Sand Creek...

Leggester · Posted: Aug 15, 2005 6:10 am Post subject: Sand Creek...

This bothers me a bit. I don't see any historic sites for whites, yet this was indeed a heinous act.

Last week, President Bush signed the legislation creating the Sand Creek Massacre National Historic Site. The bill had been approved last month by the U.S. House and Senate. The legislation, sponsored by Sen. Wayne Allard, R-Colo. and Rep. Marilyn Musgrave, R-Colo., transfers title to 1,465 acres of land from the Cheyenne and Arapaho tribes to the Park Service.

http://www.9news.com/acm_news.aspx?OSGNAME=KUSA&IKOBJECTID=b5b099c2-0abe-421a-01a4-cce47b4691ae&TEMPLATEID=0c76dce6-ac1f-02d8-0047-c589c01ca7bf

-=LoneStar=- · Addict Joined: 20 Nov 2004 Posts: 751

Leggester · Posted: Aug 15, 2005 10:06 am Post subject:

No, I'm saying I know of no white memorials where the Indians massacred them.

From the 1500s to the 1890s, there were apparently more whites massacred than Indians. Yet, I guess because we were the winners, we give them sites.

I am also talking about non-military massacres. Not to include things like Custer's foolishness Smile

pyrocasto · Posted: Aug 15, 2005 3:24 pm Post subject:

It's effing BS, just like giving out money for slavery, or money for having Indian in you...

My family way back when were slaves too, but since I'm white I dont get anything. Rolling Eyes

I feel left out.

-=LoneStar=- · Addict Joined: 20 Nov 2004 Posts: 751

Leggester,

Ah, now I see where you're coming from. That makes a lot more sense. I guess I don't really have a problem with it though. If we designated a site for some massacred conquerors...err...pioneers, I wouldn't really have a problem with that either but I don't necessarily think they deserve it. Here's the difference, IMO:

1. White man army massacres native village: The army is a conquering army. They came onto the natives' land and killed them to make room for their own kind. Basically, they're a bunch of assholes who have no respect for the native society and people. A monument to that event is a symbol that represents the lamentation over the demise of a civilization.

2. Natives massacre white settlers: The settlers were invading the natives' land. They may not have been the men with guns but they were part of the invasion, nonetheless. It's not like the natives were going over to Europe and retaliating against the women and children over there. They were just trying to fend off the invading people. It may have been somewhat ruthless but what else were they going to do? The natives couldn't just let the settlers stay because the armies would keep coming to protect them and guide them deeper into the natives' land.

So, maybe the reason our government doesn't designate historical sites to the massacre of settlers is that they are somewhat ashamed of that part of our history, or perhaps they just don't feel that such an event represents something of great historical significance. I don't know.

pyrocasto,

Did you read the article? The tribes gave the site to the Parks Service.