|
|
Post by joewiggs on Jul 6, 2013 11:04:04 GMT -5
Several of the warriors who were engaged in the battle assert that the soldiers (many of them) appeared drunk and, subsequently, killed themselves. These stories, for the most part, have been disregarded as nonsensical innuendo.
However, it appears that mass deaths associated with war is much more preferrable than an individual, slow and gruesome individual death to the human (white) psyche.
This notion is evident by the otherwise inexplicable lack of discussion concerning the horrible, mass deaths that occurred during the Civil War by local Newspapers of that era.
Why?
"The apprehension of an escruciating death was such that officers on the frontier might feel no shame in resolving to commit suicide if all hope was lost rather than allow themselves to fall in the hands of the Indians."Marquis, keep The Last Bullet for Yourself."
Methinks that the Indian particpants may have had a valid point!
|
|
|
|
Post by joewiggs on Jul 12, 2013 20:23:04 GMT -5
Indians are individual fighters;this does not mean that 1,000 warriors will attack an enemy in 1,000 different directions in an Helter skelter of confusion. What it does mean is that each individual warrior did not need a "leader" to lead him to ensure that his performance was proper when facing the most hazardous of battle conditions.
Now a warrior would often fellow a "leader" he respected into battle and, upon arrival, fought as he felt was best. However, specific "directions" to fight where not utilized other than a general plan that encompassed a directive of preservation of the women, children, and old folks.
The American trooper, on the other hand, did not (as a practice) engage in this type of warfare. Every movement of the soldier was orchestrated by a "leader" (officer) whose responsibility was to address a combat situation, evaluate the "pros' and "cons" then issue the command to counter the enemies movement. This does not, of course, negate the reality that there were some individual soldiers who were capable of individualistic efforts;it simply was not the norm.
In the military of 1876, what fatal occurrence was probable when the military leader (cpl.,sgt.,Capt.,Colonel.,etc.) succumbs to the terror and violence he confronts in combat and is thus rendered unable to lead? The entire martial system predicated upon specific military "commands" may fall apart and total chaos may be created.
Lost, unnerved-nerved, confused, terrified and, most importantly, bereft of leadership the individual soldier thinks and acts individually. Seeking individual safety over the safety of the "Unit", men run and, as they run they succumb to panic even more.
Under those conditions and embed with the frontier philosophy of "Save the last bullet for yourself" some of the soldiers may have did exactly that;or so I believe is possible.
|
|
|
|
Post by stumblingbear on Jul 13, 2013 14:42:05 GMT -5
If the soldiers were so scared of being tortured to death they had a very good reason to be. Sometimes we forget about the horrible things the soldiers did when they attacked villages. Women and children were indiscriminately killed. The Indian survivors would have long remembered these acts and would have been very anxious to return the favor.
Both sides often committed horrible acts of war. The difference being, I think, is that the Indian would not surrender or expect mercy. From what I have read, several soldiers in the battle of the Little Big Horn did.
|
|
|
|
Post by joewiggs on Jul 14, 2013 11:36:01 GMT -5
Another philosophical point that may have come to play is that white society may have become a victim of its own hype. How so? In, order to pave the wave of allowing your military to exterminate an enemy, dehumanizing of the enemy is required. Psychologically speaking, it is much easier to kill your for when you are preconditioned to view the foe as a sub-human and/or inferior.
In order to resolve the "Indian Problem" military leaders and government officials promoted an induced a societal philosophy that all Indians were inherently stupid, dirty, savage, blood thirsty, killers that couldn't wait to raid,pillage and eat little children. When the Indians killed to protect their way of life and to protect their families, these acts were perceived at "horrific" when whites were killed in the process. Is it any wonder then that poor green recruits were thrust into confronting this "heathen" on his first mission completely fell apart and plead for mercy during the heat of battle? I think not.
American soldiers,historically, perform well when the cause is an ethical one such as defending their Country and way of life.
at the very least, the tendency of the military to single out and blame one "commander" with the total responsibility of failure for does not seem as prevalent as it was in the Indian wars!
|
|
|
|
Post by whitebull on Jul 14, 2013 18:52:21 GMT -5
Joe, I kind of see the point you are making but I just can't see that what all you say is on the money and, all of what you say is right. The Indians were already very violent and mean. No one had to teach them to be that way. They were rough, not just to the white man, but each other to. The way I see it is they were just mean and ornery probably because of the way they lived, the conditions of their life style was hard..
You talk about how the white man was mean and guilty of doing so many wrongs to other Indians that they couldn't help but be what they were. Don't that statement spell out the meanness that was already in their hearts and lives?
No one should treat anybody else in a way they wouldn't want to be treated themselves. That's in the Golden Rule. It's also true that some people are just plain mean and willing to do anything they have to do to get their way.
The battle of Sand Creek was not right in that Indians were shot down without being able to defend themselves. I agree with that. But, i got to say it. If the Indians had obeyed the law of the land Sand Creek would have never happened!
I
|
|
|
|
Post by stumblingbear on Jul 14, 2013 19:02:14 GMT -5
WB, how about remembering the first "Thanksgiving" when the "savages" kept the new colonies alive with food and help!
|
|
|
|
Post by joewiggs on Jul 15, 2013 7:30:51 GMT -5
Joe, I kind of see the point you are making but I just can't see that what all you say is on the money and, all of what you say is right. The Indians were already very violent and mean. No one had to teach them to be that way. They were rough, not just to the white man, but each other to. The way I see it is they were just mean and ornery probably because of the way they lived, the conditions of their life style was hard.. You talk about how the white man was mean and guilty of doing so many wrongs to other Indians that they couldn't help but be what they were. Don't that statement spell out the meanness that was already in their hearts and lives? No one should treat anybody else in a way they wouldn't want to be treated themselves. That's in the Golden Rule. It's also true that some people are just plain mean and willing to do anything they have to do to get their way. The battle of Sand Creek was not right in that Indians were shot down without being able to defend themselves. I agree with that. But, i got to say it. If the Indians had obeyed the law of the land Sand Creek would have never happened! I I see your point as well W.B. However (you knew there would be) when the Law of the Land is designed and implemented to destroy your chosen way of life and your very spiritual beliefs it becomes oppressive and an intolerable way of life. |
|
|
|
Post by whitebull on Jul 21, 2013 18:35:52 GMT -5
WB, how about remembering the first "Thanksgiving" when the "savages" kept the new colonies alive with food and help! Well yes i will remember! I'll also remember the women and children who were scalped while still alive too!. Talk about a close shave, a little bit to close if you ask me!  |
|
|
|
Post by whitebull on Jul 26, 2013 19:45:41 GMT -5
SB, when people get in your way of living, you forget about the "good" times and take care of the bad! Sorry.
|
|
|
|
Post by joewiggs on Aug 19, 2013 11:39:24 GMT -5
History perfectly reflects your sordid sentiment WB! When gold was found "in dem dar hills" they were instantaneously doomed to the faith that eventually reached them;death and/or harsh reservations!
|
|
|
|
Post by stumblingbear on Aug 20, 2013 10:42:00 GMT -5
Fighting has always been with us. A friend of mine said to me, along time ago, that when the first caveman, "Picked up a mastodon bone to kill an animal for food, it used the same bone to kill his neighbor to take what was not his!"
Along with the human progress in technology, wanting another man's property such as gold kept right up in the race for madness.
|
|
|
|
Post by joewiggs on Aug 23, 2013 15:28:20 GMT -5
Your friend was right on the money S.B! I've always been a proponent for the theory that man's inhumanity to man is a norm and not an aberration of the species!
For they who may doubt this revelation, simply read the headlines of every major news publication in America!
|
|
|
|
Post by whitebull on Oct 10, 2013 13:41:22 GMT -5
Back in the day it was just to easy to take land away from the Indians not to do it. No body else stood up for them either. you didn't hear any of the Europeans country's hollering about the wrongness of what the United states was doing.
Because of a total lack of caring, the rich bureaucrats got all that they wanted and the Indians got shafted!
|
|
|
|
Post by joewiggs on Oct 12, 2013 17:38:38 GMT -5
You know, when Americans finally accept some of the immorality of our "westward" advancement and, remit honest retribution to those who suffered as a result of this movement, the better we will feel about ourselves. Also, how foreign Countries view us will be greatly enhanced as well.
History will also be affected in a positive way. Men who fought in this battle may be viewed in a much more positive light. The true understanding and application of mental debilitation under combat stress will enable the student to see this battle in a different and, much more credible light.
|
|
|
|
Post by joewiggs on Nov 28, 2013 20:29:41 GMT -5
SB, when people get in your way of living, you forget about the "good" times and take care of the bad! Sorry. You only forget for a short time or you become a little less than human.  |
|
