Wounded Knee Medals of Honour

[flamingpig0]

I found this interesting and thought provoking.
www.dailykos.com/stories/2021/2/23/2017715/-S-Dakota-Senate-unanimously-seeks-inquiry-into-Wounded-Knee-Medals-of-Honor

[Westmarcher]

i quite agree with the comment that it tarnishes awards given to soldiers who displayed genuine acts of courage.

[Lord Kermit of Birkenhead]

Quite agree

[Ace of Spades]

I wonder what the recommendations for those medals would have read... can't be much truth in those papers.

Cheers,
Rob

[Heedless Horseman]

Erm... NO. Wounded Knee WAS an appalling occurrence... and pretty much everyone, NOW recognises this. BUT...
It is yet another attempt to 'change history'...the article quote SAYS THIS!

That the medals WERE awarded for a massacre should, rightlly, provoke thought...
But, I totally disagree with the current 'bandwagon' of 'changing' the past to suit present sensibilities. That applies to the whole gamut of retrograde actions...from 'apologising', through name changing/memorial removal, to legal persecution for historical 'offences'.

So many Wars have been 'justified', (lol), by the 'cause' of opposing those who wish to impose THEIR will on others. What so many 'campaigners' just cannot recognise is that, although often well intentioned, THEY fall into the same camp. 

'Society' is already well down this path... but just WHERE does it end? For My view, just 'stop'. Our present is bad enough without turning the future into nightmare.

View the old photographs... of so many events... and FEEL pity, remorse, shame... whatever... BUT...

What is NOW was not THEN... so leave things be.

[Srpz2116]

Erm... NO. Wounded Knee WAS an appalling occurrence... and pretty much everyone, NOW recognises this. BUT...
It is yet another attempt to 'change history'...the article quote SAYS THIS!
 
That the medals WERE awarded for a massacre should, rightlly, provoke thought...
But, I totally disagree with the current 'bandwagon' of 'changing' the past to suit present sensibilities. That applies to the whole gamut of retrograde actions...from 'apologising', through name changing/memorial removal, to legal persecution for historical 'offences'.

So many Wars have been 'justified', (lol), by the 'cause' of opposing those who wish to impose THEIR will on others. What so many 'campaigners' just cannot recognise is that, although often well intentioned, THEY fall into the same camp.  

'Society' is already well down this path... but just WHERE does it end? For My view, just 'stop'. Our present is bad enough without turning the future into nightmare.

View the old photographs... of so many events... and FEEL pity, remorse, shame... whatever... BUT...

What is NOW was not THEN... so leave things be.

Personally, I think it's a good thing that we're moving towards regarding this in a different light. There's a difference between changing history and re-examining it. Each era looks on itself and its past with the societal views of the day and we can't escape that. But it doesn't necessarily have to be a bad thing.

History as we know it is a funny old thing because, on some level, it doesn't really exist. Facts exist, of course, but history is more than facts: it's a socially constructed narrative based on interpretations and understanding of the facts to explain, or justify, our current world.

History facts are meaningless without these interpretations because they don't tell us "why". But the "why" is always as a result of present sensibilities. Sometimes this is good, sometimes not. At the end of the day, though, we can't escape our socialisation so, even if we wanted to avoid our sensibilities, it's impossible.

The narrative does not remain stable throughout time as a result and there's little point, in my eyes, of hostility to new narratives because it's not like our history narrative hasn't changed before due to then-present sensibilities. Slavery, for instance, and anti-gay laws in the UK. Yet, at one point, these were seen as moral goods. But sensibilities changed and we realise(d) that this is/was wrong.

New ideas, events, and knowledge plays its part in reshaping our society which can provide fresh views on the subject. Conditions such as Complex-PTSD are new information to many people, but less so than ever before due to the increased ability of sufferers to be heard as a result of social media. And it's a much better explanation for Saddam Hussein's or Hitler's paranoia than them simply being insane as many argue, for example. It's also a much better explanation for why people shift to extremist political views instead of some character flaw etc

I can't agree that campaigners can be described as imposing their will as akin to historical authoritarians. To me, it's less campaigners imposing their will than taking part in the advance of historical understanding. True, sometimes they get things wrong. But I believe our current trend in history is actually a pretty good one. When I was at school, I was told that Roman imperialism was a positive because it brought roads to the Celts. Nowadays, campaigners will point out that the Celts already had roads and that infrastructure is little justification for invasion, exploitation, and murder. I think that's a more accurate and nuanced picture.

The Massacre of Wounded Knee has already gone through the process once - it used to be called "The Battle of Wounded Knee" before then-present sensibilities prevailed. Removing the medals is just a continuation of that process and, as with the general theme of re-examining our history in light of new perspectives, in my opinion it's what history should be.

[Heedless Horseman]

Thank you for your perspective, Srpz2116... (And very well written... better than anything that I can do!). Much of your comment is very true. Re-examining 'History' is a 'Healthy' process. 'ACTING'  on that re-examination, however, is often, very far from 'Good'.
In this case, the 'action' is a 'civilised', if to my mind, 'wrong', 'knee jerk' response to changes in very 'public' attitude's.

The 'Problem' is that such 'actions' add to the self-justification of those groups  with 'An Axe to Grind'... and they DO NOT STOP...!  Due to their 'investment' in their own ideas. They just find another tree to chop at.

(I cannot believe that anyone can condone the 'Mob' actions in the 'BLM' 'protests'. However, the 'responses' to the mob actions,  whether from 'Officialdom' or 'Organisations', will be seen by 'protest groups' as 'That got them scared...let's do it again!' And again. And again. In WHATEVER context.  
(AND THEN, we have seen the, 'reaction', TO those actions.)    )

'Good' and 'Bad' are always subjective. BUT...
ACTION fuels REACTION. Later perspectives can change, but, why fuel the fires of 'those seeking 'justification' for THEIR views', whatever they may be? This is just a small action, but...

Wounded Knee itself, was a 'knee jerk' reaction to media fuelled fear and hatred. Medals WERE awarded! But, I think, it began an 'unease', that gradually ...very gradually, led to positive changes in attitude... MUCH later . ( Surely, the recognition that troops were 'AWARDED' Medals for their participation in a truly horrible  event, will provoke 'Thought?')!

I just DON'T SEE THE POINT of rescinding the award of 'Awards', given, AT THE TIME, for an something that we NOW perceive as wrong. WHY? All concerned are very long  dead, yet the action of rescinding will fuel up 'other actions'. Surely, people can view the 'Awards'... in whatever light that they.. or others in the future... choose? They HAPPENED... THEN ! What people make of THAT, now, or in the future, is UP TO THEM!

'Protest Groups'  : 'Drop your 'agendas' over events which happened LONG ago...and, maybe 'Build' for the Future? It is more difficult but...        (LOL! ).

[Srpz2116]

(Editing my entire post because I don't feel happy with what I said - apologies if the tone comes across as harsh: it is directed at no-one, it's just a subject with an personally emotional connection)

I think the medals should be stripped. That the US once awarded medals for massacre is abhorrent, and any reluctance to remove them is, by default, to agree with the sentiment. To not be actively anti-oppressor and stand steadfast with their victim is to be on the oppressor's side and to agree with the acts of oppression, to my mind.

These medals are a symbol of oppression awarded to cowards and murderers and should never have been given out.

At the risk of overstepping the forum rules on politics, I actually think it would be good if our own country could take this move on Wounded Knee and look at our own military history, particularly regarding the Empire. I would not protest if every medal awarded in campaigns to expand and strengthen the Empire were revoked as symbols of imperialism, economic extortion, etc unbefitting of the Britain in which I'd like to live.

I would only wish the Lakota had the power to make the decision.

[FierceKitty]

I think it's important. Antidote to the "If we do it, it's alright" attitude.

[Orcs]

Obviously we cannot change the past. We do need to look at what happened in the past and learn from it and change our attitudes and beliefs going forward. In the case of the medals here, it is obvious they should never have been awarded in the first place, and it is right to remove them.

[Ray Rivers]

Removing the medals does nothing to expand our understanding of the history of the event.

History would be served far better by explaining why the medals were given in the first place.

With the Battle of Little Big Horn occurring only 15 years before and the Lakota Chief Sitting Bull still alive and living on the reservation there are vague references of "revenge." The resurrection of Ghost Dancing obviously caused alarm and the response was one of the largest deployments of troops since the Civil War. In this obviously tense setting it is difficult to ascertain why events that followed occurred. What we do know is that Sitting Bull was killed, a massacre ensued and the Lakota were finally pacified.

What we really don't know is why this sequence of events leading to Wounded Knee occurred. My feeling is that there was still a lot of fear of the Lakota. The Plains Wars were brutal and lengthy so the pacification of the Lakota would have been a great relief. Were the medals awarded to punctuate that final act of brutality? I have no idea.

But the question remains... why? And understanding the motivations which provoked the events would be far more relevant to our understanding of the history than removing medals, especially when one considers that 426 Medals of Honor were issued for the struggle known as the Indian Wars.

IMHO

[Heedless Horseman]

(Editing my entire post because I don't feel happy with what I said - apologies if the tone comes across as harsh: it is directed at no-one, it's just a subject with an personally emotional connection)

I think the medals should be stripped. That the US once awarded medals for massacre is abhorrent, and any reluctance to remove them is, by default, to agree with the sentiment. To not be actively anti-oppressor and stand steadfast with their victim is to be on the oppressor's side and to agree with the acts of oppression, to my mind.

These medals are a symbol of oppression awarded to cowards and murderers and should never have been given out.

At the risk of overstepping the forum rules on politics, I actually think it would be good if our own country could take this move on Wounded Knee and look at our own military history, particularly regarding the Empire. I would not protest if every medal awarded in campaigns to expand and strengthen the Empire were revoked as symbols of imperialism, economic extortion, etc unbefitting of the Britain in which I'd like to live

I would only wish the Lakota had the power to make the decision.

On your first post... Absolutely No Apology needed... not at all Harsh, just your view... as I have mine.
On the above... well, we differ in our views... VERY much. Best let things be.

I would, however, 'qualify' my comment. If the recipients were alive, then, yes, stripping the 'Honour'  might be a 'good' thing... though whether THEY 'wanted' to be 'honoured' for it, it may be a question that cannot, now, be answered. I suspect that there WILL have been participants 'all too happy' to 'exterminate' 'Redskins', for many possible reasons. There WILL have been others who would have wished to be 'anywhere else'...but were 'under orders'... and the latter CANNOT be blamed for that. Nor, for being 'Honoured'.
I totally disagree with retrospective changes to 'History' when  it accords to a current 'political' 'pressure/agenda'.
Historical perspective DOES change... and Wounded Knee is definitely viewed in a different 'light' NOW, to how it was then. Medals WERE awarded.
For many years, very few will have seen the photographs of bodies in the snow.
BUT, the current moves to 'change' actions done in the the past to accord with 'a current 'political'view', does NOT sit well with ME.
We ALL have OUR OWN  views. 

[FierceKitty]

On the whole, we don't accept the Nuremberg defence these days.

[Heedless Horseman]

On the whole, we don't accept the Nuremberg defence these days.

FK: If the term, the 'Nuremberg Defence' refers to 'being under orders' or 'unable' to 'act' in the circumstances of the time... it is best left as a 8***dy Big  Drum  of wormy fish... Best left to the legal Hyena's    Views Differ! Apologies for, maybe, lifting one of THOUSANDS of lids. I CERTAINLY do not want to go into the storage!  

[flamingpig0]

On the whole, we don't accept the Nuremberg defence these days.

Some people do when it is convenient.