Saturday, January 17, 2009


'Lakota, Oklahoma?'

Would any of y'all read a well-written but scholarly book about how, after Lt. Col. Geo. A. Custer got dead at the Battle of the Little Bighorn in June 1876, the U.S. government came dang close that fall to moving the Sioux to Indian Territory, present Oklahoma?

And the tribes that were already here, for the most part, were ready to welcome them -- in the name of humanity, *and* for their own political purposes?

'Cause I could write it. And, you know, I don't have enough to do (snort).

Do tell.



How would the Lakota have fared, do you think, in Oklahoma, pre-statehood? I admit a great deal of ignorance on the Indian Territory's history, so I'll just ask the question. . .
Hoo boy. ... Off the top of my head, I think the whites who opposed their removal here probably would have been proven right in the claim that it would set Oklahoma statehood back (hard to say, though, since even so, it was 31 years before statehood).

I think the tribal leaders here who wanted the Sioux to come might have gotten more than they bargained for since, by their own standards and aims at "civilization," the Sioux had a much more tribally tribalness.

And, I wonder if the Sioux, once removed here, might have allied with the Cheyenne and Arapaho and Comanche and other "wild" tribes in what is now western Oklahoma to make the Red River War of the mid-to-late 1870s more violent and long-lasting.

All of which is probably why the governmnt kept the Sioux in Dakota.

DrLoboJo, weigh in!
BTW, I probably would write it from the perspective of the Creeks, Cherokee, Choctaws, Seminoles and Chickasaws (the Five Tribes here since the 1830s-1840s) rather than the perspective of the gubment. Or the whites.
ER:" I wonder if the Sioux, once removed here, might have allied with the Cheyenne and Arapaho and Comanche and other "wild" tribes in what is now western Oklahoma to make the Red River War of the mid-to-late 1870s more violent and long-lasting."

Have you ever tried to chew a whole plug at one time? Well, your proposal would be close to that. But then again.....

Comanche: No way would they have left the Sioux in peace. They and the Kiowa would have been raiding them constantly.

Cheyenne: They were such a different culture from the Sioux that packed together there would have been conflict.

Arapaho: Hard to know. They would probably have sided with the Cheyenne, but maybe not.

I don't think the Sioux would have participated in the Red River War. That was mainly a Comanche event and powered by a territorial imperative and spiritual focus that would have be foreign to the Sioux.

What I would wonder about would be the Pawnee, the Osage,the Delaware, and the Ponca's reaction. Historically each of these tribes were allies with the Anglos against the Sioux. They would have not quietly let them settle close to their lands.

By the way Lakota is only one the seven tribes of the Nation. Sitting Bull for example was of the Hunkpapa tribe of the Sioux Nation.

If you write it I'll buy it and read it.
Well, yer right, alliancewise, but the Red River War woulda got way more complicated.

And, you've revealed my Five Tribes bias (and I mean experiential): "Eastern oklahoma tribes" to me means "Five Tribes" -- I was done growed up before I knew *anything* about the Pawnees, Osage, Quapaw, Delawares, etc. My bad.

Sitting Bull was of the Hunkpapa band, one of seven bands of the Lakota tribe, one of three tribes of the Siouxian language group.
Sounds interesting to me; like something an academic library would want. I'd find it interesting personally, as well, tho haven't had any time for personal reading lately.
Well, I'd certainly pitch it to an academic press. 'Cause I'm big on footnotes and bibs, and nonacademic presses want nothing to do with them, generally.
ER said: "Sitting Bull was of the Hunkpapa band, one of seven bands of the Lakota tribe, one of three tribes of the Siouxian language group."
You got me on that one, Hunkpapas are a division of the Lakota Nation, however I would be careful calling them a band unless they are carrying instruments. Yes I know the 19th century treaties called them a band and that some official names of Oklahoma tribes contain the word Band. However once you start trying to refer to the Sioux in almost any form you run into Indian politics of the magnificent sort.
Many of the Sioux don't like being called Sioux because supposedly in the 17th century it was taken from an enemy's language and meant "little rattlesnake".

I've even been nailed on this stuff by my own affiliations with the Sac and the Fox as to whether they are two tribes, one tribe, or one nation. The most recent automobile licenses tags declare that the Sac & Fox are one nation, so I'm sticking to that.

Be careful wading in Indian political waters, they often have soft bottoms and suck sands.
Well, der. Of course I'd read it!
Rudy, I'sa read it up too...could you put some them lil popup pictures in it, & maybe some of that scratch n sniff stuff too.

On a sidenote, some of my klan done got themselves hitched on legal like to a tribe...they got them some back money & free medical cards. Theys wantin me to give them my socializer secure # & birthin papers...I figures I aint owed nothin cept to be left the hell alone...the gov't can bail out the whole damn lot of 'Igotmyhandoutpleasegivemesomethins', but I aint figurin I need to be takin jus' cuz theys itchin to give other peoples money out.
Am I wrong??
DrLoboJo, re: suck sand, etc.

I know. I've done stumbled into some it. The use of "Lakota" is preferred today over Sioux, for example, and woe unto he who dares refer to the Five Civilized Tribes, even though their own leaders referred to themselves thusly, without a thick explanatory paragraph and a big ol' juicy footnote.

Doc Bill: The most human desire, I think, is to be left the hell alone. So I think that's a fair trade: Take subsidies, or reparations, or annuities, or paychecks of whatever kind and be enumerated, recorded, quoted, recorded and socially-culturally autopsied -- or take nothing, and disappear, or be able to anyway. :-)
You know Rudy, it aint so much about disappearin as it is about jus' bein plain stupid 'bout stuff. Them kin fellers I got is growed up men with houses & land & good jobs & such. Theys some Indian peoples that can probably trace a lot of their current ills back a few generations, & I aint seein' nothin' wrong with thems bein' helped, but that aint me & it sure as hell aint them kin fellers.

Its jus' the assified way they pass out the checks to any & ever body. I jus' gots a problem with that, & a problem in general with gettin people to thinkin that the only ways they can live is to suck on Uncle Sammy's tit. He can put it back in his blouse as far as I'm concerned, & why hes at it, he can do like most of us (who live outside of fairy tale land) and stop throwin out money when the account gets to 0...some calls that conservative, but I jus' calls it common sense.

JMO, even though its right:), but I doubt bigfoot would think so.
(big spendin gov't b+++++d!)
Well, I reckon it's right not to take help if ya don't need it; and it's wrong to not give help if you can give help to someone who needs it.

As fer the gubmint's doin's, the past four months have blown away, totally, any frame we used to have for debatin' gubment spendin'. It's all gone. Over. It's a differnt world now.

The thing is, though, I think the gubment ain't spendin' money to help these ones or them ones. It's spendin' money for all of us'ns.

Very Keynesian thing to do. And Milton Friedman and them havin' had their turn the past 30 years, and lookin' at where that's got us, I guess it's OK to do it this way for a change.
Oh hell Doc, the tribes aren't sucking on the government tit. The BIA has swindled tribes out of hundreds of billions of dollars over the last century in mineral and land revenues. The tribes have only gotten a pittance back of what their resources made for the government.

These days however the "checks" are coming into tribal members hands from things like casinos. Take the Morongo Band of Mission Indians around Banning California. They had been pushed onto the most barren of lands that nobody wanted. How were those whites supposed to know that I-10 would run through the Indian Lands and that the Sac&Fox would win control of their own lands in court which freed up all tribes to do stuff without BIA control( and sucking off the top) and that those few hundred Morongos stuck out the in the desert would someday own one of the fanciest casinos outside of Vegas and would each get big checks from it on a regular basis.

Indian living on the government tit?
That tit has been dry since day one.
That's like saying the inmates at Guantanamo are living on the government tit. It don't figure well.
Post a Comment

<< Home

This page is powered by Blogger. Isn't yours?