What was the name Sitting Bull gave your grandfather?

@@jasonroberts9357 Sitting Bull. He transferred his name to my great grandfather. It was a common thing to transfer and gift names to others back then. My great grandfather who received the name had 3 sons, 2 kept the last name and 1 (my great great grandfather) had his name changed at a residential school by a priest who retired. He then had 14 kids and only a few of the descendants still use sitting Bull as their last name.

@@juiceman104 Great story! Thanks for your reply and for sharing your family's history. God bless you and yours!

are you the new Sitting Bull ?

@@TedJones107 No, the name died with my ancestor.

Just death for a sellout.

kzfaq.infoBmc9NFfhx74?feature=share

Glad you enjoy it!

Me also... I live on AZ. Alot of history here. Love hearing tales of the old west...

Well technically he was half Hunkpapa Lakota and half Arikara, which was a point of contention in his youth as he was discriminated against and abused heavily by full blood Lakotas for his background

Bloody knife was actually half arikara and half hunkpapa souix. Which was the band of sitting bull and gall. And I guess bloody knife stabbed gall numerous times years before but gall lived he was actually a key part in this victory.although I feel bad for him because he lost his wife and kids that day.

@@brianwood308 Yes. His wives and kids were killed by the Arikara scouts while picking wild turnips during Reno’s assault. Gall said that that “Made his heart bad” and that he “fought with the hatchet” after that.

Welcome to the HOKC family!

There's no accounting for individual tastes, but custer yuck.

@@toniagarcia3247 Why do you say that? Custer was an amazing leader.

​@@toniagarcia3247Custer was a courageous man and a legitimate Civil War hero. He was a Lt. Colonel in the regular Army, and was *not* in charge of the expedition, that was General Alfred Terry. As a soldier, he did not set government policy towards the Natives, and he broke no treaties. He's become the poster child for every awful thing ever done to Native peoples by Europeans simply because he's the only soldier in the Indian Wars most Americans can name. The blame for what happened rests squarely on the US government, and the wealthy men in the East who pressured the government to take care of " the Indian problem" so they could make money off the West without ever setting foot there.

Why?

Good for Cheyenne.

You are correct in most points, except for suicide and ear damage. The wound to his temple was on the left side; Custer was right-handed, eyewitnesses reported no evidence of powder burns, and the angle was consistent with a shot from above to a person on the ground. Also, the story of sewing awls/sticks pushed into his ears is likely apocryphal. None of the Natives knew until well afterwards that Custer was there, they believed Crook's forces had caught up with them after being defeated by the Natives at the Rosebud ten days before. The blood from his ears was likely due, and consistent with, the bullet wound to his left temple.

@@toniagarcia3247 You mean the penis?

@@retriever19golden55 Nice to see a comment from someone who knows what they are talking about.

It seems many are missing the point. It doesn't matter how it was done. Sitting Bull was a holy man, and prayed for the survival of the people, and was finally given a vision of soldiers falling from the sky by God, called Wakantanka.. It was God who engineered that whole battle.

Yes, I know the name of James Pym! A brave man.

What like Cheyenne and Lakota wives and children? "......men that died because of his poor judgement."

Daddywarfucks: Guess again, ringmeat. Many contemporary historians and scholars are viewing George Armstrong Custer through a more positive lens. The reason why you think history does not remember him fondly are many: Examples: 1 - People don't really read enough about the man (the less people know, the more they always suspect). 2 - Custer is a scapegoat (his name is famous; as such, he makes the perfect fall guy. One of the worst atrocities soldiers ever committed upon Indians occurred at Sand Creek, in 1864. Colonel John Chivington and his men raped, butchered and scalped hundreds of peaceful Cheyennes and Arapahos, but no one has ever heard of Colonel John Chivington, they just blame Custer because his name is well-known). 3 - Media. Movies, films, documentaries, etc, etc... - as inaccurate as they always are, people believe them to be true; and sadly, most people tend to just watch, as opposed to doing any kind of reading and research. 4 - Custer was flamboyant, and he was an Indian fighter. According to the history of the ignorant, this means Custer was vain, egotistical, and a blood-thirsty Indian hater. 5 - Many things about Custer, his life, and his last battle, are simply not true; they are myths. However, because history repeats these myths so readily, and so often, they become "true" simply by dint of saturation. 6 - I could go on...but why? You're as ignorant about this topic as most everyone else, and I am doubtless wasting my time.

More like his arrogance and stupidity...

@@jonathanwahlin257 Perfect example.

Fuck Custer and his whole Cav may the rest in Piss

Custer did have good intel about the size of the village from his own scouts,But apparently didnt believe his scouts or maybe he figured surprise,speed and support from Reno and Benteen would bring a victory

So you think Custer had no idea of how many warriors he faced even though the War Department estimated there would be 800-1,500 warriors when they sent those three columns out that summer or despite the fact that they'd been following the village's trail for weeks and saw it become progressively larger?

First of all , Custer wasn't dummy , contrary to all these warfare ex-perts after the fact . Second, he was sacrificed in many ways . And let down by some

@@MJ-we9vu the war dept had no idea how many warriors were out there,all they knew was several tribes were starting to amass along the rose bud and yellowstone and its not inconcievable that Custer could have won that fight BUT he needed Benteen and Reno to engage..that didnt happen And i dont believe Custer was actually dumb or arrogant enough to try and take on double his own numbers and go toe-to-toe with that many warriors. I think his plan was to capture women and children and force the warriors to back down...but again he needed Reno and Benteen to actually engage to do that..but for whatever reasons Reno and Benteen did not support

Crazy Horse had led an attack on Crook's column ten days before, on the Rosebud River about 25 miles away. They had no knowledge of Custer, they believed the attacking forces were Crook's.

good comment! But Custer should never have split his command if he wanted to protect his command. What Custer wanted, and I am sure you agree, was to attack, defeat and kill Native Indians. Which he could only do by taking the risk of splitting his command.

Horrible, inaccurate, unlearned, ignorant and biased comments from the both of you. Custer split his command so he could envelope the village. Envelopment was a tried and true tactic used with great success during the Anglo-Indian wars on the Great Plains. But the only way a commander could envelope a village, especially a large one, was to divide his command into separate battalions. What Custer wanted? He wanted a victory, of course, but his goal was not to kill as many Native Indians as he could. The fundamental mission of the Little Bighorn campaign was to find the Indians and prevent them from escaping. In Colonel Gibbon's own words, "that was the thought pervading the minds of us all...to find the Indians and prevent them from escaping". If circumstances had been in Custer's favor, he would have captured some of the village's noncombatants. Custer well knew if he could manage to capture but a handful of noncombatants, the warriors in the village would capitulate immediately. Native warriors will not fight if their women and children are captured. By apprehending some noncombatants, Custer would have had one of the best kinds of victories possible - one in which hardly a shot is fired, and there is very little bloodshed. Johnslaughter is an unread douchebag. "One of Custer's problems was his ego". Really? Give me a bonafide historical example of Custer's ego, Johnslaughter. Can you? If you're going to spout off your opinions like they are facts, at least back them up with some kind of documented or substantiated example. By the way, in 1867, Custer WAS court-martialed for various offenses, but he wasn't "allowed" to return, he was ASKED then ORDERED to return, you moron. Johnslaughter's description of the Little Bighorn battle site: "Much of it is just as it was in 1876, just cleaner". Hahahahahaah! First of all, what the hell do you mean by "cleaner"? Secondly, how the hell would you know what the area looked like in 1876 that you could possibly compare it to the present, and write, "Much of it is just as it was in 1876, just cleaner"??? Were you fugging there in 1876? Am I irritating you yet, Johnslaughter? Here's some more ... Louis L'amour was a huge Custer admirer and supporter.

@@Eadbhard Irritating me? No. I'm laughing hysterically at your ranting. You should be onstage as a stand up comedian.

@@johnslaughter5475 Sounds good. I'll be the comedian and you, the imbecile, can be my muse.

YEAH ..1 OF THE UGLY REASONS THEY WERE ROUNDED UP @ FORCED ONTO RESERVATIONS. NO FRICKEN MEAT AROUND. OH YEAH... MUST MENTION THE MILITARY/ ARMY @ CIVILIANS - ANYONE WHO WANTD TO. KILL OFF THE BUFFALO..WERE GIVEN RIFLEs @ Ammo. To ALL OR MILLIONS @ MILLIONS OF BUFFALO. THEN THE INDIAN WOULD HAVE ZERO TO HUNT...@ forced to starve In the middle of winter. OR take the Rations. It all sucked bad then @ N.O.W. LOOK AT PINE RIDGE - ROSEBUD - All thru Oklahoma..N @ S...Dakita. Etc .Florida Idaho - montana. Etc.

Yes!

You are exactly right.

And nearly 200 yrs later, the patriotism machine known as the US is still oppressing, intimidating and bullying anyone who doesn't have the capabilities to adequately defend themselves. Not much has changed!

Custer didnt have his golden curls at little bighorn,He had his hair cut before leaving for the campaign

I'll bet you they discussed the beauty/disgust factor of scalping him in terms of the curls similarity to Shirley Temple's.

@@jasonbrown372 Shirley Temple wasn't around yet, but sure, show the FBI that the watchlist you're on is for the right reasons

@@FarmerDrew Let them watch this🖕

@@jasonbrown372 wow that's tremendous I haven't seen such a feat of bold show of force since a B1-B Lancer flew over my house

So easy to condem him in 2023...

@@jeffsmith2022 that isn't just my opinion, it was the opinion of his contemporaries going as far back as the Civil War and perhaps as far as his time at West Point. I am a veteran and while I admire fighting spirit, his was less about victory and more about self-glorification. G A Custer had other even less desirable behaviors but I will not delve into those.

Sure , contrary to all those frustrated , constipated nobodies , would be Napoleons

I totally agree!

Quick crying bitch 😒

@@michaelschott5590 that's a harsh way to put it but I have to agree, humans of any color/race can be truly awful people. Sicilian & Apache 🖐️☀️

@@GreekFire.. I appreciate seeing acknowledgement from anybody here, genuinely. Being mixed I have to accept the history of both sides (late immigrated Italians & Apache fighters in Vietnam). I truly don't come from the pilgrim nor do I hold hate towards any race of people but everything with a comment section on topics of natives is full of bitterness, spite, and outright uneducated hate. It's infuriating because we aren't very represented at all and when we are, ignorance of others is always present.

@@Kawaiijihad it’s just sad seeing people speak on an entire race/culture as a monolith like they don’t know humans are complex by nature. The ignorance is crazy. I just try to look past it and appreciate learning what I can.

What are you talking about? I see nothing like that here.

The Indian losses that day were 31 warriors (seven of whom were Cheyenne, the rest Lakota), six women and four children.

Ouch!!

Actually, he had access to more than one battery of Gatlin guns but refused to take them, saying that they would hider his mobility.

@@MissCleo24 reportedly, mobile was the reason he refused to take them. I'd wager he wished he had them once he saw what he was up against.

The Gatling gun was not as great as people think. It was not dependable. They were not traveling on smooth roads, over rough terrain. The Gatling gun didn’t play an important role in any battle they were very unreliable for many years. They look good in movies and TV westerns but not in real life.

His men didnt

What an intelligent observation.

Those "native people" stole it and slaughtered the "native people" that were there before them. The Sioux were far from peaceful and other tribes always knew that. Most of them hated the Sioux.

What are you smoking?

@@mikehunt-fx7sf Buffalo Calf Robe woman, a northern Cheyenne is said to have killed custer. I wasn’t there, we’re you? If you know anything about this, then you know he was told if he betrayed the Cheyenne he would die by there hands. All that really matters is he got what he deserved.

@@johnkriete2152 You are in over your head! I have studied this battle for decades and have been to the battlefield. And my sister lives 40 miles from there on Crow Agency land that the Sioux stole from them. And I have many Lakota friends whos ancestors were at the battle. Buffalo Calf woman was one of a few female warriors who were there but she was 4 miles south at the Reno retreat site. And yes the Cheyenne did say he would die if he broke a promise years earlier but she could not be in two places at one time. It is one of many tales started by many Indians after the battle. Many warriors claimed to have killed Custer because it was big medicine and status to be the one. The fact is no Sioux or Cheyenne warrior even knew Custer was there until weeks after the battle. And the bullets that killed him probably came from hundreds of yards away!

@@mikehunt-fx7sf Brother I’m not trying to argue with you, I’ll be the first to admit I am no expert but I have studied the battle. 150 years later and we still cannot get along or even agree.

They wouldn't openly declare war on an entire race, that's not Christian!

They had a relatively larg number or troops out there, just in smaller batches usually so they could cover more of the expansive land they were responsible for securing

The full detachment was about 400 men and scouts, but Custer split them in half with Major Reno taking the other half.

@@Elderos5 Wrong! 700.

Custer was doomed after he stopped going to a barber.

Answer... you're an idiot. Custer's initial class at West Point numbered about 70 students, only 34 actually graduated, and Custer was among those who did. West Point is not a place for dummies. Custer graduated last in his class not because he was a simpleton, but because he was having a lot of fun at the academy. To be able to have fun at an austere and demanding institution like West Point, and to still graduate, that requires a modicum of genius. George Armstrong Custer was the most popular student in his class. There were no "baby cannons" at the Little Bighorn, you moron; they were Gatling guns. By and large, Gatling guns were slow, cumbersome, and ineffectual when it came to fighting Indians on the Plains. Even if Custer did bring them, they would not have helped him. If you did more research, your comments might be more accurate. As it is, you are merely displaying your ignorance about this subject.

Thanks for letting us know Kreskin!

@@mikehunt-fx7sf Have a Nice Day 🖕

Hmm. Throughout history, great leaders have affected the course of history. The outcome may have been inevitable, but the course of events that lead to that outcome were clearly affected. Such has been the case since the beginning of humanity.

Good point.