Bear River Massacre

[archieclement]

Was in my newsreel today. Shoshone are restoring battlefield, occured during ACW though not very connected other then to US policy.

The Northwestern Shoshone are restoring the Bear River Massacre site - High Country News

The tribe is reclaiming their gathering place and returning water to the Great Salt Lake.

www.hcn.org

 

[uaskme]

It would appear that if Colored had something they wanted. Water and Land for instance. The Federal Government wasn't so Equality minded. Goal of making the West White prevailed.

Shoshone not recognize as an Indian Tribe until 1987? No claim here Federal Soldiers became Equality minded. Not yet anyway.

 

[Kurtlg]

It would appear that if Colored had something they wanted. Water and Land for instance. The Federal Government wasn't so Equality minded. Goal of making the West White prevailed.

Shoshone not recognize as an Indian Tribe until 1987? No claim here Federal Soldiers became Equality minded. Not yet anyway.

It's a bit misleading. The government didn't recognize this particular group of Shoshone as a tribe until then.

 

[Belfoured]

It's a bit misleading. The government didn't recognize this particular group of Shoshone as a tribe until then.

As somebody with connections to the "Eastern Shoshone" who inhabit the Wind River Reservation (with the Northern Arapaho), your point is important. To oversimplify, the "Eastern Shoshone" were the "horse-culture" bands who hunted buffalo east of the divide, although they also had presence in the Green River basin west of the divide. The bands that inhabited the high country (Winds, Gros Ventre, Absarokas) were not as dependent on horses and were called "Mountain Shoshone" (aka "Sheepeaters"). The "Northern Shoshone" were the bands living to the west in the Snake River basin (today's southern Idaho/Star Valley in Wyoming). Whether the "Eastern Shoshone" technically were a "tribe" or not, the Government treated them as if they were by entering into the 1863 and 1868 treaties.

 

[Kurtlg]

It gets confusing to me. The federal government recognizes 12 tribes in Michigan though many are called bands or communities . They are all Ottawa , Chippewa or Potawatomi. Some combine 2 tribes such as the Grand Traverse Band of Ottawa and Chippewa. One is called the Bay Mills Indian Community ( all Chippewa ). Some of these did not receive federal recognition until the 1990s.

 

[Belfoured]

It gets confusing to me. The federal government recognizes 12 tribes in Michigan though many are called bands or communities . They are all Ottawa , Chippewa or Potawatomi. Some combine 2 tribes such as the Grand Traverse Band of Ottawa and Chippewa. One is called the Bay Mills Indian Community ( all Chippewa ). Some of these did not receive federal recognition until the 1990s.

I think it's a result of the Government needing a way to categorize who they're making treaties with by imposing that form on a group that wouldn't necessarily think of themselves that way. "It ain't a perfect world." The various Shoshone groups functioned as bands. One good example is Lewis and Clark's encounter with a Lemhi band of the "Northern Shoshone". By amazing coincidence that no screenwriter would script, the band they encountered was Sacagawea's band and her brother was its "chief".

 

[Kurtlg]

Wasn't one way to take away land was to sign a treaty with a band leader and claim he represented the whole tribe ?

 

[archieclement]

Wasn't one way to take away land was to sign a treaty with a band leader and claim he represented the whole tribe ?

The problem was Indians were incoherent organizationally, they would claim whatever whenever they wished. Which obviously didn't fly, why there originated the term "Indian giving".

The signing treaties to later claim they didn't, would lead to inevitable conflicts.

 

[Belfoured]

The problem was Indians were incoherent organizationally, they would claim whatever whenever they wished. Which obviously didn't fly, why there originated the term "Indian giving".

The signing treaties to later claim they didn't, would lead to inevitable conflicts.

As they say, "everybody has an opinion ...."

 

[archieclement]

As they say, "everybody has an opinion ...."

Indeed, and revelant to this forum.

If the ACW was because the United States couldn't function if every state or county could go it's own way, or change its mind whenever, it wasn't any different with the natives. Just as the south was coerced to toe the line, so were rogue/renegade tribes.

 

[Belfoured]

Indeed, and revelant to this forum.

If the ACW was because the United States couldn't function if every state or county could go it's own way, or change its mind whenever, it wasn't any different with the natives. Just as the south was coerced to toe the line, so were rogue/renegade tribes.

The origin of the term "Indian giving" is an ignorant stereotype. But I'll wager you were well aware of that.

 

[archieclement]

The origin of the term "Indian giving" is an ignorant stereotype. But I'll wager you were well aware of that.

It's been a rather commonly used term for over a century, but I'll wager you were aware of that. As well that it originated from Indians reneging/violating treaties and agreements, which occured frequently enough to form the stereotype.

 

[dlofting]

It's been a rather commonly used term for over a century, but I'll wager you were aware of that. As well that it originated from Indians reneging/violating treaties and agreements, which occured frequently enough to form the stereotype.

I don't think the term had anything to do with treaties or agreements. It was an ignorant characterization of gift exchanges between indigenous peoples where the giver(s) supposedly expected reciprocation by the receiver(s)

 

[Belfoured]

It's been a rather commonly used term for over a century, but I'll wager you were aware of that. As well that it originated from Indians reneging/violating treaties and agreements, which occured frequently enough to form the stereotype.

I'm well aware that it's been "commonly used for over a century". So have a lot of other terms that smart people have figured out are offensive stereotypes, reflect ignorance, and are no longer used by them for that reason. I'll bet that you can figure out a few others if you try.

 

[archieclement]

I'm well aware that it's been "commonly used for over a century". So have a lot of other terms that smart people have figured out are offensive stereotypes, reflect ignorance, and are no longer used by them for that reason. I'll bet that you can figure out a few others if you try.

It actually reflects the historical view of the historical majority, so certainly should be relevant to historical discussion.

That's the odd part about some reinterpretations/re-representations........if presenting balanced view, the majority or winning view isn't suddenly irrelevant. But would remain part of a balanced view. The term or stereotype indeed reflects how they were seen.

 

[archieclement]

I don't think the term had anything to do with treaties or agreements. It was an ignorant characterization of gift exchanges between indigenous peoples where the giver(s) supposedly expected reciprocation by the receiver(s)

I would think that might be part, just as selling land to later attempt to lay claim to.