It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.

Please white-list or disable in your ad-blocking tool.

Thank you.


Some features of ATS will be disabled while you continue to use an ad-blocker.


To whom does Wounded Knee belong? (article)

page: 1

log in


posted on Apr, 28 2013 @ 11:21 PM
Part of the historical site at Wounded Knee is up for sale. Should it be developed as a landmark or left in peace out of respect for the Sioux people who died there?

Almost as soon as the 1890 massacre at Wounded Knee was over, the battle to define what happened on that bleak December day began.

For decades afterwards, the official line from Washington was that the actions of the 7th Cavalrymen were heroic.

The White House and its allies in South Dakota had invested much political capital in seizing tribal land for US use, and using the army to quell Native American resistance.

What happened at Wounded Knee was promoted as a definitive end to these so-called "Indian wars", a final victory for the US government.

The administration of President Benjamin Harrison praised the military tactics used by the 7th Cavalry and awarded 20 of the soldiers Medals of Honor. The New York Times told a different story, writing contemporaneously that the Native Americans had been "robbed when at peace, starved and angered into war, and then hunted down by the government." At Wounded Knee, as many as 300 unarmed men, women and children were killed. And official reports from some in government criticizing the massacre were simply buried. For the Sioux descendants still living in the Pine Ridge reservation, who remember first-hand accounts of the atrocity, the news that a key part of that painful history could be sold outside the tribe has come as a shock. A 40-acre parcel of land that's part of the massacre site is up for sale, and its owner has given the tribe until 1 May to come up with the $3.9m (£2.5m) asking price.

-an interesting read thought I'd share

-my 2 cents, leave it be, out of respect to all those who died that day

edit on 28-4-2013 by canucks555 because: (no reason given)

posted on Apr, 28 2013 @ 11:25 PM

The Wounded Knee Massacre occurred on December 29, 1890,[4] near Wounded Knee Creek (Lakota: Čhaŋkpé Ópi Wakpála) on the Lakota Pine Ridge Indian Reservation in South Dakota, USA. It was the last battle of the American Indian Wars. On the day before, a detachment of the U.S. 7th Cavalry Regiment commanded by Major Samuel M. Whitside intercepted Spotted Elk's band of Miniconjou Lakota and 38 Hunkpapa Lakota near Porcupine Butte and escorted them five miles westward (8 km) to Wounded Knee Creek, where they made camp.

The remainder of the 7th Cavalry Regiment arrived, led by James W. Forsyth and surrounded the encampment supported by four Hotchkiss guns.[5]

On the morning of December 29, the troops went into the camp to disarm the Lakota. One version of events claims that during the process of disarming the Lakota, a deaf tribesman named Black Coyote was reluctant to give up his rifle, claiming he had paid a lot for it.[6] A scuffle over Black Coyote's rifle escalated and a shot was fired which resulted in the 7th Cavalry's opening fire indiscriminately from all sides, killing men, women, and children, as well as some of their own fellow troopers. Those few Lakota warriors who still had weapons began shooting back at the attacking troopers, who quickly suppressed the Lakota fire. The surviving Lakota fled, but U.S. cavalrymen pursued and killed many who were unarmed.

By the time it was over, at least 150 men, women, and children of the Lakota had been killed and 51 wounded (4 men, 47 women and children, some of whom died later); some estimates placed the number of dead at 300. Twenty-five troopers also died, and 39 were wounded (6 of the wounded would later die).[7] It is believed that many were the victims of friendly fire,[citation needed] as the shooting took place at close range in chaotic conditions. At least twenty troopers were awarded the Medal of Honor.[8]
edit on 29-4-2013 by canucks555 because: (no reason given)

posted on Apr, 28 2013 @ 11:38 PM
I'd prefer that every inch of that land be held for posterity in some trust or communal property.

It belongs to the tribal people, but it also belongs to the world.

Maybe it's not my right to say that, but I really think it does.

The massacre was the first real slaughter with modernist weaponry, and perhaps nobody could really control it.

posted on Apr, 28 2013 @ 11:42 PM
reply to post by halfoldman

I agree. would like for them to designate the place as a heritage site.

Problem is that the land has an owner. It's (also morally) their land. They bought it. When did the owner buy the land? Did the owner own that property before the battle?

-best bet is for the Sioux and/or the government to buy it, but in this cash strapped world economy, would your average American tax payer be keen on that philosophy?

edit on 29-4-2013 by canucks555 because: (no reason given)

posted on Apr, 28 2013 @ 11:58 PM
So... They can take a man's house by imminent domain and then force the issue for pennies on the dollar in court if that man says 'no' to "generous" offers.....yet the same Government will sit by and watch Native Americans basically extorted for what WE made into a piece of their heritage and history (in the worst way)??

I say it should be condemned by that same imminent domain and pay the owner the usual pennies everyone else gets. Give the land to the Tribe ...and then I have a great idea! Let the U.S. Government build one museum with the Washington version of events ...then let the Tribe build their Museum with what REALLY happened there.

Democracy in action, no? The public can see both versions and make their own determination! I'd love to see how they can try and make anything but total fantasy out of a 'good' version of events. I'd even pay a ticket price to see that show!

posted on Apr, 29 2013 @ 12:12 AM
There are probably many "movie" versions of events, but this interpretation from Into the West is very haunting.

posted on Apr, 29 2013 @ 08:51 AM
reply to post by Wrabbit2000
I agree wholeheartedly, Wrabbit, as I do with a majority of your posts. Star for the Wrabbit!

top topics


log in