Rhetoric 1315 Questions

Picking up shultz's book is like waking up and finding yourself in the middle of 1862 Minnesota. The rich character development that we witnessed in 'Final Frontiersman' has been replaced by a dry historical narrative without much context for the reader to go on. The author is so keen on the minute details that the reader can't see the world around what he/she is reading about.

I hope it gets better.

I was kind of amazed at the detail that the book goes into of the killings, and scalpings, delimbing, etc. It seems to me that you don't really see that too much these days. And just the ferocity with which the Indians went about their killing was interesting to read about.

How did the Indians actually think that they were going to push all the Americans off of their land? Even though a lot of troops were fighting another war, it seems crazy to think that they could actually win a fight when the Indians were vastly outnumbered. Even how the war started was just plain coincidence.

I find it interesting that though the book starts out with the usual white oppression, you quickly find yourself amazed and taken aback at the atrocities the Indians also committed, particularly in regards to the children. I also find it interesting that many of the people mentioned now are Minnesota towns, cities, or counties (Governer Ramsey, Wabasha, etc.).

I don't think that the Indians really thought that could win. I think they were just fighgting to prove a point. Only the most finatical of the fighters really thought that they had a chance. I think they mostly were doing it to vent their frustrations. They wanted to show the white people that they were not about to go quietly without a fight.

I strongly agree with Charlie's comment that they were "venting their frustrations". I think they were almost at a loss of what to do.. They didn't see any other way to handle the situation. I think they were so frustrated with what had taken place not just in their recent history but over the course of decades that they were sick of it and their hatred obviously came out.

The description of some details were a little much for me as well. I thought it was very difficult to not feel biased while reading the book. I found myself becoming angry during portions of the reading and putting myself in many of the Americans shoes.

I am amazed that i have not heard this story before this book.

I am even more amazed at the brutality of the braves. The braves get a strange sense of revenge by killing the unarmed "whites."

I am also surprised at Little Crows decision to go to war, and his continuing efforts even though he appears very unsure of himself.

I think that the descriptions of some of the events and atrocities commited by the indians were so vivid in order to try and bias the readers. It seems that the author was was trying to push the idea that the idians were bad people.

This book is an outstanding accout of the Sioux Uprising. I felt while reading it as though I were actually on the plains in the action.

The gruesome ways that the white people were killed are very haunting. For example, when the author goes into detail how a pregnant woman's belly was sliced open and the fetus was snatched and nailed to a tree was disturbing.

The separation between farmer Indians and blanket Indians was very interesting to me. It meant basically the line between those loyal to the tribal way of life and those who were willing to let the customs and traditions of the Sioux people go and live a white man’s life. I can’t imagine the disgust the blanket Indians must have felt for the farmer Indians. One exception to this, however, seemed to be Little Crow who definitely was working toward the farmer Indian life. He had even cut his hair, begun wearing white man clothes and had started going to church the summer of the uprising. I am curious as to why he was not hated by his fellow tribal men because of these choices. It seemed that every other Indian who did these things was considered a traitor. Little Crow, however, maintained the respect and loyalty of nearly all of the Sioux. It seems a complicated contradiction. I’d also like to know where the name blanket Indian came from. Farmer Indian seems clear because they were farmers, but did blanket Indians wear blankets all the time? I don’t think that seems likely, but I would like to know how they acquired the name. (In the appendix they show a picture of Shakopee who was a blanket Indian wearing a blanket. Hmmm.)

I found the concept of Minnesota being an Indian’s paradise to be very interesting. They listed such things as a variety of wildlife, access to many waters with bountiful amounts of fish, plentiful sugar maple trees and wild rice rearing wetlands as the foundations of this paradise. It seems so ethereal to me, particularly when the white man is added to the picture. These things become endangered and even scarce. What lives these Indians must have led and how much change they must have seen and lamented.

I would like to ask why it was a horrible insult for Commissioner Mix to call Little Crow a child but at the meeting where Little Crow made the decision to go to war Red Middle Voice and Little Crow were using the term on each other with little consequence? It seemed to lose its strength amongst other Indians. It took a comment on cowardice to cause an uproar from Little Crow and the other chiefs.

I really liked the part where Little Crow declares that the Sioux are like the last stray buffalo left of the great herd that exists no more. The white men are like locusts that devour all the trees in one day and overwhelm the landscape.

Okay, and lastly, I was truly amazed at how Little Crow could spend so much of his life and efforts on working with the white man and helping his people to make a peaceful transition to their way of life and then, in a moment, decide they would have more honor and dignity dying for their way of life than to live on as they were. The speech he gave against war was strong and had the entire council of chiefs, excepting Red Middle Voice, convinced until he despaired mid-thought and changed his mind. I can’t imagine the tragic thoughts that must have been going through his head at that moment. He saw them as a lost and broken people who would be better of being devoured by the locusts than giving in to that ravenous way of life.

"So far as I am concerned, if they are hungry, let them eat grass or their own dung." -Myrick (pg: 28) This quote is harsh, but in some aspects, I think the Indians should have fended for themselves, just like people have to today.

I find it coincidental that the Europeans came to America looking for freedom, yet they imposed their way of life on the Indians. To me, this seems hypocritical. The natives and the whites ideally should have been able to live in harmony.

Going back to what Charlie said, i don't think they were "venting thier frustrations" as much as just fighting to keep their land. I think the Indins fighting for their land could very easily be related to the Americans fighting for their land in the Revolutionary War.

As for what Rachel said, it maybe hypocritical, but i think that it's just how Americans are, we think we are right and that everybody should be just like us.

I found it very disturbing on how much into detail that the book goes into when they talk about the killing that the Indians do. It is very descritpive and interesting to read.

Although a lot of people have already commented on this, the descriptions of how the Indians killed German families and Americans so brutally, made me cringe with discust.

The part about the Helen Carrothers was particularly interesting. She befriended the Indians and they spared her life, only to make her a squaw for the Indian people.

This is a very interesting account of the Sioux uprising. I like how it is accounted from many different angles and views. The Indians had a right to rebell, but they should have listened to Little crow a little bit better because of his views and knowledge.

It is interesting to see how some of the Indians wanted to help protect the whites and also the captive women were treated with some amount of respect to a fashion. Some of the settlers became good friends with the Indians and it saved their lives and then sometimes it was pure chance and luck.

I noticed while I was reading that many of the Native American names that came up (Mankato, Shakopee, Chaska, etc) where the names of Minnesotan towns. I was wondering if anyone knew which came first the town of the Natives by those names that we discussed.

The gore of this book was too much for me. My stomach cringed everytime I had to read about someone being masacred. Especially having to read about people just leaving others, mostly children, to die. It was just too much. I know that it was real and that it should be in the book to give the reader the full effect of the horror, but it just was not for me.

What the Sioux did was an astonishingly horrible act. However, they could not keep living by the same means as before. They were, somewhat provoked by the United States, in more ways than one. The Sioux were, more or less, forced to give up their way of life and even their identity. They were suppose to be an average farmer. By 1862 "some 10% had done so." The Native Americans were also continuously lied to and starved by the United States.

Another interesting fact I found in the reading was that there were some Native Americans that helped the white settlers survive. Some of the Sioux had become good friends with the white settlers and were willing to jeopardize their life for the sake of their friends. An example of one such person is John Other Day, who escorted 62 white settlers to safety on their five day and four night journey to St. Paul.

First thing that caught my eye was the continued reference to the Chippewa indians as "the enemy". This just seemed odd to me, since the town I am from is named Chippewa Falls, and we associate ourselves more with the Chippewa Indians.

One other thing that intriqued me was the sheer brutality of the Indians, and their seeming ability to go from friendly, to hostile, and back to friendly again in mere moments. I wonder how much more of a shock this must have been to the farmers, settlers and immigrants, when indians they had known for many years suddenly turned violent in the blink of an eye, often just after having shaken their hands and exchanged normal greetings. I can't imagine how horrible that would have been to see your family killed by people you had considered friends and neighbors.

Year health and happiness!

[url=][/url]