Talk:Apache Wars

Untitled
Frederick W. Turner III in his introduction to "Geronimo" says "Let us be blunt. Let us say with respect to the wars...we are dealing with an irreconcilable conflict between an aggressive, war-minded colonizing group which could not tolerate differences and divergences from its rule and an aggressive and war-minded group of people for whom the raid was the most important and ligitimate of tribal enterprises and for whom the war of vengeance was the inevitable consequence of the raid.  Only when we understand the natures of the opposing cultures can we begin to ask what it might mean that one destroyed the other."--Rcollman 16:15, 24 November 2006 (UTC)

Names from Western Apache Raiding Book

 * Tsoe - Peaches a Scout from Cibecue
 * Chato - surrendered to Crook 1882 then a Scout
 * Mickey Free - contractor Scout
 * Al Sieber - "Chief of Scouts" Contractor
 * Alchise - Western Apache Chief
 * Bylas- Western Apache Chief
 * Nachise - left San Carlos 1882
 * Chihuahua - war chief from Chihuahua band
 * Diablo - war chief.

--Rcollman 22:59, 12 November 2006 (UTC)

NPOV?
While the article details the many brutal and callous acts of violence on the part of the US Army and civilians, it's suspiciously quiet about acts of violence by the Apaches. I somehow doubt that Mangas Coloradas, Cochise, Geronimo and others 'led war or raiding parties against non-Apaches', tried 'to drive all Anglo-Americans out of Apache territory', or engaged in 'two decades of guerrilla warfare' without engaging in similar atrocities, but all we're left with is one kidnapping and one very blandly described killing of a hostage.

I'm all for recognising the bad things that European Americans did to Native Americans, but let's have a little balance in reporting. To read this, you'd thing the worst thing Geronimo ever did was get drunk and run away from home--I suspect there was more to it than that for a man who vowed to kill as many Mexicans as he could and was so feared by the US Army that they sent over 5,000 men to capture him. Let's tell both sides of the story.Winterbadger (talk) 12:09, 15 April 2009 (UTC)

Geronimo
In the first paragraph it says "Geronimo of the Bedonkohe", I thought Geronimo was a Chiricahua? Foscolo (talk) 17:02, 3 June 2009 (UTC)
 * Apparently the Bedonkohe are a band/clan within the Chiricahua (the German Wikipedia entry for the Bedonkohe says they are one of four groups that make up the Chiricahua). Perhaps balance is needed though in identifying who belonged to which tribe/group - Cochise is identified as being from the Chiricahua, but Geronimo from the Bedonkohe. --Dbunde (talk) 17:57, 3 June 2009 (UTC)

Are feathers on Apache man 1903 a studio prop?
I heard that photographers kept feathers in their studios back then so that the Native American would look appropriate. I saw that on the PBS show History Detectives episode clip 705 Crazy Horse. Notice other pictures of Apache outside of a studio don't have the same style feather, nor even most inside. That makes the picture culturally inappropriate. Also see photos on Apache. I'm not saying he wasn't Apache, just likely dressed wrong intentionally. No better source. I'm also posting on Talk:Apache, please excuse the double post. --Dgroseth (talk) 23:37, 18 August 2009 (UTC)
 * What is the correct way to wear a feather if any?
 * What kind of feather would be culturally appropriate?

I just removed the photo from the infobox
I realize that some editors are addicted to images such as this and view their removal as being some sort of political correctness, but it really is more about historical correctness. This image seems to have been published as "Modocs Scalping and Torturing Prisoners, a wood engraving published in Harper's Weekly, May 3, 1873.   This scene takes place somewhere in northern California or southern Oregon and has nothing to do the Apaches or the Apache Wars.  I am therefore removing it.  Feel free, as always, to discuss this on the discussion page.  Carptrash (talk) 20:40, 2 November 2009 (UTC)

Neutrality and quite ridiculous statements
I dont know who added all of that crap about "raiding and scalping". It seems someone has tried to give the impression that all campaigns against the Apache people were fought to obtain scalps. Obviously that is not true considering most of the campaigns were fought in response to raiding and massacres of whites or Mexicans by Apaches. If one was to actually read some of the battle articles and read why they were fought they would understand.

"Whoever" it was also tryed to give the impression that the Spanish, Mexicans and Americans fought in the same way and for the same purposes for well over 200 years so I have taken that bit of garbage out because clearly the said peoples had different ways and reasons for fighting Apaches. For the most part the Spanish fought Apaches to settle their land. The Mexicans primarily fought in defense of their land due to the Mexicans who did not attempt to settle their northern frontier like the Spanish attempted and Americans eventually would. The Americans, in the beginning, fought Apaches as result of Apache attacks on settlers traveling through the region with the start of the 1849 California gold rush., this reason would continue on but later the U.S. would fight Apaches to settle their land and also to settle the Apaches on reservations or to keep the Apaches from leaving reservations.

"raiding and scalp hunting" was primarily done by the Apaches as it was part of their customs they had practiced for centuries before the arrival of white or Mexican settlers.

It also said something about Geronimo being betrayed and imprisoned, well he was the enemy of the U.S. in his day so obviously the capture of Geronimo was nothing more than capture, no betrayal was involved as far as I know. Geronimo actually got the best treatment compared to any other native American war leader, he traveled all around the country, selling his autograph at various fairs to white settlers who apparantly viewed him as the great warrior he was.

I'm sure I could go on but not now, I have better things to do then correct hypocrites. --Az81964444 (talk) 20:26, 30 November 2009 (UTC)
 * I was glad to find this explanation of (first) your undoing an earlier edit and then (secondly) your undoing my undoing of your undo. I think it would be good not to use words such as "crap' and "garbage" regarding other editors postings, though I do wish that the other editor involved was a registered one so that s/he could be drawn into this discussion.  Also your repeated use here of the word "settle" could, in my opinion be called at best a euphemism for "stealing", could it not?  I also did post for your benefit a first person account of a soldier scalping an Indian, but you, as I recall, refused to read it. Perhaps you should?   Carptrash (talk) 04:06, 1 December 2009 (UTC)


 * I was not necessarraily angry about what the editor wrote, which was for the most part false. One document alone can and will never be able to prove that over the hundreds of years of war with Apaches, American/Spanish/Mexican settlers all fought Apaches like bloodthirsyt beasts for no other reason than to hunt for pieces of flesh and hair. You would have to provide some better evidence than one first person account of a scalping. I have never denied that a white soldier has scalped an Indian at some point, I just believe the Indians did it a heck of alot more because throughout North America and elsewhere, scalping was a very common custom for native Americans. Perhaps if you read the origional edits that I reverted you would understand the astonishment I felt at that moment, I coulndn't believe someone had the nerve to type what they had. Like I stated, not really because of the words used but because of where thay stated it. Obviously someone edited as more of a vandalism attempt than an actual encyclopedic entry. As for the world "settle", settle is indeed what occurred over the course of roughly 400 years in North America, maybe you should read about it sometime. They still live on this land so "stealing" is obviously not the appropriate word. We live and love this land together, as it has been for over a hundred years now. Hopefully you are smart enough to realize why the repeated use of "raiding and scalp hunting" in every other sentence is unacceptable for an encyclopedia, or maybe you don't care about this subject's authenticity to begin with? This is why it appeared as vandalism, also the origional editor was not a registered user, as is typical for those who vandalize on wikipedia. Though native Americans were removed to reservations, alot cover many square miles. As in Arizona, the Apaches and other native groups here recieved more reservation land than in any other state. I thought I should metion that. You should see a map of reservation land in the United States.

Just telling by your repeated responses to me, it would seem you are sort of stalking me on the internet. When I was editing the War of 1812 article, there you popped up into a conversation of mine and another to comment about my edits. You clearly were not involved in the conversation beforehand so I was just curious to know if you are spying on me, watching ever edit I make, reading every bit of reasoning I leave behind. Here you are again trying to defend a vandal with opinion and past arguments.

Crap and garbage, I beleive in freedom of speech, as my fouding fathers established my home. The free flow of ideas if you will. I hope you are adult enough to not be offended by freedom of speech. And yes, I know freedom of speach has many definitions.

One a completely other discussion, who do you think is more likely to mutilate corpses, people who had been doing such for thousands of years in isolation with no outside pressure to influence them otherwise, or a bunch of simple minded, God fearing professional soldiers who had been taught of these evil ways for thousands of years through their God and told not to commit such atrocities because you would end up in hell? If you don't answer I understand.--Az81964444 (talk) 05:20, 1 December 2009 (UTC)


 * For starters, no I am not stalking you, and do not check-up on all your edits. I first noticed your editing with concern when you insisted on using an image as representing Apaches without your knowing what the image really was.  It seemed to me that you were more interested in presenting your point-of-view that Indians were bloodthirsty beasts than anything else.  After doing some research (something you could have done if it had mattered to you)  I learned what the picture represented and now it has gone away.  I became curious if you were having this sort of issue a lot and started watching your talk page.  However I live on a piece of land described (i can supply a reference if you desire) as "One of their (Apaches)  farming locations was along the Rio Grande from the present-day village of Velarde to Pilar, at that time known as Cieneguilla" so have a particular interest in the peoples who lived here and the events surrounding them.


 * You state, "As for the world "settle", settle is indeed what occurred over the course of roughly 400 years in North America, maybe you should read about it sometime." I have studied this process quite a lot over the past several decades and suggest that you look at this period again with new eyes.  At one point (1822) the Apaches requested permission for the Governor in Santa Fe to be able again to farm the piece of land around where I live. I quote a US Govt. source, "The Jicarillas' request was denied. The officials did not deny that the land once belonged to the Jicarilla, but claimed the Spaniards held title by right of conquest."  So I am calling land that someone else has lived on for ages and that is then "settled" by right of conquest as being "stealing."


 * Later you state: ::"Crap and garbage, I beleive in freedom of speech, as my fouding fathers established my home. The free flow of ideas if you will. I hope you are adult enough to not be offended by freedom of speech. And yes, I know freedom of speach has many definitions."
 * Good, I am also interested in the free exchange of ideas, that is why I am doing this, and I believe that we are here, at least, we are in agreement. However one of the main points to keep in mind while editing wikipedia (any administrator can point out where this is posted, we can ask if you wish) is that we all assume good faith on the part of other editors, so calling them "hypocrites" and referring to their good faith edits as "crap and garbage", though allowable as free speech, is not in the spirit of wikipedia.


 * Finally you post: "One a completely other discussion, who do you think is more likely to mutilate corpses, people who had been doing such for thousands of years in isolation with no outside pressure to influence them otherwise, or a bunch of simple minded, God fearing professional soldiers who had been taught of these evil ways for thousands of years through their God and told not to commit such atrocities because you would end up in hell? If you don't answer I understand.


 * I have no problem answering this. The Indians were just as God fearing as the soldiers that they fought.  However I feel that you are making a distinction and are really referring to Christian God fearing people.  If you want me to present a list of atrocities committed by Christian soldiers I can probably do it and I might as well begin with the Good Book.
 * At the sack of a city God orders all its people to be killed except a few, but then adds, "But all silver and gold and vessels of bronze and iron are sacred to the Lord; they shall be put in the treasury of the Lord." (Joshua 6:19) Later, at another city we can read that "Joshua did not draw back his hand, with which he stretched out the javelin, until he had utterly destroyed all the inhabitants of Ai. Only the cattle and the spoil of that city Israel took as their booty."   And so it goes, again and again and again.  Later we learn that "Joshua took the whole land according to all that the Lord had spoken to Moses; and Joshua gave it for an inheritance to Israel."  Sound familiar?  This Book supplied the pattern that the God fearing Christians would follow while "settling" most of America.
 * About two thousand years later, after Joshua, a bunch of Christian soldiers in southern France, crusading against other Christians that they deemed to be "heretics" (A Christian tern used to denote other Christians who believed slightly different things) were getting ready to sack a city, much in the tradition of Joshua, and the second-in-command asked the leader that since only half the people in the city were heretics, the others were regular Christians (that is to say, they believed the same things as the crusaders) the leader replied "Kill them all, God will recognize his own." Atrocities?   Committed by Christians?How about when these same Christian soldiers round up over 200 "heretics" and burned them alive?  Do you need more?  Because there are more.  Carptrash (talk) 17:08, 1 December 2009 (UTC)

I am concerned about the paragraph
near the beginning of the article that reads:
 * ""'The first conflicts between the Apache (who call themselves T`Inde, Inde, N`dee, N`ne, meaning the "people") and the American settlers of the Southwest began in 1847 during the Mexican-American War, particularly during the Taos Revolt''"

I have looked hard, and with an open mind, for any references to the Apaches being involved in the Taos Revolt and have not found any. I am inclined to remove that passage, but want to advertise that fact first. Carptrash (talk) 19:58, 26 September 2011 (UTC)

Questionable sentence?
The Apache had fought against colonial encroachment by the Spanish and Mexicans for decades before the conflict began with United States settlers

I've come to this article by chance, so there may be terms I'm not understanding correctly, but this sentence either implies some sort of qualitative difference between "colonial encroachment" and the actions of "settlers", which could possibly do with some explanatation, or it's a bit POV? Jasonisme (talk) 15:37, 9 February 2012 (UTC)

Highly questionable passage
I had to clean up the POV terminology used, but this entire section might need rewriting or better yet, a citation.

"Part of the success of the Apache was the overwhelming fear they created in Americans except for the most adventurous and hardy, or those American communities with historical experience in living in hostile Indian frontier environments. Additionally, the high casualty rates of Americans in contrast to the Apache was because while the Americans distinguished between civilian and combatants, the Apache did not. The Apache way of warfare, like most hostile American Indians, did not distinguish between gender, age, or class in their hostilities. Furthermore, the Apache had developed this ruthlessness to the extreme, in which torture was made part of their own spiritual belief. While such methods were less applied to women and children, it reached psychotic levels in application to persons considered enemy warriors. Thus, it was long running tradition by settler posse groups such as their Ranger units and US Army soldiers to rather die even by their own hands than fall into the hands of the Apache. In turn, the bitterness of the struggle led to a generous application of retribution warfare in which US Army forces would attack Apache warrior bands and attempt to destroy all its components including their families and camp followers."

The entire section is uncited and due to the provocative claims it makes, it really needs one.

"While most of the warfare was the result of Apache imperial objectives and racial hatred of non-Apaches especially Americans, sometimes the Apache were provoked by American and Mexican settlers, and traders who speculated on the supplies that were promised to the reservations. Nonetheless, the overwhelming number of skirmishes, raids, and full scale campaigns of the Apache wars were initiated by unprovoked attacks of Apaches upon Americans. Because these raids were often by surprise and stealth and were focused on American civilians, especially on isolated rural communities the Apaches left an enduring image as a hated and murderous foe, responsible for the deaths of upwards of 10,000 civilian men, women, and children from 1847-1906."

This too. ScienceApe (talk) 05:34, 1 April 2013 (UTC)

Jicarilla War Section
I am suggesting a complete rewrite of this section. The statement that "other tribes fought in defense of Mexico" has absolutely nothing to do with the Jicarillas and is therefore confusing. I also do not believe that Mangus Colorado signing a peace treaty had anything to do with the Jicarillas, who lived hundreds of miles away. Finally, I do not believe that the events at the Santa Rita mines, again hundreds of miles away, had any impact whatsoever on the Jicarillas. In the second paragraph to say that the Army did not become involved until 1853 is just plain wrong. It was the US Army who went after Mrs White (who was one the settlers) in 1849. Also to say that this attack was on "settlers" is somewhat misleading, since this group was merely just "passing through" to another location and perhaps should be more appropriately called "travelers". Finally, no mention is made of the fight near Fishers Peak, nor the 4 month campaign against the Jicarillas that began in March of 1855. This is a preliminary notification and/or discussion prior to making changers. Gordontaos (talk) 16:18, 15 August 2014 (UTC)

Cochise / Article Structure
The main part of the 'Cochise' section mentions the Bascom affair of 1861 as the initiation of the conflict and is logical in itself. Then out of nowhere follows the single sentence 'The first U.S. Army campaigns specifically against the Apache began in 1849.' with no further explanation how this relates to Cochise. This sentence either needs to be removed/moved to a section where it relates to, or more detail must be added how it relates to Cochise.

Another option is to move all the Cochise information into the Chiricahua wars section where is really belongs to. After reading the article it's not clear to my what is so special about Cochise that it needs to be mentioned separately from the 'Conflicts' section and it is an outlier to overall article structure.

Lyxya (talk) 03:44, 5 January 2023 (UTC)