Comments on: Sand Creek Massacre http://www.historynet.com/sand-creek-massacre.htm?utm_source=rss&utm_medium=rss&utm_campaign=sand-creek-massacre From the World's Largest History Magazine Publisher Tue, 14 Feb 2012 22:24:31 +0000 hourly 1 http://wordpress.org/?v=3.3 By: Paul M. Segal, Urban Planner. http://www.historynet.com/sand-creek-massacre.htm#comment-784752 Paul M. Segal, Urban Planner. Sat, 17 Dec 2011 03:34:20 +0000 #comment-784752 My nurse claims that she is part Arapaho and a decendent of Red Piper( aka Piper) She said that he was her great greatgrandfather, and had a role in the Col. Covington led massacre. No mention is reported re this Native American man anywhere. I would appreciate any information. My nurse claims that she is part Arapaho and a decendent of Red Piper( aka Piper) She said that he was her great greatgrandfather, and had a role in the Col. Covington led massacre. No mention is
reported re this Native American man anywhere. I would appreciate
any information.

]]> By: dont talk to me http://www.historynet.com/sand-creek-massacre.htm#comment-516206 dont talk to me Tue, 05 Apr 2011 19:46:54 +0000 #comment-516206 why do you people comment on these things? why do you people comment on these things?

]]> By: sheila http://www.historynet.com/sand-creek-massacre.htm#comment-380335 sheila Tue, 30 Nov 2010 14:59:37 +0000 #comment-380335 ooooooommggggggggggggggg ooooooommggggggggggggggg

]]> By: Judge Harold Lee (Retired) http://www.historynet.com/sand-creek-massacre.htm#comment-311253 Judge Harold Lee (Retired) Wed, 21 Jul 2010 18:48:16 +0000 #comment-311253 There is no dispute regarding what happened at Sandy Creek, The physical evidence makes the biased testimony from the perpetrators unnecessary. The entire article appears nothing more than an exercise in fallacious doublespeak, like referring to their towns and villages as "sovereign nations". It is intended to sanctify indefensible treachery. What the evidence establishes as fact: After marching through the night, the U.S. Army under the command of a moron minister, encircled their small village (mostly women and children). The Army had drug along three howitzers, filled with canisters (grape shot). At some point shortly after gaining the upper ground they fired those pellets into the community! Anyone babbling-on about the Indians subsequent efforts to defend themselves, believing this will paint the sorry incident, into being a legitimate military battle, is simply delusional. Sand Creek was plainly, a cowardly military campaign upon a solitary race of humanity. Unfortunately, none of the bigoted, chauvinistic racist present at the time (the entire command of the 3rd Colorado Volunteer Cavalry) regarded these people as human beings. No one present at Sand Creek (with the exception of the Indians) had a problem with rounding them all up and sticking them in a zoo. A good job for the Bureau of Indian Affairs! The BIA has become an overlord for Congress's human property garnered from all of these evil and wicked inhuman acts, such as the Sand Creek Massacre. If you are a U.S. taxpayer, you own the BIA reservation system. Therefore, you control the inhabitants ensnared within them. However, they own the land, U.S. taxpayers are holding Indians in bondage (enslaved) on the land of their forefathers. We now own tribes of human beings. They are our eternal wards, merely because we won't let them hold fee simple title to their own property. Anyone, quietly accepting the double-speak terminology of sovereign nation, as a legitimate description for the BIA controlled, racial enclaves; is either a fool or a racist. For more on the subject read our unedited manuscript on the subject at the International Card & Game Players Association: www.icgpa.org. Judge Harold Lee (Retired) There is no dispute regarding what happened at Sandy Creek, The physical evidence makes the biased testimony from the perpetrators unnecessary. The entire article appears nothing more than an exercise in fallacious doublespeak, like referring to their towns and villages as "sovereign nations". It is intended to sanctify indefensible treachery. What the evidence establishes as fact:

After marching through the night, the U.S. Army under the command of a moron minister, encircled their small village (mostly women and children). The Army had drug along three howitzers, filled with canisters (grape shot). At some point shortly after gaining the upper ground they fired those pellets into the community!

Anyone babbling-on about the Indians subsequent efforts to defend themselves, believing this will paint the sorry incident, into being a legitimate military battle, is simply delusional. Sand Creek was plainly, a cowardly military campaign upon a solitary race of humanity.

Unfortunately, none of the bigoted, chauvinistic racist present at the time (the entire command of the 3rd Colorado Volunteer Cavalry) regarded these people as human beings. No one present at Sand Creek (with the exception of the Indians) had a problem with rounding them all up and sticking them in a zoo. A good job for the Bureau of Indian Affairs!

The BIA has become an overlord for Congress's human property garnered from all of these evil and wicked inhuman acts, such as the Sand Creek Massacre. If you are a U.S. taxpayer, you own the BIA reservation system. Therefore, you control the inhabitants ensnared within them. However, they own the land,

U.S. taxpayers are holding Indians in bondage (enslaved) on the land of their forefathers. We now own tribes of human beings. They are our eternal wards, merely because we won't let them hold fee simple title to their own property. Anyone, quietly accepting the double-speak terminology of sovereign nation, as a legitimate description for the BIA controlled, racial enclaves; is either a fool or a racist.

For more on the subject read our unedited manuscript on the subject at the International Card & Game Players Association: http://www.icgpa.org.

Judge Harold Lee (Retired)

]]> By: MATEO MIGUEL ROMERO http://www.historynet.com/sand-creek-massacre.htm#comment-84248 MATEO MIGUEL ROMERO Sun, 05 Jul 2009 13:26:07 +0000 #comment-84248 Another thing is that the historical account of the Tribes being split by the Arapahoe then the Southern Cheyenne making an agreement with them for peace - helps establish the Southern Cheyenne as being more prone to peace making than what this video would like everyone to believe: www.youtube.com/watch?v=gdCp7qLVGpg Another thing is that the historical account of the Tribes being split by the Arapahoe then the Southern Cheyenne making an agreement with them for peace – helps establish the Southern Cheyenne as being more prone to peace making than what this video would like everyone to believe:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=gdCp7qLVGpg

]]> By: MATEO MIGUEL ROMERO http://www.historynet.com/sand-creek-massacre.htm#comment-84239 MATEO MIGUEL ROMERO Sun, 05 Jul 2009 12:30:07 +0000 #comment-84239 I do not see any literary or documentary references. How does anyone know what you are saying is true?? One thing I do not see is any research at the Colorado Historical Museum or any counties. This article sounds like it is appealing to a false authority and without any Bibliography or Citations, it seems very far fetched. There are two sides to the story but considering racism and bigotry, coupled with the lure of money - it is a very convincing argument. There is one problem: records indicate from Navajo sources that the Ute and Pawnee were taking children and selling them into slavery during the Taos slave trade during the 1600's. There needs to be more consideration to other sources and accounts that contributed to the actions of the Southern Cheyennes. Research at the Colorado History Museum indicates there were not many ranches destroyed. Only one stagecoach was ransacked, a cow was killed, and there were two other incidents. The killing of the Rancher family was not caused by Southern Cheyenne as the video would like to protray. Even the video does not look deeper into the reasons surrounding why the Cheyennes left their homeland - which at the time was being taken by French, Dutch, Quakers, Puritans etc. Then there was the issue that Chivington stated that he wanted to fight against slavery? The main influence was obviously Lincoln and how the respect for Africans was increasing because of the Buffalo Soldiers. However, the psychological argument that is being developed is contradicted by the Southern Cheyenne being placed on desolate land with no food! He did not speak out about this, nor did he speak out about helping to assimilate them into what has become American culture. Then there is the land issue: Chivington did not say he wanted them to have any land or any rights. The Psychology argument is very weak and needs more development and right now, with the research I have done - the argument is very strongly against the fact that Chivington was a peaceful, god fearing man and one fact remains: Chivington did not in any account try to stop the men from firing and killing people; Chivington did not stop and talk with Black Kettle to see what he was holding in his hands. Diplomacy is what it has been called but gold, land, and a strange sense of trying to preserve families by taking land after a treaty was made and breaking treaties does not help your argument at all. Also, he would be a national hero because people were receiving land from the American government and he eliminated people that stood in the way of people owning land and making their money which was introduced and a system begun by Americans not the Indigenous. As a whole, your argument really falls short of what you are trying to prove - either by thinking it must be this way or just reading some information from a very narrow research of the topic. There were trade routes from Central Mexico to Canada and the fact that the dreamcatcher is in the Navajo culture but began in the Eastern Seabord tribes - before colonization by the Immigrants from Europe - indicates that the Cheyenne had to encompassed by this trade route and the limited information that the so called historians want to communicate without looking at all the information makes the idea that the Cheyennes before they were split into two bands by the Arapahoe before any agreement with them indicates more was occuring than these historians have spent time with researching. In New Mexico, plains designs appear that predate the 1700's. The Southern Cheyenne language has the same "x" sound that is similar to Nahuatl and the Dine'/Navajo language. The Southern Cheyenne dialect and Northern dialect also indicate rising and falling tones of spoken language that is similar to the Hopi and more similarity with Navajo - this indicates that there was some type of connection that predates the 1700's, so the historical account that the Cheyenne migrated here to Colorado had to be rethunk. The argument placed forth by the so called historians has been presented with no knowledge of language, or encompassing research. The Uto- Aztecan languages are not said to include the Navajo or Southern Cheyenne languages but upon further research into the Navajo and Nahuatl languages including Papago for still existent phonology, more neede to be researched before making some wild thought based argument. I would suggest some Psychology classes and looking into the Colorado Historica Museum. New Mexico has some great references especially at the UNM library. Arizona still has existent sounds of pronunciation for languages and New Mexico too. Psychology is the place to start and human behavior for the argument that you are trying to place forth! I do not see any literary or documentary references. How does anyone know what you are saying is true?? One thing I do not see is any research at the Colorado Historical Museum or any counties. This article sounds like it is appealing to a false authority and without any Bibliography or Citations, it seems very far fetched. There are two sides to the story but considering racism and bigotry, coupled with the lure of money – it is a very convincing argument. There is one problem: records indicate from Navajo sources that the Ute and Pawnee were taking children and selling them into slavery during the Taos slave trade during the 1600's. There needs to be more consideration to other sources and accounts that contributed to the actions of the Southern Cheyennes. Research at the Colorado History Museum indicates there were not many ranches destroyed. Only one stagecoach was ransacked, a cow was killed, and there were two other incidents. The killing of the Rancher family was not caused by Southern Cheyenne as the video would like to protray. Even the video does not look deeper into the reasons surrounding why the Cheyennes left their homeland – which at the time was being taken by French, Dutch, Quakers, Puritans etc. Then there was the issue that Chivington stated that he wanted to fight against slavery? The main influence was obviously Lincoln and how the respect for Africans was increasing because of the Buffalo Soldiers. However, the psychological argument that is being developed is contradicted by the Southern Cheyenne being placed on desolate land with no food! He did not speak out about this, nor did he speak out about helping to assimilate them into what has become American culture. Then there is the land issue: Chivington did not say he wanted them to have any land or any rights. The Psychology argument is very weak and needs more development and right now, with the research I have done – the argument is very strongly against the fact that Chivington was a peaceful, god fearing man and one fact remains: Chivington did not in any account try to stop the men from firing and killing people; Chivington did not stop and talk with Black Kettle to see what he was holding in his hands. Diplomacy is what it has been called but gold, land, and a strange sense of trying to preserve families by taking land after a treaty was made and breaking treaties does not help your argument at all. Also, he would be a national hero because people were receiving land from the American government and he eliminated people that stood in the way of people owning land and making their money which was introduced and a system begun by Americans not the Indigenous. As a whole, your argument really falls short of what you are trying to prove – either by thinking it must be this way or just reading some information from a very narrow research of the topic. There were trade routes from Central Mexico to Canada and the fact that the dreamcatcher is in the Navajo culture but began in the Eastern Seabord tribes – before colonization by the Immigrants from Europe – indicates that the Cheyenne had to encompassed by this trade route and the limited information that the so called historians want to communicate without looking at all the information makes the idea that the Cheyennes before they were split into two bands by the Arapahoe before any agreement with them indicates more was occuring than these historians have spent time with researching. In New Mexico, plains designs appear that predate the 1700's. The Southern Cheyenne language has the same "x" sound that is similar to Nahuatl and the Dine'/Navajo language. The Southern Cheyenne dialect and Northern dialect also indicate rising and falling tones of spoken language that is similar to the Hopi and more similarity with Navajo – this indicates that there was some type of connection that predates the 1700's, so the historical account that the Cheyenne migrated here to Colorado had to be rethunk. The argument placed forth by the so called historians has been presented with no knowledge of language, or encompassing research. The Uto- Aztecan languages are not said to include the Navajo or Southern Cheyenne languages but upon further research into the Navajo and Nahuatl languages including Papago for still existent phonology, more neede to be researched before making some wild thought based argument. I would suggest some Psychology classes and looking into the Colorado Historica Museum. New Mexico has some great references especially at the UNM library. Arizona still has existent sounds of pronunciation for languages and New Mexico too. Psychology is the place to start and human behavior for the argument that you are trying to place forth!

]]> By: Jack Chevalier http://www.historynet.com/sand-creek-massacre.htm#comment-59974 Jack Chevalier Sun, 10 May 2009 10:25:00 +0000 #comment-59974 You make a special effort to discredit or draw into question the historical record of opinion, as axes to grind. Judging from your summery, your own axe appears to be well honed into a glistening from the process. And thus suspect as those as you question. Why no mention of the human displays paraded at the Apollo? Don't fit the narrative so well? You make a special effort to discredit or draw into question the historical record of opinion, as axes to grind. Judging from your summery, your own axe appears to be well honed into a glistening from the process. And thus suspect as those as you question. Why no mention of the human displays paraded at the Apollo? Don't fit the narrative so well?

]]> By: Jack Kemp http://www.historynet.com/sand-creek-massacre.htm#comment-58762 Jack Kemp Tue, 05 May 2009 20:17:14 +0000 #comment-58762 You sir, are a historical revisionist of the highest order. When all facts and testimony speak against your opinion, you rely on the fog of battle and conjecture as defense. You are of the same class as Abu Ghraib apologists. Shame. You sir, are a historical revisionist of the highest order. When all facts and testimony speak against your opinion, you rely on the fog of battle and conjecture as defense. You are of the same class as Abu Ghraib apologists. Shame.

]]>