December 26, 1862 - The largest public mass execution ever in the United States took place

[Omaha Steve]

http://www.workdayminnesota.org/index.php?history_9_12_26_2010

December 26, 1862 - The largest public mass execution ever in the United States took place in Mankato, Minnesota, when the U.S. military hung 38 Dakota men for their part in the "Sioux Outbreak" that began in August of that year. Every year, Native Americans commemorate the tragedy with a memorial run from Fort Snelling to Mankato, followed by a pipe ceremony to honor their ancestors.

[Lucinda]

1. I didn't know that. TY!

:hi:

[asjr]

2. Never in my school history books was

that mentioned--ever. And as a rule bad news travels fast. That was shameful. Maybe that is why it was never mentioned.

[hfojvt]

3. those Lakota tried to burn down New Ulm

August 23, 1862 - 34 settlers were killed. Something like 300-800 settlers were killed in that war.

Yes, "let them eat grass".

On Sunday, August 17, 1862 four young Dakota Sioux were out hunting. What happened next, according to Big Eagle, a Dakota chief (pictured at right), follows

"You know how the war started -- by the killing of some white people near Acton, in Meeker county. I will tell you how this was done, as it was told me by all of the four young men who did the killing. These young fellows all belonged to Shakopee's band. Their names were Sungigidan ("Brown Wing"), Ka-om-de-i-ye-ye-dan ("Breaking Up'), Nagi-we-cak-te ("Killing Ghost"), and Pa-zo-i-yo-pa ('Runs against Something when Crawling'). I do not think their names have ever before been printed. One of them is yet living. They told me they did not go out to kill white people. They said they went over to the Big Woods to hunt: that on Sunday, Aug. 17, they came to a settler's fence, and here they found a hen's nest with some eggs in it. One of them took the eggs, when another said: "Don't take them, for they belong to a white man and we may get into trouble." The other was angry, for he was very hungry and wanted to eat the eggs, and he dashed them to the ground and replied: "You are a coward. You are afraid of the white man. You are afraid to take even an egg from him, though you are half-starved. Yes, you are a coward, and I will tell everybody so." The other replied. "I am not a coward. I am not afraid of the white man, and to show you that I am not I will go to the house and shoot him. Are you brave enough to go with me?" The one who had called him a coward said: "Yes, I will go with you, and we will see who is the braver of us two." Their companions then said: "We will go with you, and we will be brave, too." They all went to the house of the white man (Mr. Robinson Jones), but he got alarmed and went to another house (that of his son-in-law, Howard Baker where were some other white men and women (Jones, Baker, a Mr. Webster, Mrs. Jones and a girl of fourteen).

The four went into the Baker house (shown in the sketch above), killed the occupants, took a wagon and team of horses, and went back to their village where they told what they had done. Big Eagle continued:

The tale told by the young men created the greatest excitement. Everybody was waked up and heard it. Shakopee took the young men to Little Crow's house (two miles above the agency), and he sat up in bed and listened to their story. He said war was now declared. Blood had been shed, the payment would be stopped, and the whites would take a dreadful vengeance because women had been killed. Wabasha, Wacouta, myself and others still talked for peace, but nobody would listen to us, and soon the cry was "Kill the whites and kill all these cut-hairs who will not join us." A council was held and war was declared. Parties formed and dashed away in the darkness to kill settlers. The women began to run bullets and the men to clean their guns."

[Omaha Steve]

5. We took their land and never kept the treaties our government negotiated in bad faith

I'm 1/4 Cherokee. My First American ancestors escaped the trail of tears. Look up what President Jackson did with Indian removal. Tell us what the settlers did first to start the reprisals. Killings were rampant by the white men. To bad Thanksgiving wasn't a massacre instead.


http://ngeorgia.com/history/nghisttt.html


Painting by Robert Lindneux
Woolaroc Museum

Between 1790 and 1830 the population of Georgia increased six-fold. The western push of the settlers created a problem. Georgians continued to take Native American lands and force them into the frontier. By 1825 the Lower Creek had been completely removed from the state under provisions of the Treaty of Indian Springs. By 1827 the Creek were gone.

Cherokee had long called western Georgia home. The Cherokee Nation continued in their enchanted land until 1828. It was then that the rumored gold, for which De Soto had relentlessly searched, was discovered in the North Georgia mountains.

In his book Don't Know Much About History, Kenneth C. Davis writes:

Hollywood has left the impression that the great Indian wars came in the Old West during the late 1800's, a period that many think of simplistically as the "cowboy and Indian" days. But in fact that was a "mopping up" effort. By that time the Indians were nearly finished, their subjugation complete, their numbers decimated. The killing, enslavement, and land theft had begun with the arrival of the Europeans. But it may have reached its nadir when it became federal policy under President (Andrew) Jackson.

The Cherokees in 1828 were not nomadic savages. In fact, they had assimilated many European-style customs, including the wearing of gowns by Cherokee women. They built roads, schools and churches, had a system of representational government, and were farmers and cattle ranchers. A Cherokee alphabet, the "Talking Leaves" was perfected by Sequoyah.

In 1830 the Congress of the United States passed the "Indian Removal Act." Although many Americans were against the act, most notably Tennessee Congressman Davy Crockett, it passed anyway. President Jackson quickly signed the bill into law. The Cherokees attempted to fight removal legally by challenging the removal laws in the Supreme Court and by establishing an independent Cherokee Nation. At first the court seemed to rule against the Indians. In Cherokee Nation v. Georgia, the Court refused to hear a case extending Georgia's laws on the Cherokee because they did not represent a sovereign nation. In 1832, the U.S. Supreme Court ruled in favor of the Cherokee on the same issue in Worcester v. Georgia. In this case Chief Justice John Marshall ruled that the Cherokee Nation was sovereign, making the removal laws invalid. The Cherokee would have to agree to removal in a treaty. The treaty then would have to be ratified by the Senate.

FULL story at link.



http://www.pbs.org/wgbh/aia/part4/4p2959.html

Indian removal


Early in the 19th century, while the rapidly-growing United States expanded into the lower South, white settlers faced what they considered an obstacle. This area was home to the Cherokee, Creek, Choctaw, Chicasaw and Seminole nations. These Indian nations, in the view of the settlers and many other white Americans, were standing in the way of progress. Eager for land to raise cotton, the settlers pressured the federal government to acquire Indian territory.

Andrew Jackson, from Tennessee, was a forceful proponent of Indian removal. In 1814 he commanded the U.S. military forces that defeated a faction of the Creek nation. In their defeat, the Creeks lost 22 million acres of land in southern Georgia and central Alabama. The U.S. acquired more land in 1818 when, spurred in part by the motivation to punish the Seminoles for their practice of harboring fugitive slaves, Jackson's troops invaded Spanish Florida.

From 1814 to 1824, Jackson was instrumental in negotiating nine out of eleven treaties which divested the southern tribes of their eastern lands in exchange for lands in the west. The tribes agreed to the treaties for strategic reasons. They wanted to appease the government in the hopes of retaining some of their land, and they wanted to protect themselves from white harassment. As a result of the treaties, the United States gained control over three-quarters of Alabama and Florida, as well as parts of Georgia, Tennessee, Mississippi, Kentucky and North Carolina. This was a period of voluntary Indian migration, however, and only a small number of Creeks, Cherokee and Choctaws actually moved to the new lands.

In 1823 the Supreme Court handed down a decision which stated that Indians could occupy lands within the United States, but could not hold title to those lands. This was because their "right of occupancy" was subordinate to the United States' "right of discovery." In response to the great threat this posed, the Creeks, Cherokee, and Chicasaw instituted policies of restricting land sales to the government. They wanted to protect what remained of their land before it was too late.

Although the five Indian nations had made earlier attempts at resistance, many of their strategies were non-violent. One method was to adopt Anglo-American practices such as large-scale farming, Western education, and slave-holding. This earned the nations the designation of the "Five Civilized Tribes." They adopted this policy of assimilation in an attempt to coexist with settlers and ward off hostility. But it only made whites jealous and resentful.

Other attempts involved ceding portions of their land to the United States with a view to retaining control over at least part of their territory, or of the new territory they received in exchange. Some Indian nations simply refused to leave their land -- the Creeks and the Seminoles even waged war to protect their territory. The First Seminole War lasted from 1817 to 1818. The Seminoles were aided by fugitive slaves who had found protection among them and had been living with them for years. The presence of the fugitives enraged white planters and fueled their desire to defeat the Seminoles.


FULL article at link.

OS

[hfojvt]

8. what does Georgia have to do with Minnesota?

I find the treaties to be quite generous. When the Sioux took the Black Hills from the Kiowa, they didn't pay anything. Whereas, first our government would win a battle and then negotiate to purchase from the group they just defeated. How barbaric.

The Treaty of Mendota was made in 1851 and payments were made for 11 years, apparently. What would be going on in 1862 which would make payments difficult? Was there anything going on, which would strain their resources? 1862?

[kenfrequed]

58. Quite generous?

We stole most of the decent land from the Dakota, Lakota, and Annishinabeg here in Minnesota. Don't even pretend those treaties were "generous. We never held up our end of the deal, and the idea of them being "generous" to the Native peoples in the first place is laughable as the treaties were not supposed to EVER have been war concessions or surrenders to the white friggin conquerors.

The Indians traded their land for certain rights, privelages, materials, and resources that were supposed to be provided.

I think you need to go the hell back and study tribal law. And as far as the Civil war making things difficult, there wasn't even a reasonable attempt to deal honestly about this.

[hfojvt]

64. right, you seem to have some inside knowledge or something

It looks to me like we made payments for 11 years. "wasn't even a reasonable attempt" and you know this, how?

It sounds to me like it is an assumption. One that is based on something. Something revealed in the phrase "white frigging conquerors".

[kenfrequed]

74. Content.

As in deal with the content of what I have said and not the refutation point. Unless you believe that the reservations in Minnesota actually were conquests?

Wiki


http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sandy_Lake_Tragedy

Does that sound like a reasonable payment record to you?

[hfojvt]

78. Doesn't that mean you are just moving the refutation point?

Usually a treaty is the conclusion of a battle. I don't find any such battle before the 1851 treaties, except perhaps the Blackhawk war some 20 years earlier. The land presumably could have been taken by force, but was purchased instead.

The Sandy Lake Tragedy that you linked to says nothing about the payments made from the Treaty of Mendota or Traverse des Sioux which were the ones involved in the war the thread is about. Presumably there were 10 years of payments between the signing of the treaties in 1851 and the war in 1862.

[alfredo]

62. Read "Take the cannoli: stories from the New World" By Sarah Vowell

One of the stories is about the Trail of Tears.

Listen to it here, or download it for $.99. http://www.thisamericanlife.org/radio-archives/episode/107/trail-of-tears
she is part Cherokee.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sarah_Vowell

I highly recommend her "Assassination Vacation." It is about the assassinations of Lincoln, Garfield and McKinley. It's really well written.

[Odin2005]

19. Those settlers were taking Dakota land.

Kinda like how the Israelis are taking Palestinian land.

[hfojvt]

23. it was land that the Lakota had ceded and sold to the US

which then sold it to settlers.

Purchasing is not the same as taking.

Except, of course, like many people winning the lottery or otherwise getting large sums of money, it seems that the Native Americvans often got scammed by traders. Or at least they ended up feeling like they got scammed. I can see that happening. Trader bribes the government agent to get a no bid contract to sell supplies to the Native Americvans on credit. Charges high prices and bad interest rates and makes a ton of money from this deal. The Native Americvans , since they had given up their old hunting grounds and were not very proficient farmers were kinda stuck having to buy supplies at these high prices.

But it's also possible that the traders were mostly honest business people just making a little profit.

Then the Civil War starts. The US government is stretched for money and supplies. Payments to the Indians are late. The Native Americvans had a bad year for crops and thus did not have a good store of food. So they are hungry and feel ripped off.

Seems to me like a series of unfortunate events. It's too bad the Native Americans could not have gotten jobs in New Ulm or worked as farm hands. It's too bad that they had a bad year for crops. It's too bad that a war had to be fought to free slaves.

I can understand why the Native Americans would fight, but that does not make their choice into a good one - even for themselves. Nor do their legitimate complaints turn history into some kind of good guy-bad guy story with the whites playing the role of the bad guys.

[rhett o rick]

77. In this case "purchasing" was the same a stealing. The Native's knew nothing of ownership. Who

specifically "sold" the land? And did they "own" it. Your rationalization is pathetic.

[hfojvt]

79. well there are a few millions difference in this case

and that's in 1850s dollars. I give the Native Americans more credit for knowing what was going on.

I find the rationalizations for the murder of white settlers to be sorta strange, if not pathetic. Liberals are supposed to be upset, not when white settlers get massacred, but when those determined to be responsible for it are hanged? I can't really understand that point of view unless it is just a matter of sides, and liberals are supposed to be on the side of the Native Americans.

[rhett o rick]

83. Apparently you havent studied history. nm

[dflprincess]

33. They were not Lakota, they were Dakota.

There is a difference.

[Omaha Steve]

82. My brand of beer is brewed in New Ulm

Grain Belt. Now back to the spirited conversation.

http://www.grainbelt.com/home.php

[panader0]

4. Wounded Knee was basically an execution too.

Estimates run between 150 and 300 killed, men women and children.

[nosmokes]

6. thanks Steve. shared the article on facebook.

[PufPuf23]

7. Indian Island Massacre of the Wiyots

To avoid drawing attention from nearby Eureka residents, some of whom may not have condoned the genocidal killings, the attackers primarily used hatchets, clubs and knives. Contrary to a commonly held view, guns were used to murder Indians, according to Professor Jack Norton Sr.'s seminal book titled "Genocide in Northwestern California: When Our Worlds Cried." In fact, in that book, Norton said that some Eureka residents reported hearing several shots that night but knowledge of the genocidal acts were not widely known at the time.

Deaths
Based upon Wiyot Tribe estimates, 80 to 250 Wiyot men, women, and children were murdered. Because most of the adult able-bodied men were away gathering supplies as part of continuing preparation for the World Renewal Ceremony, nearly all the Wiyot men murdered are believed to have been older men, which is one reason why the Wiyot were largely defenseless. It is untrue to say the Wiyot were killed with ease because they were "exhausted from the annual celebration." The celebration usually lasted seven to 10 days, and the men traditionally left at night for the supplies while the elders, women and children slept. That is why most victims were children, women and elder men.

Survivors
There were few survivors. One woman, Jane Sam, survived by hiding in a trash pile. Two cousins, Matilda and Nancy Spear, hid with their three children on the west side of the island and later found seven other children still alive. A young boy, Jerry James, was found alive in his dead mother's arms. Polly Steve was badly wounded and left for dead, but recoverd. One of the few Wiyot men on the island during the attack, Mad River Billy, jumped into the bay and swam to safety in Eureka.<1> Another woman, Kaiquaish (also known as Josephine Beach) and her eleven month old son William survived by not being on the island in the first place. Kaiquaish had set out in a canoe with her son to take part in the ceremonies, but became lost in the fog and was forced to return home before the attacks began.<2>

Coordinated attacks
The Tuluwat/Indian Island massacre was part of a coordinated simultaneous attack that targeted other Wiyot sites around Humboldt Bay, including an encampment on the Eel River. Though the attack was widely condemned in newspapers outside of Humboldt County, no one was ever prosecuted for the murders.<3> One writer in nearby Union (now Arcata, California), the then-uncelebrated Bret Harte, wrote against the killers and would soon need to leave the area due to the threats against his life. Several local citizens also wrote letters to the San Francisco papers condemning the attacks and naming suspected conspirators.<4>.


http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/1860_Wiyot_Massacre

Jack Norton Sr.'s book titled "Genocide in Northwestern California: When Our Worlds Cried is hard to find and my understanding is that there is some sort of legal injunction that stopped any reprinting from the initial 1977 and 1979 hc and sc printings. The book names the guilty. Besides Indian Island there were three other Wiyot sites where people were massed for World Renewal ceremonies and massacred.

http://www.amazon.com/Genocide-northwestern-California-worlds-cried/dp/B0006CYZSK/ref=tmm_hrd_title_0?ie=UTF8&qid=1293394429&sr=1-1-spell

[Taitertots]

9. Sounds pretty fair for what they were guilty of doing

Burning down cities, murdering farmers, and looting. These people were war criminals.

[NNN0LHI]

10. How would you deal with occupiers coming here from China or Iran?

Would you collaborate with them or would you try to drive them out or something else?

Don

[Taitertots]

16. Couldn't occur under the same conditions that were present hundreds of years ago

So it is meaningless and is totally unrelated to the discussion.

Would you murder your neighbor if you were hungry?

[WinkyDink]

35. "Neighbor"?

[Taitertots]

39. What do you call the people who bought the land near where you live? n/t

[sabrina 1]

67. It's occurring in Iraq and Afghanistan and apparently Yemen and

Pakistan right now. And we are still calling those who resist the unlawful invasion of their countries 'terrorists'.

We are now following the example of the British Empire, installing puppet governments who answer to the Empire, killing and torturing anyone who resists.

Not much has changed in those hundreds of years.



Everything is relevant.

[kenfrequed]

72. OK... friggin aliens arrive

And some contingent of the leadership decides to hand over large tracts of land to them in exchange for some limited technology and a good deal of an alien narcotic. Unfortunately the land is yours and the aliens tend to take more land here and there... just small pieces at first but no big deal right. Your peoples portion gets smaller and smaller and when you attempt to assert your treaty rights that let you hunt and fish the aliens disintegrate you.

Is resistance justifiable?

[nadinbrzezinski]

14. You know it was not them invading their own lands

your terrrorist is somebody else's hero.

[dflprincess]

32. Actually, it was later found that several of the men hanged at Mankato

had actually attemped to help white settlers. Originally, 303 Dakota were to be executed but Lincoln commuted the sentences of most as he had serious doubts about how just the military tribunals had been.

Dee Brown in "Bury My Heart At Wounded Knee", did a chapter titled "Little Crow's War" that covers the "Dakota uprising" (as it was known in the state for a long time) very well.

My great-great grandfather's cousin was killed fighting to defend Ft. Ridgely. I always figured he had it coming.

[cowcommander]

11. So what do you want to do about it?

The whole country is stolen land from the Native Americans. What can we do now except mourn the past? We can't give the land back anymore.

[rhett o rick]

12. We cant undo but we can get the fuck out of Iraq and Afghanistan. nm

[swilton]

46. And Palestine!

[USMCMustang]

53. Palestine

They need their own state. When they kills innocents after that, it would be an act of war. If they get statehood, they lose the trump card and would be responsible for their actions and would have to actually govern themselves.

[rhett o rick]

75. And Japan and Germany, etc. nm

[nadinbrzezinski]

13. Learn from history, FOR ONCE

[Omaha Steve]

15. Improve the lives of the First Americans

Ever been on a reservation? I have. Alcohol, drugs, third rate education. No real way out.

[PufPuf23]

30. I graduated high school on a Reservation school. nt

[Omaha Steve]

45. Here is a link to help others in a reservation school

http://www.nrcprograms.org/site/MessageViewer?em_id=28504.0&dlv_id=33981

American Indian Education Foundation

Time is running out...

For your 2010 tax-deductible gift!

American Indian Education Foundation logo

Dear Friend,

This is a friendly reminder that the 2010 tax deadline is fast approaching. In order to receive a tax deduction on your generous year-end donation, you will need to make your online gift before midnight on Friday, December 31.

Please make your 2010 Year-End Gift now.

I’m also pleased to share some exciting news with you. Our Board of Directors has pledged to match every dollar donated* up to $75,000 — but only until the tax deadline of 12/31. That means your year-end gift will be matched dollar for dollar!

Please donate now. Many Native children and students from impoverished communities may not receive the tools they need to learn without our support — or without your help

Thank you for giving generously today. I appreciate your kindness and friendship. We all wish you much joy throughout this holiday season.

Gratefully,



Paula Long Fox
Chairperson

P.S. Don't forget, making a monthly gift is the best way to give. It is an easy way for you to make a significant contribution throughout the year and provides a steady, predictable source of income for our services.

Your receipt will be emailed promptly for your tax purposes. For your convenience, you can also contact our Donor Relations department at any time to get a full statement of your generous donations made to AIEF in 2010. Please call them toll-free at [phone] or send an email to [e-mail].

Forward this message to a Friend

P.O. Box 27491 | Albuquerque, NM 87125 | www.aiefprograms.org
A Program of National Relief Charities

[jwirr]

17. Most of this has yet to be acknowledged. That would be a start.

[provis99]

18. it was not stolen. It was won legitimately through battle.

[Odin2005]

21. So might is right?

:puke:

[provis99]

24. yes, it is. Just ask the Sioux's neighbors who lost wars to them.

All governments, even democratic ones, maintain their position through violence against the weak. The Nuremberg Trials cemented
the legitimacy of victor's justice.

"Vae victis" woe to the vanquished -Gallic conquerors of Rome
"Inter arma enim silent leges" In times of war, the laws fall silent -Cicero
"Right is only in dispute between equals, while the strong do what they will, and the weak suffer what they must"
"Quit quoting laws. We carry swords" -Pompey.

-ownership through conquest is the first law of international relations.

[Odin2005]

26. Conquest does not necessitate forcing them off their land.

The Romans did not annihilate the Gauls and drive then off their land when they conquered Gaul, or when the Spanish conquered the native peoples of Latin America. American settlers, on the other hand, literally drove the natives off their land.

And it still does not make it RIGHT.

The situation in the middle of North America was a violent mess in the wake of the collapse of the Mississippian civilization in 1500, that does make the added violence by technologically superior Europeans right.

[WinkyDink]

38. WHAT THE...?! By your logic, the Nazis at Nuremburg were the put-upon "weak."

The Roman Empire you are citing as a democracy?

"-ownership through conquest is the first law of international relations." ?????????????????????????????

[WinkyDink]

36. "Conquest" is not synonymous with "won legitimately through battle."

[fascisthunter]

48. so then thug has the right to take from you... got it

[Raoul]

55. I see

that the morons have populated this site once more..

[axollot]

61. yep. How's it going Raoul? You and your wife have a lovely holiday? n/t

[sofa king]

66. That's a load of horse shit, and your life sucks because you believe that.

First of all, "right of conquest" isn't even recognized as a legal defense in the United States.

Whatever territory we "won" from the tribes was still legally in the possession of the tribes until ceded by treaty to the federal government of the United States only. Every inch of the USA is supposed to be comprised of territory purchased from the tribes, whether we defeated them in battle or not.

But that "truth" isn't profitable. It makes it harder to steal land from Indians, or to illegally tax 'em until they have to sell their land.

Even though treaty law is the highest law of the land, and supposedly inviolable, it is repeatedly violated to this day when it's expedient to rip off tribes, or to hold on to previous thefts of tribal land due to treaty violation.

None of you dumbasses gave a shit about that until George Bush the Stupider came along. George didn't give a shit if you were an Indian or not, he was going to rip you off with the same contempt the United States treated its Indians.

George wants to violate the ABM treaty? Whoah! Who knew you could do that? It turns out that the highest law of the land in America is horse shit and there is no way to redress the issue, thanks to centuries of Americans stealing land from Indians. But hey, couldn't that result in firey nuclear destruction for you? Yes, and fuck you.

George found a way to steal your homes, just like tribal land was allotted to Indians individually, and then they were hit with property taxes that were higher than the profits the land could conceivably yield.

George went after and almost got your Social Security savings, just as the Indian Trust Fund was looted and used as a Republican slush fund for 120 years, even though it was the Indians' money, not the United States'.

So guess what, pal, as you watch your middle class life swirl down the bowl over the next ten years, you can keep reminding yourself that you deserve to lose everything you have... to the same "conquest" that put our tribes in the state they are in today.

[kenfrequed]

73. History.

Study it.

Reservations and land trade was not a function of the fruits of conflict. It was a concession in a treaty to provide some land for settlers while trading for education, food, money, technology, and many other things. Reservation was not a forced place until much later, it was a part of the land that was reserved by the indian peoples to be maintained as sovereign land.

[hfojvt]

22. actually the land in Minnesota was purchased - at least at first

July 1851 - Treaty of Traverse des Sioux ceded to the U.S. lands in southwestern portions of the Minnesota Territoryfor $1.665 million in cash and annuities.

August 1851 - Treaty of Mendota ceded to the U.S. additional lands in southeastern portions of the Minnesota Territory for $1.41 million in cash and annuities.

And land ownership itself is kinda problematic. Wiki writes this about the Beaver Wars

"Without firearms the Algonquin tribes were at a severe disadvantage. Despite their larger numbers, they were unable to withstand the Iroquois. Several tribes ultimately fled west beyond the Mississippi River leaving much of Indiana, Ohio, southern Michigan, and southern Ontario depopulated, although leaving in place several large Anishinaabe military forces, numbering in the thousands to the north of Lakes Huron and Superior, which would later prove to be decisive in rolling back the Iroquois advance.<22> From west of the Mississippi, displaced groups continued to arm war parties and attempt to retake their homeland."

So if the white settlers stole land in Indiana, Ohio and Michigan from the Iroquois 150 years later, well the Iroquois had already stolen it from the Algonquin.

Of course, the Iroquois were really bad, forcing the tribes they defeated to join their own society and give up their old language and religion. "European diseases had taken their toll on the Iroquois and their neighbors in the years preceding the war, and their populations had drastically declined. To remedy the problem, and to replace lost warriors, the Iroquois worked to integrate many of their captured enemy into their own tribes."

[Odin2005]

20. The Dakota were fighting in defense of their lands. I have no sympathy for the settlers.

Just like I have no sympathy for Israeli settlers getting attacked.

[PufPuf23]

28. POTUS Obama "success". Cobell. Western Europeans committed genocide against American Indians

in the western hemisphere.

Latin America and parts of Alaska and Canada are the long drawn out genocide of North America. There is a final, yet to be determined, stand in parts of Latin America now where American Indians of mixed genetics are demonized and pursue social democracies.

A "win" for Obama and the neo-liberals is the Cobell decision of 2009 that closed the decades long standing case for $3.4 billion to be distributed to what is ultimately an undetermined division among the actual plaintiffs - much much of the award will be frittered over an attempt to distribute among a dis-jointed and ill-defined group of plaintiffs. According to wiki the claim could have been as high as $176 billion and in my well-informed opinion should have been higher. The amount was because of the fraud for over 60 years of the BIA mis-management of Reservation natural resources, then managed in "Trust" by the BIA.

The neo-conservatives and neo-conservatives favor the pro-Homeland Security and pro-corporate resource managers and Tribal governments that sold out their own people. The land repurchase is in scale minuscule (but the settlement sounds good for those favored and the broad American liberal public that is ill-informed on the issue).

From wiki:

Cobell v. Salazar (previously Cobell v. Kempthorne and Cobell v. Norton and Cobell v. Babbitt) is a class-action lawsuit brought by Native American representatives against the United States government. The plaintiffs claim that the U.S. government has incorrectly accounted for Indian trust assets, which belong to individual Native Americans (as beneficial owners) but are managed by the Department of the Interior (as the legal owner and fiduciary trustee). The case was filed in the United States District Court for the District of Columbia. The original complaint asserted claims for mismanagement of the trust assets; these were subsequently disallowed since such claims could only properly be asserted in the United States Court of Federal Claims.

The case is sometimes reported as the largest class-action lawsuit against the U.S. in history, but the basis for this claim is a matter of dispute. Plaintiffs contend that the number of class members is around 500,000, while defendants maintain it is closer to 250,000. The potential liability of the U.S. government in the case is also disputed: plaintiffs have suggested a figure as high as $176 billion, and defendants have suggested a number in the low millions, at most. In 2008, the district court awarded the plaintiffs $455.6 million, which both sides have appealed. Cobell v. Kempthorne, 569 F. Supp.2d 223, 226 (D.D.C. 2008).

On July 29, 2009, the D.C. Court of Appeals vacated the award and remanded the District Court's previous decision in Cobell XXI. See, Cobell v. Salazar (Cobell XXII), 573 F.3d 808 (D.C. Cir. 2009).

On December 8, 2009, a $3.4 billion settlement was announced.<1> $1.4 billion of the settlement is allocated to plaintiffs in the suit, and up to $2 billion is allocated for re-purchase of lands distributed under the Dawes Act. President Barack Obama signed legislation authorizing government funding of a final version of the $3.4 billion settlement in December 2010, raising the possibility of final closure after fourteen years of litigation. Judge Thomas Hogan will oversee a fairness hearing on the settlement in the spring of 2011.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cobell_v._Salazar

PS Odin

I am 1/4 7th and 8th generation NYC Ashkenazim Dutch-Anglo Jew whose great grandfather came to San Francisco Bay to handle family investments in the 1860s. Israel reminds me of apartheid South Africa. The obvious to me is to reset back to the 1947 UN partition with Jerusalem an international city and build a Palestine nation.

[Omaha Steve]

25. We are a liberal board?

I thought most of us would have understood the plight of the First Americans. We slaughtered their game. They had no resistance to diseases the white man brought. They didn't have guns, but did defend themselves.

I was starting to think of changing my avatar to this:


"TRAIL OF TEARS WHERE THEY CRIED"
THE MOTHERS OF THE CHEROKEE GRIEVED SO MUCH THAT THE CHIEFS PRAYED FOR A SIGN TO LIFT THE MOTHERS' SPIRITS, AND GIVE THEM STRENGTH TO CARE FOR THEIR CHILDREN. FROM THAT DAY FORWARD, A BEAUTIFUL NEW FLOWER, A ROSE, GREW WHEREVER
A MOTHERS TEARS FELL TO THE GROUND.

THE ROSE IS WHITE FOR THE MOTHERS' TEARS. IT HAS A GOLD CENTER FOR THE GOLD TAKEN FROM THE CHEROKEE LANDS. IT HAS SEVEN LEAVES ON EACH STEM THAT REPRESENTS THE SEVEN CHEROKEE CLANS THAT MADE
THE FORCED JOURNEY.

TO THIS DAY, THE CHEROKEE ROSE PROSPERS ALONG THE ROUTE OF "THE TRAIL OF TEARS."

THE CHEROKEE ROSE IS THE OFFICIAL STATE FLOWER FOR THE STATE OF GEORGIA.

[Odin2005]

27. I am most horrified by the "The Amerindians fought amongst themselves so that makes it OK" argument.

It's basically the old schoolyard "but everyone is doing it" argument.

[stranger81]

69. You should drop in on the I/P board sometime.

You'll see exactly the same argument (vis-a-vis the treatment Palestinians receive from Arab countries) used day in and day out to justify neverending Israeli expansionism.

[hfojvt]

34. actually they fairly quickly got guns

but technology of the Europeans kept improving as they invented the Springfield rifle that was more accurate and could shoot repeatedly.

It's hard for me to see how attacking settlers and wagon trains counts as "defending themselves."

Seems to me that the Native Americans had leaders who urged peace, like Big Eagle and others "Wabasha, Wacouta, myself and others still talked for peace, but nobody would listen to us"

but nobody listens to the peacemakers, instead the warriors are glorified, in spite of the mutual death that their path leads to.

"but nobody would listen to us, and soon the cry was "Kill the whites and kill all these cut-hairs who will not join us.""

So they killed some whites, and then got defeated, and then the whites had their revenge. Why pretend that only the last part is a massacre? Because liberals are supposed to rejoice when white people get killed, or are just supposed to ignore it?

[PufPuf23]

40. My conclusion is that you have no clue as to the repulsivenss and moral depravity of your post

and actual history.

Here is a HUGE clue: Not all white settlers were into genocide.

[hfojvt]

41. Why would I think all white settlers were into genocide?

It might be better to explain your point of view rather than playing guessing games.

[PufPuf23]

42. I know all white settlers were not into genocide.

I am 7 and 8th generation Dutch-Anglo Jew from NYC and 7th generation Scotch Irish that came to Calfornia in the 1850s and 1860s; joined by Swedish, Irish Catholic, and English 4th generation Humboldt and 5th generation Humboldt county French direct to Humboldt by 1880. I am just shy of 58 and was born with a 43 year old father and 38 year old mother.

My family had white priviledge and even a role model with multi-generational good will, I did not have race consciousness until leaving my home. As a Fed, private landowner, and environmental professional, I have been a project manager and planner in a Federal land management project that went to the USSC under the Native American Religious Freedom Act 30 years ago (where I was personally against the projet and land allocation, had an alternative solution, and the Feds ultimately lost under NEPA rather than set a NARFA precedent). I have testified before Congressional Committees as a Forester/Ecologist, Economist, and Sociologist (a stretch but I was paid to speak my true mind as a consultant to a State Task Force formed by the Governor's Office). I have gifted active ritual sites to the Tribe in the same federally recognized religious complex. I am not American Indian but my ancestors co-existed since the late 1850s under usually good terms that have brought me good will from elders and other informed members and many are my cousins from past generations and childhood friends or elders where I am a tie to the past. This is not always comfortable for me.

I spent my childhood as a minority among American Indian and live now among American Indians in age and as a exFed, excorporate and academic dropout.

I am well aware of American Indian genocide and issues to present. To not recognize American Indian physical and cultural genocide is to deny true American history and gross ignorance.

[Raoul]

54. If I didn't know

any better I'd think you were just tweaking the original poster because if not, then you are more clueless than bush regarding truth and the real history of the genocide committed against the only true Americans - the Native Americans. And no my Glen Beck impersonator - the Native Americans really were defending their homeland against the jaysus freak white people who wanted to kill them for God.

[hfojvt]

65. thank goodness you informed me then

with your bigotted invective.

[entanglement]

70. Every post of yours is filled with white supremacist propaganda, apologetics or history denial

Not to mention your utterly distorted and perverse, right-wing view of Native Americans. There are many of your ilk. Fortunately (unfortunately, for you) America is diversifying at a rapid rate and heading toward becoming a truly multiracial land with the full participation of people of all races, genders and ethnicities in its public sphere. Gnash your teeth, glower under your hood and curse as much as you will - you aren't going to be able to stop that. I hold people like you in EXTREME contempt for your racialist stupidity. /disgusted

[hfojvt]

80. history denial?

So you think Native Americans didn't have guns?

Here's what wiki says about the Beaver wars. "By the 1630s, the Iroquois had become fully armed with European weaponry through their trade with the Dutch." and "The use of firearms enabled overhunting and accelerated the decline of the beaver population. By 1640 the animal had largely disappeared from the Hudson Valley." http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Beaver_Wars

I think it was Dee Brown who made me aware of the tactical advantage conferred by the Springfield rifle.

Sad that you cannot respond with any reason or facts, but only with hostility and accusations.

[Omaha Steve]

76. Watch the fourth segment of "How the West Was Won"

Drunk whites chasing squaws on tribe territory. Slaughtering the game. Desecrating sacred areas. Just like avatar. :think:

But natives couldn't MAKE guns N ammo. They had to get them for the most part by trading with entrepreneurs.

[fascisthunter]

49. it is, but many are not liberal here

[blindpig]

50. Ah, but they are.....

Liberal might not mean what you think.

[fascisthunter]

56. no, I know what it means, and they do too

even though they claim to be what they aren't

[blindpig]

60. Dunno about that

Too many around these parts(and in Freeperland too)think that liberalism is opposed to Capitalism and expect liberals to protect the people from the ravages of Capitalism. Whereas liberalism is just one of the ruling philosophies of Capitalism, the one that is innovative, as opposed to the rigid Conservatives. At the end of the day it's still Capitalism, smiley face or not.

[fascisthunter]

63. true

[Hell Hath No Fury]

71. Dude, we've been down the Rabbit Hole here -

for awhile, now. ;(

As for me, I always root for the Native Peoples. We have a major karmic debt to pay off regarding them before our cuuntry can truly move forward.

[RayOfHope]

81. Some of the responses are disgusting and disheartening, I agree. n/t

[somone]

29. Don't forget Chaska - who was hanged in error:

http://www.independent.co.uk/news/world/americas/executed-in-haste-exonerated-at-leisure-2160628.html



...As its 150th anniversary approaches, some historians and journalists are looking for ways to bring it back to the attention of the American public and of politicians in Washington. They are doing it in part by focusing on the tale of the one innocent man who died on that Boxing Day with all the others.

His name was We-Chank-Wash-ta-don-pee, also known as Chaska, and he was among scores of defendants whose death sentences had been commuted days before by President Abraham Lincoln after the five-man military tribunal had originally designated no fewer than 303 of the Dakota for execution. In the rush and the melée of "justice" delivered with almost mad haste, he was muddled with another of the detainees and hanged in error. Whether the hanging of Chaska was in fact a simple accident or if more disturbing forces were at play remains a matter of debate. He had been accused of kidnapping a white woman, Sarah Wakefield, and her children and when she later testified that she admired him, rumours spread that the two had become lovers.

Though in its infancy, a campaign is now gathering for a posthumous federal pardon for Chaska. The case was given oxygen by an author and teacher of journalism at Northwestern University, Robert Elder, writing at length about the case and its history in yesterday's New York Times. "It's time to talk about it and time for people to know about it," said Gwen Westerman, a professor of English at Minnesota State University at Mankato. She is planning to charge her students with doing research to back up the case for a pardon and "put together some more pieces of the puzzle".

Some seedlings of support are already sprouting on Capitol Hill meanwhile. A posthumous pardon for the Dakota Indians would be "a grand gesture and one I think our Congressional delegation should support," said Jim Oberstar, a Minnesota Congressman who lost re-election this year. "A wrong should be righted". Similar, if somewhat flimsy, encouragement was offered by a spokesman for the junior US senator from Minnesota, the former comedian and author Al Franken. "Senator Franken recognises that this is a tragic period in history. The senator will continue to look into this incident in the next Congress."...

[eppur_se_muova]

31. Now, why did I know it would be NAs ?

Second guess: blacks on strike.

Plus ca change, plus c'est la meme chose.

[Swamp Rat]

37. k&r

[Skittles]

43. K&R

[Ter]

44. And we're taught that the Union (the North) were the good guys

This happened during the Civil War. Did Lincoln know about this?

[MrsMatt]

47. of course Lincoln knew about it - he commuted

the sentences of over 250 men because he wasn't confident that the military tribunals were conducted properly.

[maryf]

51. k&r nt

[Hawkowl]

52. 19th century version of Afghanistan/Iraq

Not much has changed if you view the US helicopter gunship massacring Iraqi civilians or predator drones dismembering Pakistani and Afghani women and children. USA!USA!

[spedtr90]

57. The site today

In 1987, the 125th anniversary of the execution, Minnesota's Governor declared a Year of Reconciliation. The City of Mankato commissioned local artist Tom Miller to create the statue "Winter Warrior" that stands at the site of the execution, next to the Mankato Public Library. The remains of the executed Dakota, which had been dug from their graves by frontier doctors for dissection, were returned to the Dakota and buried properly after being hidden in a museum for over a century. In 1992 the City of Mankato purchased the site of the execution and named it Reconciliation Park. People from the Mankato community worked with Dakota people to raise funds for a statue of a white buffalo at the park. People gather there every December 26th, the anniversary of the execution, in prayer and remembrance.

[Tx4obama]

59. And the lynching of 11 Italians in New Orleans in 1891 was largest mass lynching in American history

New Orleans prejudice and discrimination results in lynching of 11 Italians, the largest mass lynching in United States history.
http://www.niaf.org/milestones/year_1891.asp

[TheNed]

68. Largest public mass execution

The 'Great Hanging' at Gainesville Texas in October 1862 was larger than that in Mankato.

http://www.tshaonline.org/handbook/online/articles/jig01

[avlabree]

84. Whoa,. touchy subject!

I think what is important to remember here is not the specific event of the hanging (which was illegal), but the overall issues that sparked the War in the first place, the ignorance of most Minnesotans' to the issues, and the necessity for reparations that need to be made for these historical injustices. It is not for majority society to say what is appropriate or not for healing in minority populations that still suffer subjugations and historical traumas, and it is a social responsibility to mediate a logical way to facilitate the healing. Also, before spouting off opinions and statistics, it's generally a great idea to research your history from multiple sources, keeping in mind it was dominant society that wrote and/or coerced certain viewpoints.