 |
PM |  | |
Quote | | |
Reply | | |
Full Topic | |
Progressive Southerner
| Joined: | Sun Jul 13th, 2008 |
| Location: | Oklahoma City, Oklahoma USA |
| Posts: | 538 |
| Status: |
Offline
|
| Mana: |    |
I do not necessarily disagree with the substance your conclusions Ole -especially since I've probably used some of them myself at one time- but I must ask the question: do the above statements make what was done by the U.S. right? Of course you are most likely correct in asserting that what the Indians had was gained through some form of conflict with their predecessors. Again I must ask...does that make the White man's transgressions justified due to precedence? Maybe I'm becoming a softy or something but I just can't find the reasoning to dismiss the awful acts perpetrated in the name of Manifest Destiny as just another link in some vaguely justifiable Darwinian historical chain.According to the NPS and the American Battlefield Protection Program, Sand Creek is considered a Civil War battle.
Yes. According to a great many folks, it was a part of the USCW, as was the Minnesota uprising, but I consider them to be a different rebellion. At the same time. And before. And after. On that, we can agree to disagree.
The Indian Wars did not begin when the first European set foot on what is now U.S. soil. It wasn't ours, but we took it anyway. Exactly like most of them took it from who ever plunked the first foot on it.
Was Little Crow's tribe the first settlers of Minnesota? No. Was Black Kettle's tribe the first settlers in Colorado? No. They were where they were because they ran someone else's tribe out. Red Cloud, Sitting Bull, Cochise, Geronimo, Big Foot, Chief Joseph, Tecumsah, Sequoia -- there isn't one of them that didn't gain ascendency by shoving someone else out of their territory.
Now see what you've made me do?Rambling off topic. (Like that's a first!)
Ole
Okay now I'm off topic too!
I am officially putting my soapbox away
.........for now