|
|
Post by historynerd on Jul 30, 2024 13:39:06 GMT -5
I am trying to learn the basic regions of the seven bands of Lakota in the first couple years after the 1868 Fort Laramie treaty.
I’m writing a novel set in 1870 about a party of white prospectors traveling through Dakota territory, along the White River (from the Missouri to the Badlands and foothills of the Black Hills). In the story, these characters encounter some hostile Lakota war parties.
I want to know where the various bands (i.e. Brule, Two Kettles, Oglala, etc.) were regionally dispersed around 1870–especially ‘hostile,’ non-treaty factions—so I can know which groups my characters would likely encounter on their route. I thought this would be simple information to find…but the historical record seems very complex and hazy. I’ve even contacted historical societies and museums in SD, and they can’t seem to tell me.
This is a work of fiction, but I want to be accurate as possible. Would anyone be willing to provide insight into which bands, or sub-divisions, of Lakota might be found in the southern third of Dakota territory, from Missouri River to the Black Hills foothills? And which groups, or even chiefs, might have aggressive war parties out to kill invaders?
I’d appreciate any help I could get. Thank you!
|
|
|
|
Post by Californian on Jul 30, 2024 14:00:07 GMT -5
suggested reading:
Red Cloud's Folk by George E. Hyde, 1937 University of Oklahoma Press, Norman OK. There is a revised 1957 edition and since that time numerous re-editions by various publishers.
Spotted Tail's Folk, by George E. Hyde, 1961 University of Oklahoma Press, Norman OK. There are also numerous re-editions by various publishers.
Reading these two books will give you an idea of the conditions, and more so from both perspectives, the indigenous tribes and the newcomers.
The terms "hostile" and "aggressive" are deemed offensive when referring to indigenous tribes that reacted to the reality of the Euro-American invasion. Their reaction was primarily defensive, responding to the senseless slaughter of game by the emigrants as well as depletion of resources, such as wide swaths of grazing grounds, timber and fuel which was rather scarce in these parts.
|
|
fernando
New Member
My birthday December 19, 1948
Posts: 12 
|
Post by fernando on Aug 8, 2024 4:23:04 GMT -5
It is incredible that we are still reading offensive and unnacurate terms as "hostiles" and "aggressive" at this time of the century.
|
|
|
|
Post by historynerd on Aug 20, 2024 5:12:49 GMT -5
It is incredible that we are still reading offensive and unnacurate terms as "hostiles" and "aggressive" at this time of the century. When I use terms like “hostile” or “aggressive,” I simply mean those not friendly or cooperative with whites. Resistant, which we know some of these bands were. I don’t even mean it as a pejorative…just a description of reality. I had been part of this forum not ten minutes before being lectured. I am trying to find historical information on the bands of Lakota Sioux. If anyone can provide any insight on this, I’d appreciate it. |
|
|
|
Post by wambli ahitunwan on Aug 20, 2024 9:27:55 GMT -5
Using 19th Century White terminology in the 21st Century deserves to be called out, imo, since the historical records clearly show that the most 'hostile' and 'aggressive' savages in the various Indian wars were the White soldiers, settlers, prospectors, and miners who broke every treaty made in good faith, and who executed a very effective program of racial and cultural genocide, believing the idea of their Manifest Destiny in doing so. "Kill the Indian to save the man" and "The only good Indian is a dead Indian."
It's practically a miracle that any of us are still alive today. Indian Reservations were intentionally created to be POW camps meant to imprison the tribal peoples indefinitely in order to get them out of the way of westward White expansion. In most cases to this day, nobody is living large in their best life on a Rez anywhere. Sad, but true.
|
|
|
|
Post by Californian on Aug 20, 2024 11:48:14 GMT -5
well stated, Wambli Ahitunwan. Perpetuating 19th century stereotypes and attitudes is plain wrong in this day and age. Using 19th Century White terminology in the 21st Century deserves to be called out, imo, since the historical records clearly show that the most 'hostile' and 'aggressive' savages in the various Indian wars were the White soldiers, settlers, prospectors, and miners who broke every treaty made in good faith, and who executed a very effective program of racial and cultural genocide, believing the idea of their Manifest Destiny in doing so. "Kill the Indian to save the man" and "The only good Indian is a dead Indian." It's practically a miracle that any of us are still alive today. Indian Reservations were intentionally created to be POW camps meant to imprison the tribal peoples indefinitely in order to get them out of the way of westward White expansion. In most cases to this day, nobody is living large in their best life on a Rez anywhere. Sad, but true. |
|
|
|
Post by historynerd on Aug 20, 2024 15:38:30 GMT -5
well stated, Wambli Ahitunwan. Perpetuating 19th century stereotypes and attitudes is plain wrong in this day and age. Using 19th Century White terminology in the 21st Century deserves to be called out, imo, since the historical records clearly show that the most 'hostile' and 'aggressive' savages in the various Indian wars were the White soldiers, settlers, prospectors, and miners who broke every treaty made in good faith, and who executed a very effective program of racial and cultural genocide, believing the idea of their Manifest Destiny in doing so. "Kill the Indian to save the man" and "The only good Indian is a dead Indian." It's practically a miracle that any of us are still alive today. Indian Reservations were intentionally created to be POW camps meant to imprison the tribal peoples indefinitely in order to get them out of the way of westward White expansion. In most cases to this day, nobody is living large in their best life on a Rez anywhere. Sad, but true. |
|
|
|
Post by historynerd on Aug 20, 2024 15:39:30 GMT -5
well stated, Wambli Ahitunwan. Perpetuating 19th century stereotypes and attitudes is plain wrong in this day and age. Using 19th Century White terminology in the 21st Century deserves to be called out, imo, since the historical records clearly show that the most 'hostile' and 'aggressive' savages in the various Indian wars were the White soldiers, settlers, prospectors, and miners who broke every treaty made in good faith, and who executed a very effective program of racial and cultural genocide, believing the idea of their Manifest Destiny in doing so. "Kill the Indian to save the man" and "The only good Indian is a dead Indian." It's practically a miracle that any of us are still alive today. Indian Reservations were intentionally created to be POW camps meant to imprison the tribal peoples indefinitely in order to get them out of the way of westward White expansion. In most cases to this day, nobody is living large in their best life on a Rez anywhere. Sad, but true. |
|
|
|
Post by historynerd on Aug 20, 2024 15:54:58 GMT -5
Using 19th Century White terminology in the 21st Century deserves to be called out, imo, since the historical records clearly show that the most 'hostile' and 'aggressive' savages in the various Indian wars were the White soldiers, settlers, prospectors, and miners who broke every treaty made in good faith, and who executed a very effective program of racial and cultural genocide, believing the idea of their Manifest Destiny in doing so. "Kill the Indian to save the man" and "The only good Indian is a dead Indian." It's practically a miracle that any of us are still alive today. Indian Reservations were intentionally created to be POW camps meant to imprison the tribal peoples indefinitely in order to get them out of the way of westward White expansion. In most cases to this day, nobody is living large in their best life on a Rez anywhere. Sad, but true. I did not call anyone a savage. I did not even criticize any band or tribe. The words I chose here, “hostile” and “aggressive,” are simply meant to differentiate from bands that were cooperative and friendly with whites. If you prefer, we’ll call them uncooperative. Better? I’m not here to disparage the Lakota. But if we can’t have honest conversations about them, and realize they were human beings like every other race, and sometimes did some brutal things (both to whites and other native tribes), then there’s no point in discussing their history with any nuance. You and everyone on this forum are focused on two words I used. Forget those words. I’m simply trying to find 1) where these bands each resided on the Sioux Reservation around 1870, and 2) which of these bands were more likely to resist or fight with whites. Do you or anyone else here know this information? I’m trying to be precise so I can represent the Lakota with some degree of accuracy in my novel. So far I’m only being scolded, which isn’t helping things. |
|
|
|
Post by Californian on Aug 20, 2024 16:28:18 GMT -5
suggested reading: Red Cloud's Folk by George E. Hyde, 1937 University of Oklahoma Press, Norman OK. There is a revised 1957 edition and since that time numerous re-editions by various publishers. Spotted Tail's Folk, by George E. Hyde, 1961 University of Oklahoma Press, Norman OK. There are also numerous re-editions by various publishers. |
|
|
|
Post by wambli ahitunwan on Aug 20, 2024 17:03:55 GMT -5
No, historynerd, you didn't call anyone a savage. I did. And yes, all Indian tribes regularly fought with other enemy tribes over control of hunting grounds and other available resources needed for survival, but none of them attempted to totally exterminate their competitors. Only the savage White invaders did that.
I suspect that most people facing a similar threat of annihilation in their own homeland anywhere at anytime will tend to react and resist with hostility and aggression.
All the info you're wanting can probably be found in the archives of this website, if you're willing to do your own homework and search for it. Happy hunting.
|
|
|
|
Post by gregor on Aug 21, 2024 6:58:40 GMT -5
I am trying to learn the basic regions of the seven bands of Lakota in the first couple years after the 1868 Fort Laramie treaty. I’m writing a novel set in 1870 about a party of white prospectors traveling through Dakota territory, along the White River (from the Missouri to the Badlands and foothills of the Black Hills). In the story, these characters encounter some hostile Lakota war parties. I want to know where the various bands (i.e. Brule, Two Kettles, Oglala, etc.) were regionally dispersed around 1870–especially ‘hostile,’ non-treaty factions—so I can know which groups my characters would likely encounter on their route. I thought this would be simple information to find…but the historical record seems very complex and hazy. I’ve even contacted historical societies and museums in SD, and they can’t seem to tell me. This is a work of fiction, but I want to be accurate as possible. Would anyone be willing to provide insight into which bands, or sub-divisions, of Lakota might be found in the southern third of Dakota territory, from Missouri River to the Black Hills foothills? And which groups, or even chiefs, might have aggressive war parties out to kill invaders? I’d appreciate any help I could get. Thank you! To make a start for your project  1865
 1867
 1877
 1882 |
|
|
|
Post by historynerd on Aug 21, 2024 13:03:39 GMT -5
I am trying to learn the basic regions of the seven bands of Lakota in the first couple years after the 1868 Fort Laramie treaty. I’m writing a novel set in 1870 about a party of white prospectors traveling through Dakota territory, along the White River (from the Missouri to the Badlands and foothills of the Black Hills). In the story, these characters encounter some hostile Lakota war parties. I want to know where the various bands (i.e. Brule, Two Kettles, Oglala, etc.) were regionally dispersed around 1870–especially ‘hostile,’ non-treaty factions—so I can know which groups my characters would likely encounter on their route. I thought this would be simple information to find…but the historical record seems very complex and hazy. I’ve even contacted historical societies and museums in SD, and they can’t seem to tell me. This is a work of fiction, but I want to be accurate as possible. Would anyone be willing to provide insight into which bands, or sub-divisions, of Lakota might be found in the southern third of Dakota territory, from Missouri River to the Black Hills foothills? And which groups, or even chiefs, might have aggressive war parties out to kill invaders? I’d appreciate any help I could get. Thank you! To make a start for your project 1865
1867
1877
1882 You have no idea how much this helps. Thank you for this! |
|
eric
New Member
Posts: 31
|
Post by eric on Aug 21, 2024 16:04:57 GMT -5
No, historynerd, you didn't call anyone a savage. I did. And yes, all Indian tribes regularly fought with other enemy tribes over control of hunting grounds and other available resources needed for survival, but none of them attempted to totally exterminate their competitors. Only the savage White invaders did that. I suspect that most people facing a similar threat of annihilation in their own homeland anywhere at anytime will tend to react and resist with hostility and aggression. All the info you're wanting can probably be found in the archives of this website, if you're willing to do your own homework and search for it. Happy hunting. Hello Wambli Ahitunwan, I don't want to seem rude, but I suggest you get your facts straight. Yes terrible attrocities were commmited by the US troops and the US governement on Native people all over the US, but saying that the Reservations were ment as POW camps is Historycally incorrect. The first Sioux reservations were established before the wars between de different Dakota Nations and the US. Furthermore, I think the relatives of the Pawnee people who were butchered at massacre canyon would beg to differ when questioned about intertribal extermination attempts. In the popular contemporary narrative, the pendulum has swung way past the actual facts. There was brutality used by all in those times.
eric
|
|
|
|
Post by Californian on Aug 21, 2024 18:17:49 GMT -5
Eric, it would give you a lot of insights if you would read the two suggested books by George E. Hyde. Pushing the original owners off the lands, nomadic tribes that seasonally followed game to sustain themselves, and confining them onto reservations that were a fraction of the size of the original landmass can be perceived as imprisonment by the affected people. They were not even allowed to leave the assigned reservations without a pass issued by the agent.
|
|
