Paper Details  
 
   

Has Bibliography
3 Pages
633 Words

 
   
   
    Filter Topics  
 
     
   
 

who was right

of the red man suggested a purer way of life before the coming of the white men. Some men like General George Crook became more of an Indian than some Apaches. Crook's argument about the Indian violence was that their nature is responsive to treatment which assures him that it is based upon justice, truth, honesty, and common sense. Because he respected their spirit, Crook hesitated to condemn even the most ferocious Apaches. He argued " barbarism torments the body; civilization torments the soul." I agree with Crook. White men were just as vile for taking the land as the Indians were for killing them. The idea of noble resistance created by Colonel Carrington overlooked the Indian massacres, but frowned upon the white man's retaliation. This idea was foolish. Murder is murder, it is wrong no matter who commits it. Although there were many who applauded the Indian's actions, their efforts did not deter the whites. The army, for reasons both good and bad, wanted to take control of the administration of Indian Affairs that had previously been held by civilians. This was thought to diminish the American complaining.This mixture of feelings towards the Indians is very curious and interesting. It can be explained by saying that anger and frustration can give rise to these contrasting emotions. The Indians tactics seemed horrible, yet ingenious. Their culture was repellent, but also alluring for its integrity. Charles Wood reveals that respect and compassion for another culture are very unsure checks on violence. The bottom line is that the army had just come out of a civil war and was not ready to risk its own society against that of the Indians. In short, the majority of the American people wanted the red man dead. ...

< Prev Page 2 of 3 Next >

    More on who was right...

    Loading...
 
Copyright © 1999 - 2025 CollegeTermPapers.com. All Rights Reserved. DMCA