Why did the Indians agree to go to the reservations?

[rupol2000]

Their self-name is inde, there is no doubt that this is connected with India.

 

[rupol2000]

perhaps originally the word Indians in America referred only to them.

 

[rupol2000]

This is retro photo of Navajo. Is he similar to modern Navajo? Who knows?

 

[rupol2000]

Judging from contemporary photographs of Navajos, only a few of them look like this type of face, but most do not, and many look like Eskimos.

 

[rupol2000]

At the same time, as far as I understand, they are considered part of the Apaches. This is strange. All the same, apparently Roosevelt carried out resettlements, and replaced some of them. This was typical of the left-wing politics of that time, the Bolsheviks also engaged in similar manipulations.

 

[rupol2000]

Apparently the appearance of the Apaches is precisely the main factor in the similarity of American women with Indian ones.

 

[WinterBorn]

I'm not interested in any "literacy", it's nothing more than brainwashing the feds. I follow the scientific method of research

No, you do not follow the scientific method of research.

And I am not concerned about your interest. The fact that you think it was the "right thing to do" to slaughter 125 to 150 unarmed women and children shows you to be a vile, contemptable creature of low moral value.

 

[rupol2000]

In theory, Eskimos should not be identical to Na-Dene, including in Alaska, because the Aleuto-Eskimo languages are isolated from the Na-Dene languages. What then are the peoples that make up the majority of the population of Alaska?

 

[rupol2000]

No, you do not follow the scientific method of research.

And I am not concerned about your interest. The fact that you think it was the "right thing to do" to slaughter 125 to 150 unarmed women and children shows you to be a vile, contemptable creature of low moral value.

Firstly, I did not say this, and secondly, as "evidence" of this, I have so far seen only a drawn picture and text without any evidence.

I assume that there was just a war. As usual, the left is lying and slandering, this is not new.

 

[WinterBorn]

Firstly, I did not say this, and secondly, as "evidence" of this, I have so far seen only a drawn picture and text without any evidence.

I assume that there was just a war. As usual, the left is lying and slandering, this is not new.

Your exact words were: "If there were original inhabitants of the Great Plains, then it was a fair revenge and the liberation of the lands from invaders and colonists. So it was the right thing to do, in that case."

It was not a war. The Lakota were already on a reservation. And even in war, to murder 125 to 150 unarmed women and children is despicable.

 

[rupol2000]

Your exact words were: "If there were original inhabitants of the Great Plains, then it was a fair revenge and the liberation of the lands from invaders and colonists. So it was the right thing to do, in that case."

It was not a war. The Lakota were already on a reservation. And even in war, to murder 125 to 150 unarmed women and children is despicable.

I meant the war of liberation. All the rest most likely just slander.

In any case, the bloody buffalo hunters who came to a foreign land do not look like innocent victims.

As for the Apache economy, there is circumstantial evidence that they could keep cows, because their close relatives Navajo were traditionally pastoralists.

 

[WinterBorn]

I meant the war of liberation. All the rest most likely just slander.

In any case, the bloody buffalo hunters who came to a foreign land do not look like innocent victims.

As for the Apache economy, there is circumstantial evidence that they could keep cows, because their close relatives Navajo were traditionally pastoralists.

A war of liberation? The massacre was committed by American soldiers against a people they had already conquered and put on a reservation. And yes, women and children are innocent victims.

Claiming the Apache could have kept cows is meaningless. Find evidence that they did, and did so in significant numbers, and you might have a point. A tribe with 3 or 4 cows is not going to cut it.

 

[WinterBorn]

I meant the war of liberation. All the rest most likely just slander.

In any case, the bloody buffalo hunters who came to a foreign land do not look like innocent victims.

As for the Apache economy, there is circumstantial evidence that they could keep cows, because their close relatives Navajo were traditionally pastoralists.

And BTW, the "bloody buffalo hunters" were every non-farming tribe on the plains. And the white man hunted and killed far exponentially more buffalo. You seem to have an issue with the natural way of things. The Native Americans followed the herds and hunted them. Then they used every scrap of the buffalo.

 

[rupol2000]

The massacre was committed by American soldiers against a people they had already conquered and put on a reservation

In short, it's all too confusing. If it was "cavalry", then it could hardly be "American troops". Where were the Apaches at that time and did they take part in these events? Why was it done? What were the grounds for the alleged terror?

 

[rupol2000]

And BTW, the "bloody buffalo hunters" were every non-farming tribe on the plains. And the white man hunted and killed far exponentially more buffalo. You seem to have an issue with the natural way of things. The Native Americans followed the herds and hunted them. Then they used every scrap of the buffalo.

According to my data, the Sioux were peasants, and the Apaches were not hunters, but cattle breeders. At least they bred horses.

 

[WinterBorn]

In short, it's all too confusing. If it was "cavalry", then it could hardly be "American troops". Where were the Apaches at that time and did they take part in these events? Why was it done? What were the grounds for the alleged terror?

The US Cavalry WAS American troops, you idiot. Quit trying to justify brutal murder just to save face.

 

[WinterBorn]

According to my data, the Sioux were peasants, and the Apaches were not hunters, but cattle breeders. At least they bred horses.

Your data is wrong. The Sioux were a tribe of great renown.

And the Apaches bred horses. There is nothing in any records I have seen that they bred cattle. The two are not the same thing.

 

[Indeependent]

Indian Citizenship Act - Wikipedia

en.wikipedia.org

Anyone can edit a Wikipedia article.

 

[rupol2000]

The US Cavalry WAS American troops, you idiot. Quit trying to justify brutal murder just to save face.

It doesn't interest me now, I don't know much about it. I'm sure the cavalry were mostly Apaches and the British colonists were peasant foot soldiers. What is the "American army" is not entirely clear, the British colonists were expelled from America, and I do not know anything about the troops of the 1st confederation, except that there was a union of Indian tribes.

 

[WinterBorn]

It doesn't interest me now, I don't know much about it. I'm sure the cavalry were mostly Apaches and the British colonists were peasant foot soldiers. What is the "American army" is not entirely clear, the British colonists were expelled from America, and I do not know anything about the troops of the 1st confederation, except that there was a union of Indian tribes.

In 1890, what constitutes the American Army is very clear. And the US Cavalry is part of the US Army. It was the main military force on the Great Plains and in the West.

No, it was not "mostly Apaches". The US Cavalry fought the Apaches.

And no, it was not the British colonists who were expelled 100 years earlier.

And the Iroquis Nation was indeed 5 tribes. But this was not them.

The US Military, and therefore, the US Cavalry was a branch of the volunteer military service. In that respect it was just like the US Navy.



I have no doubt it doesn't interest you. Mainly because it shows you have been wrong about so many things in this thread.