Native American leaders acted immorally or illegally toward the Europeans or Americans they encountered.
...what individual acts by Warriors or Soldiers could be considered immoral or illegal, and what should be done to them as a result?
Was there a more moral way to deal with these issues that would better mankind, overall? Or better the Americans themselves?
Clair
|
|
|
Post by wolfgang911 on May 10, 2009 17:02:58 GMT -6
Who cares about moral and legal & what the heck you're suggesting again. Who care about moral immoral if 1.00000.00000000.000000000 buffalo get exterminated and the remnants of the most florishing horsemen culture ever get stuck on lousy reservations leaving their dear fine lands yes several states wasted to a couple of thousand of ranchers and some stupid tourist stateparks.
Anyway if your discussion as always turns around "is scalping moral and legal" : YES to any tresspassor that takes my homeland and runs through my lodges on american horses.
|
|
|
Post by conz on May 11, 2009 11:22:18 GMT -6
That's fine...you won't change my mind.
I just want to understand why you think the way that you do, and others here, as well. Each of us will have a somewhat different take on the "good and bad" of relations between the Native and newcoming Americans.
I admire your fascination and reverence for Native American culture...nothing wrong with that.
Just watch your blood pressure when you learn about my perspectives on this...it can't be healthy for you!
Clair
|
|
|
Post by conz on May 11, 2009 11:24:23 GMT -6
As for why this is important...
Americans are involved with other peoples around the globe these days. I am a member of the military team affecting global events, but Americans in other government and nongovernment organizations are dealing with other cultures more than ever.
It would help us to understand today's world if we better understand our past dealings with other cultures.
Clair
|
|
|
Post by wolfgang911 on May 12, 2009 14:38:55 GMT -6
I'm in deep reverence to indian culture and civilisation indeed. Our civilisation has brougth poverty and misery to 70% of the planet, bringing the planet in great danger, whilst 25% is living nerdy lives in front of computer screens dreaming of the soap luxury life of the 5% that behold the cards of wealth. I'm not an Indian lover as a race of superior beings though : there were as much, or even more betrayors, suckers, cowards, carreerseekers among them, even the fierce sioux. Always a local judas to turn in a indian jesus. Your debate on moral or legal has no sense. It is just the survival of the fittest and the laws of number and technologic advance that apply. The whole US army staff would be hanged for war crimes if tecumseh had won. Just liek in Minnesota. Depends who wins what is legal. The powerful whites outnumbered the decimated red man by smallpox, him being a far superior warrior as an individual, raised as such since a boy. The survival of the fittest through number and technical knowledge will not bring as anywhere farther then the dinosaurs, to extinction. But before that we will be replaced by legal and moral laws of new groups of people coming from the east and south taking over europe and america in shorter time we imagine. Whites already have gone from 30 to 15% of the world population in only 50 years. That is faster shrinking then the red man in any state. ![;)](//storage.proboards.com/forum/images/smiley/wink.png) If the laws go by number, no bright future for none of us ![:-X](//storage.proboards.com/forum/images/smiley/lipssealed.png) : in this i'm sure we agree. ;D You're an illegal immoral white pretty soon who will find out too late that those damn' indians had pretty much in common with the tribes of europe before bureaucracy, you black knight ![8-)](//storage.proboards.com/forum/images/smiley/cool.png)
|
|
|
Post by conz on May 12, 2009 20:09:59 GMT -6
I'm in deep reverence to indian culture and civilisation indeed. I am too, in many ways. Very true. Not sure about numbers...as societies sure, but societies didn't eliminate the Natives on the Plains...the Army did. And the Army was always outnumbered by the Warriors in any campaign, and most every battle. So I don't think you have a case here. As for technology, I think it is better to say "organization" and "education." They had weaponry similar to ours at the small level. But we had organizational skills, transportation technology and skills, and logistics and supply abilities that certainly overwhelmed their ability to make much of a resistance. That, combined with organizational leadership and training allowed our small combat units to outfight and, in the long haul, outmaneuver the tribal forces in every single campaign but one...that of Red Cloud in '68. He is the only one that ever beat us in an overall campaign/war. Well, that won't really affect Americans, because we are already such a melting pot, anyway. We are really an amalgamation of cultures, and we simply absorb each new wave and keep being something uniquely American. So we aren't really worried...we rather enjoy the immigration, as long as it is steady enough to be assimilated. LOL...like I said, I'm not worried. Having grown up in the Army, and myself being part French, German, and English, I'm used to a multi-cultural mix of all genetic human groups and their cultures. That was the best thing about growing up in the Army...everyone was just "green," at least by the time I was born. <g> America gets stronger with each new culture it absorbs, not weaker. We revel in it. Se la vie! <sp?> Clair
|
|
|
Post by wolfgang911 on May 13, 2009 6:32:34 GMT -6
I'm in deep reverence to indian culture and civilisation indeed. I am too, in many ways. GREAT!!!!! eliminate the Natives on the Plains...the Army did. And the Army was always outnumbered by the Warriors in any campaign, and most every battle. So I don't think you have a case here. BULLSHIT Clair. If the Lakota or the Apache lost 10 men they had to wait 25 years to have new skilled warriors. Chiefs had to be very carefull with their numbers. One of the reasons your so great red cloud and spotted tail & C° blew the whole game withhelding a 1000 from the most important fights. The mighiest tribe of all before 1850, the Blackfeet, did not even bother fighting the US because decimated by smallpox. If all these tribes (mandan) were still around in their full there would be no reservations but an indian state is my opinion The US army just had to go to the East Coast on any harbour to enroll illiterated poor fellows that just came in. You like the melting pot, I don't. In fact it was a decoy to see if you were with the youtube cavalrymen. Anyway the melting does not happen, except for the poor indians that match europeans. We will all melt to nothing. Coexisting comunities with their own cultures and religions for the best all voting for their president. Your president will be hispanic in 10 years. This pot has the indians at the low level with nothing left of language and alive culture. That is what happens if you make people dependant. Hey we had some agreeing in this post! congratulations to us. ;D
|
|
|
Post by conz on May 13, 2009 7:16:07 GMT -6
Would you care to make a campaign by campaign survey of the military forces engaged? Do you think many would contain more Soldiers than Warriors? No...it would not...maybe not a single campaign.
The vast majority of the Indians Wars, and the vast majority of battles in those wars, were fought with superior numbers of Warriors to Soldiers. Yet the Soldiers won most every battle and every campaign, with much fewer numbers.
Anybody want to challenge this fact?
One of the keys to a successful melting pot is to not introduce radically new cultures too much, too quickly. This is your problem in western Europe with the Muslim culture coming in. I sympathize with you.
We have a large Mexican and South American culture adding to our existing Latino culture here that disturbs some American citizens, but it can't compare to your problem, and we're handling it pretty well. I'm still trying to learn Spanish, so I can talk to our local farm workers. <g>
And I'm sure she will be a fine one! I just hope she is a conservative Republican. <g>
A good part of our Native population is at the lower standard of living in our society, along with many other minorities. In Kentucky, though, we have a pretty poor white Appalacian community, too, and a struggling African American community.
All these minorities, including the Natives, also have a vibrant middle class too, and overall, all our minorities are better off than most peoples of the world, or even Europe. So we have not too much to be ashamed of. We can do better, and will keep trying to raise EVERYONEs standard of living here. It's a big country, though.
But we aren't afraid of our minorities, or our immigrants. They are actually our strength, not our threat.
Clair
Sure...I don't argue just for the sake of argument. <g> I'm sure we have plenty in common that we can agree on, and plenty to debate as well.
Enjoy, Clair
|
|
|
Post by crzhrs on May 13, 2009 11:11:21 GMT -6
<The vast majority of the Indians Wars, and the vast majority of battles in those wars, were fought with superior numbers of Warriors to Soldiers>
Generalizing again:
Battle of Fallen Timbers: 3,000 US . . . 1,500 Warriors
Battle of Tippecanoe: 1,100 US . . . 1,000 Warriors
Battle of Wood Lake: 1,619 US . . . 700-1,200 Warriors
Sand Creek: 800 US (militia) . . . 800 TOTAL . . . no definate numbers of warriors, but must be far less than US forces
Powder River: 300 US . . . 225 Warriors
Rosebud: 1,300 US . . . 800-1,000 Warriors
Slim Buttes: 1,000 US . . . 600-800 Warriors
Dull Knife Fight: 1,000 US . . . 400 Warriors
Cedar Creek: 398 US . . . 300 Warriors
Clearwater: 350 US . . . 300 Warriorss
Big Hole: 206 US . . . 200 Warriors
Bear Paw: 520 US . . . 200 Warriors
Wounded Knee: 1,500 US . . . 120 Warriors
So it was not always the Indians who had the numbers. In many cases the US forces were substantially higher than the Indians.
|
|
|
Post by conz on May 15, 2009 10:19:40 GMT -6
It was the policy of the US government from the foundation of the state to remove the Indian from his lands. Yes, in many cases, or to just restrict them to a small portion of the land they ranged on when we found them. It was also the policy of the Sioux people, from the foundation of their mounted empire, to remove the Crow and Assibone from their lands, of course. Same thing? There was not one single "peaceful" tribe in all the Americas, so it is hard to consider any fate they would have had had they existed. But yes, how the Sioux were treated by the Americans is identical to how the Americans treated every Native American tribe it encountered on the continent...none were different, overall. Nobody was singling out the Sioux...the Americans were very consistent. That is correct...both sides attempted to live with each other, and BOTH sides failed. It wasn't all one way, except in result...the European immigrants always won. All true, but what is your point? They could not live together, so there were only two choices: 1) They could be moved, with great sorrow and difficulty. 2) They could be exterminated to the last man, woman, and child. The Americans chose the more moral and humane course, so the Cherokees could be alive, today. Which would YOU choose...there was NO other besides the above...they had already tried anything else. First, it is not disingenuous to blame things the Sioux should be blamed for, regardless of anything we can blame Americans for. Because Americans were cruel and heartless, this means the Sioux are blameless for their fate? Sorry...not in my court. Second, no Sioux lands were given to Americans for Revolutionary service, to my knowledge. That was the problem of some eastern tribes, but not the old Northwestern ones, unless I missed something. Anyway, for those tribes that supported the losing British side in that war, they deserved to lose their lands, didn't they? What do you think happens when you lose a war, anyway? Clair
|
|
|
Post by crzhrs on May 15, 2009 10:54:44 GMT -6
<There was not one single "peaceful" tribe in all the Americas, so it is hard to consider any fate they would have had had they existed.>
Careful with the generalizations . . . peaceful in what manner? To each other? To the Whites?
I don't think most American cared less whether Indians killed each other.
Most of the California Indians were never violent towards Whites, especially the "Mission Indians" and there were various other smaller tribes that never committed acts of violence towards Whites.
<But yes, how the Sioux were treated by the Americans is identical to how the Americans treated every Native American tribe it encountered on the continent...none were different, overall. Nobody was singling out the Sioux...the Americans were very consistent>
That's a damning policy White America towards all Indians, regardless of being peaceful or not whether during the pre-Colonial period, Colonial period or once America became Independent.
|
|
|
Post by conz on May 15, 2009 11:21:27 GMT -6
<The vast majority of the Indians Wars, and the vast majority of battles in those wars, were fought with superior numbers of Warriors to Soldiers> Generalizing again: Allright! It is a good generalization, but we will find some exceptions (that will rather prove the rule). Good effort, but let me check your figures for accuracy. First, I'm going to check numbers against my own library. Then I'll ensure that you only count combat Soldiers versus Warriors...you can't count the noncombatant Soldiers that perform the duties that squaws in the tribes perform, right? So let's go... My reference says 2,000 Soldiers against 1,500 Warriors, but that Soldier force includes support troops that didn’t fight, and all the Warriors fought. So this is about even…certainly no “superiority of numbers” we are looking for, like the Warriors were really outnumbered. “Harrison marched from Vincennes with 900 men…” and since we can’t accurately count the Warriors, this looks to be about an even fight, too. “Due to dissention, Chief Little Crow could gather only 740 warriors to stay and fight.” So there were a lot more than that…probably close to your higher number. Here I agree that the U.S. Soldiers on this campaign substantially outnumbered the hostile Warriors. It was the Civil War, and these were all mobilized volunteers, not Regular Army, with the largest military force the United States has every mobilized, before or after, in our history (per capita). So this is a good exception, for a very specific reason…the Civil War. There were no “U.S.” forces at Sand Creek…only state militia forces, as you point out. Actual fighters were about 600 Soldiers, according to Michno. With about 120 lodges, we might assume about 240 Warriors here. Again, a good, and rare, example of where Soldiers outnumbered the Warriors. And again, for the same reason…they were militia forces raised during the Civil War. If you mean the 7th Cavalry’s 1873 action, there were FAR more Warriors in the area than the 225 you are counting here. There were probably a couple thousand within a day’s ride. We have to count the total available, not the number that actually shot at each other. So I can’t accept this one…for the whole campaign, the Warriors of the various tribes of Sitting Bull, Crazy Horse, Two Moons, and others, FAR outnumbered the Soldiers on that expedition up the Yellowstone. Same with all these fights…that the Cavalry were able to jump on a small portion of the hostiles in the area to gain a momentary advantage in numbers is just good tactics. In all these cases, though, the Warriors in the theater of operations that were hostile, not to count the non-hostiles which were much more, far outnumbered the Soldiers in the region. Point being…the Warriors were not defeated because they were outnumbered by the Soldiers on any campaign. They WERE out-generaled many times, to be sure, as your numbers here testify. For Rosebud, I’d count 1,000 Soldiers (a bit less actual fighters) and 800 Warriors (always best guesses). For Slim Buttes, there were three fights involved in this, and most of the Cavalry was on foot, not mounted. For the initial day of the specific battle, Mills 130 Troopers drove off about 70 Lakota Warriors, and then were attacked by about 200 more Sioux who came to their aid, and drove them off, too. So the Soldiers were outnumbered. Later, when Crook’s main column came up, he left a small rear guard that held off Crazy Horse’s much more numerous Sioux who came to the rescue. Soldiers still outnumbered. Michno: “With the entire 5th Infantry, 15 officers and 434 enlisted men…” That equates to about 350 actual Soldiers in the ranks. For opposition: Sitting Bull, with nearly 300 warriors perched on an nearby hill watching…[at the main Indian camp], 900 warriors were there to confront the advance, but their hearts were not in the fight.” So the Soldiers were outnumbered 3:1 in this day’s fight. I agree with these numbers. The U.S. force may have been a little bigger with an unknown number of local militia. So forces are about the same…no real numerical superiority by the Soldiers…but the Soldiers are NOT outnumbered, at least. The Warrior count was probably higher…closer to 300. At any rate, forces are about equal, although there were only about 150 Regulars in this figure…the rest were pretty worthless civilian militia. So technically, the Soldiers were outnumbered. The result rather shows that, too. <g> Michno has less than 400 Soldiers, and probably only 350 were fighters. The Nez P. here probably had closer to 300 Warriors. So I believe the Soldiers were outnumbered here. I think you mean 500 Soldiers against those 120 Warriors, don’t you? Evenso, yes, I agree that the Soldiers greatly outnumbered the Warriors here. There are a few cases here where Soldiers may have outnumbered the Warriors, and I think you covered the likely suspects well, among the HUNDREDS of actions we could survey. So I think the correct spin is that “once in a great while” the Soldiers, usually not Regular Soldiers though, outnumbered the Warriors in a particular fight. Never in an entire campaign did the number of American Soldiers outnumber the number of Warriors that could potentially oppose them. Usually, the Soldiers were GREATLY outnumbered by Native combat power. Lack of organization, and dissension between Native leaders, sometimes caused a disparity in numbers in particular battles, but not that often. Usually, the Soldiers were fighting slightly to greatly outnumbered, and usually winning. So I’d say my generalization, as a generalization, but more than that…even a rule of thumb, is right on accurate. Always glad to talk facts, and especially what those facts really mean. Clair
|
|
|
Post by conz on May 15, 2009 11:29:14 GMT -6
Careful with the generalizations . . . peaceful in what manner? To each other? To the Whites? I don't think most American cared less whether Indians killed each other. Yes, they DID care. The Americans were not about to live next to tribes that warred against each other. Not only were Natives required not to kill whites, but they were required not to kill each other, too. They could not exist on the continent if they warred with each other...the Americans would move to prevent that, whether they killed any Americans, or not. I don't believe that there was a single Native American tribe that did not war with each other, almost constantly. Even the most peaceful fishing tribes had to defend their villages. If the tribes didn't war, they didn't survive...it was a harsh continent. Well, there is a quality of morality just in consistency, regardless of what you think that policy was. <g> I do think that, theoretically, it was possible for the Natives and the Euro immigrants to get along better. But I also don't think that either party was up to the job. So... Clair
|
|
|
Post by crzhrs on May 15, 2009 11:43:39 GMT -6
I think we are going to have problems with whose figures are correct and where they came from or it could be just no one is exactly sure of numbers, especially Indian numbers. The American numbers may be more in line due to the White Man's anal-ness for numbers, but then again sometimes numbers are always inflated or deflated depending on who won.
I just got more numbers:
Fallen Timbers: 1,600-1,700 regulars & 1,500 Kentucky militia vs. 1,000 warriors. (Source: Toledo Metropark Web site)
Battle of Wood Lake: 1,500 US vs. 700 warriors (American Battlefield Protection Program)
And I'm sure if we dig into other battles the numbers will be contradictory.
In the end it's going to be hard to determine any numbers as we have found out with just how many Indians were at the LBH and the size of the village.
|
|
|
Post by conz on May 15, 2009 13:44:26 GMT -6
I think we are going to have problems with whose figures are correct and where they came from or it could be just no one is exactly sure of numbers, especially Indian numbers. The American numbers may be more in line due to the White Man's anal-ness for numbers, but then again sometimes numbers are always inflated or deflated depending on who won. I just got more numbers: Fallen Timbers: 1,600-1,700 regulars & 1,500 Kentucky militia vs. 1,000 warriors. (Source: Toledo Metropark Web site) Battle of Wood Lake: 1,500 US vs. 700 warriors (American Battlefield Protection Program) And I'm sure if we dig into other battles the numbers will be contradictory. In the end it's going to be hard to determine any numbers as we have found out with just how many Indians were at the LBH and the size of the village. That's very true, but just the looking into the numbers is a fun exercise. <g> To be sure the Warrior numbers are all good guesses, but whether they are typically low, or typically high, I get conflicting judgments on by historians. Some historians believe that reported Warrior numbers are usually too low, because of the Army's tendency to actually deflate guesses, rather than overestimate numbers, and also the Natives reluctance to give numbers, even if they knew them. But when they had to guess, the Natives usually give low numbers, for both Warriors present and certainly for casualties. Other historians say the Warrior numbers are inflated for the usual reason that the American would guess high to make their case look better, for the Army to get more troops authorized, and the Natives would estimate high to impress the whites and to get more rations in headcounts. I can't tell one way or the other...the only way to try to get at it is to go case by case with what scanty evidence is at hand. Then when you want to compare "combat power," which is usually why we study these figures at all, you have to take out all the noncombatant Soldiers, which can be from 10% of the force in small units, to 30% of the force in larger expeditions. They don't fight Indians, while Warrior figures usually include just combatants. Clair
|
|