Quote Originally Posted by Redleg
This in not completely true Aenlic Several tribes had free roaming hunting abilities even within the constraints of their treaties with the Whites. The Black Hills were unceded to the Latoka because of the war fought and won by Red Cloud.

Now that comes from this site:

http://www-cgsc.army.mil/carl/resour...of%201876-1877

But I can find other sources that say pretty much the same thing.

Then to the other part of your statment - which again is not completely correct in reference to the Black Hills.

The problem stems from the non-enforcement of the treaty by the United States government on the white settlers encroaching on the land.

In this instance General Custer - looking for glory and a last Indian Campaign sort of lied about the gold found in the Black Hills.

The problem comes from both poles of prespective - even in your statement you show ignorance of what actually happened and gognitive dissonance seems to be setting in.

Now if you just stick with the Sand Creek Massacre - you see evidence of the White Man's desire to just rid the west of the Indians and is a prime examble of masscaring for no good reason - and it had some bad consequences for the United States and Native Americans several years latter. However while this happened - it was not near as regular as some would like to image. Most times the masscaring was done to small groups of Indians by Whites - and the reverse is true small groups of Indians massacring small groups of whites. Evidence of this is found in studying the conflicts from a neutral viewpoint.

http://www.pbs.org/weta/thewest/reso...ur/sandcrk.htm
OK, first, you need to reread your information and my post. There is a difference between the "unceded" terrorities and the exclusive territories. The reservation was "reserved" exclusively for their use in the Dakotas. This area included the Black Hills. The Black Hills were not in the unceded portion. They were given the Black Hills because the U.S. government considered the area worthless. As far as the U.S. was concerned they weren't giving away anything useful to the Lakota. My statement still stands, inspite of your attempt to revise history.

Second, my statements about putting them into reservations from which they couldn't leave was separate from the statements about the Black Hills. I should have separated the two thoughts into two paragraphs. My mistake. Wounded Knee was a direct result of the tribe leaving the reservation because they were starving; but they were still not allowed to leave. My statement still stands, in spite of your attempt to revise history.

Third, the U.S. government was breaking the treaty which supposedly reserved the Black Hills and most of the rest of the Dakota territory by allowing unauthorized gold rushers. When the tribes objected, often violently, to the encroachment that was illegal by the treaty, the government moved in and moved them out of the Black Hills; instead of enforcing the treaty and removing the settlers as they should have done. My statement still stands, in spite of your attempt to revise history.

Fourth, just Sand Creek?

Pequot, Gnadenhutten, Chewaw, Black Hawk, Kaibai Creek, Humboldt County, Bear River and Keyesville all occurred before Sand Creek. After Sand Creek you have Washita, Marias and Wounded Knee. And those are just the large scale massacres, most of them of entire villages, mostly of old men, women and children. Were there massacres of whites? Absolutely. Except for the massacres instigated by the French or British in connection with European wars, the large scale massacres of whites were in response to the intentional abrogation of treaties. Now it's little more balanced, with the above included, rather than your attempt to portray things differently. The Pequot, Humboldt, Marias and Wounded Knee massacres were all larger than Sand Creek. Now that's balanced, and we haven't even discussed how many men, women and children died on the Trail of Tears after the whites decided they wanted the lands reserved by treaty for the Cherokee, have we? My statement still stands, in spite of your attempt to revise history.

Now, who is showing ignorance? And the word is cognitive not gognitive.