Defense Department to Review Wounded Knee Medals
An understandable but wrongheaded action.
WaPo (“Pentagon to review Medals of Honor awarded for Wounded Knee massacre“):
Defense Secretary Lloyd Austin has directed the Pentagon to review 20 Medals of Honor awarded for actions during the 1890 Wounded Knee massacre,in which the U.S. Army’s 7th Cavalry opened fire on hundreds of Native Americans, including women and children.
The effort is meant to ensure no troops were recognized for “conduct inconsistent with the nation’s highest military honor,” the Defense Department said in a Wednesday news release. Disqualifying actions include attacking civilians or combatants who already surrendered, murder, rape, and “engaging in any other act demonstrating immorality,” Austin wrote in a July 19 memo directing the review.
The news, first reported by Military.com, follows requests from South Dakota state lawmakers and members of Congress, and over two decades of pressure from Native American groups.
“The fact that the title of the event is ‘massacre’ would not seem to be the kind of thing you award medals for,” said South Dakota state Sen. Lee Schoenbeck (R), who helped oversee a state resolution earlier this year calling for an official inquiry into the awards. “It’s time to get it right.”
On Dec. 29, 1890, U.S. Army soldiers killed an estimated 350 Lakota people in the southwest corner of South Dakota in what is now part of the Pine Ridge Reservation. Historians believe the event was preceded by a single shot stemming from a disagreement between the soldiers and Native American warriors they were attempting to disarm.
“I have never heard of a more brutal, cold-blooded massacre than that at Wounded Knee,” Maj. Gen. Nelson A. Miles, who was an Army commander during the American Indian Wars, wrote in a November 1891 letter. Miles wrote that women, small children and babies were among the dead.
The citations for some troops who were awarded the Medal of Honor, the military’s highest honor, after the massacre are simply for “bravery” or for continuing to fight while wounded, according to the Defense Department memo.
Criteria for awarding Medals of Honor during the Indian Wars was subject to much less scrutiny compared to today, when the process can take years. More than 425 Medals of Honor were awarded for action during that campaign, according to the Department of Veterans Affairs.
During the Civil War, the lack of stringent award oversight contributed to veterans receiving the highest number of Medals of Honor ever — over 1,500 — compared to veterans of later conflicts, according to VA. In some cases, recipients were awarded a medal for recapturing unit flags.
Today, the Medal of Honor is awarded based on criteria drafted in 1963, and is reserved only for troops who are distinguished by the highest level of bravery and who risk their lives while fighting against an enemy of the United States.
As a general rule, the practice of going back into history to decide whether actions decades—in this case more than a century—ago deserved medals is rather bizarre. This is especially true in this case for two reasons: a radically different view of the Indian Wars than existed at the time and the fact that the “Medal of Honor” is simply not the same medal as it was then.
Was the Wounded Knee massacre an awful event that is a stain on our national honor? Of course. Hell, pretty much the entirety of American settlement and westward expansion was characterized by what would now be considered horrendous war crimes. But that certainly wasn’t the prevailing view at the time.
The nation, the Defense Department, and the Army have, quite rightly, recognized the horrors of the Indian Wars and “Wounded Knee” has, rightly, became shorthand for one of the darkest days in our history.
Regardless of the justness of the campaign—and Miles and other contemporaries questioned 7th Cavalry commander James Forsythe’s orders—individual soldiers can still fight valiantly in the defense of their comrades. (Forsythe was exonerated and eventually promoted to major general.) Here’s the Wikipedia summary:
- Sergeant William Austin, cavalry, directed fire at Indians in ravine at Wounded Knee;
- Private Mosheim Feaster, cavalry, for extraordinary gallantry, advancing to an exposed position and holding it;
- Private Mathew Hamilton, cavalry, for conspicuous bravery in action against hostile Sioux Indians, at Wounded Knee Creek, South Dakota, on the 29th, and for coolness and bravery in action near the Catholic Mission, on White Clay Creek, South Dakota, on the 30th.;
- Private Joshua Hartzog, artillery, rescuing commanding officer who was wounded and carried him out of range of hostile guns at Wounded Knee;
- Private Marvin Hillock, cavalry, distinguished bravery in action against hostile Sioux Indians, near the Catholic Mission, on White Clay Creek, South Dakota (often misidentified as Wounded Knee due to a later error in War Department lists), continuing on duty though painfully wounded;[80][81]
- Sergeant Bernhard Jetter, cavalry, distinguished bravery at Wounded Knee for “killing an Indian who was in the act of killing a wounded man of B Troop.”
- Sergeant George Loyd, cavalry, bravery, especially after having been severely wounded through the lung at Wounded Knee;
- Sergeant Albert McMillan, cavalry, while engaged with Indians concealed in a ravine, he assisted the men on the skirmish line, directed their fire, encouraged them by example, and used every effort to dislodge the enemy at Wounded Knee;
- Private Thomas Sullivan, cavalry, conspicuous bravery in action against Indians concealed in a ravine at Wounded Knee;
- First Sergeant Jacob Trautman, cavalry, killed a hostile Indian at close quarters, and, although entitled to retirement from service, remained to close of the campaign at Wounded Knee;
- Sergeant James Ward, cavalry, for distinguished bravery in action against hostile Sioux Indians at Wounded Knee Creek, South Dakota, where, though severely wounded, he continued fighting;
- Private Herman Ziegner, cavalry, for conspicuous bravery in an attack on hostile Sioux Indians, concealed in a ravine at Wounded Knee Creek, South Dakota, on the 29th, and again near the Catholic Mission, on White Clay Creek, South Dakota, on the 30th, in defense of the crest of a hill against a force of hostile Sioux Indians;
- Musician John Clancy, artillery, twice voluntarily rescued wounded comrades under fire of the enemy;
- Lieutenant Ernest Garlington, cavalry, distinguished gallantry;
- First Lieutenant John Chowning Gresham, cavalry, voluntarily led a party into a ravine to dislodge Sioux Indians concealed therein. He was wounded during this action.
- Second Lieutenant Harry Hawthorne, artillery, distinguished conduct in battle with hostile Indians;
- Private George Hobday, cavalry, conspicuous and gallant conduct in battle;
- First Sergeant Frederick Toy, cavalry, for conspicuous bravery and coolness in action against hostile Sioux Indians;
- Corporal Paul Weinert, artillery, taking the place of his commanding officer who had fallen severely wounded, he gallantly served his piece, after each fire advancing it to a better position;
- Private Adam Neder, cavalry, for bravery in action against hostile Sioux Indians, at Wounded Knee Creek, South Dakota, where he was wounded
On cursory examination, almost all of the descriptions strike me as legitimately valorous.
Crucially, while the men were awarded “the Medal of Honor,” it is not remotely the same award as the one that goes by the same name today. The Navy version was created in December 1861 and the Army followed suit in July 1862. It was the only award available for valor and, indeed, through World War I, the only one available to recognize individual achievement of any kind.*
After the Civil War, Congress made the award permanent, and it was awarded quite generously by modern standards. Indeed, it was frequently awarded for heroism outside of combat, such as rescuing comrades during a fire aboard ship. Which makes sense because, again, it was the only personal award available. Nineteen individuals were double recipients, one for actions that took place in the span of less than a week. Richard Byrd was awarded the Medal for reaching the North Pole!
This all changed with World War One when two additional medals for combat gallantry were added: the Distinguished Service Cross (Army)/Navy Cross (Navy-Marine Corps) and the Silver Star. In 1926, the Distinguished Flying Cross was created. Near the end of World War II (1944), the Bronze Star was added.
Oh, and the Army created the Soldier’s Medal in 1926 to recognize “heroism not involving actual conflict with an enemy.” The Navy actually continued awarding Medals of Honor for that purpose, although quite rarely, until following suit with the Navy and Marine Corps Medal in 1942.
In living memory, then, the Medal of Honor is an exalted award reserved for only the highest levels of combat valor. Indeed, even the Distinguished Service/Navy/Air Force Cross is an exceedingly high award, rarely seen. We’ve even gotten rather stingy with the Silver Star. The Medal of Honor has become almost anticlimactic, often requiring years of bureaucratic vetting, resulting in the award being hung on the neck of a member long after he has left the service. (Assuming he’s alive at all.)
We should simply think of pre-WWI Medals of Honor as a different award that happens to have the same name.
UPDATE: A comment from Dr. Dwight Sears has changed my view on this significantly. See “Wounded Knee Medals Redux.”
*The National Archives notes, “The only medal that the War Department officially awarded during the Civil War, Indian Wars, Spanish-American War, and Philippine Insurrection was the Medal of Honor. However, between 1905 and 1919, the War Department authorized several campaign medals for U.S. Army service between 1861 and 1902.”
James I am guessing based on context clues that the 9 in the second year is a typo:
[Fixed – Thanks. jj]
Absolutely not wrongheaded.
Acknowledging it, but not doing anything about this or the string of broken treaties, but doing nothing to reverse the continuing harms of decisions made over a century go–there is a name for it, damn, it’s on the tip of my tongue–oh, right virtue signaling. Period.
When you call even virtue signaling–an action with little to no cost–“wrongheaded” it certainly seems like you’re foreclosing the possibility of real action to correct past wrongs. Again, the effects of westward expansion, including events such as Wounded Knee, continue to manifest in concrete harms.
I will continue in a second post.
James, let’s flip this on its head. Reviewing medals for long dead soldiers is wrongheaded because it was so long ago? Well then what the hell does it matter if the Pentagon decided to rescind them? After all, the soldiers are dead, right?
Now, let me make a distinction here. If this were an act of diplomacy on the international stage, that would be different. Much of IR is rooted in the notion of gesture and signal. This is not that.
Not to go too OT, and I know what I am stepping in, here. But I have to point out that there are striking parallels between contemporary Israeli settlers and historical American settlers ‘civilizing’ the frontier.
Moreover, if Israel started handing out medals for Israeli commanders who ordered the slaughter of civilians–women and children–wiping out entire villages, what would you think? After all, regardless of what the rest of the world thinks, the “prevailing view” in Israel is that it’s justified.
—
If it’s a choice between reviewing medals or substantive reparation, obviously the latter is preferable. But if the former is controversial, then it says everything we need to know about the prospects of the latter.
Shit, on NPR yestersay I heard a recording from a town hall meeting from SC about removing a James C. Calhoun statue. A bunch of whining white people crying about ‘taking away our history’.
Bullshit. The history is still there. It’s still written. It’s still in text books. Recent legislative history indicates that the people who complain about the removal of statues by and large support changes to school curricula. It is rank fucking hypocrisy.
You have proven to be better than they are, James. More intelligent. More thoughtful. More open minded. You digging in on this will not change my opinion. We can disagree without losing mutual respect.
But I urge you to reflect a little more.
@Kurtz:
I don’t think this corrects any past wrongs. Rather, it creates a new one: robbing these soldiers of their legacy because our conception of the conflict has evolved.
@Kurtz:
I would think that 2024 is not 1890. Our concept of Just War has evolved considerably and a whole body of Law of Armed Conflict has come into being since then.
Beyond that, I’m perfectly fine with reviewing to see if these soldiers were being rewarded for committing war crimes. But, judging from the citations, most of them were bravely defending their fellow soldiers. I don’t think we should strip them of those honors because we retrospectively disagree with the conflict they were ordered to take part in.
While I generally believe that we should not judge historical actors by the standards of today, I still find these particular commendations grating.
The Lakota were surrounded, outnumbered, and severely outgunned. It is exceedingly hard to believe that the award of so many medals could be properly justified – even by the standards of 1890.
I don’t like retconning history in general.* By the standards of this case we should claw back all the medals awarded to soldiers during the Vietnam war as that is now seen as an unjust war.
Soldiers do what they are ordered to do. They are not tasked with deciding whether a war is a just war. And it’s only post WW2 that we took the position that soldiers have an obligation to refuse illegal orders. I’m not sure there was even a distinction of legal vs. illegal orders before we encountered the, “I was just following orders,” Nazi defense.
The fault here is not with the soldiers, but with the politicians, and the people who elected them. It’s not about the tip of the spear, it’s about the people in power who thrust the spear. It seems like a fairly shitty trick to order soldiers in harm’s way, then a century and a half later judge them for doing what they were ordered to do.
*I’ll just skip past the fact that I wrote a 1500 page trilogy in which women served in WW2 combat.
@James Joyner:
Their legacy is that they murdered women and children. smh
There’s the telling of history, a recounting of past events and actions. There’s interpreting history, assigning meaning to events and actions. And there’s remembering history, how we judge past events and actions.
In the first two, one must avoid using present standards for obvious reasons. In the last, nothing but present standards are appropriate.
Factually, Lee was a brilliant military commanders, and was a normal man of his times in good standing and held at high esteem. But there’s no way we have to accept the judgment of his time for judging his actions and his influence on history and developments to this day.
@just nutha: We don’t know that any of these men did that. If all we’re going to do is go back and ensure that the awardees didn’t commit what we today would consider war crimes, I’m not too upset about that. But I fear that we’re simply going to retroactively decided that men who happened to be assigned to the 7th Cav that day are, by definition, not heroes.
@Kathy: Sure. Lee is a historical figure and history is constantly revising its judgment of him. But I wouldn’t retroactively revoke Lee’s West Point diploma.
I recently recounted an anecdote about a kid I encountered in college. In an attempt at being an edgelord he obnoxiously wondered at high volume why anyone cares about the Indians? I mean no one cares about the Carthaginans.
If one could find a Carthaginan with a direct connection to the ancient people, he may have had a point.
Well, there are Sioux around. If you have yet figured: this is being written by one. I have a lot of extended family on the Rez.
And I think it is necessary and useful to say that I am consistent, perhaps one could argue to a fault–I stand with the oppressed in every position I take. So if we could find a Carthaginan, and that person was still affected by long past atrocities, then I would stand with that person, too.
Now, I have to admit, I am white. A few people have asked about my ethnic background, because, apparently for them I looked a bit ambiguous. One even remarked, after I evaded the original question, something like, “you’re not just European.” But daily? Nah. I’m white. I don’t claim my heritage or talk about it much, because I can move about daily with zero fear. Unlike Markwayne Mullin, I don’t use my heritage for personal gain.
My dad? Dark af.
One of my many uncles? When vacationing in Mexico, was mistaken for a Mexican by an American tourist with fumbling through an English-Spanish dictionary. “¿Dónde está el banco?”
My extended family on and around the rez? They have to see the effects of legacy everyday. They have to live with the fear.
But I lost something, too. This is the trick: I lost my fucking heritage. Check that: it was stolen from me. My paternal grandfather made the understandable, yet impossible, choice to leave. He chose pragmatism.
Jim Thorpe, widely considered the greatest all-around athlete in modern times, was robbed of his heritage, too. He was sent to a boarding school to be “civilized”. The simple fact that we are lamenting the legacy of long dead soldiers who participated in a massacre tests the notion of the word. In fact, it shows it has zero fucking meaning at all.
And, sorry, James, but the simplest facts here are thus: one peoples were defending territory they had occupied for millenia against violent ‘settlers’ and a professional army sent to protect them. But yes, please, lament away.
And sorry, don’t give me this evolution of Just War shit, either. It is completely immaterial to this. The founding documents asserted natural rights, including, ahem, property, and the intrinsic equality of all men. Oh, and freedom of religion. Well, unless it’s traditional indigenous religion. They need to be converted. By force, if they resist.
You know what else was in those founding documents? Treaties are the law of the land. That worked out really well when Americans needed to point to a treaty for economic or strategic reasons. Strike oil? Nah, that’s for Americans. Discover a mineral deposit? Eh, forget the treaties. Settlers want that plot? Give it to them.
So, seriously, the law–Geneva Convention, Laws of War–that gets you no ground here. The ideals set out by the Founders: already written; treaties as enforceable law not be abrogated: already written; the First Amendment: already written.
And beyond the law: we are talking about stated ideals; we are talking about ethics; we are talking about morals. I will address this below with a compromise.
And in practical terms, the legacy of racism and broken treaties and slaughter is still felt today. By your fellow citizens. Well, citizens, but certainly not fellow. Go to a Rez. Look at the statistics of missing indigenous women and children. Look at the rates of poverty. The police brutality. The rates of addiction.
But sure, shed a tear for some medals. Choosing the legacy of soldiers who commit atrocities over the legacies lost to history and the the legacy of outright and theft and mass murder, the effects of which are still very real.
You want to honor those who questioned the orders and showed contrition afterwards? I can live with that. I will make that compromise. But I fully understand if others would not think it right.
But Forsyth? He doesn’t deserve memorials. He doesn’t deserve to be honored in any fucking fashion. Point me to his grave so I can desecrate it. He doesn’t deserve a proper burial. He deserves to have his bones exhumed, ground to powder, and scattered into the pits of hell. And that is showing his legacy too much courtesy.
Don’t defend him as a man of his time and place. That leads to some hills that are shitty places to die.
@James Joyner: You and I simply see things differently. As to the question of who’s a hero and who’s not, I’m no longer tied up in the history of “our great nation” to care either way. Make your own judgement (and split your hairs however you wish) I’m fine with history calling it either way. The fact of their legacy being that they participated in an event that is being called a massacre doesn’t change.
Retracting the medals of those who are long dead and involved in genocidal campaigns is the least we can do.
Literally the least. I can think of nothing that we can actually do that would be less.
We’re not even taking back the medals themselves, just striking people from the roles. No one is digging up the corpses and making sure they weren’t buried with their medals.
I do have some sympathy for those who are saying that this is erasing history. By all rights, we should build a monument depicting the cavalry killing women and children — that would be preserving the history. I expect there will be a minor footnote on a Wikipedia page to commemorate the removal of the medals.
But this is also not entirely about history. It’s about what we value and honor today, when we publish lists of the soldiers who received the Medal of Honor.
@Michael Reynolds:
Retconning? Seriously? That is a pretty creative definition. Nobody is changing it. The retcon happens in calling it taming the West, or discovering a continent or civilizing savages, or manifest destiny. That is retconning.
You know the most offensive part? And, I’m not talking about offensive in the identity sense. I’m talking intellectually offensive:
“hostile Sioux Indians”–should it not be hostile Americans invading another people?
This reads to me like the equivalent of security kabuki. Did the military ask any present-day Lakota whether this is what they wanted done or did the Lakota want the time/ energy/cash of this spent on something else?
Look: we treated Amerindians like crap back then and have continued to do so. (Bureau of Indian Affairs, anyone?). IMHO, it would have been much more productive if the US gov’t could fix the incompetence and corruption that has historically plagued the BIA, and back off from this pat-pat-on-head-you -poor-Indians paternalism that still lingers like a fart over all interactions the US Gov’t has with indigenous Americans.
Dr. Joyner, your column masks something that you fear. I’m trying to figure it out.
Fear that soldiers who valiantly followed orders to conduct a massacre will be vilified?
Fear America will finally have to recognize that no laws were in place at the time to guide soldiers on war crimes so they could safely display moral courage and chose to not follow an unlawful order?
Fear that the story of white settlement across American is one of rampant land speculation and disregard of treaties?
It’s a sad day when a Chinese propaganda piece is more truthful than our government’s reckoning with one of the darkest parts of our country’s history. NOTE: I’m aware that Mao and China have committed similar atrocities themselves.
Both of my parents have colonial roots back to New England, Middle America, and Southern American (with the exception of some English-Canadian and Swiss ancestors who immigrated in the 1800s after the the Native American lands had been cleared for homesteading). Daily I live with the fact that they warred with the Native Americans for over 200 years. Some were taken hostage during the Deerfield raid and chose not to be redeemed. Many died because of interactions with Native Americans.
Never, in my dreams, would I expect any of my ancestors to receive medals. Yes, they may have acted in accordance with laws and norms of the time. But the way our government treated the Native Americans and supported the enslavement of Black Americans was wrong. At least we can have the decency to acknowledge it and say, “I am truly sorry.”
So please, clarify what fear prompted you to write this column.
@Gustopher:
Interesting point. If Kurtz would like to object, he has the standing to, and I will honor his position.
@Grumpy realist:
[From paragraph three of the cited text]
I’ma take that for a “yes,” myself, but you be you.
@Just nutha ignint cracker: ah. Missed that. Then yes, good for the military listening and for addressing this issue.
And sorry, James, but I don’t buy your argument.
@Kurtz
Forsyth did not receive the Medal of Honor and, thus, any medal other than whatever campaign medals were issued signifying “I was there.” The full list of honorees is in the OP and they’re all either enlisted men or lieutenants.
@Just nutha ignint cracker:
That is what I have wrestled with for years. Do I? Sure, I lost something–a connection to my personal heritage. But I can’t place that beside what others, related or not, endure daily. I can’t speak for anyone else, ya know?
We can say, “Kurtz has a personal connection.” But somehow, I cannot bring myself to call it my fight. Even if it is more real to me than those whose family came from Europe.
@Skookum‘s perspective is interesting and excellent. But I occupy the in-between.
When I criticized @DK’s approach the other day, it was not because I think his anger or frustration, however he prefers it to be described, is unjustified. It absolutely is justified. It’s not my place to judge how another should react. And I’m well aware of what it sounds like for a white person to say, hey take it easy. Historically, that has just been an excuse to do nothing–actively harming badly needed movements. Though, maybe, a different mode, a different (literary) voice, a different tone, can be strategically useful. That was my point.
Hell, my own inner monologue devolves into screaming sometimes. At its worst: white noise screaming. Thankfully, it’s my own voice, otherwise it would be even more frightening. And shit, my life ain’t got nothing on many others. I’m not among the true economically privileged. But I didn’t grow up poor, feeling hunger pangs either.
As I’ve written many times here, I cannot truly understand the Black or Brown or Immigrant experiences in America. But I will, always, be there to listen and learn and make points where and how I can.
It’s interesting, because for whatever reason, the majority of individuals within those groups with whom I have interacted, seem to get what I’m about immediately. Some haven’t. Some it took a bit longer. But that natural understanding is especially true as I’ve aged. I think it’s probably a combination of demeanor, the way I carry myself, and maybe even a bit of the ethnic ambiguity I mentioned before. Who knows? Maybe they just recognize an authenticity.
I’ve certainly crossed the line at times out of my own arrogance or stupidity or making the wrong read. But that was mostly when I was younger and had yet to learn how to deal with my temper. When I get mad, I go for the throat (verbally). But most of the time it was an honest mistake, a joke meant to express solidarity, but came across as pejorative (no, I don’t drop N-bombs). I mean, I know who I am; what I believe; yet, sometimes, I still can’t shake my own stench of hypocrisy.
I can only ever relate it their experiences to my own less intense experiences of being otherized–flowing from less totalized types of difference. Those pale in comparison to my brothers and sisters from different backgrounds. So I try to draw connections for those who either cannot (or will not even attempt) to internalize that the experiences of Otherized persons are valid. They are not merely feelings. They are concrete. The feelings, the emotions, reside in those doing the Otherizing. And they are the ones who refuse to recognize anything beyond their own experience.
But I know that the Black or Brown or Trans struggles are not my fight, beyond some abstract notions of human sameness and connected oppressions. I can only stand with the Other, shoulder to shoulder. Recognize their humanity. And if it ever came to it, fight alongside them, or play a support role–whatever that may be.
But this? Well, I can’t help but feel that
I cannot credibly do anything. If I say nothing about my family ties, I feel like I am abandoning something taken from me. If I talk about it, I feel like I am claiming an identity that I have not lived and have no right to claim.
I would love to go meet my family in person. I’ve corresponded with some of them a little bit. But that’s it. I also have this deep seated feeling that I would be merely a tourist, no matter how enthusiastically they embrace me.
The tree is gnarled. My dad is one of 14. But there are two groups–two different mothers, one father. I only really know the ones from the younger group, and even of those, I’ve only really been close to two of them. That’s another reason everything seems so distant.
So, shit. The in-between. The nowhere. And it ain’t utopian.
@Kurtz: you’ve reminded me of a comment made concerning the Ptolemies of Egypt:
That’s not a family tree. That’s a family pretzel.
To me it’s about a gesture to the decedents of the survivors of the massacre, as such a good thing, but about as empty an empty gestures can get in the light of the conditions in Native American communities of today. Want to disavow the actions of 150 years ago? Do something that makes a difference to the living. There really isn’t a heck of a lot of them, and they are generally so poor a little would go a long ways.
@Kurtz: I get the in-between.
One of my family lines is Crook. I am very distant cousin of Major General George Crook, who “pacified” the Northern Paiutes. Today I live in an small town that looks out upon a Northern Paiute burial ground where the tribal elders rest. My neighbors are Northern Paiutes who live on a relatively small reservation and ranchers who homesteaded Paiute land. The Norther Paiutes were nomads and did not have tribal chiefs to negotiate in their behalf. The destruction of their way of life still resonates within their community. In a small community everyone tries to get along. I want to support the tribe in any way I can, but they have boundaries that non-tribal members cannot cross. So I acknowledge our disjoint histories, appreciate opportunities to learn about their culture, try not to judge their decisions by my cultural norms, and support efforts by our government to protect the natural ecosystems which they cherish (as do I).
@James Joyner: Customary law and the Lieber Code of 1863 applied in 1890, which prohibited killing noncombatants without military necessity, required the principle of distinction, and prohibited unnecessary suffering. https://digitalcommons.law.ou.edu/ailr/vol48/iss1/7/
@Kurtz:
Legally, it is. I know that the sovereignty of Native American tribes is treated as a bad joke by most people, including federal agencies, but it is legally real. One does not have treaties with one’s own citizens.
@DrDaveT:
Yes, that thought crossed my mind several times today. But the technicality sort of unravels the yarn and reveals that it’s more like quasi IR. The status is probably best described as: more than what one thinks of when hearing “limited sovereignty” but much less than a nation-state.
@James Joyner:
I recognize that, James. But that wasn’t the only point. Look at the phrasing. “Hostile Indians” implies way more than, ” it was a battle.” It places the US, an invading force, on the defensive. No development of Just War changes the relative positions of the belligerents.
You know who I consider a war hero? Franz Stigler.
@James Joyner:
I recognize that you have forgotten more about IR and military history and theory than I will ever know. But I am not completely ignorant, either. It’s not as if laws and norms in warfare didn’t exist prior to the mid-20th century.
But I’m not appealing to post-WWII norms anyway. And quite frankly, it’s not even about medals, or valor, or the definition of a war hero. It’s about half country acting like a goddamn tradwife standing by her man as if her man has never done anything wrong.
And if he has done something wrong, it was so long ago, that eh, it doesn’t matter.
It was before we met.
He’s different now.
He didn’t hurt me.
He told me about her, she was a hostile whore. She deserved it.
He takes care of me, and that’s all that matters.
Even if he really doesn’t take care of her. He is still a philanderer. He still uses fear and coercion of it suits him. But he’s working on it she wants to help.
Fine, the tradwife can forgive his trespasses before they met. But that doesn’t erase the trauma he caused to others before she fell in love and got her ass in the kitchen to make a sandwich. And her conception of being a kept woman is nothing more than a facade.
And then we wonder how we solve race relations. But Mr. Perfect will never admit to doing anything wrong. And if he does admit to something, the victims were not real people. And he knows who the real people are–he is the one who gets to define real.
Ask him to maybe give back that humanitarian award, but can’t do that. It’s disrespectful.
@D Mears: Thanks for the reminder! I knew that but was somehow focusing international humanitarian law and not pre-existing guidelines.
Apologies for the late reply. A first comment by an author automatically goes into the moderation filter and I just saw that yours was stuck in there.