Is any of this familiar, and are Hollywood's classic and spaghetti westerns horribly romanticized or are they fairly accurate?
If a characterization could be made of Bury My Heart at Wounded Knee, it would be the white man's constant thirst for land and how the Indian suffered terribly from it. To slake this thirst, the white settlers had treaties. Most treaties with the Indians provided them with food, ammunition, and the promise by the whites not to trespass onto the land that was left after the whites were done partitioning it up. The problem with these treaties was that they were never upheld. The food and ammunition never arrived, and the Indians' remaining land was always trodded and settled upon by the gold or land-hungry whites.
When a band of Indians would not learn after the United States government had told them to, the soldiers came to mercilessly kill them. Not only did the soldiers exterminate the Indians, but the women and children Indians were killed also. Often, the Indians' genitalia was removed by the raiding soldiers and used as show pieces to make a mockery of them. The soldiers had absolutely no compassion for the Indians, because their motto was: "The more Indians we kill today the less we have to kill tomorrow". These shocking details are even more shocking when you think that this was the United States of America, the great upholder of democracy and of peoples' rights, committing these atrocities.
Teach: Then I guess, one mightn't be so shocked of what we did in Vietnam, if they are: Aware of our relations with the Indians.
Even when the Indians were captured or they capitulated, conditions were no better for them. If they received food at all, it was usually thrown to them raw and cold onto the ground. One time dozens of Indians were locked in a barracks, with no food or water, during an icy blizzard with no heat for five days. It was a miracle that most of them survived those five days. These conditions are comparable to the Nazi concentration camps of World War II.
The Fetterman massacre is more justly named, so than the Sand Creek Massacre, because every American soldier that was ambushed was killed. Of course, more Indians were killed at the Sand Creek massacre, but that is only a small portion of the Indians that were there. If the soldiers had tried hard at all, they could have killed all the Indians at Sand Creek. Although, the Indians would have killed 500 soldiers, if the Indians could have drawn that many out of the fort.
Teach: Your ideas are confusing here, what -- your point.
The only reason the Indians couldn't attack an American metropolis is because they had no access to any large communities, without being noticed by American troops. Consequently, the Indians had to attack small processions of Americans traveling to the West or once in awhile, they could ambush a large group of soldiers like at the Fetterman Massacre. This is the only instance that Indians killing American soldiers could be called a massacre. On the other hand, American soldiers had very little difficulty in exterminating Indians, because they tended to band together into large groups and could be isolated into selected areas.
Though in general when the whites called a military failure of theirs a massacre, the soldiers had started the skirmish, and the Indians had a perfect right to fight back and kill them. The whites were always too quick to call this sort of thing a massacre.
Today Indians are still suffering from untold miseries. The Americans did not learn from their endless amount of wrong-doings toward the Indians. The book, Bury My Heart at Wounded Knee, is a long awaited hope for the Indians, because people are going to start treating the Indians better after finding out what happens in this book.
Critique of Bury My Heart at Wounded Knee (10-25-77)
Class: Ethnic Studies
Grade: A-
If a characterization could be made of Bury My Heart at Wounded Knee, it would be the white man's constant thirst for land and how the Indian suffered terribly from it. To slake this thirst, the white settlers had treaties. Most treaties with the Indians provided them with food, ammunition, and the promise by the whites not to trespass onto the land that was left after the whites were done partitioning it up. The problem with these treaties was that they were never upheld. The food and ammunition never arrived, and the Indians' remaining land was always trodded and settled upon by the gold or land-hungry whites.
When a band of Indians would not learn after the United States government had told them to, the soldiers came to mercilessly kill them. Not only did the soldiers exterminate the Indians, but the women and children Indians were killed also. Often, the Indians' genitalia was removed by the raiding soldiers and used as show pieces to make a mockery of them. The soldiers had absolutely no compassion for the Indians, because their motto was: "The more Indians we kill today the less we have to kill tomorrow". These shocking details are even more shocking when you think that this was the United States of America, the great upholder of democracy and of peoples' rights, committing these atrocities.
Teach: Then I guess, one mightn't be so shocked of what we did in Vietnam, if they are: Aware of our relations with the Indians.
Even when the Indians were captured or they capitulated, conditions were no better for them. If they received food at all, it was usually thrown to them raw and cold onto the ground. One time dozens of Indians were locked in a barracks, with no food or water, during an icy blizzard with no heat for five days. It was a miracle that most of them survived those five days. These conditions are comparable to the Nazi concentration camps of World War II.
The Fetterman massacre is more justly named, so than the Sand Creek Massacre, because every American soldier that was ambushed was killed. Of course, more Indians were killed at the Sand Creek massacre, but that is only a small portion of the Indians that were there. If the soldiers had tried hard at all, they could have killed all the Indians at Sand Creek. Although, the Indians would have killed 500 soldiers, if the Indians could have drawn that many out of the fort.
Teach: Your ideas are confusing here, what -- your point.
The only reason the Indians couldn't attack an American metropolis is because they had no access to any large communities, without being noticed by American troops. Consequently, the Indians had to attack small processions of Americans traveling to the West or once in awhile, they could ambush a large group of soldiers like at the Fetterman Massacre. This is the only instance that Indians killing American soldiers could be called a massacre. On the other hand, American soldiers had very little difficulty in exterminating Indians, because they tended to band together into large groups and could be isolated into selected areas.
Though in general when the whites called a military failure of theirs a massacre, the soldiers had started the skirmish, and the Indians had a perfect right to fight back and kill them. The whites were always too quick to call this sort of thing a massacre.
Today Indians are still suffering from untold miseries. The Americans did not learn from their endless amount of wrong-doings toward the Indians. The book, Bury My Heart at Wounded Knee, is a long awaited hope for the Indians, because people are going to start treating the Indians better after finding out what happens in this book.
Critique of Bury My Heart at Wounded Knee (10-25-77)
Class: Ethnic Studies
Grade: A-
Last edited:
.........................
