Thank you very much for making the point of " Not being a massacre" its so wrong to describe every time the indians won as a massacre, and when the US Army won described as a "battle"
I read in my Time-Life books "The Soldiers" that Fetterman had such contempt for Indians that he bragged he could wipe out the whole Sioux nation with just 80 men. Ironically as it turned out the last two men, civilians, who asked to tag along brought the total number of men to.... ....80. He also disobeyed his superior officers orders which were to not chase the Indians who attacked the wood collecting party. How does that jive with what you know?
Thank you Joe Marshal. It is SO important hearing the story, the truth of Native American. So many brave honorable people. History is important. Not losing the truth about Native life, beliefs and war.
Nice video, thanks for sharing. I appreciate the commentary. The lecture by Joe Marshall is a bit much. If a person is going to try and teach history, and likewise if a person is going to learn history, then being impartial is key. Notice he didn't speak at all about the atrocities committed by the Lakota against the Pawnee, Ponca, Kiowa, and others. The conflict isn't between the "white man" and natives, but rather a huge conflict between all the warring tribes with the whites intertwined within. No, there are no innocents in any of that conflict either, just an eventual victor. There is a wonderful scene in "Bury My Heart at Wounded Knee" between Sitting Bull and Col Miles. It is an EXCELLENT scene and I'm so thankful that someone finally explains it outright in a movie as it was in the real deal. The Lakota should be careful when pointing fingers... research "Lakota Pawnee Massacre Canyon 1873".
No, not really. The engagements were two very different scenarios. Custer wasn't baited, he just charged to the flank not knowing just how vastly outnumbered he was.
The lakota and other tribes didnt need police,prisons or written laws...they managed their affairs based on their family and tribal beliefs... If we could only learn from them today.
All roads lead to the new world order. Back then it was the land grab phase. Now we're in a perfect global slave system. It's been going this way for centuries
10:20 But Lakotas et al pushed the Crow's off this land, before this fight with Whites.....so this claim of fight for homeland is hollow. More like a bare fisted fight for territory between Crow's, Lakota & other tribes, as elsewhere between English, French, Spanish, and here between mostly Lakota and US Whites.
The Lokota were true warmongers amongst the Indians, no question. Remember they started in eastern SD and northern MN. They, along with the Dakota, were kicked out of MN by the Ojibwa and Chippewa, and in to SD proper. The Dakota stayed more on the eastern side of SD while the Lakota moved westward pushing the Pawnee south, the Cheyenne west and south, and the Crow/Shoshone west and north. FWIW, the Cheyenne were in the Black Hills of SD for hundreds of years along with the Pawnee on the southern edge. The Lakota didn't really "settle" the Black Hills until the middle 1800's (1840's-1850's). We hear a lot about Wounded Knee Massacre, and yes it was certainly tragic, but we don't hear about all of the massacres that the Lakota committed against others. Why?
I read in my Time-Life books "The Soldiers" that Fetterman had such contempt for Indians that he bragged he could wipe out the whole Sioux nation with just 80 men. Ironically as it turned out the last two men, civilians, who asked to tag along brought the total number of men to 80. He also disobeyed his superior officers orders which were to not chase the Indians who attacked the wood collecting party.
A: Congrats, you fell for a statement or phrase that was widely used and can't really be attributed to any one person. Actually, the correct phrasing for back then was "Give me a company of regulars and I can defeat 1000 Indians", and B: the earliest actual use of the phrase as you refer to was "Give me 80 men and I can wipe out 1000 Indians" was found in 1908, long after the Fetterman Fight. That is called fantasizing journalism and it is obviously still rampant today and far too common thanks to social media. The information is out there, read up on the aftermath of the Fetterman Fight and you find the details. Cheers.
@@SmokinLoon5150 You know, I don't mind in the least being corrected . As a matter of fact I look forward to it. That's how I learn. But nobody likes a know-it all or a smart ass. I was merely quoting from the Time-Life books I read. I don't take anything as the word of God. And the next time you think you're speaking from some kind of moral integrity or authority; Use your own fucking name next time, instead of cowering behind a phony moniker.
Tell me Joe Marshall what did the Crow do when the Lakota invaded their hunting grounds and took over their resources before the white men came along. Hard to condemn one group when your group had done exactly the same. Oh except the white people set aside areas for the Lakota, Crow, and Cheyenne as well as most other tribes to preserve their culture and traditions. I take offense when I am told the white committed genocide with you being filmed in your traditional clothes and discussing a battle. The guilt trip at 10:30 dishonors the those who fought and died during the Indian Wars. There was a battle and sometimes the whites lost but in the end an industrial society defeated a stone age society.
This is ignored. Unfortunately the youths of today cannot step back and look at the big picture. That is why our Country is so easily manipulated by the elite and intelligence agencies.
@@robertmiller8529 My point was and is that no other society or culture put aside lands for the exclusive use of the vanquished foe. If we had destroyed or assimilated the tribes then all the other stuff would be a non-started. There would be no claims of genocide, theft, or cultural appropriation. But the loss would be greater since we have preserved the culture and history of the tribes. I reject the idea that we should be condemned for not wiping them out and leaving little if any trace. Thus my rejection of the guilt trip presented in the video.
@@YungSeti Genocide is the destruction of a group. I visited the monument at the battle of the little bighorn. It is located in the middle of the Crow reservation. Many of the employees are members of various tribes. My guide was according to him an Indian of the Miniconjou and Oglala tribes. Yes, they call themselves Indians at least when dealing with whites. So, if it was genocide it was a rather shoddy job of it. Go to Mexico and see if there are any reservations or cultural centers. For your edification here is a map of the reservations that were set aside for a vanquished people. The Indians committed genocide on the Anasazi, Hohokam, and Mogollon. There was nothing left but ruins. There is a difference. China is committing cultural genocide in Tibet and Mongolia and has done so in Bhutan and Nepal. Genocide is the deliberate and systematic destruction of a racial, political, or cultural group. The 325 reservations stand in defiance to your statement.
that is a great document. I have been there in 2004 and hope to go back. I will never forget the place anyway. CHeers from Switzerland
Well done talk @ explanation of the situation, in the West at that time. Thank you for airing the documentary.🎨🎨🎨🎨🎨
Thank you very much for making the point of " Not being a massacre" its so wrong to describe every time the indians won as a massacre, and when the US Army won described as a "battle"
I am a reenactor at the Fetterman Fight! I'm practically an expert on the battlefield. You should join the unit! Were the Kerany Frontier Regulars.
I read in my Time-Life books "The Soldiers" that Fetterman had such contempt for Indians that he bragged he could wipe out the whole Sioux nation with just 80 men. Ironically as it turned out the last two men, civilians, who asked to tag along brought the total number of men to.... ....80. He also disobeyed his superior officers orders which were to not chase the Indians who attacked the wood collecting party. How does that jive with what you know?
Thank you Joe Marshal. It is SO important hearing the story, the truth of Native American. So many brave honorable people. History is important. Not losing the truth about Native life, beliefs and war.
I appreciate Joe Marshall’s knowledge.
The story of the lakota descendant needs to be listened to closely...they were only doing the same thing I would today...
Nice video, thanks for sharing. I appreciate the commentary.
The lecture by Joe Marshall is a bit much. If a person is going to try and teach history, and likewise if a person is going to learn history, then being impartial is key. Notice he didn't speak at all about the atrocities committed by the Lakota against the Pawnee, Ponca, Kiowa, and others. The conflict isn't between the "white man" and natives, but rather a huge conflict between all the warring tribes with the whites intertwined within. No, there are no innocents in any of that conflict either, just an eventual victor. There is a wonderful scene in "Bury My Heart at Wounded Knee" between Sitting Bull and Col Miles. It is an EXCELLENT scene and I'm so thankful that someone finally explains it outright in a movie as it was in the real deal. The Lakota should be careful when pointing fingers... research "Lakota Pawnee Massacre Canyon 1873".
Joseph M. Marshall III is so majestic. Much respect.
Custer should have paid special attention to this.
No, not really. The engagements were two very different scenarios. Custer wasn't baited, he just charged to the flank not knowing just how vastly outnumbered he was.
The lakota and other tribes didnt need police,prisons or written laws...they managed their affairs based on their family and tribal beliefs...
If we could only learn from them today.
Cherokees had the Lighthorse.
www.legendsofamerica.com/lighthorse-police/
All roads lead to the new world order. Back then it was the land grab phase. Now we're in a perfect global slave system. It's been going this way for centuries
Lakota wiped out the Crow. That is why Crow helped cavalry. Indians were brutal to each other.
Cool dog
10:20 But Lakotas et al pushed the Crow's off this land, before this fight with Whites.....so this claim of fight for homeland is hollow. More like a bare fisted fight for territory between Crow's, Lakota & other tribes, as elsewhere between English, French, Spanish, and here between mostly Lakota and US Whites.
The Lokota were true warmongers amongst the Indians, no question. Remember they started in eastern SD and northern MN. They, along with the Dakota, were kicked out of MN by the Ojibwa and Chippewa, and in to SD proper. The Dakota stayed more on the eastern side of SD while the Lakota moved westward pushing the Pawnee south, the Cheyenne west and south, and the Crow/Shoshone west and north. FWIW, the Cheyenne were in the Black Hills of SD for hundreds of years along with the Pawnee on the southern edge. The Lakota didn't really "settle" the Black Hills until the middle 1800's (1840's-1850's). We hear a lot about Wounded Knee Massacre, and yes it was certainly tragic, but we don't hear about all of the massacres that the Lakota committed against others. Why?
I have been with General Custer by the Little Big Horn Battle
You're over 145 years old?
I read in my Time-Life books "The Soldiers" that Fetterman had such contempt for Indians that he bragged he could wipe out the whole Sioux nation with just 80 men. Ironically as it turned out the last two men, civilians, who asked to tag along brought the total number of men to 80. He also disobeyed his superior officers orders which were to not chase the Indians who attacked the wood collecting party.
A: Congrats, you fell for a statement or phrase that was widely used and can't really be attributed to any one person. Actually, the correct phrasing for back then was "Give me a company of regulars and I can defeat 1000 Indians", and B: the earliest actual use of the phrase as you refer to was "Give me 80 men and I can wipe out 1000 Indians" was found in 1908, long after the Fetterman Fight. That is called fantasizing journalism and it is obviously still rampant today and far too common thanks to social media. The information is out there, read up on the aftermath of the Fetterman Fight and you find the details. Cheers.
@@SmokinLoon5150 You know, I don't mind in the least being corrected . As a matter of fact I look forward to it. That's how I learn. But nobody likes a know-it all or a smart ass. I was merely quoting from the Time-Life books I read. I don't take anything as the word of God. And the next time you think you're speaking from some kind of moral integrity or authority; Use your own fucking name next time, instead of cowering behind a phony moniker.
@@SmokinLoon5150 exactly. and these rumors were spread my the wifes of surviving officers of Fort Phl Kearny
@@SmokinLoon5150 at the time, they even named a fort after Fetterman. He wasnt the guy described today
0
Tell me Joe Marshall what did the Crow do when the Lakota invaded their hunting grounds and took over their resources before the white men came along. Hard to condemn one group when your group had done exactly the same. Oh except the white people set aside areas for the Lakota, Crow, and Cheyenne as well as most other tribes to preserve their culture and traditions. I take offense when I am told the white committed genocide with you being filmed in your traditional clothes and discussing a battle. The guilt trip at 10:30 dishonors the those who fought and died during the Indian Wars. There was a battle and sometimes the whites lost but in the end an industrial society defeated a stone age society.
This is ignored. Unfortunately the youths of today cannot step back and look at the big picture. That is why our Country is so easily manipulated by the elite and intelligence agencies.
You’re right up to a point. US did steal away the black hills and some Indian reservations were drastically reduced in size.
@@robertmiller8529 My point was and is that no other society or culture put aside lands for the exclusive use of the vanquished foe. If we had destroyed or assimilated the tribes then all the other stuff would be a non-started. There would be no claims of genocide, theft, or cultural appropriation. But the loss would be greater since we have preserved the culture and history of the tribes. I reject the idea that we should be condemned for not wiping them out and leaving little if any trace. Thus my rejection of the guilt trip presented in the video.
It was genocide, if that hurts your feelings - that's fine. But it was genocide.
@@YungSeti Genocide is the destruction of a group. I visited the monument at the battle of the little bighorn. It is located in the middle of the Crow reservation. Many of the employees are members of various tribes. My guide was according to him an Indian of the Miniconjou and Oglala tribes. Yes, they call themselves Indians at least when dealing with whites. So, if it was genocide it was a rather shoddy job of it. Go to Mexico and see if there are any reservations or cultural centers. For your edification here is a map of the reservations that were set aside for a vanquished people. The Indians committed genocide on the Anasazi, Hohokam, and Mogollon. There was nothing left but ruins. There is a difference. China is committing cultural genocide in Tibet and Mongolia and has done so in Bhutan and Nepal. Genocide is the deliberate and systematic destruction of a racial, political, or cultural group. The 325 reservations stand in defiance to your statement.