Talk:Great Plains culture

Factual Accuracy Tag (article needs rewrite)
This article is not very reflective of what happened to the buffalo. The Plains Culture natives killed off the buffalo over a period of 200 years after recieving horses from Spaniards, before which the Plains Culture didn't exist, because it allowed them to kill off whole herds in one hunt. I've never heard of the US Army campaign to kill off the buffalo, its implausibe that it played a significant role of the near extinction of the buffalo as killing off a whole herd, let alone a whole species, is very very hard to do with guns, thats why the natives used arrows, which were much more efficient than any guns available at the time. Seeing as how its so implausible I think this should be sourced if its true (which I'm doubtful of, atleast to the extent of playing a huge role in the diminution of the buffalo population). From my understanding The Plains Culture natives developed a very unique skill to kill off the buffalo AFTER coming by horses from the Spaniards, in which a whole tribe would gather every summer to participate in a large scale hunt in which they would kill a whole herd. Since it takes more than a year for a whole herd to have its population even nearly replenished, after 200 years of this kind of hunting the buffalo were down to a very low number, before most European immigrants to the Americas even knew what the Plains were.

And the idea that the Plains Culture natives "used every part of the buffalo" is a well-debunked myth. It was a huge task, the hardest part of the hunt actually, usually left to the women, to preserve the meat, using every part of the animal was just impractical if not impossible. This article needs to be completely rewritten. Its a big task but I'm going to put a disputed accuracy tag until I or someone else fixes it. --Brentt 02:12, 22 November 2005 (UTC)

The Federal Government never explicitly condoned the destruction of the buffalo as a means of defeating the Plains Indian tribes and driving them onto reservations, but the idea was certainly discussed. In 1874, the Secretary of the Interior said, "The buffalo are disappearing rapidly, but not faster than I desire. I regard the destruction of such game as Indians subsist upon as facilitating the policy of the government, of destroying their hunting habits, coercing them on reservations, and compelling them to begin to adopt the habits of civilization." Likewise, Senator James Throckmorton (Texas)said, "It would be a great step forward in the civilization of the Indians and the preservation of peace on the [frontier] if there was not a buffalo in existence." and General Sheridan said "These men [the buffalo hunters] have done...more to settle the vexed Indian question than the entire regular army has done in the last thirty years. They are destroying the Indians' commissary....Send them powder and lead if you will, but for the sake of lasting peace let them kill, skin, and sell until the buffalo are exterminated. Then your prairie can be covered with speckled cattle and the festive cowboy who follows the hunter as the second forerunner of an advanced civilization." Indian tribes participated in the destruction to an extent, because they were paid by whites for the hides, but the bulk of the destruction occurred in the 60's and 70's at the hands of amateur and professional white buffalo hunters like Buffalo Bill Cody, who killed hundreds or thousands of bison a year - each. The idea that arrows were more effective than guns against bison is nonsense. There are documented reports of white hunters shooting 90 buffalo from a single stand and in 1874, the editor of a Dodge City newspaper wrote, "It is no uncommon thing to find sixty to eighty thousand buffalo robes and hides in the train yard on any given day." and in 1874, the desruction along the railroad lines (railroad companies encouraged the destruction of the buffalo because they delayed trains and destroyed track, by selling "hunting specials," in which passengers were encouraged to shoot as many buffalo as they could from the safety of their train cars, among other reasons) was so great that some companies had to cancel trips because the smell of rotting flesh was so nauseating. --Sasha_d 19:14, 8 April 2006


 * Yes, a rewrite would be good. The gravest defect in my view is that the nominal subject of the article is hardly covered. The extermination of the buffalo is very much a side issue. Fred Bauder 15:35, 9 April 2006 (UTC)

I very much appreciate the above rebutal of user Brentt's lothsome dispute of the factual accuracy of the history that 19th century whites distroyed the buffalo. This is a clear and I would have thought indisputable fact. Actually, it can only be disputed in ignorance or malice. It really makes me livid that the people whose fine way of life was distroyed are being accused by this canard as being themselve responsible for the massacure of the buffalo! It smacks of facism, the technique of villifying the victim. As Sasha has so very well explained who destroyed the buffalo, I can point out to those caucasian interested the grave consequences to their soul if they cannot admit that this horrible crime was committed by our ancestors. It is as bad as if a German were to deny the holocoust. There is an excellent book about the life of the Crow Nation, it is an extended interview of the medicine woman Pretty-shield. She came of age and lived as a young adult before their lands were overrun by our most numerous, racist, ecologically disgusting and backward ancestors. You can learn many things from the book, Pretty-shield, Medicine Woman of the Crows  including may thing about how efficiently and completely the buffalo were used, for instance, the hooves were boiled to a jelly that was used to fix dyes, the membrane that enveloped the heart was stuffed, painted, sewn and the beautiful ball was given to a child. A ball for every buffalo?, of course not, but that hardly means the animals were not completely and efficently used. Brentt insults the men. The men tracked the buffalo, they killed the buffalo following them sometimes some distance before they died, they skinned the buffalo, they butchered the meat, and they transported it back to the current village site. At the same time they battled their neighbors, ie they had a hard and life endangering job ensuring their access to the hunting grounds. This was not easy, nor was the women's part of course. As Pretty-shield points out, there were very few lazy Indians. The women dried the meat in several preperations, they processed the bones, extracting minerals and marrow which was incorporated into the meat they dried, they processed the hides. They built the tipis, they made the clothes. But most of all, the men and women lived proud and honest lives, with a great understanding,passion, and love for buffalo, and many many other animals and plants of the plains. Here is some of what Pretty-shield said about the passing of the buffalo. "Ahh, my heart fell down when I began to see dead buffalo scattered all over our beautiful country, killed and skinned, and left to rot by white men, many, many hundreds of buffalo. The first I saw of this was in Judith basin.  The whole country there smelled of rotting meat.  Even the flowers could not put down the bad smell.  Our hearts were like stones.  And yet nobody believed, even then, that the white man could kill all the buffalo.  Since the beginning of things there had always been so many!  Even the Lacota, bad as their hearts were for us, would not do such a thing as this; nor the Cheyenne, nor the Arapahoe, nor the Pecunnie; and yet the white man did this, even when he did not want the meat. "We believed for a long time that the buffalo would again come to us; but they did not. We grew hungry and sick and afraid, all in one. Not believing their own eyes our hunters rode very far looking for buffalo, so far away that even if they had found a herd we could not have reached it in half a moon. 'Nothing; we found nothing,' they told us; and then, hungry, they stared at the empty plains, as though dreaming. After this their hearts were no good any more. If the Great White Chief in Washington had not given us food we should have been wiped out without even a chance to fight for ourselves." Stunning, isn't it Brentt? I add that after the time of the slaughter, the Crow were allowed a comparitively large reservation on good land.  They had allied with the whites against their traditional enemies.  Yet then, in a short time large parcels of the land were leased by the government administrators to white ranchers.  Unbelievably, some of these cattle men and sheep men were so greedy of the grass that they shot the Indian's horses, not suffering any competition for the fodder.  They paid two dollars for the ears of a dead horse. Brennt, if you don't develop a better understanding of plains culture I'm going to dispute that you have either an honest intellect or a redeemable soul!  Your playing with fire when you pass along such horrible lies. Steve Garmire, first time user of Wikipedia.


 * Being a first time user, I guess you havn't read wiki etiquette yet. ASSUME GOOD FAITH.


 * I'm not saying Native Americans wern't victims, and I'm not blaming them for anything (I don't BLAME people for wanting to feed their families and make a better life for themselves). Your setting up a straw man. I'm talking about a few simple ecological and anthropological facts here. As if I hadn't known that the Native Americans wern't the victims of genocide since grade school. But it doesn't follow from that fact that they didn't play a role in the extinction of an animal, it doesn't make them any less human, and it definitely does not make them bad people.


 * There are a few things that I think are rather uncontroversial in the historical/ethnographical record. The buffalo population was dwindling BEFORE Europeans started hunting buffalo, most likely because of the human population explosion on the prairie that was the Plains Culture, because before horses we're acquired making a living on the prairie was not feasible (thats why a common spoken language had not developed before Europeans got there, Plains peoples we're all migrants from other parts of North America, it was the first North American cultural "salad bowl" so to speak). Most native american tribes did not hunt buffallo primarily to use themeselves, they hunted it for trade with Europeans (in that sense, and in the fact that horses came from European settlments, Europeans always had played a part in the diminuition of the buffalo population). Native Americans would kill whole herds in a yearly communal hunt. I don't there is much controversey about those facts. It follows from the last fact that the Native Americans did play atleast a part in the diminuition of the buffallo since it takes far more than a year for a whole herd to replenish. Whether or not European settlers later played a significant role in hastening the buffalo populations demise, is another story. I know there are atleast a few scholars of the subject who are of the opinion that the Plains culture was dooming the buffalo from the begining (and there is nothing racist or disrespectful to native american culture about that. These aren't people that are judging the culture, they are merely saying what appears to have happened. It only seems disrespectful if your prone to dehumaninzing people. How are you dehumanizing people? Usually when you dehumanize someone your highlighting their bad traits--like your doing with European settlers incidentally--but the inverse of that is to highlight nothing but their good traits, and hold them up to an unrealistic ideal.) If you think otherwise, find reliable sources, and present an opposing view, but rememeber NPOV policy when your writing. Represent a view without endorsing it in the article.


 * Its very rude to imply that I have a dishonest intellect or a "iredeemable soul" (whatever the hell that means, very Christian of you to dehumanize ME like that), these aren't MY ideas, these are things I've read from apparenlty reliable sources (ethnographies). If they we're MY ideas I wouldn't consider changing the article, as "original research" is not supposed to be used in wikipedia articles. The fact that you all but accused me of some sinister agenda is impolite at best and completely retarded at worst.


 * Its moot, I intend to get around to including the view I'm talking about with SOURCED information. If you really think this is all just "lies" then check the sources, and see if you can come up with other sources that contradict what I was saying, and we can present the information in a NPOV manner, i.e. present both views without the article endorsing either


 * (you can sign your posts with four tildes "~", it will put either fill in your name if your registered--which is preferable--or your IP adress if your not registered and signed in)--Brentt 09:39, 4 May 2006 (UTC)

Steve has made an excellent point and I think all of you should read it and reflect upon it. I am surprised that some people, no doubt white, are still saying it is not us that caused that amount of damage. Even now we still cause relative, if not more, amounts of damage to eco-systems not even our own. White people are destructive by nature, simply put. I am white and I know this. Please don't pawn it off on someone else just because you don't want to believe it. Instead, think of ways to atone for what we have done. The article, I think, does not need to be changed in relation to its tone. Just more information would make it look better. SprSynJn 20:54, 24 August 2006 (UTC)


 * Your making a racist argument by saying "white people are iherently destructive". There is more variation in cultural and genes among native americans than there is differences between europeans and native americans as a whole. Race has nothing to do with it.


 * Yes technologies derived from a mostly (but not exclusively) European philosophy, i.e. science, has had a major impact on the environment, that has nothing to do with race and everything to do with culture--thats why cultures who have taken up this philosophy have been able to reek destruction with it too. Europeans in no way have a monopoly on war and environmental destruction. There was a reason, for example, Mayan civilization collopased before first contact with Europeans. It really saddens me when I see this kind of racialist thinking in this day and age. Native Americans were not better, they were  a diverse group of people with diverse practices. Some of them were very bellicose groups, some of them were very peacful. Some of them were "in tune" with nature, many of them reeked ecological disaster on their environments and caused their civilizations to collapse long before Europeans (I'm not talking about the plains culture, I'm thinking of the Maya and the missisippi civilizations, events that could have had nothing to do with Europeans obviously). If you think Native Americans are inherently "in tune" with nature and peaceful, you really need to realize that Native Americans were a diverse group of people. Some European groups had more in common with some Native American groups than some Native American groups had in common with each other, and vice versa. Civilizations, war, environmental destruction, genocide, and the subsequent strife and collapsing of said civilizations were not unheard of in the pre-columbian Americas--the archaelogica records shows that these are not things perculiar to Europeans.


 * BTW, while my ancestors mostly originated in Europe, I do not define myself according to where my genes came from. I am not my genes, and I do not judge myself according to my ancestry anymore than I judge other people according to theirs. I do not feel proud that most of my ancestors came from a culture that gave us some of the beneficial moder technologies that we now enjoy anymore than I feel ashamed that they came from a culture that made related technologies that we now fear. They are not me. I had nothing to do with those technologies, and likewise I had nothing to do with the genocide perpetrated amongst the native americans. I am not my ancestors. So my critique of the information here has nothing to do with denial. I had nothing to do with it either way. My great-grandparents, great-great grandparents,great-great-great-grandparents, etc. may have participated in the genocide, but that wasn't me. Brentt 11:26, 25 August 2006 (UTC)


 * Point taken. It was a mistake to mainly label the white race as the ones who are fully responsible for those actions. I should have said that humans are destructive by nature, that would have made more sense. What I meant is that white people are the major cause of destruction this planet has received. And to me, any other culture that has done any relative amount of damage is usually under the influence of said white culture. Although I cannot prove this, it is how I feel. I am sure you do not agree with me, as the majority will not. Sorry if it is offending, but you should not disregard it as false just based on what big brother tells you. By the way, an old friend of mine had said exactly what you said many times to me: "I was not there, I had nothing to do with it therefore I am not to blame." That to me is nothing more than an excuse. It seems to be human kinds habit to wipe one's hands of the ordeal and live their lives as happy as they can. I am sorry, it just doesn't work that way. People across this world do not buy it and your way of thinking will only cause more damage. SprSynJn 17:32, 30 August 2006 (UTC)


 * Brentt, I would like to see your sources. That is what this article needs. If I have the time I may add to this. 74.128.186.158 03:27, 22 October 2006 (UTC)


 * SprSynJn, you wrote, "Although I cannot prove this, it is how I feel. I am sure you do not agree with me, as the majority will not." Why do you insist that we should not disregard what you say as false here since you haven't provided any references, but demand references of others. On 30 August 2006 (UTC), at 17:04, you wrote, "If there is to be assumptions noted on homosexuality being present in ancient Buddhist and Samurai practices, I think it would be best to cite them. There shouldn't be remarks like that unless you can provide otherwise." So, we should accept what you say without a citation, but disregard everyone else who provides no citation? Apparently, you think so. On 16 September 2006 (UTC), at 17:46, you wrote, "Yes, I should do something about it, but hearing if from someone like yourself who has absolutely no remorse is utterly ridiculous. You have no right telling me or anyone what they should do to redeem themselves. You of all people should be telling yourself what to do, I mean you dont even believe you have any fault do you?" Obviously, you feel "white" people have an obligation to find redemption for the acts of their ancestors. And you call another's idea "utterly ridiculous!" Nobody needs to find redemption for the acts of their ancestors. I would suggest that one should take action to rectify the actions of their predecessors, such as those intended by the Civil Rights Act and affirmative action plans. Actions such as those are intended to level the playing field for future people. Let the dead bury the dead. 69.174.7.41 02:19, 6 November 2006 (UTC)

Fate of the buffalo
re:'The buffalo were moved to Yellowstone National Park and to a certain extent have recovered from the abuse of man, but it is unlikely that they will ever be as numerous as before'


 * er, the above line struck me as somewhat POV. (That is, before I read all the comments on this page, where I see that rather a lot more is under debate). Another wiki page even suggests that the indians might have cleared the prairie with fire, thus permitting the buffalo to expand. That sounds more like buffalo benefitting from the acts of man. Aside from that, the line seems to imply that having 100,000,000 buffalo roaming the plains again would be a good thing. I can't imagine that this would be a good thing, given that the plains are now occupied. I thing it inconceivable that they will become as numerous as before, but this last bit while factually probably accurate is really just POV. Sandpiper 14:26, 27 November 2006 (UTC)

By the way, perhaps people might care to look at the page on bison as an animal, American Bison. It says more than this page does about their hunting. Sandpiper

proposed merger
er, yes. Seems to be only one plains culture is under discussion, and it is the indian one. Sandpiper 14:28, 27 November 2006 (UTC)


 * Since there is no objection I intend to merge the articles. TerriersFan 17:23, 13 February 2007 (UTC)


 * Thanks! Katr67 17:56, 13 February 2007 (UTC)