It's an exceptional film that offers a very realistic depiction of events as it points out the flaws on both sides of the conflict and doesn't shy away from the cruelty.
I do wish you wouldve mentioned the scene between Sitting Bull and Colonel Miles, personally I really like that scene. I was happy that this show didnt follow the same route of morally righteous and innocent good vs evil just because, but was actually fair to both sides. Its a shame a movie like this isnt as widely known as others.
Agreed. Often when colonialism is discussed, the native population is infantalized and made a non-acting victim. It's the same problem in Africa today, where history is obviously active and still ongoing but from the UN's perspective everyone involved is a victim of one sort or another and they should all become passive dependents on western generosity in perpetuity. Events like the Rwanda genocide or Congo conflicts are not purely "humanitarian", and the exchange between Sitting Bull and Miles really cuts through the language to get to the reality that this is just another chapter in human history. Even when you note which side is in the wrong, you have to note both sides are at least active in their own struggles - including the Native Americans, to whom the solution was certainly not "should be left to their own devices" and thus rot in poverty.
It's an excellent scene! It's just a bit complicated. Miles was right to highlight that life for American Indians was violent and there was war. He was also completely wrong that it invalidates their claim to the land a claim the United States formally recognized in 1868. Otherwise, no claim on any land would ever be valid if a nation had a history of taking it violently. Ironically invalidating America's claim over most of America. Further remember the largest war ever fought in North America was the American Civil War. So, historically America and Europeans have brought only minor periods of peace to date. That being said, America is not "stolen land" it's obviously a rational legal Nation these days. We just have to acknowledge our history and be very weary of anyone using logic like Colonel Miles was using. His words almost reminded me of Putin's who uses irredentist nonsense to justify his war in Ukraine.
@@JohnnyJohnsonHistory A bit strange to bring up Putin in a discussion about natives but alright. As for the claiming part, I thought that the point Miles was trying to say was that their religious claim was the issue, personally I find the religious claim just as stable as the US manifest destiny was. I believe that claiming territory or items is utterly useless if you have no influence or control over said thing. As for the war part of depends on how you see it. By size it is certainly that, but that's because the US and the Confederacy were bigger than any North American native tribe was. Conflicts between natives weren't as common due to location and distance, but when they did happen and one side won, the loser could only flee and hope for a new home before they stave or face near total extermination. And you can't really say the same about European nations in many of their wars. I'm not saying I agree with why they went to war, I just see it a little unfair to bring this point up against Europeans, European nations are larger, closer, and have a history of tensions dating back centuries, natives at least had space and somewhat isolation. But I highly agree that the move to keep Westerners and Natives separate was stupid and they should've gone down the route of the Spanish and Portuguese who tried to combine the peoples. Integration is usually the the best way to lower tensions, though I would admit the US would push for a cultural genocide no matter what. That's how I think about it and I do agree with the rest. Invaders usually have the hardest time justifying their actions. Heck the whole justifications of WW1 were all over the place. Keep doing what you do, I really enjoy it.
Frist of all thank you for the excellent dialogue! Relating history to the present is why I enjoy learning about history. If it was 1939, I’d be taking every opportunity to relate WW1 and historical events to Hitler. Currently, Putin is killing hundreds of people daily and threatening nuclear war, so this gives us a critical opportunity to relate historical lessons right now. We are talking about a larger power breaking a treaty and international law against a smaller power to claim their land. To me it’s so very relatable. As far as, religious or spiritual claims, that was how American Indians viewed land ownership. They didn’t deal in maps, contracts, and treaties. The Americans did and they broke them. As far as claiming territory you have no control over that’s how rational legal authorities work. That’s what we do today. Otherwise, China will certainly swallow the entirety of the South China Sea and Russia will make unlawful claims to the Arctic etc. Otherwise, only large and well-armed nations would own everything and we will just be at war for thousands of years and my kids will be sent to fight for the moon or some nonsense. As a Canadian I am very grateful to live next to a superpower that despite it’s failings attempts to be lawful and respect treaties. Canada and America are the best examples on earth of how developing lawful relationships with your neighbors, rather than invading them creates the best results for all people.
@@JohnnyJohnsonHistory This is a side note but the New York Times has apparently released some documents about an agreement in Istanbul during 2022 that could've (probably) prevented the whole war in Ukraine. But Boris Johnson convinced Ukraine to refuse. It's kinda funny how Britain somehow has a role in many of the world's issues. 🤣
The events at Wounded Knee is not a source of pride for the U.S. Army. Their mismanagement of events ended in a ghastly slaughter. However, it is not true that the Army planned a massacre in advance. Their initial treatment of the Sioux was respectful...even providing medical care for the very ill chief. Problem was that disarming the Sioux in the field was fraught with peril and could have been safely deferred until the tribe was settled in at its final destination. . The mistrust of the Sioux resulted in almost no functional firearms being surrendered. The Army then had the soldiers go through the teepees tossing the people's belongings about. The tribal women chided their men for permitting this. Green troops under incompetent officers not only got in the face of the warriors...but actually managed to block their own supporting heavy firepower from the Hotchkiss guns. . The warriors had their firearms on their persons... under their blankets as they milled about in the cold. One of their warriors fired a shot, and the rest panicked and opened fire. At such close range, a fair number of troopers were shot down. The supporting guns opened fire...killing soldiers as well as Indians in the process... Almost half of the soldiers killed were hit in the back by their own "supporting" fire. . The green troops panicked and "slipped the leash" and once they had fire superiority, massacred everything that moved. Some officers should have been relieved of command...but the government tried to present this event as a "battle" with no Army responsibility. While the Army did not deliberately plan a massacre...they pointlessly escalated a situation that was already sufficiently in hand... and not only pushed a confrontation...but deployed their troops and supporting fire in such a manner as to guarantee friendly fire casualties if shooting started. The government shamefully tried to cover up the actual number of "blue on blue" casualties...and just how a little clear thinking and mature judgement could have avoided the entire bloodletting... YP
It is a stain on both the Army and the government to this day that not only were Medals of Honour awarded for Wounded Knee, but accepted and never rescinded.
Its also worth noting during the disarming part one man who was deaf did not want to give up his gun so him and a soldier fought over it. Unfortunately the man had a round in the chamber which in the struggle went off. And well you know the rest a tens situation everyone on edge you hear a bang all hell rains down. Tragic
Love the speech between Miles and Sitting Bull. It was so very NOT "dances with wolves"! At a practical level, there is a REASON the US Army could always get one tribe to help hunt down another, and even today the various major confederations don't really cooperate, whether it is Kiowa /Crow and Lakota, Navajo and Ute/Pai-Ute, Comanche and Apache, Iroquois and everybody in their vicinity they failed to completely massacre, etc. Also a reason (besides birthrate) that they can't do what, say, the Irish or Mormons or Chinese communities did and simply get enough people together to simply vote some of their stuff/rights back
1:04 I really appreciate this introduction, while we of course have great reason to criticise our governments and countries it is always important to remember the distinction between countries who suppress and censor and hide and have obscured their past and their bloodshed, and those who actually fund, support, and promote historical projects and films that expose this. No government is perfect in this, but the fact that so few ppl nowadays even seem aware of Russia’s national history involving the cleansing of swathes of indigenous people as they expanded across the Asian continent not unlike America’s frontier, and when you look at how many films nowadays are made about America’s past in a negative light, and how few there are about Russia’s colonial past in Eastern Europe, Caucasus, Siberia, Central Asia, that shows you the difference between the two governments. You can hate whatever government you want for ideological reasons but its good to highlight which of them is willing to be honest about their past, even if it means opening themselves up to more criticism in the process. But actively censoring your past the way China and Russia does seems to work for their politics, becuz ppl forget that history even exists when its not being actively acknowledged, and when its just buried in the records/archives and left to gather dust.
Very underrated film, some of the scenes in it are so heartbreaking. the props and costumes are so good in this film. The acting is also great especially Red Clouds actor.
Read that book in university in the 70’s. It is immensely sad. A protest at Wounded Knee occurred at the same time I was reading the book in which several hundred Lakota from the Pine Ridge Reservation and some members of the American Indian Movement (AIM) occupied the town of Wounded Knee. Two indigenous men were killed and one FBI agent was paralyzed by a gunshot wound during the incident. So many of the issues around treaty rights and the treatment of American Indians had not been resolved 100 later.
This was in my watch later for all of ten minutes. I've never seen any movies about this particular part of "relocation," but i've seen a ton of old style Western films set during or before the events here. It's not really surprising to see how people were able to rationalize this over decades/centuries. From "they appreciate/need our guidance because our way is obviously best," to "they're not really people so gods fine with us getting rid of them." The main thing I notice is how the tone of the reflection about these times has changed. Even up to the 1960s, you can find plenty of westerns that hold to these propaganda concepts of bringing civilisation or removing "savages/renegades," and the characters doing it are presented as moral and heroic. The Native Americans are presented as grateful or too wild to really understand anything going on with the main characters. It's not til the 70's and American cinema began taking a darker, more introspective direction that I start noticing these views being questioned or presented as harmful or dehumanizing. It's sad it took so long for society to begin coming to terms with this part of history but it allows us to weave our way through it via film. I hope to watch this film soon but I've seen at least 3 great movies where Native American characters are the protagonists or their treatment is examined through historical/non-romanticised ways, all from the late 80s to mid 90s.
1:00 a much better equivalent than the things mentioned would be a Chinese person doing a movie about the rise of China (the country). They would probably be completely comfortable making that movie, it should be the same with this.
General Miles made a very valid point. War is sadly human nature, selfishness, and greed lead people to take what's not theirs. Whereas selflessness leads some to defend the people that they care about. Butt, in almost every war, without exception, there was at least one selfish side. So this is where sin leaves us. There is no good guys or bad guys, and much of the historical stories. Just one that's being bad in that moment and one that's being good in that moment. No tribe or country can truly claim that they were always peaceful people at all times. Even gods own chosen country at times went wayward and did their own selfish things, maybe not through war, but through not treating each other with love and respect.
At some point, however, there is rational legal authority. We have every right and obligation to judge the validity and ethics of any war. America joined the allies and not the axis in ww2 after all. We are happy to be the good guys in this war. Which we were from a rational, legal, and objective perspective. All wars are not created equal. And countries must be accountable to, at very least, their own people.
@JohnnyJohnsonHistory I agree. All people must be held to the same standards. I'll gladly call out America for it's failures, and speak well of it for its good deeds. However, I don't like it when people try to claim purely a victim status like them or the people they came from, never did anything bad before. I'll call out America for what it did wrong, but I'll also call out the war chiefs that also did great evil. But I will not allow the descendants of any of them to be condemned for the mistakes of their forefathers. The best we can do is try to get along moving forward from here, and not forget the past.
@@JohnnyJohnsonHistory Thank you for being willing to hear me out. Alot of people would listen past me being critical of the mainstream idea, they would have just accused me of racism and moved on. Even though my entire perspective is history isn't fair to anyone.
It's a pretty general statement on my part. Best way to view it is as the ancestors that created the system we all generally benefit from. Not saying anyone should feel guilty about it. Just good to have a broader sense of how the system/government/nation was formed.
no matter what race or tribes you are only Jesus Christ would unite us and he is the worlds saviour the Loving caring god Lord of Lords and King of Kings he is from yesterday and now and tommorrow the beginning and the ending the Alpha and omega The Son of almighty Father living God
Its always ironic to see jesus proselytizing nonsense whenever there's something involving American Indigenous peoples given the erasure of their culture, traditions, and languages by the hands of the churches.
LIke what thaught in school ? The government will import willing immigrant troop from Ireland to control the unruly natives, the same way today's elite politic import the illegal immigrant to control the unruly "native" born citizen ?
The entirety of human history is one group conquering another. The Sioux conquered the Cheyenne and drove them from the black hills and then decided the black hills were THEIR sacred land. The Cheyenne were probably pretty fond of the black hills too. You cannot rectify the past. That is above the pay grade of humans.
It's very important to know this about our history cuz if we do not know what we did in the past we are going to repeat it in the future This is very important history inde one that they fail to teach in schools 😢😢😢 Side note that's a very chubby Kitty you got back there😊😊😊😊❤❤❤
You don't agree that Canada and The States have a shared colonial history involving treaties and warfare etc with First Nations? That's kind of what I meant. Both former British Colonies.
There are no "good" or "bad" guys in history; just victors who live to write narratives and the defeated who suffer what they must. I'm proud of my ancestors for taking this country for their descendants; they did what they had to do, just as the migrants will do to us. The cycle continues.
The people who want to deny this history fascinate me from a psychological point of view. Like yeah it's not fun to know our ancestors were the bad guys, but we'll never be able to move forward until we reckon with our country's past. It makes me think about Black Panther when T'Challa meets his ancestors the second time and shouts at them "You were ALL WRONG!!". I like to think if I could meet figures from history I'd have the courage to say that. And to me that's the key - why do history deniers lack the courage to accept the facts?
They weren't the bad guys, thats where you're wrong. On the frontier there were no good guys or bad guys...just competing factions...winners and losers.
@@ken52682 the US broke tons of treaties and systematically tried to eradicate native cultures. Some might use the word genocide. I’d say that more or less made us the bad guys.
That one scene in this movie has been presented as some foolproof argument for American settler colonialism it stupid to assume how native Americans fought between each other somehow justified The genocide of native Americans
Fun fact there are more Lakota today than in the 1800s. You of course realize that these natives brutally raped, tortured and killed neighboring enemy tribes right? Why is it ok for tribes to kill each other but if someone of a different color does it it's wrong? Makes zero sense. As someone who comes from the basin region tribes and also had a female ancestor and her 11 year old son captured and killed by natives I have to disagree with both of you.
It's an exceptional film that offers a very realistic depiction of events as it points out the flaws on both sides of the conflict and doesn't shy away from the cruelty.
War is the opposite of Civility & War always comes before Civilized Society & War will always come back.
Highly recommend the book of the same name, an incredible read and even more emotional than the film
I do wish you wouldve mentioned the scene between Sitting Bull and Colonel Miles, personally I really like that scene.
I was happy that this show didnt follow the same route of morally righteous and innocent good vs evil just because, but was actually fair to both sides. Its a shame a movie like this isnt as widely known as others.
Agreed. Often when colonialism is discussed, the native population is infantalized and made a non-acting victim. It's the same problem in Africa today, where history is obviously active and still ongoing but from the UN's perspective everyone involved is a victim of one sort or another and they should all become passive dependents on western generosity in perpetuity. Events like the Rwanda genocide or Congo conflicts are not purely "humanitarian", and the exchange between Sitting Bull and Miles really cuts through the language to get to the reality that this is just another chapter in human history. Even when you note which side is in the wrong, you have to note both sides are at least active in their own struggles - including the Native Americans, to whom the solution was certainly not "should be left to their own devices" and thus rot in poverty.
It's an excellent scene! It's just a bit complicated. Miles was right to highlight that life for American Indians was violent and there was war. He was also completely wrong that it invalidates their claim to the land a claim the United States formally recognized in 1868. Otherwise, no claim on any land would ever be valid if a nation had a history of taking it violently. Ironically invalidating America's claim over most of America. Further remember the largest war ever fought in North America was the American Civil War. So, historically America and Europeans have brought only minor periods of peace to date. That being said, America is not "stolen land" it's obviously a rational legal Nation these days. We just have to acknowledge our history and be very weary of anyone using logic like Colonel Miles was using. His words almost reminded me of Putin's who uses irredentist nonsense to justify his war in Ukraine.
@@JohnnyJohnsonHistory A bit strange to bring up Putin in a discussion about natives but alright. As for the claiming part, I thought that the point Miles was trying to say was that their religious claim was the issue, personally I find the religious claim just as stable as the US manifest destiny was. I believe that claiming territory or items is utterly useless if you have no influence or control over said thing.
As for the war part of depends on how you see it. By size it is certainly that, but that's because the US and the Confederacy were bigger than any North American native tribe was. Conflicts between natives weren't as common due to location and distance, but when they did happen and one side won, the loser could only flee and hope for a new home before they stave or face near total extermination. And you can't really say the same about European nations in many of their wars. I'm not saying I agree with why they went to war, I just see it a little unfair to bring this point up against Europeans, European nations are larger, closer, and have a history of tensions dating back centuries, natives at least had space and somewhat isolation. But I highly agree that the move to keep Westerners and Natives separate was stupid and they should've gone down the route of the Spanish and Portuguese who tried to combine the peoples. Integration is usually the the best way to lower tensions, though I would admit the US would push for a cultural genocide no matter what.
That's how I think about it and I do agree with the rest. Invaders usually have the hardest time justifying their actions. Heck the whole justifications of WW1 were all over the place. Keep doing what you do, I really enjoy it.
Frist of all thank you for the excellent dialogue! Relating history to the present is why I enjoy learning about history. If it was 1939, I’d be taking every opportunity to relate WW1 and historical events to Hitler. Currently, Putin is killing hundreds of people daily and threatening nuclear war, so this gives us a critical opportunity to relate historical lessons right now. We are talking about a larger power breaking a treaty and international law against a smaller power to claim their land. To me it’s so very relatable.
As far as, religious or spiritual claims, that was how American Indians viewed land ownership. They didn’t deal in maps, contracts, and treaties. The Americans did and they broke them. As far as claiming territory you have no control over that’s how rational legal authorities work. That’s what we do today. Otherwise, China will certainly swallow the entirety of the South China Sea and Russia will make unlawful claims to the Arctic etc. Otherwise, only large and well-armed nations would own everything and we will just be at war for thousands of years and my kids will be sent to fight for the moon or some nonsense.
As a Canadian I am very grateful to live next to a superpower that despite it’s failings attempts to be lawful and respect treaties. Canada and America are the best examples on earth of how developing lawful relationships with your neighbors, rather than invading them creates the best results for all people.
@@JohnnyJohnsonHistory This is a side note but the New York Times has apparently released some documents about an agreement in Istanbul during 2022 that could've (probably) prevented the whole war in Ukraine. But Boris Johnson convinced Ukraine to refuse. It's kinda funny how Britain somehow has a role in many of the world's issues. 🤣
The events at Wounded Knee is not a source of pride for the U.S. Army. Their mismanagement of events ended in a ghastly slaughter. However, it is not true that the Army planned a massacre in advance. Their initial treatment of the Sioux was respectful...even providing medical care for the very ill chief. Problem was that disarming the Sioux in the field was fraught with peril and could have been safely deferred until the tribe was settled in at its final destination.
.
The mistrust of the Sioux resulted in almost no functional firearms being surrendered. The Army then had the soldiers go through the teepees tossing the people's belongings about. The tribal women chided their men for permitting this. Green troops under incompetent officers not only got in the face of the warriors...but actually managed to block their own supporting heavy firepower from the Hotchkiss guns.
.
The warriors had their firearms on their persons... under their blankets as they milled about in the cold. One of their warriors fired a shot, and the rest panicked and opened fire. At such close range, a fair number of troopers were shot down. The supporting guns opened fire...killing soldiers as well as Indians in the process... Almost half of the soldiers killed were hit in the back by their own "supporting" fire.
.
The green troops panicked and "slipped the leash" and once they had fire superiority, massacred everything that moved. Some officers should have been relieved of command...but the government tried to present this event as a "battle" with no Army responsibility. While the Army did not deliberately plan a massacre...they pointlessly escalated a situation that was already sufficiently in hand... and not only pushed a confrontation...but deployed their troops and supporting fire in such a manner as to guarantee friendly fire casualties if shooting started. The government shamefully tried to cover up the actual number of "blue on blue" casualties...and just how a little clear thinking and mature judgement could have avoided the entire bloodletting... YP
Just like US army "not planning" to massacre the south vietnamese civilians ?
It is a stain on both the Army and the government to this day that not only were Medals of Honour awarded for Wounded Knee, but accepted and never rescinded.
Its also worth noting during the disarming part one man who was deaf did not want to give up his gun so him and a soldier fought over it. Unfortunately the man had a round in the chamber which in the struggle went off. And well you know the rest a tens situation everyone on edge you hear a bang all hell rains down. Tragic
They gave out medals too btw.
@@navajoguy8102 Yes, including CMHs, as mentioned above.
Love the speech between Miles and Sitting Bull. It was so very NOT "dances with wolves"!
At a practical level, there is a REASON the US Army could always get one tribe to help hunt down another, and even today the various major confederations don't really cooperate, whether it is Kiowa /Crow and Lakota, Navajo and Ute/Pai-Ute, Comanche and Apache, Iroquois and everybody in their vicinity they failed to completely massacre, etc.
Also a reason (besides birthrate) that they can't do what, say, the Irish or Mormons or Chinese communities did and simply get enough people together to simply vote some of their stuff/rights back
Great new additional commentary from the furball behind you 😊
1:04 I really appreciate this introduction, while we of course have great reason to criticise our governments and countries it is always important to remember the distinction between countries who suppress and censor and hide and have obscured their past and their bloodshed, and those who actually fund, support, and promote historical projects and films that expose this. No government is perfect in this, but the fact that so few ppl nowadays even seem aware of Russia’s national history involving the cleansing of swathes of indigenous people as they expanded across the Asian continent not unlike America’s frontier, and when you look at how many films nowadays are made about America’s past in a negative light, and how few there are about Russia’s colonial past in Eastern Europe, Caucasus, Siberia, Central Asia, that shows you the difference between the two governments. You can hate whatever government you want for ideological reasons but its good to highlight which of them is willing to be honest about their past, even if it means opening themselves up to more criticism in the process. But actively censoring your past the way China and Russia does seems to work for their politics, becuz ppl forget that history even exists when its not being actively acknowledged, and when its just buried in the records/archives and left to gather dust.
Very underrated film, some of the scenes in it are so heartbreaking. the props and costumes are so good in this film. The acting is also great especially Red Clouds actor.
Read that book in university in the 70’s. It is immensely sad. A protest at Wounded Knee occurred at the same time I was reading the book in which several hundred Lakota from the Pine Ridge Reservation and some members of the American Indian Movement (AIM) occupied the town of Wounded Knee. Two indigenous men were killed and one FBI agent was paralyzed by a gunshot wound during the incident. So many of the issues around treaty rights and the treatment of American Indians had not been resolved 100 later.
I always thought the KGB missed a bet by not shipping more AK's to the natives during the Cold War.
This was in my watch later for all of ten minutes. I've never seen any movies about this particular part of "relocation," but i've seen a ton of old style Western films set during or before the events here.
It's not really surprising to see how people were able to rationalize this over decades/centuries.
From "they appreciate/need our guidance because our way is obviously best," to "they're not really people so gods fine with us getting rid of them."
The main thing I notice is how the tone of the reflection about these times has changed.
Even up to the 1960s, you can find plenty of westerns that hold to these propaganda concepts of bringing civilisation or removing "savages/renegades," and the characters doing it are presented as moral and heroic. The Native Americans are presented as grateful or too wild to really understand anything going on with the main characters.
It's not til the 70's and American cinema began taking a darker, more introspective direction that I start noticing these views being questioned or presented as harmful or dehumanizing.
It's sad it took so long for society to begin coming to terms with this part of history but it allows us to weave our way through it via film.
I hope to watch this film soon but I've seen at least 3 great movies where Native American characters are the protagonists or their treatment is examined through historical/non-romanticised ways, all from the late 80s to mid 90s.
It was a good find - I don't think you will be disappointed with this one. Another win for the HBO history advisors.
1:00 a much better equivalent than the things mentioned would be a Chinese person doing a movie about the rise of China (the country). They would probably be completely comfortable making that movie, it should be the same with this.
General Miles made a very valid point. War is sadly human nature, selfishness, and greed lead people to take what's not theirs. Whereas selflessness leads some to defend the people that they care about. Butt, in almost every war, without exception, there was at least one selfish side. So this is where sin leaves us. There is no good guys or bad guys, and much of the historical stories. Just one that's being bad in that moment and one that's being good in that moment. No tribe or country can truly claim that they were always peaceful people at all times. Even gods own chosen country at times went wayward and did their own selfish things, maybe not through war, but through not treating each other with love and respect.
At some point, however, there is rational legal authority. We have every right and obligation to judge the validity and ethics of any war. America joined the allies and not the axis in ww2 after all. We are happy to be the good guys in this war. Which we were from a rational, legal, and objective perspective. All wars are not created equal. And countries must be accountable to, at very least, their own people.
@JohnnyJohnsonHistory I agree. All people must be held to the same standards. I'll gladly call out America for it's failures, and speak well of it for its good deeds. However, I don't like it when people try to claim purely a victim status like them or the people they came from, never did anything bad before. I'll call out America for what it did wrong, but I'll also call out the war chiefs that also did great evil. But I will not allow the descendants of any of them to be condemned for the mistakes of their forefathers. The best we can do is try to get along moving forward from here, and not forget the past.
Well spoken and I thank you for the perspective 🙏
@@JohnnyJohnsonHistory Thank you for being willing to hear me out. Alot of people would listen past me being critical of the mainstream idea, they would have just accused me of racism and moved on. Even though my entire perspective is history isn't fair to anyone.
Johnny I love your reviews on certain war movies that not many people know about. Please review “The lost battalion “ and “when trumpets fade”
Will do! I like them both!
Great video man! Wish your channel the best success!
Thank you kindly. New video out tonight or tomorrow.
Thanks 🙏 for supporting Tibet 😢
Not my ancestors. They were in Germany and Mexico at this point and time
It's a pretty general statement on my part. Best way to view it is as the ancestors that created the system we all generally benefit from. Not saying anyone should feel guilty about it. Just good to have a broader sense of how the system/government/nation was formed.
Is there a patreon to send ’Sleeping Cat’ some chicken?
I still haven't figured that Patreon stuff out but I will give sleepy cat some pets in your name!
no matter what race or tribes you are only Jesus Christ would unite us and he is the worlds saviour the Loving caring god Lord of Lords and King of Kings he is from yesterday and now and tommorrow the beginning and the ending the Alpha and omega The Son of almighty Father living God
Its always ironic to see jesus proselytizing nonsense whenever there's something involving American Indigenous peoples given the erasure of their culture, traditions, and languages by the hands of the churches.
A very powerful and serious incident, thanks fella...this should be taught in schools...E.
Thanks for the support as always E.
@@JohnnyJohnsonHistory...have a great weekend, sir...😊😊
LIke what thaught in school ? The government will import willing immigrant troop from Ireland to control the unruly natives, the same way today's elite politic import the illegal immigrant to control the unruly "native" born citizen ?
The entirety of human history is one group conquering another. The Sioux conquered the Cheyenne and drove them from the black hills and then decided the black hills were THEIR sacred land. The Cheyenne were probably pretty fond of the black hills too. You cannot rectify the past. That is above the pay grade of humans.
It's very important to know this about our history cuz if we do not know what we did in the past we are going to repeat it in the future
This is very important history inde one that they fail to teach in schools 😢😢😢
Side note that's a very chubby Kitty you got back there😊😊😊😊❤❤❤
The Cat!
we? are you not canadian?
Shared colonial history.
@@JohnnyJohnsonHistory lmao you cant be serious
You don't agree that Canada and The States have a shared colonial history involving treaties and warfare etc with First Nations? That's kind of what I meant. Both former British Colonies.
Thanks for sharing this
There are no "good" or "bad" guys in history; just victors who live to write narratives and the defeated who suffer what they must. I'm proud of my ancestors for taking this country for their descendants; they did what they had to do, just as the migrants will do to us. The cycle continues.
Stalin, Hitler, Mao, pol pot, and the Japanese army during ww2 were definitely the bad guys.
Migrant of today were enabled and have no resources save what our government gives them. Not the same.
No, there are bad guys, let me assure you
@@jacobbryant9177
...then assure me. I'm hearing the overture to an argument without an argument or evidence. Everyone's waiting...
@@jacobbryant9177
Where's the assurance?
Tank you Johnny, could not be better narrated.😢
As a Southerner, I didn't find this uncomfortable at all to watch. It's very easy for us to see blue uniforms as the bad guys.
I think they would be using canister shot….🤷🏻♂️ edit: Okay, than give up all their lands and hand it back, otherwise shut the F up
The strong survives, the weak perish. Human's universal law. in any spotlight you choose to put it.
Would apply this to the holocaust
The people who want to deny this history fascinate me from a psychological point of view. Like yeah it's not fun to know our ancestors were the bad guys, but we'll never be able to move forward until we reckon with our country's past. It makes me think about Black Panther when T'Challa meets his ancestors the second time and shouts at them "You were ALL WRONG!!". I like to think if I could meet figures from history I'd have the courage to say that. And to me that's the key - why do history deniers lack the courage to accept the facts?
They weren't the bad guys, thats where you're wrong. On the frontier there were no good guys or bad guys...just competing factions...winners and losers.
@@ken52682 the US broke tons of treaties and systematically tried to eradicate native cultures. Some might use the word genocide. I’d say that more or less made us the bad guys.
@@ken52682 Would you apply this logic to the holocaust or the Armenian genocide?
same argument are being used on palestine in Gaza.. all hail manifest destiny !!
Nah. Not close to being the same.
That one scene in this movie has been presented as some foolproof argument for American settler colonialism it stupid to assume how native Americans fought between each other somehow justified The genocide of native Americans
I believe it's highlighting how someone at the time might justify their actions. He is clearly wrong in his justification despite being articulate.
Fun fact there are more Lakota today than in the 1800s. You of course realize that these natives brutally raped, tortured and killed neighboring enemy tribes right? Why is it ok for tribes to kill each other but if someone of a different color does it it's wrong? Makes zero sense. As someone who comes from the basin region tribes and also had a female ancestor and her 11 year old son captured and killed by natives I have to disagree with both of you.
How dare you steal what I've rightfully stolen from the guy who cowardly stole it previously.