1890 US Army massacres Indians at Wounded Knee

1890 : U.S. Army massacres Indians at Wounded Knee

On this day in 1890, in the final chapter of America's long Indian wars, the U.S. Cavalry kills 146 Sioux at Wounded Knee on the Pine Ridge reservation in South Dakota.

Throughout 1890, the U.S. government worried about the increasing influence at Pine Ridge of the Ghost Dance spiritual movement, which taught that Indians had been defeated and confined to reservations because they had angered the gods by abandoning their traditional customs. Many Sioux believed that if they practised the Ghost Dance and rejected the ways of the white man, the gods would create the world anew and destroy all non-believers, including non-Indians. On 15 December 1890, reservation police tried to arrest Sitting Bull, the famous Sioux chief, who they mistakenly believed was a Ghost Dancer, and killed him in the process, increasing the tensions at Pine Ridge.

On 29 December, the U.S. Army's 7th cavalry surrounded a band of Ghost Dancers under the Sioux Chief Big Foot near Wounded Knee Creek and demanded they surrender their weapons. As that was happening, a fight broke out between an Indian and a U.S. soldier and a shot was fired, although it's unclear from which side. A brutal massacre followed, in which it is estimated almost 150 Indians were killed (some historians put this number at twice as high), nearly half of them women and children. The cavalry lost 25 men.

The conflict at Wounded Knee was originally referred to as a battle, but in reality it was a tragic and avoidable massacre. Surrounded by heavily armed troops, it is unlikely that Big Foot's band would have intentionally started a fight. Some historians speculate that the soldiers of the 7th Cavalry were deliberately taking revenge for the regiment's defeat at Little Bighorn in 1876. Whatever the motives, the massacre ended the Ghost Dance movement and was the last major confrontation in America's deadly war against the Plains Indians.

Conflict came to Wounded Knee again in February 1973 when it was the site of a 71-day occupation by the activist group AIM (American Indian Movement) and its supporters, who were protesting the U.S. government's mistreatment of Native Americans. During the standoff, two Indians were killed, one federal marshal was seriously wounded and numerous people were arrested.
 
Historical quote- "The conflict at Wounded Knee was originally referred to as a battle, but in reality it was a tragic and avoidable massacre"

That's just politically-correct lefty bullshit! The injuns killed 25 cavalrymen which means it was a proper battle, not a massacre of passive innocent "native americans"
 
Historical quote- "The conflict at Wounded Knee was originally referred to as a battle, but in reality it was a tragic and avoidable massacre"

That's just politically-correct lefty bullshit! The injuns killed 25 cavalrymen which means it was a proper battle, not a massacre of passive innocent "native americans"

Well POS,16 german soldiers were killed in the Warsaw Ghetto uprising. So I guess that means that the holocaust was really not a genocide but a battle between germans and jews?
 
The Warsaw Jews had weapons and were shooting back so it was a battle.
But Hitler's gassing of 6 million unarmed civilian Jews was an outrageous cowardly massacre.
 
If that was a massacre then the German Army massacred the Russian army with a similar combat ratio. If it were a massacre then it was repeated in Waco, Texas by federal troops against the Branch Davidians with the cameras and newsmen on the scene. I think the Waco event and this one were very similar.

I offer some eye witness account of the '73 Wounded Knee stand-off. About 2 weeks after the episode concluded, I and others in my elementary school class stopped at the church where the militants had dug foxholes around it. (This is a small community and not a soul was spotted as we wandered around the church area, nor did we see anyone lingering around as we drove out of the community on our way to Hot Springs, S.D. for a school trip.)

Naturally, we did what any boy would do who was familiar with what had been going on and that was look for bullets in the holes that they had made in the outside walls of the wooden church. Sorry to say we never dug one up or find any other interesting souvenirs to take home, or if they were interesting we didn't realize it at the time. I do remember the fresh graves in the small cemetery, mounded with dirt in the familiar style. I specifically recall a handwritten sign that was on the door leading to the basement of the church from the outside and it read." Militants Only". I suppose that would have been a nice keepsake of a historical event and would have been no trouble to pocket, although our chaperon's might have stopped us had we been spotted.

Anyhow, that's the way it was a short time after all the excitement abated. I grew up on the reservation and my view point differs a bit from Marlon Brando's.
 
Soon after the 1973 standoff, Brando refused to accept his Oscar for the Godfather in protest against "the poor treatment of the American Indian by the film industry" but I dunno what he meant becuse they've usually been portrayed fairly accurately on screen as far as i can tell?
Incidentally i've read 'Bury my Heart at Wounded Knee' about the white mens greed, but one Indian says in it "I know there are some good white men"
 
"Greed" os the most overused adjective when referencing anything American. Greed is the word used by those who have no ambition to create wealth for themselves and would rather steal, beg or borrow it from others. Greed would better descibe political ambition than economic ambition.

The Amrican Indian's greatest boondoggle has been its reliance on the reservation system to preserve its culture, a culture that should be remmebered as history, not re-invented for todays environment. The native American has complete autonomy to create an environment that is properous and distinct, but one has to look no further thantheir unemployment levels to see all that one needs to see the failure brought on by themselves.
 
The tribes were often very different, some were warlike, others welcomed the white men, and others were neutral.
But overall i think the whites tended to look down on them and regard them as "heathen savages" and not without some justification.
For example we all remember the scene in 'A Man Called Horse' where the tribe disgracefully let one of their old women die in the snow rather than help her, that's historical fact, not Hollywood guff.
Also, the Indians massacred some early colonists, there are 'Lost Colonies' of european men women and children that they wiped out.
 
I think America handled western expansion the same way every country did during expansionist eras, including European countries. They negotiated when the negotiations were to their advantage, they bartered when it was to their advantage and they used aggression when it was to their advantage. Just as Britain, France, Spain, the Roman Empire, the Persians, The Greeks and so on did. All of them used one technique or the other to gain advantage over the indigenous people of the area they expanded towards.

The number one failure of American policy towards indigenous peoples after westward expansion had run its course, was the segregation of indigenous people through the establishment of the Bureau of Indian Affairs and the adoption of a semi-autonomous reservation system. If you want the clearest example of what pure socialism would look like under an American bureaucracy, the reservation system is an indisputable example. In a nation of prosperity, the reservations scattered throughout the US are islands of the worst kind of poverty, all of it subsidized by the US government and endorsed by tribal leaders.
 
"The Amrican Indian's greatest boondoggle has been its reliance on the reservation system to preserve its culture, a culture that should be remmebered as history, not re-invented for todays environment. The native American has complete autonomy to create an environment that is properous and distinct, but one has to look no further thantheir unemployment levels to see all that one needs to see the failure brought on by themselves.

Yet the world's largest grossing casinos are Indian owned. While I'm sure there are some Native Americans who fit squarely into your "reservation dwelling" description, the truth is that there is also a large number who have assimilated to the white man's culture and have been very successful.

Stereotypes from either side are rarely accurate. The truth, more often than not, lies somewhere in the middle.
 
Really, how familiar are you with the BIA and its administration of the reservation system? I lived on the Pine Ridge Indian reservation (one of the largest at 3400 square miles) along with most of my relatives, all were of European descent.

More than a few of the recognized tribes and associated reservations were created exclusively for the placement of casinos, where they would be outside state interference. Most of those in the New England and north eastern US fall into that category. Pine Ridge has a nice new 20 million dollar casino. too. It also has 80% unemployment. Of course, it is considered one of the poorest (and it isn't for a lack of natural resources).

Their fellow tribesmen to the north west in Montana fare a bit better with only 45% unemployment. It must be because of the higher high school graduation rate of just under 30%. They have casinos, too.

Your use of the word stereotype would be better applied to those who think that casinos translate into prosperity. I challenge anyone to make that case and back it up with sound economics. It isn't that native Americans can't prosper alongside other Americans, it is that government can't make you prosperous and that is what native Americans rely upon for their existence.

Most of the reservations have casinos and the "truth" is that most of the economic statistics are similar for the majority of tribal members.
 
My point was not to defend the BIA or the establishment of the reservation system by any stretch of the imagination. My main point was that while there are many Native Americans who fit your description, I felt your post painted the majority of the Native American Population in this country as nothing but shiftless loaf-abouts sucking off the government teat. While I admit to not knowing the exact numbers, I would dare say that is not entirely accurate. I would be interested to see the percentage of unemployment among Native Americans across the whole population versus by individual reservation. Many Native Americans do live on reservations and do rely on the government to make them prosperous but many do not.
 
I was referring to those who live on reservations. My whole point is the reservation system, administered by the federal government is a recipe for wide spread failure at every level. The ultimate result of more government control of the rest of American society is on full display. A living. breathing example of socialism in all its splendor done American style.

All the ingredients are there. 100% subsidized healthcare, housing, child care, every level of education, government jobs (the primary employer on every reservation), federal law enforcement, and a ban on the sale of alcohol are highlights of government largess. Once independent, self reliant, people who were at war with their benefactors are as good as imprisoned. The same problems they have had for a hundred years, they still have.

They had one more card to play and I see the new administration is going to give them a cash settlement. Every Indian is going to get another check and that will make all the difference. Looks like a big screen TV in every living room. That will bring them into the 21st century.
 
Back
Top Bottom