Crow Foot and the War of 1812

I'm just wondering what your take is. I tried to ask in your profile so's to be less public, but I couldn't find the button.

Can you elaborate a little bit for the benefit of the rest of us at least?

Crowfoot people got fucked by pilgrims and by their former-grand imperial poobah. Both sides in 1812 war became enemy in end.

Well, you know how it is. In the US they just tell us that the British and their Canadian colonists invaded the US, burnt down the Whitehouse, and were beat back to Canada. At the college level they go into some alliances with Indians, and maybe how the French were allies or something, don't remember. And of course that that is the last war on American soil (also untrue of course, as it leaves out all of the Indian Wars which occurred afterward).

And they use the term Indian, I'm just repeating it.

All I know is Crow Foot's use of ethnic stereotype is hilarious..

lol some bored Canadian farmers went down to what use to be a pink house aka the white house and burnt it down. Canada whooped the US in a war back then.

I honestly forgot I about this post. My bad.

The war of 1812 is the war y'all Canadians came to burn the capital. More importantly it's the war that solidified America's ability to defeat the British. We lost a ton up north due to the Canadian forced teamed with Suex and British, but the major war for us was control of the Mississippi. Which was Suex, British, and us of course. In the end the Suex get fucked by the US, Canada, and England. That war gave Suex one of the more terrifying name for US frontier families. We'd continue to hunt and kill them until their ultimate submission. Custard and Crazy Horse and what have you. Crow Foot uses Lahkota....which is Suex. It is a bit like asking about a black man's input on slavery.....but still I'm curious. My great grandfather's grandfather was General Custard. No doubt if Crow Foot is Suex he is related to Crazy Horse. By stroke of irony you've in your members both decedents of old foes. Important historical enemies. IMO, that's pretty neat.

crow foot was the son of sitting bull which means he wasn't alive in 1812. and it's sioux, not suex. the lakota and sioux tribes didn't even fight in that war.

marchegiano get your facts straight

The only indians that are offended by being called that are the money hungry, politically correct, nancy boys.

My family is full of them and they are proud indians.

i lived in british columbia and I had indians in my school and they didnt get offended by the word indian. i don't even understand how it's offensive.

Dapperdoo wrote:i lived in british columbia and I had indians in my school and they didnt get offended by the word indian. i don't even understand how it's offensive.

It seems like one of those conceptualized circumstances for which the English language is without recourse.

In other words, the word "Indian" in reference to the descendants of the indigenous peoples of the Western Hemisphere, as far West as the present-day West Coast of continental North America, at the time the Europeans advance upon the two American continents and their surrounding islands, starting with the voyage of one Cristoforo Colombo toward the end of the 15th Century, does not accurately denote such people.

However, there is unfortunately no other words which are not historically charged with prejudice, or in a technical sense inaccurate, or so it seems (i.e. aborigines, indigenous peoples, red skins (excuse the expression), Native Americans (though a lesser among the evils, but yet technically inaccurate, as anyone born in "America" is technically a 'native' of "America", i.e. me), Ingens (excuse the expression), etc.

I think maybe the most correct way to refer to pre-European colonization peoples of the Western Hemisphere is by the names of their tribes. After all, this is what they would call themselves. Unless there's something else that would be used by them to describe the peoples as a whole.

nodogoshi wrote:

Dapperdoo wrote:i lived in british columbia and I had indians in my school and they didnt get offended by the word indian. i don't even understand how it's offensive.

It seems like one of those conceptualized circumstances for which the English language is without recourse.

In other words, the word "Indian" in reference to the descendants of the indigenous peoples of the Western Hemisphere, as far West as the present-day West Coast of continental North America, at the time the Europeans advance upon the two American continents and their surrounding islands, starting with the voyage of one Cristoforo Colombo toward the end of the 15th Century, does not accurately denote such people.

However, there is unfortunately no other words which are not historically charged with prejudice, or in a technical sense inaccurate, or so it seems (i.e. aborigines, indigenous peoples, red skins (excuse the expression), Native Americans (though a lesser among the evils, but yet technically inaccurate, as anyone born in "America" is technically a 'native' of "America", i.e. me), Ingens (excuse the expression), etc.

I'm clearly aware of that but this is my view on it. Columbus called them indians, well everyone did, which in my mind makes them indians. There was nothing racial about it. You do bring up some racial names for indians like "red skin" which i understand why it's racial.

but then again im just a white devil with a snake's tongue so who am i to speak.

Dapperdoo wrote:

nodogoshi wrote:

Dapperdoo wrote:i lived in british columbia and I had indians in my school and they didnt get offended by the word indian. i don't even understand how it's offensive.

It seems like one of those conceptualized circumstances for which the English language is without recourse.

In other words, the word "Indian" in reference to the descendants of the indigenous peoples of the Western Hemisphere, as far West as the present-day West Coast of continental North America, at the time the Europeans advance upon the two American continents and their surrounding islands, starting with the voyage of one Cristoforo Colombo toward the end of the 15th Century, does not accurately denote such people.

However, there is unfortunately no other words which are not historically charged with prejudice, or in a technical sense inaccurate, or so it seems (i.e. aborigines, indigenous peoples, red skins (excuse the expression), Native Americans (though a lesser among the evils, but yet technically inaccurate, as anyone born in "America" is technically a 'native' of "America", i.e. me), Ingens (excuse the expression), etc.

I'm clearly aware of that but this is my view on it. Columbus called them indians, well everyone did, which in my mind makes them indians. There was nothing racial about it. You do bring up some racial names for indians like "red skin" which i understand why it's racial.

but then again im just a white devil with a snake's tongue so who am i to speak.

Well, if there wasn't already a country called "India" at the time you might have a point, kind of.

nodogoshi wrote:

Dapperdoo wrote:

nodogoshi wrote:

Dapperdoo wrote:i lived in british columbia and I had indians in my school and they didnt get offended by the word indian. i don't even understand how it's offensive.

It seems like one of those conceptualized circumstances for which the English language is without recourse.

In other words, the word "Indian" in reference to the descendants of the indigenous peoples of the Western Hemisphere, as far West as the present-day West Coast of continental North America, at the time the Europeans advance upon the two American continents and their surrounding islands, starting with the voyage of one Cristoforo Colombo toward the end of the 15th Century, does not accurately denote such people.

However, there is unfortunately no other words which are not historically charged with prejudice, or in a technical sense inaccurate, or so it seems (i.e. aborigines, indigenous peoples, red skins (excuse the expression), Native Americans (though a lesser among the evils, but yet technically inaccurate, as anyone born in "America" is technically a 'native' of "America", i.e. me), Ingens (excuse the expression), etc.

I'm clearly aware of that but this is my view on it. Columbus called them indians, well everyone did, which in my mind makes them indians. There was nothing racial about it. You do bring up some racial names for indians like "red skin" which i understand why it's racial.

but then again im just a white devil with a snake's tongue so who am i to speak.

Well, if there wasn't already a country called "India" at the time you might have a point, kind of.

True but the word then has two meanings. indians from india and native american indians. they were just being clever.

Dapperdoo wrote:

nodogoshi wrote:

Dapperdoo wrote:

nodogoshi wrote:

It seems like one of those conceptualized circumstances for which the English language is without recourse.

In other words, the word "Indian" in reference to the descendants of the indigenous peoples of the Western Hemisphere, as far West as the present-day West Coast of continental North America, at the time the Europeans advance upon the two American continents and their surrounding islands, starting with the voyage of one Cristoforo Colombo toward the end of the 15th Century, does not accurately denote such people.

However, there is unfortunately no other words which are not historically charged with prejudice, or in a technical sense inaccurate, or so it seems (i.e. aborigines, indigenous peoples, red skins (excuse the expression), Native Americans (though a lesser among the evils, but yet technically inaccurate, as anyone born in "America" is technically a 'native' of "America", i.e. me), Ingens (excuse the expression), etc.

I'm clearly aware of that but this is my view on it. Columbus called them indians, well everyone did, which in my mind makes them indians. There was nothing racial about it. You do bring up some racial names for indians like "red skin" which i understand why it's racial.

but then again im just a white devil with a snake's tongue so who am i to speak.

Well, if there wasn't already a country called "India" at the time you might have a point, kind of.

True but the word then has two meanings. indians from india and native american indians. they were just being clever.

Actually I guess that's sort of true, in that there was the West Indies (the Caribbean basically) and the East Indies. The entymology of the word "Indies" just suddenly became interesting. Afterall, at the time there was only overland trade between East and West (as the Portuguese were sailing East at around the same time the Spanish were going West). Kind of tricky. But of course, the word Indian more so has two meanings now, national of India or 'American' Indian.

nodogoshi wrote:

Dapperdoo wrote:

nodogoshi wrote:

Dapperdoo wrote:
I'm clearly aware of that but this is my view on it. Columbus called them indians, well everyone did, which in my mind makes them indians. There was nothing racial about it. You do bring up some racial names for indians like "red skin" which i understand why it's racial.

but then again im just a white devil with a snake's tongue so who am i to speak.

Well, if there wasn't already a country called "India" at the time you might have a point, kind of.

True but the word then has two meanings. indians from india and native american indians. they were just being clever.

Actually I guess that's sort of true, in that there was the West Indies (the Caribbean basically) and the East Indies. The entymology of the word "Indies" just suddenly became interesting. Afterall, at the time there was only overland trade between East and West (as the Portuguese were sailing East at around the same time the Spanish were going West). Kind of tricky. But of course, the word Indian more so has two meanings now, national of India or 'American' Indian.

yeah the west and east indies just to separate asia from the caribbean. but it might have just been geographical confusion but why create a west and east if you could just change the name of the west indies to something else.

Dapperdoo wrote:

nodogoshi wrote:

Dapperdoo wrote:

nodogoshi wrote:

Well, if there wasn't already a country called "India" at the time you might have a point, kind of.

True but the word then has two meanings. indians from india and native american indians. they were just being clever.

Actually I guess that's sort of true, in that there was the West Indies (the Caribbean basically) and the East Indies. The entymology of the word "Indies" just suddenly became interesting. Afterall, at the time there was only overland trade between East and West (as the Portuguese were sailing East at around the same time the Spanish were going West). Kind of tricky. But of course, the word Indian more so has two meanings now, national of India or 'American' Indian.

yeah the west and east indies just to separate asia from the caribbean. but it might have just been geographical confusion but why create a west and east if you could just change the name of the west indies to something else.

Or maybe the geographic confusion is just mythology.

Afterall, the Portuguese and Spanish went in opposite directions for a reason. Not unlike how they partitioned South America amongst themselves (the Pope moderated). To avoid competition/conflict basically. So than, why would they be trying to end up in the same place, it may be asked.

But really, who knows. (I'm sure that there are plenty of scholars who have/do study this, but I generally tend to disagree with a lot of the mainstream received conventional wisdom of historiography, as it's often just all bullshit and mythology).

nodogoshi wrote:

Dapperdoo wrote:

nodogoshi wrote:

Dapperdoo wrote:
True but the word then has two meanings. indians from india and native american indians. they were just being clever.

Actually I guess that's sort of true, in that there was the West Indies (the Caribbean basically) and the East Indies. The entymology of the word "Indies" just suddenly became interesting. Afterall, at the time there was only overland trade between East and West (as the Portuguese were sailing East at around the same time the Spanish were going West). Kind of tricky. But of course, the word Indian more so has two meanings now, national of India or 'American' Indian.

yeah the west and east indies just to separate asia from the caribbean. but it might have just been geographical confusion but why create a west and east if you could just change the name of the west indies to something else.

Or maybe the geographic confusion is just mythology.

Afterall, the Portuguese and Spanish went in opposite directions for a reason. Not unlike how they partitioned South America amongst themselves (the Pope moderated). To avoid competition/conflict basically. So than, why would they be trying to end up in the same place, it may be asked.

maybe it was "friendly competition" like the space race.


yeah, who knows.

Dapperdoo wrote:

nodogoshi wrote:

Dapperdoo wrote:

nodogoshi wrote:

Actually I guess that's sort of true, in that there was the West Indies (the Caribbean basically) and the East Indies. The entymology of the word "Indies" just suddenly became interesting. Afterall, at the time there was only overland trade between East and West (as the Portuguese were sailing East at around the same time the Spanish were going West). Kind of tricky. But of course, the word Indian more so has two meanings now, national of India or 'American' Indian.

yeah the west and east indies just to separate asia from the caribbean. but it might have just been geographical confusion but why create a west and east if you could just change the name of the west indies to something else.

Or maybe the geographic confusion is just mythology.

Afterall, the Portuguese and Spanish went in opposite directions for a reason. Not unlike how they partitioned South America amongst themselves (the Pope moderated). To avoid competition/conflict basically. So than, why would they be trying to end up in the same place, it may be asked.

maybe it was "friendly competition" like the space race.


yeah, who knows.

Nah, it was more non-competition. A better analogy is the division of the world between trusts around the end of the 19th century in order to not compete (for example American and German electrical trusts, American, French and British railroad trusts, etc.). These things are written about extensively in V.I. Lenin's "Imperialism: The Highest Stage of Capitalism" and Rudolph Hilferding's "Finance Capital". The point is to not compete.

Basically, the Spanish and Portuguese, being not only two Catholic European nations, but also two which share the Iberian Peninsula were intent on conflict avoidance.

Of course, the Spanish eventually did invade Portugal in the 18th century for imperial gain, but that was quite the controversial action on their part.

Dapperdoo wrote:crow foot was the son of sitting bull which means he wasn't alive in 1812. and it's sioux, not suex. the lakota and sioux tribes didn't even fight in that war.

I'd written a whole thing on how wrong you are, but I've learned people tend to side with the fucker who spells, and no one will research shit. So here some done for you instead of me claiming shit.

The Treaties of Portage des Sioux:

were a series of treaties at Portage des Sioux, Missouri in 1815 that officially were supposed to mark the end of conflicts between the United States and Native Americans at the conclusion of the War of 1812.
Although the treaties were ostensibly to "restore to such Tribes or Nations respectively all the possessions, rights, and privileges which they may have enjoyed or been entitled to in 1811" which was required in Article IX of the Treaty of Ghent which ended the war[1], they were to be used to affirm and consolidate earlier treaties in which the United States had secured vast territory of the Midwest from tribes in agreements that had earlier not been signed by all the appropriate Native American representatives.
The earlier treaties included the Treaty of St. Louis (1804) in which the Sac and Fox ceded a swath of land from Missouri through Illinois and Wisconsin and the Treaty of Fort Clark in 1808 in which the Osage Nation ceded Missouri and Arkansas west of Fort Clark.
The treaties were to form the legal basis in which tribes were to be relocated west of Missouri in Indian Territory and which was to clear the way for the states to enter the Union.
On March 11, 1815, President James Madison appointed William Clark (governor of Missouri Territory), Ninian Edwards (governor of Illinois Territory), and Auguste Chouteau (a St. Louis businessman who had made his fortune dealing the fur trade with the Native Americans) to the commission to conclude the treaty. The President authorized an expenditure of $20,000 for gifts for the chiefs. The commissioners met in St. Louis, Missouri on May 11, 1815 to make the arrangements and extend 37 invitations to the Chiefs.
The treaty signings at Portage des Sioux were to occur between July 18 and September 16.
The most notable chief to refuse the invitation was Black Hawk who was compelled to come and was the last sign the treaty. He was to resist its terms in the Black Hawk War.
The tribes signing (in order of signatures):
Potawatomi
Piankeshaw
Lakota
Mdewakantonwan Dakota
Sioux
Omaha
Kickapoo
Osage Nation
Sac
Fox
Iowa

Don't want to believe me yet? look up the Treaties of Portage des Sioux.....The treaty of Ghent would be helpful for understanding too....for yourself. In fact you'll find the Sioux...and the Lakota who answer to the Seven Councils of Fire, or Sioux confederation (same gov two names) were the only second to the Shawnee as far as Native play in the war. Dunno who does and does not know this, but there is no Sioux or Lakota tribe. Siouan is the language, Lakota a dialect. Sioux is a nationality of a government of like speaking tribes. Upper Sioux is a tribal name. Oglala Lakota is also a tribal name. Lakota by it's self simply implies dialect. There are Lakota and Sioux tribes but none are named simply just.

Now, as far as Crow Foot, the real one, isn't Sioux at all. Siksika. I was talking to a user registered as Crow Foot. I understand the confusion, but didn't mean to imply anything about the 1890's Siksika leader...When I said he uses Lakota so he's probably Sioux I was talking about a fella who is actually probably white, and remarking on his speech patterns.

I've a tendency to offend around here, so I hope I didn't come off as harsh. I'm in no way upset.