Comments by "Always Fourfun" (@alwaysfourfun1671) on "Why We've Gotten 'Custer's Last Stand' Wrong for Nearly 150 Years" video.

The white people had betrayed the 1868 treaty that set aside the great sioux reservation, that included the Black Hills, Paha Sapa. White people, by the way under Custer, opened up the Black Hills to colonists and miners. Is it the right thing to do, to abide to the treaty and reinstate the great Sioux reservation with a gentle removal of the present inhabitants, except for those that held title to the land according to the 1868 treaty? By the way, the treaty also gave the sioux hunting rights in what was then unceded territory in much of Wyoming and parts of Nebraska. It is clear what the American government has to do, if they believe in treaties.
4
@scottmoyer4461 I don't think "Washington" can be summoned by native people to do, what they not already intended to do. Even Crook, in march 1876 on the powder river, was waiting for Crows and Shoshone, before he engaged the Lakotah-Cheyenne-Arapaho allies. The three columns of Terry-Custer, Gibbon and Crook, about 4000 men strong, no women, no children, all people of fighting age, were converging on native people labeled by them as "hostiles", but with women, children and elderly. Did the Americans offer them a fair deal after they had stolen their treaty lands and depleted the bison? Is the 1851 Crow reservation still the same as the 1868 Crow reservation or the present-day Crow reservation? It was the white people, who invaded the Crow territory of 1851. Washington did nothing to uphold the treaty against white people. Custer himself trespassed into the Black Hills and Washington broke the treaty, by not defending the Sioux treaty rights against white invaders. Of course the present day Sioux will not sell the Black Hills. Money is printed more rapidly in the USA then toilet paper. Means nothing. Land is something you can relate to. How can you sell your land? Let's honor the 1868 treaty first. Big consequences, clearly, but sounds fair to me. Of course that example will cause an avalanche of disputes over the hundreds of treaties broken by the Americans. The native people were right when they spoke of "steal treaties".
2
@timkaldahl It was just convenient to the USA to do what they already intended to do against the "hostile" Lakotah. The USA did not remove white intruders from the Crow reservation when the Pike's Peak goldrush took place. The presence of the Lakotah on the prairies of N- and S-Dakota, Wyoming, Nebraska was relatively recent. The assignment of the Paha Sapa by white people to the Lakotah was doing the Cheyenne unjustice. The Paha Sapa was heartland. The Lakotah had relatively recently arrived on the prairies as they were driven from the Great Lake area and Minnesota. I watch "River restoration/Dam removal" projects and it is wonderful how native people and "white" people come together to restore some of natures marvels and thus provide for local communities and the spirit of the land.
1
I have "always", last 40 years, seen the attack of 4000 US cavalry as an ethnic cleansing operation. Custers troops were a small part of those 4000 troops converging on the peoples heartland. Native people have been forced at gunpoint to give up their rights, not only as first inhabitant, but also by treaty with the USA. On the basis of my knowledge of early American history, I have one underscored line, with respect to the present war of the USA against Russia in Ukraine: never trust the Americans. The creation of "Custer" in the public mind shows how strong the entire propaganda apparatus is: Hollywood, journalism, journalists, history textbooks, popular magazines etc. We have seen that same type of propaganda in the American war against Russia: stereotyping, dehumanizing, villifying, lying, distorting, omitting truth, the entire ouvre. And, it still goes on. Custers troops, on their way up to the battle field, still searching for "the Indians", even had to destroy the "lone tipi", where a ceremony was being held for a father, who had succumbed to his wounds, inflicted upon him at the Rosebud. Custers troops practiced scorched earth policy, as was customary among the American army against the native people. Was the ethnic cleansing part of a genocide? It certainly was ethnic cleansing, and it didn't stop after 1876. In 1877, the Nez Perce or Nee-Me-Poo were driven from their home land and hunted all the way to the border with Canada. Everybody, who knows American history, knows what American freedom means.
1