Talk:Black Hawk War (1865–1872)

Merge
Ute Black Hawk War appears to be an attempt to recreate the Black Hawk War (Utah) article with a different name. I'd suggest that any useful info found at Ute Black Hawk War be merged here, and then be made a redirect to here. -- 208.81.184.4 (talk) 17:15, 23 November 2009 (UTC)
 * Nevermind; Ute Black Hawk War was a copyvio, so just made it a redirect —Preceding unsigned comment added by 208.81.184.4 (talk) 18:07, 23 November 2009 (UTC)

Misspelling of "Lowry"
"John Lowry" was my great great great grandfather. There is no "E" in his last name. 67.2.188.234 (talk) 17:11, 15 February 2014 (UTC) Mathew Lowry

Firsthand research
Does anyone else notice the Circileville Massacre section sounds based entirely on original research? I completely rewrote it so it didn't sound like a child wrote it, but a lot of the story sounds like it's potentially some verbally passed-on variant of actual accounts, but none of it is cited. Read the original version of the section in the history and see that it sounds like it was possibly written by someone who lived in Wyoming with David Munsen.

Woolfy123 (talk) 19:17, 10 June 2014 (UTC)

External links modified
Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just added archive links to 1 one external link on Black Hawk War (1865–72). Please take a moment to review my edit. If necessary, add after the link to keep me from modifying it. Alternatively, you can add to keep me off the page altogether. I made the following changes:
 * Added archive https://web.archive.org/20070406170908/http://blackhawkwarutah.com:80/Indian%20Depredations%20In%20Utah2.html to http://www.blackhawkwarutah.com/Indian%20Depredations%20In%20Utah2.html

When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true to let others know.

Cheers.—cyberbot II  Talk to my owner :Online 07:06, 20 January 2016 (UTC)

173.248.17.143 (talk) 19:46, 25 April 2023 (UTC)

high levels of bias and 'both sidesing'.
I came across this article during research into Utah and was baffled. This article is bizarre, because the facts presented within it completely clash with the view it tries to take, and the conclusions it draws, which largely seem to be opinion anyway.

- In the causes section it says that definitive causes of the war cannot be known, and tries to phrase it that both sides wanted peace but it 'just wasn't possible'. This is fairly atrocious settler apologism. The causes are extremely clear, as the rest of the article relates. The causes were settler encroachment on tribal lands, broken promises of help, destruction of pastureland leading to tribal members starving, and repeated expansion of the land the settlers claimed, and thus drove the inhabitants out of.

- the article attempts to ascribe 'culture clashes' as a cause, but then essentially admits that the 'culture' clashes in question were the settlers culture of just taking land, or receiving it under false pretences or for promises of help that were not followed, and the indians culture of not really wanting to be driven from their land and starved. this is not a culture clash, the framing is atrocious. This is completely typical of the coloniser/colonised conflict throughout the united states in this period. To accept that 'culture clash' was a notable cause of this war would be to try and pretend the genocide of the native americans was also just a clash of cultures. This section is particularly disgusting and intellectually bankrupt. It desperately needs to be improved to rid it of its biased and extremely thinly sourced attempt at both-sidesing this issue.

- the war is called 'black Hawk's war'. Antongoa Black hawk had been repeatedly abused by the settlers, members of his family had been murdered, decapitated, and had their heads displayed. He had even been forced to help fight his own people. His motives for war cannot be pretended to be unclear.

This article is a bizarre oasis of century outdated takes on the settler-indian conflict in general. It is absolutely accepted history that the cause of settler-Indian conflicts was (in almost all cases); expansion of settlers into tribal lands, abuse of those tribes, tricking them into giving up their lands with trade/treaties and agreements they did not understand and were not supposed to understand, the witholding of the things they were promised in exhange often causing mass death amoung the natives and violent, deliberate depopulation. When trickery and pressure didn't work the settlers and US government often resorted to simple murder and mass ethnic cleansing. This might be inconvenient for some people to admit, but it is accepted historical fact, including throughout Wikipedia. 82.21.177.242 (talk) 20:03, 29 March 2024 (UTC)