Talk:Wounded Knee Massacre

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

This article is within the scope of the following WikiProjects:
Other languages WikiProject Echo has identified Wounded Knee Massacre as a foreign language featured article. You may be able to improve this article with information from the Polish language Wikipedia.

Contents

[edit] Massacre

This article makes this event sound like it really wasnt a massacre of women and children. Does this bother anyone? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 76.213.151.98 (talk) 23:52, 16 December 2007 (UTC)

The article very clearly states that 44 Miniconjou women and 18 of their children were killed by the U.S. 7th Cavalry. In what sense does this make it "sound like it really wasnt a massacre of women and children?" Pirate Dan (talk) 16:10, 20 December 2007 (UTC)
Massacre written in quotes may give the impression it might not have been a massacre at all.--Kmhkmh (talk) 10:02, 25 March 2008 (UTC)
That's a "good point". --OhNoPeedyPeebles (talk) 20:46, 30 March 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Numbers

I have a source stating "more than 200 were killed", but this article insists that more than 300 were killed. Can someone else look into this inconsistancy between sources? Greenmountainboy 20:00, 9 Dec 2003 (UTC)

It looks like someone went and added "These numbers are undereported blah blah". Someone needs to cite a resource, as I'v not been able to find anything supporting. (gghouck)

Heres the actual number of fatalites as recorded by the burial detail...I added them to the article.

"In all, 84 men, 44 women, and 18 children died on the field, while at least seven of Lakota were mortally wounded."

Sarf, Wayne Michael "The Little Bighorn Campaign" Combined Books, INC. 1993 User:67.140.54.135 21 May 2007

"The World of the American Indian" by National Geographic also states that the number was 153.

I removed a passage from L. Frank Baum's editorial. The passage was indeed written by Baum, several days before the Wounded Knee Massacre, in response to news of the death of Sitting Bull. I've left a link where the full text of two editorials by Baum can be read: the first in response to the death of Sitting Bull, the second in response the the Wounded Knee Massacre. I'm not justifying Baum by any means, but a partial quote taken out of context makes the terrible things he wrote sound even worse. The editorials aren't that long, I think it better they be read in full. See: http://lupus.northern.edu:90/hastingw/baumedts.htm --Woggly 08:22, 1 Aug 2004 (UTC)

It may seem to be a technicality, but the change made on the introduction was occasioned by my surprise when I read about the Drexel Mission skirmish. It really can be considered to be a part of the Wounded Knee campaign but one always gets the impression that the Battle at Wounded Knee was the absolute end of any group of Native Americans fighting or being attacked by any group of soldiers (or even possibly settlers). Chief.Scribe 21:05, 30 September 2005 (UTC)

  • Don't you think that this part could be moved down, though? The intro should, well, introduce - not go into techinicalities about whether or not is was the last conflict. It was the last major conflict - leave it at that. Zafiroblue05 22:34, 2 December 2005 (UTC)

Besides being a massacre, it is also called genocide. Remember that the history is written by the winners, and for that reason, only honest white people will recognize that this was a massacre and one more action of genocide.Tommart54 (talk) 04:16, 26 April 2008 (UTC) tommart54Tommart54 (talk) 04:16, 26 April 2008 (UTC)

[edit] sources?

"Some accounts claim that Black Coyote was deaf or otherwise impaired." what accounts? can we get links?

  • Sounds to me like the author of that quote is drawing conclusions based solely on the "Into the West" miniseries. Quote should be removed, since no attribution will likely be found. --Dogbreathcanada 23:48, 23 March 2006 (UTC)
Black Elk doesn't even mention Black Coyote and says it was Yellow Bird who struggled against the officer who took his rifle. p. 222. But the Black Coyote (or deaf guy) story is not only mentioned in Into the West. The source for that information, and most likely where the Into the West writers got it, is Iron Tail (Dewey Beard), a survivor, who repeated his story many times over the years. It was written down by his granddaughter Celine Not Help Him and has been quoted in numerous books and documentaries, including Dee Brown's Bury My Heart at Wounded Knee. I checked and found Beard's story in The Dull Knifes of Pine Ridge (Putnam, 1995), p. 19-22. It is clear that more information about Beard's account is needed. It was apparently not written down until he related it to Celine. --Bluejay Young (talk) 20:49, 13 January 2008 (UTC)

In Robert M. Utley's THE INDIAN FRONTIER he has the battle opening with a deaf man's gun going off, but doesn't name his as Black Coyote. pg. 247 —Preceding unsigned comment added by 199.111.189.104 (talk) 07:46, 12 December 2007 (UTC)

In answer to this query, be assured most of the many accounts in e-space have that included, but none yet found with legitimate checkable documentation.

Be further assured that this is from the one-sided perspective of a soldier who was award one of the 20 Congressional Medals of Honor from the tragedy and thus must also be documented by other observers but Gen. Garlington, then 1LT Garlington, recounts:

"General Forsyth, kindly and pleasantly, yet firmly, demanded the surrender of their arms. While the negotiations were progressing, a young buck fired into the soldiers. The others threw aside their blankets which concealed their weapons, and poured a murderous fire into the troops, which had been posted between them and their village, following it up as rapidly as their repeating rifles could belch forth the lead. The fight raged on the flat about one hour before it was cleared entirely of Indians. Here Captain George D. Wallace, commanding Troop K, and twenty-one enlisted men, including one hospital steward, were killed; Lieutenant Ernest A. Garlington was shot through the right elbow; Lieutenant John C. Gresham received an abrasion on the nose from a passing bullet; Captain Charles A. Varnum had his pipe knocked from his mouth by a bullet; Captain John Van R. Hoff, Assistant Surgeon, received several bullets through his clothing, and twenty-one enlisted men were wounded. Father Craft, a

266

Catholic priest, who was present using his good offices to persuade the Indians to submit to the demands made of them by General Forsyth, received a vicious stab in the back which penetrated his lung. Scout Wells had his nose nearly cut off. Lieutenant John Kinzie, 2d Infantry, who was present as a spectator, was shot through the foot."


and was at least there. It can likely be presumed that the above is part of an accurate transcription found at http://www.army.mil/cmh-pg/books/R&H/R&H-7Cav.htm.

Another source is represented to have indicated, and this appears to have been obtained from 1LT James D. Mann's version, written prior to his death at Ft. Riley, Kansas on January 15, 1891 from the wounds of the Drexel Mission skirmish, supplemented by that of unknown others:

"...[Mann] watched as the Indians raised their weapons over their heads, as if making an offering to heaven. The Lakota then lowered their weapons to bear directly on Troop K, with Mann recalling, "the one with the bow and arrow aiming directly at me." "

taken from an article including Mann's version but then supplemented by


" Mann failed to mention -Black Coyote, a youth who was later recalled by his own people as a troublemaker. He stood waving his rifle, declaring that he had given money for it and no one was going to take it unless he was paid."

with the reference being: Utley, Robert D. The Last Days of the Sioux Nation. New Haven: Yale University Press, 1963. p. 212.

Clearly this version has the youth, being unlikely to be deaf if Black Coyote could truly be heard to be so declaring his intransigence, and even if deaf, well aware of the situation.

The real issue is what is the truth as to Black Coyote which is not readily revealed by e-research. There is an Arapaho Chief Black Coyote who appears to be not the same participant, but who has a biographical e-sketch available and is tangentially involved in the whole general movement.

We need a Sioux/7th U.S. Cavalry scholar, or rather at least two, one from one camp and one from the other camp, and if lucky a third one who is truly independent of the canonical and built-in biases.65.190.174.246 00:02, 1 October 2005 (UTC)

I would like to note that the empahsis on the Hotchkiss gun is a bit much. It was physically impossible to maintain 50 rounds/minute with the Hotchkiss outside of test ranges--the ammo weighed too much and the time delay in moving ammo from the caisson to the gun would add in additional time. The battle at Wounded Knee was bad enough without trying to make it look like the bombing of a Vietnamese village the technologically superior Americans using their abilities against innocents who just happened to be commuing with nature, etc. Overall, this article is clearly biased from the start to finish, and avoids the use of first person accounts and other primary source information that endangers their cherished beliefs.

I second this. And "my people" are the Sioux. But that doesn't change the need to get it right, without playing to agendas, however nobly advanced. Buckboard 11:31, 19 February 2006 (UTC)

I thought that Wikipedia articles were in general not supposed to use primary sources. (I think this is unwise, but onward.) A chi-square accurate account of what happened at Wounded Knee is impossible even with primary sources (something you as an historian are aware is generally true). However, no matter what the technical capabilities of the Hotchkiss, the Indians did not have anything like that and your analogy of a Vietnamese village of noncombatants being wiped out by Americans with superior technology is apt. From all accounts that I have read from both sides, that is exactly what happened. I would love to see these articles made as accurate as possible, as Buckboard said. It was an extremely complicated situation. --Bluejay Young (talk) 20:10, 13 January 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Casualties

The opening says...

"Approximately two hundred Sioux women and children were murdered during the one-sided conflict."

...but later in the article 153 Sioux corpses are found. Aside from being not NPOV, it appears to be wrong. BozoTheScary 22:30, 29 December 2005 (UTC)

On the number of casualties, I found this letter on a website-referenced at the beginning of this article as reference [1]: "Letter: General Nelson A. Miles to the Commissioner of Indian Affairs Washington, D. C. March 13, 1917 The Honorable Commissioner of Indian Affairs

Sir:

I am informed that there is a delegation in Washington now who came here from South Dakota and who are representatives of the remnant of what is known as the Big Foot Band of Northern Sioux Indians.

I was in command of that Department in 1889, 1890, and 1891, when what is known as the Messiah craze and threatened uprising of the Indians occurred. It was created by misrepresentations of white men then living in Nevada who sent secret messages to the different tribes in the great Northwest calling upon them to send representatives to meet Him near Walker Lake, Nevada.


This was done, and returning to their different tribes in the Northwest and West, and even in the Southwest, they repeated the false statement to the different tribes that the Messiah had returned to earth and would the next year move East, driving large herds of wild horses, buffalo, elk, deer and antelope, and was going to convert this into an Indian heaven -- in other words, the Happy Hunting Grounds.


This, together with the fact that the Indians had been in almost a starving condition in South Dakota, owing to the scarcity of rations and the nonfulfillment of treaties and sacred obligations under which the Government had been placed to the Indians, caused great dissatisfaction, dissension and almost hostility. Believing this superstition, they resolved to gather and go West to meet the Messiah, as they believed it was the fulfillment of their dreams and prayer and the prophecies as had been taught them by the missionaries.


Several thousand warriors assembled in the Bad Lands of South Dakota. During this time the tribe, under Big Foot, moved from their reservation to near the Red Cloud Agency in South Dakota under a flag of truce. They numbered over four hundred souls. They were intercepted by a command under Lt. Col. Whitside, who demanded their surrender, which they complied with, and moved that afternoon some two or three miles and camped where they were directed to do, near the camp of the troops.


During the night Colonel Forsyth joined the command with reinforcements of several troops of the 7th Cavalry. The next morning he deployed his troops around the camp, placed two pieces of artillery in position, and demanded the surrender of the arms from the warriors. This was complied with by the warriors going out from camp and placing the arms on the ground where they were directed. Chief Big Foot, an old man, sick at the time and unable to walk, was taken out of a wagon and laid on the ground.


While this was being done a detachment of soldiers was sent into the camp to search for any arms remaining there, and it was reported that their rudeness frightened the women and children. It is also reported that a remark was made by some one of the soldiers that "when we get the arms away from them we can do as we please with them, " indicating that they were to be destroyed. Some of the Indians could understand English. this and other things alarmed the Indians and scuffle occurred between one warrior who had rifle in his hand and two soldiers. The rifle was discharged and a massacre occurred, not only the warriors but the sick Chief Big Foot, and a large number of women and children who tried to escape by running and scattering over the parry were hunted down and killed. The official reports make the number killed 90 warriors and approximately 200 women and children.


The action of the Commanding Officer, in my judgment at the time, and I so reported, was most reprehensible. The disposition of his troops was such that in firing upon the warriors they fired directly towards their own lines and also into the camp of the women and children. and I have regarded the whole affair as most unjustifiable and worthy of the severest condemnation.

In my opinion, the least the Government can do is to make a suitable recompense to the survivors who are still living for the great injustice that was done them and the serious loss of their relatives and property -- and I earnestly recommend that this may be favorably considered by the Department and by Congress and a suitable appropriation be made.


I remain Very truly yours,

(SGD.) NELSON A. MILES Lt. General, U. S. Army"

Can someone confirm this letter? It seems that we should give a little more credence to there being more Indian casualties.--Rsmola 02:07, 15 October 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Title/Proper name?

FYI - Sioux is a deragotary name. The proper name is Lakota. --Bluejaguar (talk) 20:42, 30 March 2008 (UTC)

Is Wounded Knee Massacre a proper name - or should the article be moved to Wounded Knee massacre? // Habj 20:37, 28 May 2006 (UTC)

As far as I can see on the internet, everybody uses the name "Wounded Knee Massacre" or "The Massacre at Wounded Knee", so all with a capital M. I think this should be the correct writing, since this has become, what I believe is called in English, a proper name. In that respect, I think there are a lot of other massacres that should be written with a capital M, but are still written with a lower case m. (e.g. The Malmédy massacre) See: List of massacres... --MarioR 21:42, 25 October 2006 (UTC)


The Lakota people are one of three cultural divisions of the Siouan Nation, the other two divisions being Dakota and Nakota. Furthermore each of the three divisions are divided further into sub-divisions and then further into bands. Such as the Oglala, Sicangu,Hunkpapa, Mniconjou, Izipaco and many more. FYI —Preceding unsigned comment added by 129.93.23.217 (talk) 04:36, 8 May 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Cleanup/tone?

I removed the "tone"-template, since there was no explanation on the talk page and it is not clear to me what it refers to. The edit summare when it was added was "the lead in particular" [1] but I see nothing wrong with it. Some articles with much more biased tone than this are considered very good. // Habj 20:46, 28 May 2006 (UTC)

That "extreme prejudice" line doesn't really require an explanation does it? Also I'm suspicious that author was so certain about the soldiers being only killed by friendly fire. God forbid anyone names a primary source on the wikipedia. I'm reverting the intro to the version prior to this edit: [2]. 69.227.95.111 10:05, 28 June 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Victory? Women and children as strength?

It seems from the article that it is not U.S. intention to kill the people of the Lakota encampment. It's rather a mistake which triggered a "massacre", with most casualties "friendly fire". The goal of the mission, which is to transport the men to Omaha, failed too. It hardly seems a victory for the U.S. Rather, the result would be that the Lakota encampment is destroyed.

It also listed "230 women and children" as part of the strength. This seems ridiculous. The women and children don't fight - they are, in modern sense, civilians. They simply got killed in the cross-fire. Aran|heru|nar 01:36, 29 December 2006 (UTC)

[edit] 3 Lakota added during the fighting?

The main page summary said 400 Native Americans killed, when the initial group was 350. Then, the casualties were listed as 153 dead, 50 wounded, and 150 missing. 353 total. Should the total of missing be 147 so the numbers match up? CodeCarpenter 13:43, 29 December 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Vandalized

I'm not that great with editing wiki, but it appears this page has been vandalized a bit. I.E. in the aftermath section someone randomly wrote IN YOUR FACE. Might be wise to lock it and only allow senior members to edit it. 71.222.164.111 01:39, 23 January 2007 (UTC)

Yep, it appears that today was another day of vandalism.CodeCarpenter 19:18, 2 February 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Ascension robes

In the "Ghost dance" section, there is a mention of a "Seventh-day Adventist ascension gown." It is important to note that while the ascension robes were consecrated (separated for a special purpose), they were not in any way anointed, etc. This consecration (which was obviously of a different nature) is the only similarity between these robes and the clothing of the Native Americans during their Ghost dances. No one who wore an ascension robe thought that it made him/her impervious. More importantly, these robes were used about the time of the Great Disappointment by Millerites. The Seventh-day Adventist Church did not even exist until years later and was only one of the groups that emerged from the Millerite movement. Therefore, calling them "Seventh-day Adventist ascension gowns" is, at best, an overgeneralizing anachronism. I will change the article to make it accurate. --Cromwellt|talk 15:13, 21 March 2007 (UTC) (login problems)

On second thought, I think I'll remove the reference to the gowns entirely, given that the similarity is extremely distant and that there are other consecrated articles of clothing which are much more similar to the ghost shirts. All that reference does is give misinformation and break up the flow of the text for no good reason. --Cromwellt|talk 15:19, 21 March 2007 (UTC)
I got that from Mooney, who in his lengthy comparison of the Ghost Dance ceremony with the beliefs of other religions includes what he calls the "Adventist" faith (p. 944) and talks about the "ascension robes"; also, from the famous letter from former agent Valentine McGillycuddy, who in denying that the Ghost Dance was a threat, specifically referred to "Seventh-Day Adventists". [3] I agree that belongs in the Ghost Dance article rather than here, but the ghost shirts played a prominent role in the mindset of both whites and Indians at the massacre, with old Yellow Bird reminding his people to have faith in the garments' ability to deflect bullets and the whites fearing that this belief would inspire the starving women, kids and old people to attack them. --Bluejay Young 16:24, 1 May 2007 (UTC)

[edit] ghost dance mention

I might correct this myself as I get more information about the subject...according to some accounts, other "bulletproof" promises have been made. Also, the fact that whites would "disappear" / "fall through holes" or otherwise killed by some supernatural power is not something unique to the Lakota in my understanding. --gatoatigrado 07:00, 1 May 2007 (UTC)

I'm aware that prophecies foretelling the disappearance of the Anglos are known among many nations. Details about this really belong in the Ghost Dance article but I'll explain; I was basing the idea of Lakotah re-interpretation on the report of the Lakotah delegation of 1889, a group of seven men who journeyed to the west to hear Wovoka's message. According to Mooney, they came back with a report that he was the second coming of Christ and would not only resurrect dead Indians but would wipe out the white race from the earth, and representatives of several other Plains tribes agree that's what Wovoka said. However, quotes from Wovoka himself reveal nothing of the sort, certainly not in the famous letter that begins "When you get home you make dance..." He insisted that the Ghost Dance philosophy was no threat to the Anglos and that he was not the 2nd Coming. However, many Indians certainly felt that he was, and reports going back to Washington certainly portrayed the Ghost Dance in a bad light, and the government and the regiments certainly believed there was about to be a violent uprising (although how a relative handful of starving people could do anything against well-armed troops is beyond me). I will fix it. --Bluejay Young 16:09, 1 May 2007 (UTC)

I might be wrong and maybe wikipedia isn't looking for this, but aren't Lakotas not supposed to talk about what happens during the Ghost Dance? I know they aren't supposed to with the Sun Dance and Sweat Lodges, so I'm assuming this is the same. Maybe wikipedia just wants more information about why it was, but I would guess that they aren't going to get much more out of the people who actually know what goes on during it or why. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Britty6 (talk • contribs) 05:34, 9 May 2008 (UTC)

[edit] A Bit Onesided

This article is a bit onesided, told almost exclusively from the Lakota perspective. Very interesting that the landmark historical literature, Robert Utley's, The Last Days of The Sioux Nation, is not cited as a reference or recommended reading. V8m8i 14:31, 20 May 2007 (UTC)

I have to say it isn't very onesided. My AP US History book says "The U.S. Seventh Cavalry, led in part by survivors of the battle of Little Bighorn, pursued them. The Three hundred undernourished Sioux, freezing and without horses, agreed to accompany the troops to Wounded Knee Creek on the Pine Ridge Reservation. There, on December 29, 1890, while the peacseeking Big Foot, who had personally raised a white flag of surrender, lay dying pf pneumonia, they were surrounded by soliders armed with automatic guns. The U.S. troops expected the Sioux to surrender their few remanining weapons, but an accidental gunshot from one deaf brave who misunderstood the command caused panic on both sides.Within minutes, 200 Sioux had been cut down and dozens of soliders wounded, mostly by their own cross fire. For two hours soldiers continued to shoot at anything that moved- mostly women and childern straggling away. Many of the injured froze to deathin the snow; others were transported in open wagons and finally laid out on beds of hay under Christmas decorations at the Pine Ridge Episcopal Church. The massacre, which took place almost exactly four hundred years after Columbus "discovered" the New World for Christian civilization, seemed to mark the final conquest of the continent's indigenous." It was a massacre and it was committed by U.S. troops. If you doubt this information, I'll gladly give you the book's information and you can look it up yourself. But before you go do something as troublesome as that, ask yourself "If the winner's are the one's who write history, why would they include such a horrible story for people to read?" Wouldn't they want to look perfect and unflawed? Like they can do no wrong? As is human nature, the want for others to admire and respect.--Rainbowfruitloops (talk) 02:53, 15 January 2008 (UTC)

Hardly a neutral point. "discovered the New World for Christian civilization"? The use of a "textbook" as your source, given the agenda that all texts, left- or right-oriented, have these days, is in no way inclusive. What you cite is straight out of a half dozen polemical web-sites, none of which even claims impartiality. Are you sure the troops didn't eat the babies?

[edit] The Court of Inquiry

The part of this article about the Court of Inquiry has the odor of original research to me. It says:

"The Court of Inquiry, however—while it did include several cases of personal testimony pointing toward misconduct—was flawed. It was not conducted as a formal court-martial, and without the legal boundaries of that format, several of the witnesses minimized their comments and statements to protect themselves or peers."

This doesn't make sense to me. A Court of Inquiry is a kind of trial to determine whether a court-martial is an appropriate course of action; its purpose is to determine the facts of the case based on sworn testimony, and then issue recommendations. Witnesses are instructed to tell the truth, the whole truth, and nothing but the truth, so I don't know what the writer could possibly mean when he says that "legal boundaries" of the court-martial would have required the witnesses to say something that it was not required they say in the Inquiry. It's just half-cocked to say a COI is "flawed" because it's not a court-martial; AFAIK the only difference is that in a court-martial the accused is facing specific charges.71.129.81.136 14:39, 20 May 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Contradicting Numbers

The side box says that there were 350 members of the tribe present (under "strength") and then says that there were 353 people who died, were wounded, or fled. Even if every single person in the tribe was killed, wounded or fled (which may or may not be true), there are still 3 extra people after the battle. 129.170.89.49

I think you misread that. It says 153.JLAF 17:37, 29 May 2007 (UTC)
Actually the numbers don't add up. Under strength it list 120 Men and 230 Women and Children for a total of 350. Under Casualties and losses it says 178 Killed, 89 wounded, and 150 missing for a total of 417. That should be corrected as facts warrant. Ucscottb4u (talk) 18:15, 12 March 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Schizophrenia

In the section entitled Lakota Prelude, the paragraph slants change. In the first paragraph, the voice is slighting the US gov't's treatment of the Lakota; in the second, third and forth paragraphs, the Lakota are demonized, with the voice going so far as to blame the Lakota for the failures of the U.S. in the sentence, "If the Lakota had sold the Black Hills, this would have allowed whites to mine there legally, but the Lakota were not interested in doing so." Please, resolve the duality of these paragraphs for the good of the article. – Freechild (¡!¡!¡!¡) 18:47, 20 August 2007 (UTC)

I wouldn't call it demonizing, but I take your point. "Not interested" was more like "hell no, you don't sell your mother." Someone was trying to find a neutral way of saying it, perhaps. --Bluejay Young (talk) 19:59, 13 January 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Too much of "fight" and "battle"

Things like "but as the Indians ran out of ammunition for their repeating rifles, the fight moved as the Indians sought to escape fire from the troops." Come on. More like murder. --HanzoHattori 01:13, 8 September 2007 (UTC)

You know, at some point the actual (and accidental) fight turned into massacre. This should be absolutely shown in the article: another header and the wording too. --HanzoHattori 01:21, 8 September 2007 (UTC)

I completely agree. I don't know why it says 'fight' or 'battle' at all any more, unless I neglected to take those words out of there or someone else put them back in after I removed them; however, I think that I neglected to remove them. --Bluejay Young (talk) 19:57, 13 January 2008 (UTC)

You may remove the tag after this is fixed. --HanzoHattori 19:08, 21 September 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Sioux intended war against the whites?

I am puzzled by the repeated references, all backed by historian Robert Utley, that the Sioux Ghost Dance movement was warlike. I.e. "All other tribes adopted Wovoka's advice against violence except for the Sioux," "in the case of the Sioux, it represented . . . a doctrine precipitating war," and "the Sioux apostles had perverted Wovoka's doctrine into a militant crusade against the white man."

If in fact the Sioux Ghost Dancers intended war against the whites, why is there no report of premeditated violence against white soldiers or settlers ever being committed by the Ghost Dancers on their own initiative? Even in the Wounded Knee massacre itself, it appears from the article that fighting was unpremeditated by either side.

The only evidence I can see for the Sioux's warlike intentions is the fact that they were armed. But would they not have been armed for purposes of hunting and self-defense anyway, much as the white settlers themselves usually were? Pirate Dan (talk) 15:06, 21 November 2007 (UTC)

The Sioux ghost dance movement was not warlike as such, but the idea that the Sioux interpretation of Wovoka's message was 'darker' than originally intended is not just Utley's idea. It was Kicking Bear and his companions who reported having experienced a prophetic vision (on their way back from visiting Wovoka) which said, "I will cover the new earth with soil to a depth of five times the height of a man, and under this new soil will be buried the whites. ... I will take from the whites the secret of making gunpowder, and the powder they now have on hand will not burn ... but that powder which my children have will burn and kill when it is directed against the whites." Later on, he and his company reported a vision of Satan, asking God for human beings, and God said Satan could have the white people. Now, I got this out of Bob Blaisdell's Great Speeches by Native Americans (Dover Courier, 2000) and I imagine he got it from My Friend, The Indian by James McLaughlin (Houghton Mifflin, 1910) or one of the other books in which it has been reprinted.
In Mooney's The Ghost Dance Religion and Wounded Knee, he says that when Kicking Bear and his delegation got back to the Lakotah, they spoke of Wovoka as Jesus and claimed that he was about "to punish the whites" and "wipe them from the face of the earth" (p. 820). I don't find any of this in Wovoka's original letter (the one that begins "When you return home you must make a dance to continue five days...") and this is probably the source of the idea that the Lakotah had a more "warlike" take on the ghost dance. --Bluejay Young (talk) 19:56, 13 January 2008 (UTC)

[edit] This is a Massacre

This is clearly a massacre. there were up to 200 indians killed but there were less than 100 warriors in this particular group of Sioux. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 67.165.29.249 (talk) 15:49, 2 February 2008 (UTC)