US On this day, the largest mass execution occured

das_nut

das_nut

Forum Legend
Joined
Jun 4, 2012
Reaction score
579
December 26, 1862: thirty-eight Dakota Indians were hung in Mankato, Minnesota, in the largest mass execution in US history–on orders of President Abraham Lincoln. Their crime: killing 490 white settlers, including women and children, in the Santee Sioux uprising the previous August.

The execution took place on a giant square scaffold in the center of town, in front of an audience of hundreds of white people. The thirty-eight Dakota men “wailed and danced atop the gallows,” according to Robert K. Elder of The New York Times, “waiting for the trapdoors to drop beneath them.” A witness reported that, “as the last moment rapidly approached, they each called out their name and shouted in their native language: ‘I’m here! I’m here!’ ”

Lincoln’s treatment of defeated Indian rebels against the United States stood in sharp contrast to his treatment of Confederate rebels. He never ordered the executions of any Confederate officials or generals after the Civil War, even though they killed more than 400,000 Union soldiers. The only Confederate executed was the commander of Andersonville Prison—and for what we would call war crimes, not rebellion
Click to expand...

A truly disturbing anniversary.
 
It should be noted that there were several hundred already condemned to execution by the time the decision came to Lincoln. Whether he put to death 38 or saved a lot more from would could have easily turned into a ****** off mob had it not been satiated is a matter of perception.

A nasty event with an unfortunate outcome nonetheless.
 
Am I supposed to be outraged or saddened by this? Apparently they killed far more than were killed on that day. I guess I fail at yuppie fake-liberal white guilt or something, but this seems like a fairy muted and reasonable reaction to me.
 
Josh James xVx said:
Am I supposed to be outraged or saddened by this? Apparently they killed far more than were killed on that day. I guess I fail at yuppie fake-liberal white guilt or something, but this seems like a fairy muted and reasonable reaction to me.
Click to expand...

It was a complicated situation. I don't blame either side for their response. If I'd been a native at the time I'd want blood too, and if I'd been settler on the receiving end of the revolt I'd want justice.
 
  • Like
Reactions: FortyTwo
Josh James xVx said:
Am I supposed to be outraged or saddened by this? Apparently they killed far more than were killed on that day. I guess I fail at yuppie fake-liberal white guilt or something, but this seems like a fairy muted and reasonable reaction to me.
Click to expand...

Executions after speedy, biased trials don't bother you at all?

At least one of the Indians executed appears to have been a mistake - he had a similar sounding name to another.
 
Spang said:
They were not Indians.
Click to expand...

The preferred term depends on who you ask. Most of the people I knew would use the term "Indian", so thus I use the term.

I also somewhat dislike the term "native American" because it's a really crappy term. The breakdown is either Native American and Inuit* (what are the Inuit, non-native Americans?), or you're lumping cultures together. "Indian", while geographically inaccurate, is neutral enough to not diminish other pre-Columbian peoples' history.

* Looking up Inuit (just to check my spelling) I find that it doesn't apply to the Yupik people. While the older "Eskimo" does apply to the Yupik people but is considered offensive by others due to a dubious etymology. *sigh*
 
Since the more recent evidence seems to indicate they may have come from Pacific islands via boat and then moved north, as opposed to crossing the land bridge and moving south, I'm just gonna call them 20,000'th generation Filipinos.
 
yakherder said:
Since the more recent evidence seems to indicate they may have come from Pacific islands via boat and then moved north, as opposed to crossing the land bridge and moving south, I'm just gonna call them 20,000'th generation Filipinos.
Click to expand...

That's gonna go over well. :yes:
 
I understand why indigenous people of the land that is now known as the United States of America are referred to as Indians, but it's wrong. It has always been wrong. Indians are people from India.

For more on this, Indian correspondent Hari Kondabolu:
 
  • Like
Reactions: yakherder
We actually have a distinction in our language.

"Indier" are people from India.

"Indianer" are the indigenous people in America.
 
In Chinese the word for Indian (from America) is 3 characters that create the same sound (yin di an), but that don't actually hold meaning, with the character for person added onto the end (Indian person), while the Chinese word for India is the same as the Chinese word for Hindu, making the Chinese word for Indian (from India) directly translate as "Hindu person." When I was teaching in China, I had a hell of a time trying to explain the American Indian flaw :)
 
Envy said:
We actually have a distinction in our language.

"Indier" are people from India.

"Indianer" are the indigenous people in America.
Click to expand...
You think we could have done something like this in English. :rolleyes: I have two friends who are part Cayuga, and they prefer "Indian" over "Native American" because of the connotation put on "native" over the years.

"Indianer" would be better; the people from Indiana can just hush.
 
There's also "American Indian" or "Amerindian". Never heard the latter being used by someone who was primarily of pre-Columbian descent. Former was used, for example, AIM.

Indians (as in the Asian type) are called that because of the Indus river. Most of the Indus is in Pakistan. *sigh* Language is odd.

Anyways, back to the topic. Mass executions based on flawed trials and racism is bad, okay?
 
das_nut said:
There's also "American Indian" or "Amerindian". Never heard the latter being used by someone who was primarily of pre-Columbian descent. Former was used, for example, AIM.

Indians (as in the Asian type) are called that because of the Indus river. Most of the Indus is in Pakistan. *sigh* Language is odd.

Anyways, back to the topic. Mass executions based on flawed trials and racism is bad, okay?
Click to expand...

Also Caucasian is not suuuper geographically accurate for white people. And it's confusing saying things like 'African American' when you don't actually know where somebody is from. That video was funny, but it's not like 'Indian from India' and 'native American Indian' are the only confusing bits in the English language, humans are just constantly clarifying themselves about everything, and I think that's universal across languages. I've known native folks who used 'native' very colloquially and others who call themselves 'Indian'. I'm not gonna go around calling anybody anything until I get a sense of what they personally prefer, and when I'm just talking about them I'll just try to be as unoffensive as possible, but there's absolutely no right answer that makes everyone universally satisfied. :shrug:

And I can't imagine mass executions tend to be based on a lot of sound reasoning and fairness, and I'm gonna vote on the 'it was a shitty situation with inevitably shitty outcomes either way' cause by that time the fledgling US was already in deep shittiness wrt the people who were already in their brand spanking new country. :(
 
When cultures clash violence happens. I imagine my Germanic ancestors had a similar relationship with the Romans. But now we're civilized and everything is awesome.
 
Top Bottom