Post by wolfgang911 on Jun 5, 2009 18:25:04 GMT -5
hau to you all
As you might have noticed I like debate and the post is not so innocent as it seems. I have been fascinated for a long time with this fight or massacre, whatever you might call it.
I was astounded by the fact that so many accounts and newspapers had just taken williamson's quote of a chiefname whilst I had never heard of such a Disney name.
I thought like Dietmar said that it could be the free 'pawnee' translation of Spotted-snow Tail-flake.
The only problem we have then is that the image of Spotted Tail, the friendly with vision, gets a severe blow.
The most bloody massacre of plain indians between Sand creek and Wounded knee was so perpetrated by other indians... "friendlies" above all.
Whilst some try to portray Sitting Bull Crazy Horse Gall & C° , the hostiles, as the vilains the evidence shows us that those 'pirates' were concentrating their energy on keeping away from the army.
Spotted Tail Little Wound and the other ' peace medal chiefs' preferred to fight less dangerous opponents heavily outnumbering them, for prestige or whatever sake.
Like the Pawnee wanted their last buffaloo the Brulé and Oglala wanted their last Pawnee fight, something like that.
I'm not trying to judge and I think the 'massacre' was more a unfortunate hasard due to the presence of a gully in the canyon on the way of retreat, which made the outcome much more bloody then could be expected, even to the warriors' surprise. But the warparty was not just raiding horses and count some coups but really out to wipe the Pawnee. Could they have stuck their efforts with fighting the army and join their forces with the 'hostiles' what outcome would we have had in 1876...
My point is that some try to use this event to change history and to depict the sioux as a tribe of ' pirates and bullies' of the plains.
It was one of many encounters that turned very bloody. Even if the slaying of women and children was horribly absurd it occured almost by accident if you read the accounts and I don't have to tell you guys here that the sioux and cheyenne also suffered heavily form the pawnee in the '30 & '50 and their scouting in the '60.
When you type on YouTube pawnee + massacre you will get from 1 into another video wit lots of changes and skips in facts ending up> " the sioux annihilated ANOTHER tribe". Then you're close to the 'the Sioux got what they deserved" for the rest of the story. As this 'massacre' is so outbalanced compared to 'normal' raiding it gives the sioux easily the blame as the worst villains of the plains. Which I think is dishonest historically + that the hostile freedomseekers that had to be wiped had nothing to do with it anyway, the only point I wanted to make actually.
I would like to have your thoughts about this, but thank you already for your responses which confirms my earlier idea. I knew it if this billboard doesn't know him he doesn't exist our SnowFlake!
As you might have noticed I like debate and the post is not so innocent as it seems. I have been fascinated for a long time with this fight or massacre, whatever you might call it.
I was astounded by the fact that so many accounts and newspapers had just taken williamson's quote of a chiefname whilst I had never heard of such a Disney name.
I thought like Dietmar said that it could be the free 'pawnee' translation of Spotted-snow Tail-flake.
The only problem we have then is that the image of Spotted Tail, the friendly with vision, gets a severe blow.
The most bloody massacre of plain indians between Sand creek and Wounded knee was so perpetrated by other indians... "friendlies" above all.
Whilst some try to portray Sitting Bull Crazy Horse Gall & C° , the hostiles, as the vilains the evidence shows us that those 'pirates' were concentrating their energy on keeping away from the army.
Spotted Tail Little Wound and the other ' peace medal chiefs' preferred to fight less dangerous opponents heavily outnumbering them, for prestige or whatever sake.
Like the Pawnee wanted their last buffaloo the Brulé and Oglala wanted their last Pawnee fight, something like that.
I'm not trying to judge and I think the 'massacre' was more a unfortunate hasard due to the presence of a gully in the canyon on the way of retreat, which made the outcome much more bloody then could be expected, even to the warriors' surprise. But the warparty was not just raiding horses and count some coups but really out to wipe the Pawnee. Could they have stuck their efforts with fighting the army and join their forces with the 'hostiles' what outcome would we have had in 1876...
My point is that some try to use this event to change history and to depict the sioux as a tribe of ' pirates and bullies' of the plains.
It was one of many encounters that turned very bloody. Even if the slaying of women and children was horribly absurd it occured almost by accident if you read the accounts and I don't have to tell you guys here that the sioux and cheyenne also suffered heavily form the pawnee in the '30 & '50 and their scouting in the '60.
When you type on YouTube pawnee + massacre you will get from 1 into another video wit lots of changes and skips in facts ending up> " the sioux annihilated ANOTHER tribe". Then you're close to the 'the Sioux got what they deserved" for the rest of the story. As this 'massacre' is so outbalanced compared to 'normal' raiding it gives the sioux easily the blame as the worst villains of the plains. Which I think is dishonest historically + that the hostile freedomseekers that had to be wiped had nothing to do with it anyway, the only point I wanted to make actually.
I would like to have your thoughts about this, but thank you already for your responses which confirms my earlier idea. I knew it if this billboard doesn't know him he doesn't exist our SnowFlake!