From the "The More Things Change" department: a brief look back at the United States' very first "Clash of Civilisations".
After thousands of rounds of ammunition had turned the air blue and thick with gunsmoke, 173 people lay dead, most still in their lodges. The soldiers then cut the bindings of the lodges, collapsing them, and burned them with the people still inside. They gathered up all the food, weapons, and supplies they could carry and rode off toward Fort Shaw, driving the band's horse herds before them.
Although the numbers became a matter of controversy, it is clear that most of the dead were women and children and old people. [Colonel E.M.] Baker, in his report of the incident, claimed that all but fifty-three were abled-bodied warriors, which even by army standards is an absurd body count. Most reports state that a great many of the able-bodied men were out hunting. The winter had already been cruel, many were hungry, and the hunters were out to get meat. Perhaps a more realistic breakdown of the dead was in a report submitted to his superiors by W.A. Pease, the Indian agent: Only fifteen of the dead Indians had been fighting men between the ages of twelve and thirty-seven, while ninety were women and fifty were children. One suspects that the rest of the dead were old people. -- James Welch, Killing Custer, p. 33
Happy Thanksgiving.
Well, who says people don't learn from history:
It may seem perverse that America could even think of a new adventure in the Middle East. Yet the neo-con high priests, who once argued that overthrowing Saddam would create a wave of democracy in the region, now say democracy cannot be established in Iraq without first changing the regimes in Iran, Syria and even Saudi Arabia. In other words, stability in Iraq can be achieved only by destabilising its neighbours.
Merry Christmas, Eddie.
Posted by: Vin Carreo on November 25, 2004 05:44 AMInteresting, but a point of clarificaton: didn't the wars against the Barbary States (muslim countries, btw) actually predate the Indian Wars? America mounted a war against Tripoli starting in 1801 where as the Indian Wars really didnt get started until well after the Louisiana Purchase of 1803. Not that the indian wars weren't absolutely incorigiable, but I find it all the more poignant that 200 years later we're still at it against the same people.
Posted by: Barry Skidmore on November 27, 2004 04:41 AMWhat's also interesting is the treaty signed with the Muslim pirates. Here's Article 11 of the Treaty with Tripoli:
"As the Government of the United States of America is not, in any sense, founded on the Christian religion; as it has in itself no character of enmity against the laws, religion, or tranquillity, of Mussulmen; and, as the said States never entered into any war, or act of hostility against any Mahometan nation, it is declared by the parties, that no pretext arising from religious opinions, shall ever produce an interruption of the harmony existing between the two countries."