Talk:Lakota

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

This article is part of WikiProject Indigenous peoples of North America, which collaborates on Native American, First Nations, and related subjects on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, you can edit the article attached to this page, or visit the project page, where you can join the project and/or contribute to the discussion.
B This article has been rated as B-Class on the assessment scale.
Suggested article edit guidelines:

This article has no comments yet. If appropriate, please review the article and leave comments here to identify the strengths and weaknesses of the article and what work it needs.
This page is within the scope of WikiProject South Dakota, an attempt to build a comprehensive and detailed guide to articles on South Dakota on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, you can edit the article attached to this page, or visit the project page, where you can join the project and/or contribute to the discussion.
B This article has been rated as B-Class on the Project's quality scale.
(If you rated the article please give a short summary at comments to explain the ratings and/or to identify the strengths and weaknesses.)

This is the talk page for discussing improvements to the Lakota article.

Contents

[edit] More information needed, Nezumi

I think there should be more talk about the values of the lakota people. Such as:

  1. Wacantognaka "Generosity"
  2. Wowacintanka "Respect"
  3. Wokscape "Wisdom"
  4. Woohitika "Courage"

Not only these things but how the buffalo was such an important part of life to them.

Even talk about the 4 directions would be helpful.

[edit] Myths and Legends

Shouldn't there be something on Native American myths and legends here? Like the White Buffalo Woman [1]...?

[edit] Lakota, Dakota, Nakota

Lakota, Dakota and Nakota are the language groups of the "sioux". redirection of sioux to lakota neglects the other two. plus: there are at least seven tribes (see german entry). anyone but me volunteering to improve this page? Kku

But they're more than just the language group; they are also cultural groupings. However, please be warned that "Dakota" are two very different divisions, so instead of three, it is really four. However, if the term Sioux is used, it encompasses these four plus several smaller groups as well. CJLippert 00:14, 17 February 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Talk by Anon, moved from article

This page is obviously tainted by Lakota revisionist propaganda.

Get your facts straight.

Here is what you said:

"Four years later, gold was discovered there, and an influx of prospectors descended upon the area, abetted by army commanders like General George Armstrong Custer."

The word "abetted" implies criminal activity, and betrays your bias. Custer was following orders from the federal government and was obeying a directive to explore the Black Hills, legally, because according to the treaty with the Sioux the U.S. had a right to build a military road through the area. The objective of his expedition was to survey land, not to promote an influx of illegal white gold-seekers. Only the year before, Custer had led a survey expedition into the Yellowstone area, so he was a logical candidate for the Black Hills region. Just because gold seekers invaded the Black Hills after Custer was there, he gets the blame for the problem, just as he does now for everything else bad that ever happened to the Lakota. You've made him into a symbolic scapegoat, but the truth remains despite your revisionist propaganda.

Here is what you said:

"The latter attempted to administer a lesson of noninterference with white policies."

Again, you distort history. The Lakota in question had been declared enemy combatants by the U.S. War department for failing to remain on their reservations, and for committing depradations on white settlers. They'd been given time to return but had refused. The federal government declared war on them. Custer and his men were only one small part of a three-pronged attack planned at the highest levels. He wasn't even in charge of one of the three columns, just a piece of one. And he was not attempting to teach any kind of lesson, he was following his orders to find and attack the enemy.

Here is what you said:

"Instead, the Lakota with their allies, the Arapaho and the Cheyenne, defeated the 7th U.S. Cavalry in 1876 at the Battle of the Little Big Horn, known also as Custer's Last Stand, since he and 300 of his troopers perished there."

The Lakota did not defeat the 7th U.S. Cavalry. It inflicted severe damage, but again you exaggerate the known facts. Custer split his small command into three components for the attack, and it was only his own component that was wiped out. And that was only 219 men, not 300. More than half of the rest of the command survived and went into immediate pursuit.

Here is what you said:

"Less well known is the history of the eastern Dakota people, in Minnesota. Unlike their plains cousins, the Lakota, they lived in agricultural communities. They accepted white settlements and seizure of their lands in exchange for grain shipments guaranteed by treaty."

This is absolutely not true. A small percentage of MN Dakota accepted farming, and they were ridiculed by the vast majority of their fellow-tribesmen. A few were even murdered. The Lower Agency Dakota were especially resistant to any attempt to convince them to start farming. Too bad for them. So sad. The reservation they lived on had enough land to provide hundreds of acres for every man and his family in the tribes, yet they complained they were starving. How is it then that white settlers, with far less land and with nobody offering to help them, were quite capable of supporting themselves? It was only because the "braves" in the Lower Agency felt that honest work in the field was beneath them. In other words, they were lazy, and they expected to have everything handed to them on a silver plate without working for it. The fact is that the Dakota had been living on some of the world's richest farm land for two hundred years, and were barely able to eke out a subsistance living, having fertilized the land with only the blood of their innocent victims, while -- in less than 40 years -- white settlers turned the fields of Minnesota into the the world's largest grain source.

Here is what you said:

"In 1862, the grain failed to arrive, and the local federal agent told the Dakota that they were free to eat grass."

Totally off, again. It wasn't the grain that failed to arrive, it was the annuity payment, and it didn't fail to arrive, either. It was just late. The admittedly stupid and insensitive comment regarding the eating of grass is true, but it wasn't the federal agent who said it. And in any event the words of the idiot who spoke them cannot justify the murder, rape, pillage and torture that followed.

Here is what you said:

"Instead, they scalped him, looted his warehouse, and rampaged through the area, killing perhaps a dozen whites."

A dozen? Your math is as bad as your history. The Dakota "braves" butchered between 400 and 800 innocent men, women and children, who had absolutely nothing to do with their grievances against the federal government. If any disgruntled political group committed such mass murder today, they would be called terrorists, and there would be an immediate and massive manhunt to track them all down and kill them, like vermin.

Here is what you said:

"Although this was in the middle of the American Civil War, enough troops were gathered to put down the "rebellion", and more than 300 Dakota were sentenced by local courts to die for the crimes of murder or rape."

Again, you can't even get your basic facts straight. It wasn't the middle of the Civil War, but the very first year of it. The "troops" gathered were mainly settlers on the frontier who banded together for common defense of their homes and families against unwarranted murder, pillage and rape. And the 300 Dakota captured and tried were not sentenced by local courts, but by a military tribunal charged with investigating and prosecuting war criminals.

The whole tone of your paragraph regarding the uprising implies that you think it was justified and admirable. Typical Dakota thinking. Warriors to the end, truth be damned, and play the victim to the hilt.

But there are plenty of us out here who aren't falling for your ignorant brand of historical revisionism. You would have us thinking that the Dakota were just sitting there smelling flowers in the field, and along came the evil white man to perpetrate injustices and take away your land. The fact is, you were losing the land already, to the Ojibwe, for two-hundred years, and even without the white incursion the Lakota were already being pushed out of the forests and on to the prairie by other Indians. I notice the Dakota haven't been asking the Ojibwe to compensate them for taking away the Mille Lacs Lake area, which was once a 'sacred' Dakota homeland. I also notice that the Dakota never offered to compensate the Indian tribes which they pushed out of Minnesota themselves when they first came in. Instead, you seem to think that gullible white people are the best targets for sympathetic pleas, just like common panhandlers in the street, who are perfectly capable of working and supporting themselves, but won't try as long as somebody is willing to listen to their sob story.

In the case of Lake Mille Lacs, the Mdewakantonwan and the Mississippi Chippewa did have a formal land cession agreement. It was around 1780 (give or take a decade), according to oral history. The condition was for the Chippewa to stay on the north side of the lake and the Sioux on the south side of the lake. In 1825, the United States forced the Chippewa and the Sioux to sign the Treaty of Prairie du Chien, which forced the Sioux south of the "Prairie du Chien" line and Chippewa to the north. The Chippewa south of the line were adopted as Sioux and the Sioux north of the line were adopted as Chippewa. Also, the Mdewakanton were divided between those who agreed to move south and those who refused relocation. All Mdewakantonwan taught all the Sacred Rites of the Mde Wakan to the Anishinaabe so that they can be carried out. Consequently, Mille Lacs Indians have a high degree of Wolf Clan in their midst, all drums held by the Mille Lacs Band of Ojibwe are all Mdewakanton drums, and all ceremonies associated with the lake are performed by the Wolf Clan members in the Ojibwe language but they are verbatum translation from the Dakota, and everyone who grew up around Lake Mille Lacs are familiar with these Sacred Rites. With this said, if anyone questions any of this, I personally invite you to the beautiful shores of Lake Mille Lacs and you to ask anyone with the Wolf as their Doodem. If Santee Sioux, come and rekindle with your ancestors at near-by Knife Lake. If Mdewakanton, come join in one of the four Pow wows held at the Mille Lacs Reservation! Don't let the Ojibwe in the name "Mille Lacs Band of Ojibwe" fool you because the core tribe of the "Mille Lacs Band of Ojibwe" is the Mille Lacs Indians, who are the Mdewakanton adopted as Ojibwe, the Mdewakantonwan who stayed. In addition, it was because of the Mdewakantonwan that during the "Sioux Uprise" many of the Mdewakantonwan did not support the uprise and the Mille Lacs Indians, in support of the Mdewakanton, instead help defend the holding of the United States. Because of this, the Mdewakantonwan were not moved westward and the Mille Lacs Indians remained at the lake. However, because of suspicion toward Indians by the non-Indians, the Mdewakanton Sioux communities and the Mille Lacs Indians were pressured westward, many went; many returned with little or no resistance from the United States, forming the contemporary Prairie Island Indian Community, Shakopee-Mdewakanton Indian Reservation, the Federally non-recognized Mendota Mdewakanton Community, Lower Sioux Indian Reservation and the Ma'iingan Doodem of the Mille Lacs Reservation. CJLippert 01:03, 17 February 2006 (UTC)

Why don't you face the fact that the Dakota lost, and get over it.

And wake up to the fact that nowhere else in history, in any part of the globe, has an advanced culture run up against a primitive one that didn't exterminate them, enslave them, or at the very least push them off the land. This country is the one shining example in all of human history where the advanced culture attempted to permit the primitive culture to co-exist. The reservation system was admittedly flawed, but it was born of a noble idea. What did you expect them to do? Just pack up and go back to Europe? Get real. Read history and you'll find thousands of years worth of conflicts all over the world that were far worse than what happened to the so-called "native Americans".

"And wake up to the fact that nowhere else in history, in any part of the globe, has an advanced culture run up against a primitive one that didn't exterminate them, enslave them, or at the very least push them off the land."
That's nonsense. Africa is still ruled by the Africans. The current inhabitants of Mexico are largely descended from the pre-Columbus mexicans.
"This country is the one shining example in all of human history where the advanced culture attempted to permit the primitive culture to co-exist."
Give me a break. The Cherokee were forced off thier land, so their churchs and libraries could be turned into bars. Irquois corn farmers had to deal with pigs running through their crops, and would prosecuted for killing the tresspassing pigs. Again, in many other places in the world, the original people still live on thier land, and in Africa with thier original cultures and religions. This country's behavior is not unique, but is far from a "shining example".
"What did you expect them to do? Just pack up and go back to Europe?"
Um, yes? You can't casually justify invasion like that; it's just lebensraum all over again. We told the Germans to just pack up and go back to Germany, even though they wanted to live in Poland and France. If aliens traveled from Alpha Centurai to Earth and planned to colonize, we'd tell to them to "just pack up and go back to Alpha Centurai". We sure as hell wouldn't accept it as a valid excuse to displace us from our homes.
Your revisionism is quite blatant. Try putting yourself in someone else's shoes for once. --Prosfilaes 02:03, 1 Jul 2004 (UTC)

[edit] X-SAMPA

"pronounced "Lakxóta" by the Lakota people"? Please use X-SAMPA for this; it seems to be common for phonetic spellings and it's related to the standard IPA. Lakxóta doesn't help me figure out the pronounciation anymore than Lakhota does. --Prosfilaes 02:03, 1 Jul 2004 (UTC)

  • Put it back, please. I'll convert the pronunciation to IPA this weekend when I have more time. Cbdorsett 19:00, 15 Feb 2005 (UTC)
So it finally motivated someone to fix it? I don't see any reason to put it back; it's even right here on the Talk page. When it gets converted, then you can put it on the main page. Until then, I stand by my argument that it's useless and confusing to put on the page. --Prosfilaes 23:37, 15 Feb 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Seperate or move?

I was on the verge of splitting this page up into separate "Lakota" and "Sioux" articles, but then I had another think. What does the word "Lakota" really mean? When actual Sioux people say "Lakota" do they just mean the Lakota (i.e. Teton) branch, or do they mean Sioux people in general? The fact that there seems to already be a name for each of the dialects (Santee, Yankton, Teton) implies the latter. I won't split the page unless someone can speak more conclusively on what Lakota means. But maybe we should move the whole thing to Sioux in order to be less confusing? - Nat Krause 14:55, 18 Jul 2004 (UTC)

  • Leave it alone, and put a #REDIRECT on the Sioux page so that people can find all the information on one page. Cbdorsett 18:56, 15 Feb 2005 (UTC)
Separate and move. However, before taking that step, just as the Lakota article is fairly well developed, the Dakota Sioux, Yankton Sioux and Nakota Sioux articles should be started. Currently, the the Yankton Sioux redirects to Sioux, no designated page for Dakota Sioux other than the Mdewakanton sub-tribe of the Dakota Sioux, and Algonquian-dominated Assiniboine article that needs to discuss more about the people and not their name. CJLippert 22:07, 21 June 2006 (UTC)

[edit] correction

only 20,000 Lakota lived during the mid 18th century .

source : centennial campaign by John S.Gray

[edit] US Government

There fails to be reasonable proof that the US wants revenge against any native nation.

I have marked the article NPOV.

That's not the right way to handle things. NPOV is when there's an argument over the page, not when some idiot comes in and puts a bunch of trash on the page. Just revert it. --Prosfilaes 22:18, 22 Mar 2005 (UTC)

[edit] US Government

How do I revert a page? I'm new. And I'm sorry I didn't know that was proper ettiquette. I just didn't want to change the article too significantly.

[edit] Social History/Political History

This article is a little scattered. I was hoping to find something on the society and history of the Sioux, including current information about the distribution and groupings. The article satisfied some of my interests but is also full of a hode podge of massacres etc instead of any real history.

I've moved the former second paragraph of the introduction down following the bit about the Little Big Horn. this paragraph detailed a massacre and some trials in the 1860's and seemed kind of odd as a general introduction tot he topic of the Sioux - who after all are a lot more than murderers and rapists! S-Slater

[edit] Revisionism and the real story

I agree with nearly every response given here concerning this entry on the Sioux. I am appalled that a history of my ancestors comprises largely of military conflicts with the United States Government in the nineteenth century. From what I read here, Sioux history preceding c.1862 is irrelevant. It also implies that a more expansive history on the subject is almost non-existent--another great misconception. It is obvious that non-white American histories are still treated as unnecessary. More attention tends to be paid to genocides that occur across the ocean rather than the mass-exterminations that occurred at the hands of our own supposedly beneficent republic.

As such, I move to the often-ridiculous comments presented in, "Talk by Anon: moved from response." I agree that Sioux history is often told to benefit the one telling the story. However, I find the author’s use of the word "revisionism" misused. Accordingly, I should assume anyone who opens his or her mouth these days is a "revisionist" (including myself). Okay, fine with me.

History is dependent on memory: something that varies from person to person. For an academic or for the college-educated elite, reliable history is learned from textbooks, literature, and even word-of-mouth. History is rarely seen as a story or as a retelling but as FACT. Today, any historical source is in danger of becoming inaccurate. I've read textbooks that generate the same level of misinformation that television news sources or presidential memos produce. For example, the author(s) of "Talk by Anon..." said that America "is the one shining example in all of human history where the advanced culture attempted to permit the primitive culture to co-exist." Now who is the revisionist?

I do not believe that an “advanced culture” would shove a bar of lye soap into my grandfather’s mouth whenever he spoke the Dakota language. Scrubbing out the culturally unclean is not anyone’s idea of co-existence: ask the recently deposed mayor of Baghdad. Anyone who is arrogant enough to refer to her/himself as “advanced” is surely as primitive as the rest of us.

In times of war blatant propaganda tends to rule as THE history. The information presented by "Talk by Anon..." is hamstrung by blind patriotism--the most unpatriotic sensibility of all.

"I am appalled that a history of my ancestors comprises largely of military conflicts with the United States Government in the nineteenth century." There's no point in being appalled. If you don't like the way the article is written, then change it. Most of the slant is not revisionism; it's just the side of article that more people are familiar. --Prosfilaes 23:00, 12 August 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Terminology

The way this article describes the subdivisions of the people in question is really confusing, and, in places I would go so far as to say it is incorrect. Does Lakota = Sioux or is it a subdivision of Sioux? If Lakota = Sioux, then, would it be appropriate to refer to "Dakota Lakota" or "Nakoda Lakota" (even if those phrases are wrong, would it be correct to say "the Dakota are a branch of Lakota"?) If Lakota is a subdivision of Sioux, then where is the article about the Sioux as a whole, and why does this article discuss other Sioux groups?

It's pretty clear that the Eastern Subdivision of Sioux is sometimes called "Lakota" specifically; therefore, the question is whether Lakota can also mean the Sioux as a whole. That's certainly what the article says now: "The Lakota ... are a Native American tribe, also known as the Sioux" The article proceeds to say, "The Lakota are the western most of the three groups" which strongly implies that the Dakota and the Nakoda are not Sioux, which I don't think is correct.

To correct this situation, we should: a) be certain what the scope of this article is; b) be really clear about what terminology we are using in which sense, so that our readers understand; and c) preferably we should avoid using "Lakota" in more than one sense. Fortunately, the Lakota are the only "branch" of Sioux which corresponds precisely to a traditional name, to wit "Teton", so I prefer that—unless we decide that Lakota only means the subgroup—we should refer to the subgroup exclusively as "Teton" and/or "western branch". Comments? - Nat Krause 17:54, 28 September 2005 (UTC)

Well, I went through and made some tentative changes. Basically, I substitued titonwan for each instance where Lakota was being used to mean that specific branch. Not sure this is the best way, but it should do for the moment. - Nat Krause 08:45, 6 October 2005 (UTC)
This article should be under Sioux instead of Lakota. Lakota is a division of Sioux. peace – ishwar  (speak) 05:06, 2 November 2005 (UTC)
So then shouldn't Ohlone be at Costanoan? (See talk page) --Hottentot
i dont really know about Ohlone. Linguistically, Costanoan is a small language family of 5 languages. I understand that the Lakota usually just call themselves Sioux. – ishwar  (speak) 06:48, 2 November 2005 (UTC)
This article should be called Lakota Sioux since among the Sioux, this is how they would identify themselves. The information in this article about the Dakota Sioux (both Santee and Yankton-Yanktonai) and the Nakota Sioux should be moved to their own pages or consolidated with the main Sioux article. If we do this, similar considerations would need to be made on the Anishinaabe page to distinguish Ojibwa, Mississauga, Algonquin, Nipissing, Odawa, Saulteaux and Potawatomi. CJLippert 17:43, 17 February 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Requested Move

Lakota → Sioux. Wrong name. – ishwar  (speak) 05:55, 2 November 2005 (UTC)

Add *Support or *Oppose followed by an optional one sentence explanation, then sign your vote with ~~~~
  • Support. I agree with ishwar. --Hottentot 01:24, 5 November 2005 (UTC)
  • Weak oppose. The text is not yet consistent about the division; and the page would probably do better to have that straightened out before moving. Also consider that Lakota and Dakota are dialect forms of the same word. Septentrionalis 02:53, 6 November 2005 (UTC)
  • Split and Consolidate. The article for Lakota should be that... the Lakota Sioux. Similarly, the article for Dakota ought to be that... the Dakota Sioux. In addition, there should be a similar article on the Nakota Sioux. For the more general article that encompasses these three major divisions as well as several other smaller divisions, they should be in the Sioux article with a main article link to each of their appropriate major divisions. For example, the discussion on the Sioux Reservations in the Lakota article would be inappropriate, but it would be appropriate in the Sioux article, or have a list of just the Lakota reservations with their appropriate Lakota names, with similar listing in the Dakota and Nakota pages. CJLippert 23:51, 16 February 2006 (UTC)
In addition, the Anishinaabeg do distinguish them. The "Santee" Sioux (Dakota) are the Naadawensiw, "Teton" and "Yankton" Sioux (Lakota and Dakota) are Bwaan, "Assiniboine" Sioux (Nakota) are the Asiniibwaan, while the Ioway are the Naadawensiw-mashkodens. At one time the term Naadawensiw was the general term, thus the French adopted that exonym to apply to the Sioux and from the "...siw" giving us the "Sioux", but today, Bwaan is the general term. CJLippert 00:03, 17 February 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Discussion

Add any additional comments

[edit] Outcome

  • Move request not fulfilled due to lack of consensus. Rob Church Talk 02:55, 7 November 2005 (UTC)
Retrieved from "http://en.wikipedia.org../../../l/a/k/Talk%7ELakota_2611.html"