Ooh them bad indians just killing white people for no apparent reason. You would think someone told them to eat grass the way they behaved. Instead of wasting the first 2 minutes on irrelevant filler, there could have been some mention of how hostilities started. It wasn't some conspiracy of crabby Indians to run amuck and kill white people years after they had settled in and built towns and farms all over Minnesota.
You call me Santee that is false. Come to Lower Sioux Agency and find out the real truth. Your historian is offensive and sounds like he is just repeating what he read in a book. You are welcome to contact or THPO office to get the truth.
And of course you don't have to repeat what you read in a book, document, or what your parents told you because you and the people in the THPO office were there and saw it with your own eyes 147 years ago.
What they won't tell you is OUR government settled with these Injuns-something I opposed btw-(1980)and their tribal councils kept most of the money. This of course they blame on the 'white man".
this video only makes the dakota look bad...there were bad ppl on both sides...all we know is how many white ppl were killed but how many native men women n children do u think were massacred at the hands of the whites too? u have to look at both sides of history to truly understand what happened
Yes it was bad Shadow. Its history now though and it serves us well to look at the history of the Indian wars in the light of the truth. The Dakota Sioux were not all bad, many had even become Christian by this time and helped protect some whites and mixed blood individuals from being harmed by the other Sioux.
The Dakota had suffered themselves as well at the hands of the corrupt traders and Indian system. That doesn't excuse the heinous attacks but no one group is blameless.
No matter the race, it seems humans are the most disappointing creatures on this planet. Until I met and lived with family at Leech Lake, I thought I knew history. . .it was explained to me as HIS STORY, as told by whites. There are no "right" sides, degradation humantiy knows no bounds.
Then by all means share the ''a lot'' of facts that have been left out. Why did Lincoln let 38 Indians hang? Why did Lincoln remove the Indians from the State?
So you're claiming the Dakota Santee Sioux were ''insane'' when they killed the women and children in Minnesota? That explains why they bashed a two year old girls head in with a violin case and even worse acts of inventive cruelty?
Is that also why they enjoyed killing the members of the Chippewa tribe so much?
I have a M.A. History, I grew up in Mankato, I teach history in a high school and my ancestors were there during the uprising so I've been exposed to a lot of good and bad information on this event. As far as the narrative goes, nothing in here is false. This is 8:35 of a very large and detailed event. Not everything is going to be said that needs to be said for those who are interested in this. Teachers, why would you allow your students to use UTUBE and Wikipedia as a source for research?
I agree - this clip was used in a teacher education class - this is not genuine research and over simplifies deep, troubling issues. I was appalled that MSU's 'diversity training' included this very narrow slice of history. Especially in the geographic area where people still remember these events...
Well I don't know that I agree its not geniune research but more could be said.
More could be said about some trickery involved in treaty negotiations and dishonesty of traders. Of course more could also be said of the very violent nature of the Indian attacks and rapes that occurred during this event of which very detailed accounts from eyewitnesses remain.
Why the uprising occurred has much to do with corruption and incompetence in the Indian system of the 19th. The manner in which the uprising was conducted though had more to do with traditional Sioux ways of war I think and matched the way they fought the Chippewas and others.
"The Dakota Sioux were not all bad, many had even become Christian by this time ..."
I believe it is really important to state that 'christian' and 'non-christian' people conducted themselves in both heroic and horrid ways. Regardless of religion. I also question many of the semantic choices. A massacre is different from an uprising - and a massacre, without sufficeint background, is a volitile term. I don't object to the clip as much as I object to its lack of context.
The truth is Christianity was a large factor in whether or not a Sioux advocated for peace or war. Maybe the reason for this is identification with the whites more than morality who knows.
''The exact number will never be known ... Estimates of the death toll range from 400 to 2000. Whole families were burned alive in their farm houses. Children were nailed to barn doors. Girls raped by a dozen braves and hacked to pieces, babies dismembered in front of their horrified mothers. More than 260 women and children, whites and mixed bloods, were dragged off to a brutal captivity that lasted forty days'' Over the Earth I Come, Duane Schultz
and thats why ur mad...we took ur country from u...we had gatling guns ...come on...whites didnt rape our women...? ? whites didnt hang our warriors...im talking about 90 million indegenous ppl...ur talking 400 euros who were ILLEGAL IMMIGRANTS!!! THAT WAS HOMELAND SECURITY!!!
Number 1: 90 million is a made up number for the population of North and South America in 1492 when Columbus first arrived. In all likelihood it was far lower.
Number 2: Whatever the number was in 1492 the vast majority of the decline of the American Indian population was from infectious disease which whites are no more morally culpable for than Asians are for the plague that killed over one third of Europe in the 1300's which had its ultimate origins in Asia.
To compare a population decline which took place over a 400 year period primarily from diseases but also for other reasons as well such as interbreeding to actual instances of mass death induced by physical violence upon noncombatants is intellectually lazy and ridiculous.
Number 3: When you killed the Crow, Kiowa and Arikara for the Black Hills that wasn't any homeland security.
Number 4: Interesting to note you justify rape, murder and torture of women and children on the basis of immigration status. I'd prefer deportation but I see you advocate the Lakota method to immigration control. lol
Many of the settlers had known the Sioux as friends, fed them when they were hungry and shaken them by the hand.
Many shook them by the hand moments before they were killed. Some Dakota like Cut Nose admitted themselves that they offered the hand of friendship then plunged in the knife and they thought this was funny.
I have no objection to the term ''uprising.'' However at the same time if what happened in Minnesota in 1862 was not a ''Massacre'' then nothing in the history of North America deserves that title.
Students--please do not try to use this video or any video by this guy for historic research. Figure out the end--why did Lincoln reprieve the natives? The atrocities and crimes committed against the tribe first was enough to lead any decent human being to insanity. history teacher
I disagree with what you are saying. You are saying not to use the video out of 'emotional' reasons. Ths video clearly states the facts--the video DID say that Lincoln let some of them go, and he did execute 30 something of them. So what exactly is NOT accurate in this video? You are just speaking from an emotional point of view, blaming the whites for what was done to them. That, however, has nothing to do with the accuracy of this video.
your opinion of who is right or wrong has nothing to do with the accuracy of the video, so why would you tell students not to use it? If you are a teacher, I would think you would know better than to teach history from your emotional point of view, rather than teaching it with the facts.
see what floyd red crow westerman has to say about this matter......half the story has never been told
r00tb0und 4 months ago
the native americans were killing each other long before the white man came on the scene, I have spoken.
TheAlliswell 2 years ago
Ooh them bad indians just killing white people for no apparent reason. You would think someone told them to eat grass the way they behaved. Instead of wasting the first 2 minutes on irrelevant filler, there could have been some mention of how hostilities started. It wasn't some conspiracy of crabby Indians to run amuck and kill white people years after they had settled in and built towns and farms all over Minnesota.
bigchief1 2 years ago 10
"When you killed the Crow, Kiowa and Arikara for the Black Hills that wasn't any homeland security."
The Sioux were pretty good warriors :-) (although too few to challenge the millions of pale faces)
ArseneLupin2009 2 years ago 5
You call me Santee that is false. Come to Lower Sioux Agency and find out the real truth. Your historian is offensive and sounds like he is just repeating what he read in a book. You are welcome to contact or THPO office to get the truth.
nativesuta 2 years ago 2
And of course you don't have to repeat what you read in a book, document, or what your parents told you because you and the people in the THPO office were there and saw it with your own eyes 147 years ago.
Your lack of reason is offensive.
7thUSCavalryman 2 years ago 2
annuity or welfare whatever you call it just turns the receiver into hostile maniacs.
Just look what it did to black people in america.
okrabay 2 years ago 2
I am no expert on this but, I think the Santee Sioux were having trouble getting food because the U.S. Government.
Therefore, the United States was giving the Santee Sioux the incentive to go to war.
The tension between the two groups were not being lubricated and Little Crow knew he was going to lose the war.
Dharma2012 2 years ago 2
ohh well...u still annihalated over more than 90 million idegenous ppl...the real holocaust
goldenst8lakota 2 years ago
I AGREE WITH U MY FRIEND.
MrJalostotitlan 2 years ago
in my opinion whites dont belong here they belong back in europe in caves living with thier animals they cuaght syphilis from
8ringsofshaolin 2 years ago
As usual though your opinion counts for nothing. You can go back to telling yourself fariy tales about history while you live in squalor.
7thUSCavalryman 2 years ago
What they won't tell you is OUR government settled with these Injuns-something I opposed btw-(1980)and their tribal councils kept most of the money. This of course they blame on the 'white man".
erwintommy 2 years ago
this video only makes the dakota look bad...there were bad ppl on both sides...all we know is how many white ppl were killed but how many native men women n children do u think were massacred at the hands of the whites too? u have to look at both sides of history to truly understand what happened
chippy507 2 years ago
REMEMBER THE 38+1!!!
SIOUX PRIDE
but yea history sukes
bit i just gotta say i dont hate white people
no native really should
just dont ask us to trust the govnment
history will show Y
whitecastle1990 2 years ago
Many today want to use these events as weapons in their modern political agendas which I think is sad.
Especially AIM types they want to pretend that only Wounded Knee's happened not Minnesota Massacres. There were massacres by Indians and Whites.
7thUSCavalryman 2 years ago
The Dakota were removed from Minnesota many had returned by the 1880's though and people were able to try to put things behind them.
Thats a more healthy response. If the people who were actually involved in these events can do that we over 100 years later should be able to.
7thUSCavalryman 2 years ago
Yes it was bad Shadow. Its history now though and it serves us well to look at the history of the Indian wars in the light of the truth. The Dakota Sioux were not all bad, many had even become Christian by this time and helped protect some whites and mixed blood individuals from being harmed by the other Sioux.
The Dakota had suffered themselves as well at the hands of the corrupt traders and Indian system. That doesn't excuse the heinous attacks but no one group is blameless.
7thUSCavalryman 2 years ago
should have killed every sioux for what they done to the women and children
shadow61771 2 years ago
No matter the race, it seems humans are the most disappointing creatures on this planet. Until I met and lived with family at Leech Lake, I thought I knew history. . .it was explained to me as HIS STORY, as told by whites. There are no "right" sides, degradation humantiy knows no bounds.
EmeraldAisle 3 years ago
Then by all means share the ''a lot'' of facts that have been left out. Why did Lincoln let 38 Indians hang? Why did Lincoln remove the Indians from the State?
So you're claiming the Dakota Santee Sioux were ''insane'' when they killed the women and children in Minnesota? That explains why they bashed a two year old girls head in with a violin case and even worse acts of inventive cruelty?
Is that also why they enjoyed killing the members of the Chippewa tribe so much?
7thUSCavalryman 3 years ago
Cavalryman, just watched your video and really enjoyed it. As usual your videos are informative and unbiased. Keep them coming !
whiteshore2 3 years ago
I have a M.A. History, I grew up in Mankato, I teach history in a high school and my ancestors were there during the uprising so I've been exposed to a lot of good and bad information on this event. As far as the narrative goes, nothing in here is false. This is 8:35 of a very large and detailed event. Not everything is going to be said that needs to be said for those who are interested in this. Teachers, why would you allow your students to use UTUBE and Wikipedia as a source for research?
2vonranke 3 years ago
Thanks very much for your comment. Its very true you can't fit absolutely everything that needs to be said in just over 8 minutes.
I've tried to make up for that as much as possible with the information and link in the side bar.
7thUSCavalryman 3 years ago
I agree - this clip was used in a teacher education class - this is not genuine research and over simplifies deep, troubling issues. I was appalled that MSU's 'diversity training' included this very narrow slice of history. Especially in the geographic area where people still remember these events...
jcdma65 2 years ago
Well I don't know that I agree its not geniune research but more could be said.
More could be said about some trickery involved in treaty negotiations and dishonesty of traders. Of course more could also be said of the very violent nature of the Indian attacks and rapes that occurred during this event of which very detailed accounts from eyewitnesses remain.
7thUSCavalryman 2 years ago
Why the uprising occurred has much to do with corruption and incompetence in the Indian system of the 19th. The manner in which the uprising was conducted though had more to do with traditional Sioux ways of war I think and matched the way they fought the Chippewas and others.
7thUSCavalryman 2 years ago
"The Dakota Sioux were not all bad, many had even become Christian by this time ..."
I believe it is really important to state that 'christian' and 'non-christian' people conducted themselves in both heroic and horrid ways. Regardless of religion. I also question many of the semantic choices. A massacre is different from an uprising - and a massacre, without sufficeint background, is a volitile term. I don't object to the clip as much as I object to its lack of context.
jcdma65 2 years ago 2
The truth is Christianity was a large factor in whether or not a Sioux advocated for peace or war. Maybe the reason for this is identification with the whites more than morality who knows.
7thUSCavalryman 2 years ago
Heres some context for ''massacre,''
''The exact number will never be known ... Estimates of the death toll range from 400 to 2000. Whole families were burned alive in their farm houses. Children were nailed to barn doors. Girls raped by a dozen braves and hacked to pieces, babies dismembered in front of their horrified mothers. More than 260 women and children, whites and mixed bloods, were dragged off to a brutal captivity that lasted forty days'' Over the Earth I Come, Duane Schultz
7thUSCavalryman 2 years ago
and thats why ur mad...we took ur country from u...we had gatling guns ...come on...whites didnt rape our women...? ? whites didnt hang our warriors...im talking about 90 million indegenous ppl...ur talking 400 euros who were ILLEGAL IMMIGRANTS!!! THAT WAS HOMELAND SECURITY!!!
goldenst8lakota 2 years ago 3
The only holocaust is in your imagination.
Number 1: 90 million is a made up number for the population of North and South America in 1492 when Columbus first arrived. In all likelihood it was far lower.
7thUSCavalryman 2 years ago
Number 2: Whatever the number was in 1492 the vast majority of the decline of the American Indian population was from infectious disease which whites are no more morally culpable for than Asians are for the plague that killed over one third of Europe in the 1300's which had its ultimate origins in Asia.
7thUSCavalryman 2 years ago
Man you are brilliant! Needed a refreshing look at all of history to dispute all these myths about the "evil" white man...
erwintommy 2 years ago
To compare a population decline which took place over a 400 year period primarily from diseases but also for other reasons as well such as interbreeding to actual instances of mass death induced by physical violence upon noncombatants is intellectually lazy and ridiculous.
Number 3: When you killed the Crow, Kiowa and Arikara for the Black Hills that wasn't any homeland security.
7thUSCavalryman 2 years ago
Number 4: Interesting to note you justify rape, murder and torture of women and children on the basis of immigration status. I'd prefer deportation but I see you advocate the Lakota method to immigration control. lol
7thUSCavalryman 2 years ago
What Did the white man do 2 deserve this treatment?
esteve1 2 years ago
man them indians commited hideous murders tha t were uncalled for especially toward the poor defenseless children
78chore 2 years ago
Many of the settlers had known the Sioux as friends, fed them when they were hungry and shaken them by the hand.
Many shook them by the hand moments before they were killed. Some Dakota like Cut Nose admitted themselves that they offered the hand of friendship then plunged in the knife and they thought this was funny.
7thUSCavalryman 2 years ago
I have no objection to the term ''uprising.'' However at the same time if what happened in Minnesota in 1862 was not a ''Massacre'' then nothing in the history of North America deserves that title.
7thUSCavalryman 2 years ago
Students--please do not try to use this video or any video by this guy for historic research. Figure out the end--why did Lincoln reprieve the natives? The atrocities and crimes committed against the tribe first was enough to lead any decent human being to insanity. history teacher
almuscatine 3 years ago
I disagree with what you are saying. You are saying not to use the video out of 'emotional' reasons. Ths video clearly states the facts--the video DID say that Lincoln let some of them go, and he did execute 30 something of them. So what exactly is NOT accurate in this video? You are just speaking from an emotional point of view, blaming the whites for what was done to them. That, however, has nothing to do with the accuracy of this video.
whiteshore2 3 years ago
your opinion of who is right or wrong has nothing to do with the accuracy of the video, so why would you tell students not to use it? If you are a teacher, I would think you would know better than to teach history from your emotional point of view, rather than teaching it with the facts.
whiteshore2 3 years ago
pretty one-sided history. you leave a lot of facts out and promote a sterotyped view of U.S. History.
almuscatine 3 years ago