"The Three Battles of Sand Creek: The Cheyenne Massacre..." Topic
8 Posts
All members in good standing are free to post here. Opinions expressed here are solely those of the posters, and have not been cleared with nor are they endorsed by The Miniatures Page.
Please be courteous toward your fellow TMP members.
For more information, see the TMP FAQ.
Back to The Old West Message Board Back to the 19th Century Media Message Board
Areas of Interest19th Century
Featured Hobby News Article
Featured Link
Featured Ruleset
Featured Showcase Article
Featured Profile Article
Featured Book Review
|
Tango01 | 12 Nov 2015 12:16 p.m. PST |
… in Blood, in Court, and As the End of History. ""The Sand Creek Battle, or Massacre, occurred on November 2930, 1864, a confrontation between Cheyenne and Arapaho Indians and Colorado volunteer soldiers. The affair was a tragic event in American history, and what occurred there continues to be hotly contested. Indeed, labeling it a "battle" or a "massacre" will likely start an argument before any discussion on the merits even begins. Even questions about who owns the story, and how it should be told, are up for debate. Many questions arise whenever Sand Creek is discussed: were the Indians peaceful? Did they hold white prisoners? Were they under army protection? Were excessive numbers of women and children killed, and were bodies mutilated? Did the Indians fly an American flag? Did the chiefs die stoically in front of their tipis? Were white scalps found in the village? Three hearings were conducted, and there seems to be an overabundance of evidence from which to answer these and other questions. Unfortunately, the evidence only muddies the issues. Awardwinning Indian Wars author Gregory Michno divides his study into three sections. The first, "In Blood," details the events of November 29 and 30, 1864, in what is surely the most comprehensive account published to date. The second section, "In Court," focuses on the three investigations into the affair, illustrates some of the biases involved, and presents some of the contradictory testimony. The third and final section, "The End of History," shows the utter impossibility of sorting fact from fiction. Using Sand Creek as well as contemporary examples, Michno examines the evidence of eyewitnesses-all of whom were subject to false memories, implanted memories, leading questions, prejudice, selfinterest, motivated reasoning, social, cultural, and political mores, an overactive amygdala, and a brain that had a "mind" of its own-obstacles that make factual accuracy an illusion. Living in a postmodern world of relativism suggests that all history is subject to the fancies and foibles of individual bias. The example of Sand Creek illustrates why we may be witnessing "the end of history." Studying Sand Creek exposes our prejudices because facts will not change our minds-we invent them in our memories, we are poor eyewitnesses, we follow the leader, we are slaves to our preconceptions, and assuredly we never let truth get in the way of what we already think, feel, or even hope. We do not believe what we see; instead, we see what we believe. Michno's extensive research includes primary and select secondary studies, including recollections, archival accounts, newspapers, diaries, and other original records. The Three Battles of Sand Creek will take its place as the definitive account of this previously misunderstood, and tragic, event."
See here link Amicalement Armand |
doug redshirt | 13 Nov 2015 12:02 a.m. PST |
Interesting that the battle had the second highest US losses after the Little Big Horn. Sounds like a battle to me. |
Tango01 | 13 Nov 2015 9:58 a.m. PST |
|
Inkpaduta | 13 Nov 2015 11:48 a.m. PST |
Everybody hold on here. Gregory Michno is an extremely anti-Indian writer. He pretty much denies that the army ever did anything wrong and there were never any massacres. I am very familiar with the Sand Creek Massacre and I have never, never read of high US losses. Also, just read the transcripts from the eye-witnesses. If you think that throwing small toddlers into a field and shooting them, cutting babies out of the womb of their dead mothers and making smoking pouches out of women's private parts is a "battle" then I think you have a problem. Every military commission that looked into this condemned what Chivington did. The Cheyenne were even waving an American flag and white flag given to them by the ARMY to protect them and he still attacked. Hard to make a case for a battle when Chivington, when asked if they should spare the children, said "Nits make Lice." People who try and argue that Sandy Creek was not massacre are in many ways like those who try and claim the holocaust didn't happen. I remember that Michno claimed that the Ponca Creek Massacre was not a massacre. the Ponca's were always a peaceful tribe. A group of women and girls where returning to their village when soldiers came upon them and demanded sex. When they didn't get it they opened fire. Michno actually wrote how the Poncas started it. |
doug redshirt | 13 Nov 2015 6:35 p.m. PST |
I havent read the book and dont plan on it. Had a good friend who is a historian did his own research on the battle. He tracked down the name of every member of Chivingtons command he could trace. He got hold of the medical records of the surgeons tracking wounds. Sorry there was a battle. What happens after the battle is a different matter. |
Inkpaduta | 14 Nov 2015 9:38 a.m. PST |
Doug, The Governor of Colorado made a treaty with the Cheyennes and the Arapahoes setting up a reservation for them in the southern area of the territory. Black Kettle, Little Raven and others then moved onto that reservation. They went to the commander of Fort Lyons who told them they were safe there and gave them two flags to fly to prove that they were peaceful. Chivington then attacked them. Now, is that really a battle? When one side does not want to fight, did exactly what the whites told them to do and then were taking by surprise? So, if I am sitting in a bar minding my own business and some drunk guy comes up and starts beating the crap out of me, am I really in a fight? The fact that some of the warriors tried to defend their people as they fled does not make this a battle. Sorry. |
ITALWARS | 14 Nov 2015 10:24 a.m. PST |
what amazed me in reading Michno books…after a kind suggestion from a TMP menber ..was to discover his extremely well made research..full of statistic data and his use of historicical primary sources that counter every armchair general consideration or politically correct petulant cries that we are accostumed to read among the immense litterature existing in every language about Plain Wars…i was amazed to read and to full accept his point of view (Encyclopedia of Indian Wars and Battles and Skirmishes..) that the use of torture, killing of civilians with a penchant for women and children..ecc…was, by far, a peculiarity of Indians and not of the Army..and the breakage of treaties and federal plus local truces where, invariably, disattended by Indians not by the Army…in conclusion those Indians where peaceful only on Hollywood recent moovies not in the reality.. I 'll certainly buy this book and strongly suggest to other to give a glance to Michno texts before being influenced by what Mr Inkpaduta try to said wthout even read Michno book or producing alternative sources… |
Miniaturepainter | 24 Nov 2015 11:19 a.m. PST |
Russell Thornton, American Indian Holocaust and Survival: A Population History since 1492, Norman: University of Oklahoma Press, 1987. there are plenty of books AS the above. Of cause the indians fought back. The resistance in all of Europe did the same when the nazis came and occupied Their land. Some fought for hitler and after the war wrote books. Thats why history interested need to be critical when reeading books about the past. Some tell a different truth. dont be blind accept the fact. Indians where not treatet good by the American goverment and that a fact. All the Best mp |
|