Free Republic
Browse · Search
News/Activism
Topics · Post Article

Skip to comments.

Obama Praises Indian Chief Who Killed U.S. General
Fox News ^ | November 15, 2010

Posted on 11/17/2010 6:21:28 AM PST by USALiberty

A series of two-page spreads asks questions ("Have I told you that you are creative?") across from short tributes. He writes of Georgia O'Keeffe: "She helped us see big beauty in what is small: the hardness of stone and the softness of feather." His most controversial choice may be Sitting Bull, who defeated Custer at Little Bighorn: ("A Sioux medicine man who healed broken hearts and broken promises.")

(Excerpt) Read more at nation.foxnews.com ...


TOPICS: Culture/Society; Government; News/Current Events
KEYWORDS: kenyanusurper; propaganda; sittingbull; treason
Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first previous 1-2021-4041-6061-80 ... 161-173 next last
To: 2nd Amendment

Oh, I failed to mention that the fighting strength of the Indian camp Custer attacked on June 25th was in the neighborhood of 1800 warriors.


41 posted on 11/17/2010 7:35:36 AM PST by bcsco
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 28 | View Replies]

To: bcsco

It’s an interesting site, but I find it hard to read the dark text against the graphics in the background.


42 posted on 11/17/2010 7:35:36 AM PST by FourPeas (Pester not the geek, for the electrons are his friends.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 37 | View Replies]

To: nmh
"How come Obama didn’t comment on how the native Inddian SCAPED people and killed WHITE, CHRISTIAN people?"

Because Obama knows what he's doing, he's distorting the truth for own purposes, namely, to divide the nation against whites. The Indians were nothing more than base barbarians who were constantly at war with each other, slaughtering each other for land, or just for the fun of it to see whose braves were better. I can only imagine what the European settlers felt when they arrived in America from a true civilization with great advancements in technology, building techniques, machinery, language, culture, universities, cities, medicine, and men treating women as precious ladies, (not as squaws), just to see these screaming, painted faced aboriginies running around naked and completely without scientific advancements. They were a throwback in time culturally, morally and mentally.

And for those of you who have been brainwashed with the lies that these aboriginies treated whites well and just wanted peace, you've been taught error, lots of error. The Indians were barbarians who did barbaric things to each other and to the white settlers. They seemed to especially like killing white women and children. That was their way to commit genocide against the whites; no women, no children, then eventually no whites. Sort of backfired though, didn't it?

43 posted on 11/17/2010 7:38:05 AM PST by jiminycricket000
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 8 | View Replies]

To: bcsco

Very good site. Concise and thorough. That was a lot of work!


44 posted on 11/17/2010 7:38:55 AM PST by Psalm 144
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 37 | View Replies]

To: FourPeas

Thanks. Someday I’ll get around to revising the site. Irons in the fire and all that... :)


45 posted on 11/17/2010 7:39:32 AM PST by bcsco
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 42 | View Replies]

To: tbpiper
Did those same books tell you about the soldiers who "routinely slaughtering women and children"? Probably not.

It wasn't routine.

That's why the PC history books make such a big deal out of Sand Creek and a few other occasion where it actually took place.

Did women and children get killed? Absolutely, but in most cases as a result of collateral damage. At Sand Creek, quite a number of Chivington's officers objected strongly to his murderous orders to take no prisoners. The massacre was a huge scandal at the time, precisely because it wasn't "routine."

For an alternative where "kill them all" was the norm, may I refer you to the history of Argentine, which was fighting its last Indian wars at the same time we were.

Argentina has no Indian problem because it has no Indians. They killed them all.

OTOH, it was indeed routine for American Indians to kill white (and enemy Indian) women and children, often by torturing them to death.

46 posted on 11/17/2010 7:40:06 AM PST by Sherman Logan
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 26 | View Replies]

To: bcsco

Yup. You and me both.


47 posted on 11/17/2010 7:42:35 AM PST by FourPeas (Pester not the geek, for the electrons are his friends.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 45 | View Replies]

To: Psalm 144
Thanks. A culmination of a life of reading and research...

The best site on the LBH is Friends of the Little Bighorn. It's a treasure trove of information, and a great organization to boot...

48 posted on 11/17/2010 7:43:39 AM PST by bcsco
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 44 | View Replies]

To: SeeSharp
C’mon now. Sitting Bull was not a terrorist. Let’s not diminish the word so quickly. Besides, you have to admit Custer had it coming.

I could not agree more. Terrorist my a$$!

Calling Sitting Bull a terrorist is analogous to calling the little tin god an outstanding Christian and excellent president.

Both statements have equal levels of truth in them.

Moreover, Custer - at least from a military viewpoint - blew this one for sure. It didn't help the cause that there was a great deal of mistrust and dissention in the chain of command, bad intelligence, overconfidence, and lousy scouting either. But since he was the overall commander, the fault and the loss lies with him and him alone.

49 posted on 11/17/2010 7:46:34 AM PST by Logic n' Reason (You can roll a turd in powered sugar; that don't make it a jelly donut)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 2 | View Replies]

To: dirtboy
the history of Indian affairs in this country is a largely shameful one.

Quite true. But it's shameful because we violated our own laws and principles. What happened here is what has always happened whenever a primitive people comes into contact with a more advanced one.

William Penn showed that it was possible to live peacefully side-by-side if affairs were conducted fairly.

True, in the short term. In the long run, the exploding white settler population would eventually want the land of the Indians, who were declining in number. The only way to prevent them from taking it would be by means of an absolute monarchy which would protect the Indians.

Does anyone think there was some scenario by which white settlement could have been permanently stopped at the Appalachians or Mississippi? If the US had done so, it still wouldn't have saved the Indians, as the unprotected land would have been settled by some other white nation.

50 posted on 11/17/2010 7:46:57 AM PST by Sherman Logan
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 22 | View Replies]

To: jiminycricket000

As whites moved west in the North, there was genocide.

As whites moved west in the South, there was largely assimilation. I am a product of that. There was no such mass genocide required in Canada either.

New England’s *apostate* Puritanism is an arrogant death cult which brings misery wherever it metastasizes. We are on the brink of its total victory or final defeat right now. The irony to this thread is that Obama is a perfect example and product of that malignant culture.


51 posted on 11/17/2010 7:50:28 AM PST by Psalm 144
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 43 | View Replies]

To: Sherman Logan
OTOH, it was indeed routine for American Indians to kill white (and enemy Indian) women and children, often by torturing them to death.

Not to mention the eating of the cooked remains of the bravest captive that underwent such torture as a sign of respect.

The American frontier was not a very nice place at all!

52 posted on 11/17/2010 7:50:51 AM PST by Logic n' Reason (You can roll a turd in powered sugar; that don't make it a jelly donut)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 46 | View Replies]

To: tbpiper
"I assume you got this from your antiquarian books. Did those same books tell you about the soldiers who "routinely slaughtering women and children"? Probably not. A more accurate history requires a little distance from the events."

The problem with your aboriginie, pagan friends is they learned that slaughtering white women and children came with a heavy price. It got their own people killed, often in the same way. It's not a pretty site to come home to see your wife stabbed, raped and burned to death, and your daughters taken as sex slaves. But you cannot see that it was the Indians who caused their own troubles, you've been brainwashed.

And it does figure that you'd try to assail American written antiquarian books that were written as the facts actually unfolded, with no time and no desire for revision. White villages were attacked and burned to the ground after the men left, and that didn't set well with the Cavalry, who went to settle the score. It was the European settlers who wanted to live in peace, by and large, but the Indians were having none of it. You see, I believe my American forefathers and what they wrote, because they were men and women of great integrity. Lying was not a family value as it is today, in YOUR culture. Christians knew that lies were subject to God's punishment. It was Christianity, in fact, that contained men's bloody instincts and allowed the savage, barbaric Indians to live peacefully on sprawling reservations. Were the white settlers just like the Indians there wouldn't have been a single Indian left standing. And if your Cheif Sitting Bullshit had the chance he'd have wiped out whites to the last man, woman and child. Perhaps thats what you'd have preferred, it would seem.

53 posted on 11/17/2010 7:54:50 AM PST by jiminycricket000
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 26 | View Replies]

To: Psalm 144
As whites moved west in the South, there was largely assimilation.

I think the Cherokees might beg to differ there.

54 posted on 11/17/2010 7:55:22 AM PST by dirtboy
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 51 | View Replies]

To: jiminycricket000
It got their own people killed, often in the same way.

I think you are confusing cause and effect. Often times it was the soldiers and settlers who started the cycle of violence.

55 posted on 11/17/2010 7:56:29 AM PST by dirtboy
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 53 | View Replies]

To: jiminycricket000
peacefully on sprawling reservations.

Sprawling reservations? You really do have blinders on, don't you? Look at what is left of the Souix reservations, versus what had been promised over the years through treaties, and get back to us.

56 posted on 11/17/2010 7:58:08 AM PST by dirtboy
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 53 | View Replies]

To: dirtboy
I think the Cherokees might beg to differ there.

I doubt they would. Assimilation was more the rule than the exception in the southern colonies.

You must be thinking of the later Federal expulsion of Cherokee that occurred. There were Cherokee units fighting for the Confederacy, you know. In fact, the last unit to lay down arms was Cherokee.

They were sorely abused with the Trail Of Tears, but southerners had next to nothing to do with it.

57 posted on 11/17/2010 7:59:40 AM PST by RegulatorCountry
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 54 | View Replies]

To: Psalm 144
old matinee movies too, but they were kid’s entertainment, not history

Good point.

BTW, the uterus was another reported tobacco source.

58 posted on 11/17/2010 8:01:44 AM PST by tbpiper
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 32 | View Replies]

To: Sherman Logan
True, in the short term. In the long run, the exploding white settler population would eventually want the land of the Indians, who were declining in number. The only way to prevent them from taking it would be by means of an absolute monarchy which would protect the Indians.

The Walking Purchase shows the Indians from Penn's era were willing to sell more land - but were shafted by Penn's heirs.

I do agree that what happened with the Indians was typical of contact with indigenous peoples in the past. Doesn't mean it should be sugarcoated, though.

59 posted on 11/17/2010 8:01:50 AM PST by dirtboy
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 50 | View Replies]

To: RegulatorCountry
They were sorely abused with the Trail Of Tears, but southerners had next to nothing to do with it.

Andrew Jackson was a southerner, wasn't he? And he was the driving force behind the expulsion of the Cherokees - witness his famous statement about Marshall enforcing his decision regarding the Cherokees.

And the Cherokee unit in the Civil War was fighting in Indian territory, I believe, for their own perceived self-interest.

60 posted on 11/17/2010 8:04:40 AM PST by dirtboy
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 57 | View Replies]


Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first previous 1-2021-4041-6061-80 ... 161-173 next last

Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.

Free Republic
Browse · Search
News/Activism
Topics · Post Article

FreeRepublic, LLC, PO BOX 9771, FRESNO, CA 93794
FreeRepublic.com is powered by software copyright 2000-2008 John Robinson