1) How do you react to the strategy to end Indian resistance by killing the bison to create starvation and dependency?
24 comments:
Anonymous
said...
Buck Bradley I believe that the strategy used by whites to kill the buffalo was a brilliant strategy to put an end to Indian resistance. The buffalo was what lead to the Plains Indian’s freedom and mobility that made them so hard to attack and defeat for the American military. This tactic in warfare is no different then what attacking general have been doing for centuries even before settlers came to America. An army marches and fights on its stomach and without food and water defending armies lose their will to fight quickly. This method of warfare leads to less blood shed on both sides and it quickly puts an end to fighting between the armies. No one opposed this type of warfare when dealing with the Confederacy or fighting Germany and Japan in World War II. However, while this is a great strategy it can lead to civilian causalities that are not part of the conflict, which needs to be taken into consideration by the commanding general. While I believe that this strategy is a great one; I don’t believe it was right to use in dealing with the Plains Indians in this insistence. The US government made a treaty with the different Indian tribes and they should have honored their word. In addition, there is evidence to show that the buffalo were in decline already and it was just a matter of time before the Indians could no longer survive off the buffalo alone. If the US government would have waited and let white hunters and Indians deplete the buffalo on their only it would have lead to the same out come they wanted, and maybe this extra time would have allowed for better understanding of one another. This understanding maybe could have help reduce conflict and lead to a better white and Indian relations without the need for armed conflict.
Sean Doyle I think this was a great strategy that was used against the Native Americans. The Plains Indians relied so much on the buffalo because it provided them meat and fur. The white people saw that they could put an end to the Natives if they killed off the buffalo. This was a good strategy but I think it was unfair to try and put an end to the Native people.
Stephanie C.: I think this was a deplorable tactic and it was terribly passive-aggressive. While the US military supposedly made treaties with the Indians and claimed to want to share their land and to be friends with them, they made it impossible to survive without great dependence. It would have made a big difference if the American military would have followed through with their promises and upheld their responsibilities to provide food subsidies to the Indians who were starving by this time, but, they didn't. So even though they may have used good military tactics to starve off and destroy the Indian "enemy," the Indians did not know that they were the enemy and they had planned and intended to share the land with these white settlers. I think that these strategies were a disaster and it is no doubt the Indians felt so distrustful of the American military after this time. The American military pretended to help them, but sought to kill them instead.
This strategy, although it may have been somewhat unfair or below the belt, was very effective. There is no better way to discourage a people than by cutting off their main source of food. Food is the most fundamental need and to put it in basic terms, nobody has the energy or will to fight if they have to worry about where their next meal will come from. The American military used this same strategy of cutting off the enemies supplies against the rebel army during the civil war.
Danni Altman The strategy used was an effective way to remove the threat of the Indians. It was, of course, a horrible thing to do but it was a sound strategy for the removal of the Indians from the area the whites wanted to occupy.
Lindsey Schuler While I recognize the strategy of killing off the buffalo in order to get rid of the Plains Indians was effective, I am not able to agree with it at all. The US Army was determined to end resistance of a people fighting for their lives; not of an opposing enemy. After destroying cultures, wiping out populations by disease, and attacking villages without cause the Army causes further suffering by destroying the livlihood and food source of the Indians. Genocide was the attempt of the Army when they destroyed all food sources and when they denied food on the reservations that had been promised. The tactic of killing buffalo instead of waging outright war on the Indian villages almost seemed passive-agressive at that late stage in their strategy, which confused me because the Government never had any qualms about murdering Indians in cold blood before. This tactic was probably meant to be a loop hole to break the half-hearted treaties that were signed about hunting rights before increased preasure by white settlers and the railroad.
I believe the strategy was effective, it could be used on any peoples to make them weaker. The question is, is it the right thing to do. Many of the new settlers went through such harsh times in their homelands only to come here to a government that treats the native peoples like animals. The government should have known better.
I agree with Linsdey, that the killing of buffalo was genocide on the Indian peoples after disease had already wiped out the majority of their populations. It is never brought to our attention in history books this way, but you are right because it was definitely genocide.
Lindsey Schuler This is in response to "this tactic led to less blood shed on both sides"... Actual murder may have been prevented, but the death toll on the Native American side was probably about the same as it would have been if villages were shot up or mass murder took place. Though death by starvation would have been slower and more painful the US Government recieved the results it was looking for.
I agree with the comments of some of the bloggers above. The strategy was absolutely brilliant. Was it cruel? Yes. The fact remains though that by killing the bison, the whites saved many of their soldiers' lives, as well as many of the indians lives, since there was no need for warfare. The indians were forced to focus on survival and where to get food from instead of being focused on a war with the whites. A starving army of indians was much less combat effective than it would have been with food in their stomachs and no worries about survival.
With all of this being said, the tactic was cruel. Starvation is not limited to the army. Starvation affects the civilians as well. This also destroyed any chance of future relations with the indians that the whites could have had. The trust would be destroyed, and you can argue that it has never come back.
The invasion of homesteaders taking over Indian lands, ranchers bringing domestic animals to graze, and the building of railroads did not detour the Indians from trying to sustain their life ways. Therefore, the only alternative remaining was killing the Indian’s primary food source, the buffalo, forcing them to succumb to the ways of the white man.
This was a brilliant, however, cruel strategy used by the US government to finally bring the Indians to their knees. However, the US government did not act alone. They collaborated with professional hide hunters from the US and Europe and the US Army. These groups together killed hundreds of buffalo daily, benefiting in more ways than one: The bones and hides were marketed and with the remaining left to rot where they were slain, it would make certain the Indians would forever be out of the way of westward expansion and would be dependent on the US government for provisions: food, clothing, and shelter.
The buffalo numbers, however, were declining daily prior to the massacre of the groups mentioned previously. It was only a matter of time before they would be totally annihilated by normal consumption: food and trade. But that would not happen fast enough for the government, so they had no alternative but to break promises written in treaties to various Indian tribes, of course doing so in the best interest of the non-Native majority, and this was the only way the government was going to win the battle against the Indians.
The Plains Indians had made the Plains their home, and their survival was based on the survival of the buffalo. Even the Indians realized that spiritually their lives were intertwined with one another. With this thought, it is interesting that although the White's killed the buffalo off in order to cause the beginnings of starvation and make Indians submissive, they also unknowningly attacked their spiritual center by killing of the buffalo.
The killing of the buffalo by the whites was, while definitely cruel and brutal, effective. The whole concept of buffalo hunting was what first brought so many different groups of natives to the plains, and what ultimately aided in their survival as a whole. This left Indians without major sources of food and clothing, thus cutting off a key aspect to survival. While it does seem a little against the ideas of the country ("a country founded on independence being so quick to take it away...") one also has to take into account that there were so many other views of who that independence pertained to so long ago. Our country has had to go through so many stages of change to reach the "independence" that there is today.
Nathan Mangold In terms of military tactics to subjugate the Plains Indians and the economic ambitions to clear the west for "civilization", the systematic destruction of the vast bison herds was sound, and produced the unfortunate yet desired results. As Buck discusses, tactically this is a strategy that had been used previously, and most recently during the Civil War. With Sherman and Sheridan leading the campaign against the Plains tribes, it was only a matter of time before total war stuck its foot through the door. I agree with the rest of the class in the regard that this was a very unfortunate and horrific means to a brutal end for many Native Americans. This appaling ordeal is only one example of failure in a line of many on the part of the American goverment in its struggle to deal with conflicting worlds.
Andrew Schmidt In a great many ways this strategy would never have needed to take place had the US lived up to it's promises. This crime affected everything for which the Indians of the plains stood. All Indian goods were derived from the buffalo and by killing them off they were commiting cultural genocide to the Indians. I completely understand the reasoning behind the use of the strategy and how it would have saved American lives and paved way for westward expansion, however, not allowing Indians to kill the buffalo themselves adds only another crime to the list against Native Americans.
Rachel C. Most people have the same views here, I agree that the idea was a good one. Yes, it accomplished the goals it was striving for but, but what a waste. Not only of the Indian way of life, but also for the buffalo. This strategy changed the face of the plains forever.
Brendon A If anybody is interested in a slightly different viewpoint of this issue, there is a book called The Destruction of the Bison: An Environmental History, 1750-1920 by Andrew Isenberg. (I've only read the review, but it sounds interesting) The main theme of this book is that predominantly Indian predation decimated the bison populations on the plains, placing "less blame" on Euro-Americans. However, Isenberg compares the decline of the buffalo to the decline of megafauna in the terminal pleistocene, arguing that over-hunting by Native Americans was responsible for their extinction. Although predation by humans is likely one of the main factors in the mass extinction of megafauna, it is only one of many factors including vastly changing climatic/environmental conditions. Likewise, the depletion of the bison is a complex issue that cannot be explained by one "event" alone.
Jordan Duffield I think that while the strategy of killing of the buffalo was a dirty, but lethal tactic. Not only did the whites take away the main Indian food source, but also many tribes' spiritual figure. From this we see the importance of the Okeepa becoming more important. Another result of killing off the buffalo was that Indaian tribes now relied on other food sources, such as food distributed on the reservations by whites. One thought of mine though is wasn't the original reason of mass buffalo killing to meet the demand of buffalo hides and tongues and not to "kill off" the Indian?
Brian - Although, I think we all agree that the killing of the Bison as an Army tactic to force the Indians to surrender was a deplorable one. It is important to understand that all this was done to meet the whites end goal of placing the Indians on Reservations. Along with being placed on the Reservations the whites wanted to change the way of life for the Indians by making them farmers and forcing them to live a sedentary life. What better way to accomplish this than by taking away the one element of nature, the Bison, that gave the Indians reason to remain as Ten Bears says roamers over the open praire. The Indians loved their way of life and wanted to raise their childrens children in the same manner, the confinment to the reservations changes all this. They loved the land of the buffalo and were not willing to part with it according to Satanta but with the loss of the buffalo what reason did they have to continue on the plains?
While it seems to be a good tactic to remove buffalo to get rid native Americans. It seems a very inhumane way to handle the "situation" of the Plains people. Simply removing a group of people is never a good way to handle conflict.
As an imperialist nation seeking to control indigenous groups and gain land resources, this tactic proved to be very useful. Destroying a resource important to a cultural group has been a conquering strategy for centuries. If you destroy the resources of a certain functioning society, take away either a food source or a spiritually centering object, you gain control over that group or force them to succumb to whatever it may be that you are trying to accomplish. However, the United States government had many other ways they could have gone about dealing with indigenous groups within the united states. As opposed to conquering them and destroying their societies, the government could have taken the less imperialistic stance of merely driving these groups out of their native lands, and agreed to hold true to treaties presented before these groups, allotting more land to them in hopes of letting them continue their lifestyles. Following this, migration could have been limited to the united states, ensuring that overpopulation of metropolitan areas would not become a problem. It is important though not to in a time where the wrongs of a nation can merely cause shame, to overlook the natural warring state of many of these indigenous groups. Although the actions of the United States government were possibly immoral and mostly selfishly motivated, these groups were not adverse to do the same exact thing in order to gain land access.
Finally, it is important to keep in mind thew strain being put on buffalo populations just be increasing populations of people and stress from settling of their habitats. Letting natural take its course, this would eventually have led to a highly reduced population of buffalo or the redistribution of peoples who relied on them.
24 comments:
Buck Bradley
I believe that the strategy used by whites to kill the buffalo was a brilliant strategy to put an end to Indian resistance. The buffalo was what lead to the Plains Indian’s freedom and mobility that made them so hard to attack and defeat for the American military. This tactic in warfare is no different then what attacking general have been doing for centuries even before settlers came to America. An army marches and fights on its stomach and without food and water defending armies lose their will to fight quickly. This method of warfare leads to less blood shed on both sides and it quickly puts an end to fighting between the armies. No one opposed this type of warfare when dealing with the Confederacy or fighting Germany and Japan in World War II. However, while this is a great strategy it can lead to civilian causalities that are not part of the conflict, which needs to be taken into consideration by the commanding general.
While I believe that this strategy is a great one; I don’t believe it was right to use in dealing with the Plains Indians in this insistence. The US government made a treaty with the different Indian tribes and they should have honored their word. In addition, there is evidence to show that the buffalo were in decline already and it was just a matter of time before the Indians could no longer survive off the buffalo alone. If the US government would have waited and let white hunters and Indians deplete the buffalo on their only it would have lead to the same out come they wanted, and maybe this extra time would have allowed for better understanding of one another. This understanding maybe could have help reduce conflict and lead to a better white and Indian relations without the need for armed conflict.
Sean Doyle
I think this was a great strategy that was used against the Native Americans. The Plains Indians relied so much on the buffalo because it provided them meat and fur. The white people saw that they could put an end to the Natives if they killed off the buffalo. This was a good strategy but I think it was unfair to try and put an end to the Native people.
Stephanie C.:
I think this was a deplorable tactic and it was terribly passive-aggressive. While the US military supposedly made treaties with the Indians and claimed to want to share their land and to be friends with them, they made it impossible to survive without great dependence. It would have made a big difference if the American military would have followed through with their promises and upheld their responsibilities to provide food subsidies to the Indians who were starving by this time, but, they didn't. So even though they may have used good military tactics to starve off and destroy the Indian "enemy," the Indians did not know that they were the enemy and they had planned and intended to share the land with these white settlers. I think that these strategies were a disaster and it is no doubt the Indians felt so distrustful of the American military after this time. The American military pretended to help them, but sought to kill them instead.
Chris G.
Interesting that a country founded on the idea of independence would be so quick to take it away from others. Just a thought.
Mike Skogmo
This strategy, although it may have been somewhat unfair or below the belt, was very effective. There is no better way to discourage a people than by cutting off their main source of food. Food is the most fundamental need and to put it in basic terms, nobody has the energy or will to fight if they have to worry about where their next meal will come from. The American military used this same strategy of cutting off the enemies supplies against the rebel army during the civil war.
Danni Altman
The strategy used was an effective way to remove the threat of the Indians. It was, of course, a horrible thing to do but it was a sound strategy for the removal of the Indians from the area the whites wanted to occupy.
Lindsey Schuler
While I recognize the strategy of killing off the buffalo in order to get rid of the Plains Indians was effective, I am not able to agree with it at all. The US Army was determined to end resistance of a people fighting for their lives; not of an opposing enemy. After destroying cultures, wiping out populations by disease, and attacking villages without cause the Army causes further suffering by destroying the livlihood and food source of the Indians. Genocide was the attempt of the Army when they destroyed all food sources and when they denied food on the reservations that had been promised. The tactic of killing buffalo instead of waging outright war on the Indian villages almost seemed passive-agressive at that late stage in their strategy, which confused me because the Government never had any qualms about murdering Indians in cold blood before. This tactic was probably meant to be a loop hole to break the half-hearted treaties that were signed about hunting rights before increased preasure by white settlers and the railroad.
Kristin de Koning
I believe the strategy was effective, it could be used on any peoples to make them weaker. The question is, is it the right thing to do. Many of the new settlers went through such harsh times in their homelands only to come here to a government that treats the native peoples like animals. The government should have known better.
Stephanie C.:
I agree with Linsdey, that the killing of buffalo was genocide on the Indian peoples after disease had already wiped out the majority of their populations. It is never brought to our attention in history books this way, but you are right because it was definitely genocide.
Lindsey Schuler
This is in response to "this tactic led to less blood shed on both sides"...
Actual murder may have been prevented, but the death toll on the Native American side was probably about the same as it would have been if villages were shot up or mass murder took place. Though death by starvation would have been slower and more painful the US Government recieved the results it was looking for.
Jon Weishaar
I agree with the comments of some of the bloggers above. The strategy was absolutely brilliant. Was it cruel? Yes. The fact remains though that by killing the bison, the whites saved many of their soldiers' lives, as well as many of the indians lives, since there was no need for warfare. The indians were forced to focus on survival and where to get food from instead of being focused on a war with the whites. A starving army of indians was much less combat effective than it would have been with food in their stomachs and no worries about survival.
With all of this being said, the tactic was cruel. Starvation is not limited to the army. Starvation affects the civilians as well. This also destroyed any chance of future relations with the indians that the whites could have had. The trust would be destroyed, and you can argue that it has never come back.
Lindy J
I agree: brilliant strategy, but horrible way to deal with the Indians.
Deborah:
The invasion of homesteaders taking over Indian lands, ranchers bringing domestic animals to graze, and the building of railroads did not detour the Indians from trying to sustain their life ways. Therefore, the only alternative remaining was killing the Indian’s primary food source, the buffalo, forcing them to succumb to the ways of the white man.
This was a brilliant, however, cruel strategy used by the US government to finally bring the Indians to their knees. However, the US government did not act alone. They collaborated with professional hide hunters from the US and Europe and the US Army. These groups together killed hundreds of buffalo daily, benefiting in more ways than one: The bones and hides were marketed and with the remaining left to rot where they were slain, it would make certain the Indians would forever be out of the way of westward expansion and would be dependent on the US government for provisions: food, clothing, and shelter.
The buffalo numbers, however, were declining daily prior to the massacre of the groups mentioned previously. It was only a matter of time before they would be totally annihilated by normal consumption: food and trade. But that would not happen fast enough for the government, so they had no alternative but to break promises written in treaties to various Indian tribes, of course doing so in the best interest of the non-Native majority, and this was the only way the government was going to win the battle against the Indians.
Ashley:
The Plains Indians had made the Plains their home, and their survival was based on the survival of the buffalo. Even the Indians realized that spiritually their lives were intertwined with one another. With this thought, it is interesting that although the White's killed the buffalo off in order to cause the beginnings of starvation and make Indians submissive, they also unknowningly attacked their spiritual center by killing of the buffalo.
Amanda H.
The killing of the buffalo by the whites was, while definitely cruel and brutal, effective. The whole concept of buffalo hunting was what first brought so many different groups of natives to the plains, and what ultimately aided in their survival as a whole. This left Indians without major sources of food and clothing, thus cutting off a key aspect to survival.
While it does seem a little against the ideas of the country ("a country founded on independence being so quick to take it away...") one also has to take into account that there were so many other views of who that independence pertained to so long ago. Our country has had to go through so many stages of change to reach the "independence" that there is today.
Nathan Mangold
In terms of military tactics to subjugate the Plains Indians and the economic ambitions to clear the west for "civilization", the systematic destruction of the vast bison herds was sound, and produced the unfortunate yet desired results. As Buck discusses, tactically this is a strategy that had been used previously, and most recently during the Civil War. With Sherman and Sheridan leading the campaign against the Plains tribes, it was only a matter of time before total war stuck its foot through the door. I agree with the rest of the class in the regard that this was a very unfortunate and horrific means to a brutal end for many Native Americans. This appaling ordeal is only one example of failure in a line of many on the part of the American goverment in its struggle to deal with conflicting worlds.
Andrew Schmidt
In a great many ways this strategy would never have needed to take place had the US lived up to it's promises. This crime affected everything for which the Indians of the plains stood. All Indian goods were derived from the buffalo and by killing them off they were commiting cultural genocide to the Indians. I completely understand the reasoning behind the use of the strategy and how it would have saved American lives and paved way for westward expansion, however, not allowing Indians to kill the buffalo themselves adds only another crime to the list against Native Americans.
Rachel C.
Most people have the same views here, I agree that the idea was a good one. Yes, it accomplished the goals it was striving for but, but what a waste. Not only of the Indian way of life, but also for the buffalo. This strategy changed the face of the plains forever.
Brendon A
If anybody is interested in a slightly different viewpoint of this issue, there is a book called The Destruction of the Bison: An Environmental History, 1750-1920 by Andrew Isenberg. (I've only read the review, but it sounds interesting) The main theme of this book is that predominantly Indian predation decimated the bison populations on the plains, placing "less blame" on Euro-Americans. However, Isenberg compares the decline of the buffalo to the decline of megafauna in the terminal pleistocene, arguing that over-hunting by Native Americans was responsible for their extinction. Although predation by humans is likely one of the main factors in the mass extinction of megafauna, it is only one of many factors including vastly changing climatic/environmental conditions. Likewise, the depletion of the bison is a complex issue that cannot be explained by one "event" alone.
Jordan Duffield
I think that while the strategy of killing of the buffalo was a dirty, but lethal tactic. Not only did the whites take away the main Indian food source, but also many tribes' spiritual figure. From this we see the importance of the Okeepa becoming more important. Another result of killing off the buffalo was that Indaian tribes now relied on other food sources, such as food distributed on the reservations by whites. One thought of mine though is wasn't the original reason of mass buffalo killing to meet the demand of buffalo hides and tongues and not to "kill off" the Indian?
Brian -
Although, I think we all agree that the killing of the Bison as an Army tactic to force the Indians to surrender was a deplorable one. It is important to understand that all this was done to meet the whites end goal of placing the Indians on Reservations. Along with being placed on the Reservations the whites wanted to change the way of life for the Indians by making them farmers and forcing them to live a sedentary life. What better way to accomplish this than by taking away the one element of nature, the Bison, that gave the Indians reason to remain as Ten Bears says roamers over the open praire. The Indians loved their way of life and wanted to raise their childrens children in the same manner, the confinment to the reservations changes all this. They loved the land of the buffalo and were not willing to part with it according to Satanta but with the loss of the buffalo what reason did they have to continue on the plains?
While it seems to be a good tactic to remove buffalo to get rid native Americans. It seems a very inhumane way to handle the "situation" of the Plains people. Simply removing a group of people is never a good way to handle conflict.
The above comment was posted by Cassie H.
Sorry!
Megan Solomon
As an imperialist nation seeking to control indigenous groups and gain land resources, this tactic proved to be very useful. Destroying a resource important to a cultural group has been a conquering strategy for centuries. If you destroy the resources of a certain functioning society, take away either a food source or a spiritually centering object, you gain control over that group or force them to succumb to whatever it may be that you are trying to accomplish. However, the United States government had many other ways they could have gone about dealing with indigenous groups within the united states. As opposed to conquering them and destroying their societies, the government could have taken the less imperialistic stance of merely driving these groups out of their native lands, and agreed to hold true to treaties presented before these groups, allotting more land to them in hopes of letting them continue their lifestyles. Following this, migration could have been limited to the united states, ensuring that overpopulation of metropolitan areas would not become a problem.
It is important though not to in a time where the wrongs of a nation can merely cause shame, to overlook the natural warring state of many of these indigenous groups. Although the actions of the United States government were possibly immoral and mostly selfishly motivated, these groups were not adverse to do the same exact thing in order to gain land access.
Finally, it is important to keep in mind thew strain being put on buffalo populations just be increasing populations of people and stress from settling of their habitats. Letting natural take its course, this would eventually have led to a highly reduced population of buffalo or the redistribution of peoples who relied on them.
Post a Comment