Reason for retaliation?

[deleted]

So this movie is banned in USA, its amazing how things work out in the States. They should show this in schools for children so they can wake up sometime from all the BS they pump in their heads instead of some history that resembles the truth. These things make me noxious.

Good call cupcub. The idea that neither side is blameless is also brought out in the extended version of "Dances With Wolves." The fact the U.S. Army did not spare the women, children or elderly is most likely the truth. My belief is that the Native American were on the defensive and actually learned many of their techniques from the settlers. I have read that the atrocities inflicted on the Chinese and Koreans by Japan in World War II were also learned from the Americans as they attemped to "Christianize" the Japanese in the 19th century.

As a student in U.S. public school there was no mention of any atrocities towards Native Americans and Custer was hailed as some kind of hero. Then along comes "Little Big Man" and "Soldier Blue" and these movies are dismissed as as anti-American and anti-establishment. Of course these films were released at the height of the Vietnam conflict which was also never discussed in school.

I have no doubt that folks away from this country have a more realistic view of these and other events.

Call this film whatever you want but allow me to make up my own mind. Let's have the unedited DVD version of "Soldier Blue" released in the U.S. You can find VHS copies on eBay and specialty shops, but it is not generally available and many folks have never heard of it.

For a supposedly free society we sure are a sheltered bunch here. However, I am confident the pendulum will swing the other way before too long.

A lot of young men grew tired of waiting for prommises that were never to be fulfilled by the government, instead they started to feed upon nearby settlers and passing wagon trains. This was their way of saying that they had had enough with the all the injustices towards their people.

I think the reasoning for this aspect of the story is that the writers thought up a rather flimsy way of tying the Cheyenne who attack in the beginning of the film with the massacre in the end. A more historically accurate situation would be that the U.S. attack was on a group of Cheyenne not related to the attackers, but a group who already surrendered their weapons and were known not to be hostile. The U.S. Army's method of exterminating the Cheyenne and Sioux went something like this: attack villages, burning all their stores of food. When they begin starving in the winter and surrender, move them to a reservation which has no game or ability to grow crops. Sell off the rations promised to them by the government for profit. Reprimand them when the braves sneak off to hunt in their old hunting grounds. Have settlers and soldiers provoke braves into skirmishes by shooting at them while they hunt. When the braves do fight back, march onto the peaceful reservation and slaughter the inhabitants. Repeat as necessary. The Native Americans of the west had an impossible situation to deal with. For me, this movie feels a bit dated, but at least it tried to accurately show what went on when U.S. soldiers attacked a village. Another emotional depiction of slaughter appears in Little Big Man, when the peaceful Cheyenne are attacked along the *beep* river. That is based on a real incident, and Chief Black Kettle was killed in that battle, along with his wife, as they rode out to explain to the soldiers that they were peaceful.