Sioux Indians to massacre their own children?

[azndndude]

This dumb woman says that the Sioux massacred Custer. Wasn't it Custer who attacked the Sioux?

http://indianz.com/News/2006/013214.asp

[mike_c]

1. what was the point of posting that diatribe here...?

I mean, it's a catchy phrase-- "murdering their own children"-- but it's still a RW piece of sh*t talking point.

[MadMaddie]

2. I watched a documentry on this....Custer was kinda stupid....

It seemed his intention was to wipe out the Sioux Indians...but he got outsmarted and outflanked and eventually surrounded....killed and scalped!! The Sioux didn't go looking for the fight...Custer went after them....

The documentary went on to talk about all of the mis-information about Custer and the Sioux Indians. It might have been on the History Channel that I saw this...

[ProfessorGAC]

7. Another Triple

Deleting another Triple post
The Professor

[ProfessorGAC]

8. Sorry Again

Deleting another Triple post
The Professor

[ProfessorGAC]

9. You Misinterpreted One Part, Maddie

The Sioux WERE looking for a fight. They had had enough and weren't willing to take any more pushing without pushing back. They were conducting raids and attacks in the expected hope of provoking something with the blue coats. The blue coats didn't know something the Sioux did. That was the fact that the Sioux were HEAVILY armed with rifles. The army knew they had some, but had no idea that had that many.

So, Custer went looking to pound them into submission and basically fell into a trap. This is from that same special you watched. Maybe you missed the first 5 minutes, but they make it very clear that the Sioux were agitated and angry and were spoiling for a showdown.

And, remember you said Custer was kinda stupid? IIRC, he graduated LAST in his class at West Point.
The Professor

[MadMaddie]

14. He..he...you are spot on I did misss the first 5 minutes...

and as usual I got sucked into the History Channel Vortex....

That would make sense that the Sioux were angry.....and spoiling for a fight....

Thanks for the clarification...

[misternormal]

3. Custer attacked... but was seriously outnumbered

This is what I found...

In late 1875, Sioux and Cheyenne Indians defiantly left their reservations, outraged over the continued intrusions of whites into their sacred lands in the Black Hills. They gathered in Montana with the great warrior Sitting Bull to fight for their lands. The following spring, two victories over the US Cavalry emboldened them to fight on in the summer of 1876.

To force the large Indian army back to the reservations, the Army dispatched three columns to attack in coordinated fashion, one of which contained Lt. Colonel George Custer and the Seventh Cavalry. Spotting the Sioux village about fifteen miles away along the Rosebud River on June 25, Custer also found a nearby group of about forty warriors. Ignoring orders to wait, he decided to attack before they could alert the main party. He did not realize that the number of warriors in the village numbered three times his strength. Dividing his forces in three, Custer sent troops under Captain Frederick Benteen to prevent their escape through the upper valley of the Little Bighorn River. Major Marcus Reno was to pursue the group, cross the river, and charge the Indian village in a coordinated effort with the remaining troops under his command. He hoped to strike the Indian encampment at the northern and southern ends simultaneously, but made this decision without knowing what kind of terrain he would have to cross before making his assault. He belatedly discovered that he would have to negotiate a maze of bluffs and ravines to attack.

http://www.eyewitnesstohistory.com/custer.htm

[truebrit71]

4. If ever there was a white man that deserved an ass-kicking..

..it was Custer..

And of course the idiot who put their opinion to paper conveniently forgets the mass extermination of the Native American population by the white man....

Colour me amazed... :eyes:

[havocmom]

5. Question for first responders to the OP: Did something get edited out

which might have shed some light on the OP's point? :shrug:

Linked story seems to indicate the Sioux want to ensure some liberty and choice for females. Thought America was about liberty. Seems the Native Americans remember that point. That link is also a lot of RW talking point flame bait

By the way, Custer had it coming.

[mike_c]

11. see #10 below....

my bad

[Jack Rabbit]

6. OK. She's enitled to her opinion and her racist interpretation of history

Yes, the Souix wiped out Custer and his entire command at Little Bighorn. That can be called a massacre, although Custer and his men were trained soldiers and armed. Never mind that the Souix were resisting being "boxed up and annihilated".

Washita River is also called a massacre; that is where Custer led his troops into a village and murdered old men, women and children, who weren't armed. If Custer had done that now, enlightened people would demand that he be put up on war crimes charges while Bush and the neocons would give him the Medal of Freedom and strong arm developing countries into signing agreements not to turn him over to an international tribunal.

[mike_c]

10. no-- I think most of the subsquent responders didn't read the link...

...and just responded to the comment about Custer. But no, the OP is exactly as it was when I responded to it in #1.

on edit-- oops, this was meant to be in response to havocmom's question above.

[havocmom]

16. Thanks mike_c

Guess I need more caffine cuz I don't quite see the point, unless the OP is lost?

[Bridget Burke]

12. I'm sure some white South Dakota ladies will visit the reservation....

Yes, the Sioux massacred Custer. The idiot was planning to massacre them & screwed up.

However, the Black Hills were eventually made safe for the whites. I've seen "Deadwood."

[Generic Other]

13. And the Chinese fed the "bad" whites to the pigs

Seems like a good way to deal with them.

[TalkingDog]

15. I think Ms. Stanek is missing the point entirely....

Either willfully or because she is quite stupid.

Indian Reservations are havens for all kinds of activites that the majority of the people actually want, but paternalistic lawmakers are loathe to give them. Like: legalized gambling, use of psychotropic drugs, cheap tobacco and now abortion on demand.

Years ago, when lawmakers saw how much money the tribes were making from casino gambling (and how much money, influence and power they were giving up) they quickly started introducing state run "educational" lotteries and casino boat gambling.

People want to gamble, people are going to gamble and that activity and the subsequent profits should be taxed. Those taxes then support infrastructure, education, gambling addiction and so on.

People want to have sex, people are going to have sex and no matter how safe they are, unplanned, unwanted pregnancies are going to happen. Abortions are going to happen too. The intial argument for legalizing abortion is still the strongest one. No matter your feelings on the morality of the matter; it is better for everyone...let me repeat that EVERYONE, if we have safe, legal, clinical abortions.

You might suggest that it is not better for the "child". But I will argue that, if it is indeed a child, then it is better for it to be euthanized quickly and fairly painlessly, rather than risk merely mutilating it and letting it suffer for a few days in a botched abortion attempt to only find its end in a hospital operating room anyway.

You might find this a little cold and calculating, but when you are faced with the REALITIES of life, you need to be prepared to accept the cruel and ugly truth of what can happen.

And in case Ms. Stanek still doesn't get it, let me spell it out for her in small simple words and in plain English: The abortions are not just for the people on the Indian Reservation. They are for all the women in South Dakota who want safe and legal abortions. You may not like it, but abortions will happen...always.


http://www.jillstanek.com/archives/2006/03/new_stanek_colu.html

edited to add link

[Kailassa]

17. An embryo is not a child, azininedude, it's just glob of cells.

Throughout history women have found ways to remove pregnancies they could not cope with.

Making abortion illegal does not cause fewer abortions, it causes more deaths of women who are forced to have unsafe abortions.

Dakota is planning on massacring women, many of whom are already mothers, by removing the option of legal abortion.

Some groups, including the Sioux, are making plans to save these womens' lives, by providing abortion safely in the future.

[havocmom]

18. Come in, throw out a link to pretty questionable material

then no more discussion? Wish you'd come by and let us know a bit about your feelings on the material you linked to.

Just pulled a pin and tossed one in, or are you here on a discussion forum for some discussion? Inquiring minds wanna know.

[RaleighNCDUer]

19. As i remember it, Custer & crew lost something like 280 men.

The Souix lost close to 1500, and were never again able to mount an effective defense against US troops. That battle effectively ended the Plains Indian wars.

Some massacre.

[dflprincess]

20. An important point in American history is this,

if the Indians won the fight it was a massacre. If the calvary won, it was a battle.

[Tsiyu]

21. we took our kids up to the battlefield in Montana

and walked the site and heard some talks about Little Bighorn as well as studying the history.

As my kids were reading and absorbing all the history, one blurted out, "Custer was an idiot!"

Some Freeper-types nearby were not amused. I was laughing my head off.

Remember that the Union was killing women and children, The Sioux may have been spoiling for a fight, but their sacred places and their families were being destroyed. The Sioux had no choice.

And Custer was an idiot who underestimated the rage of warriors when you attack a camp of families. Just like ** and the Repukes can't understand the insurgency in Iraq.