erin (she/her)

University of Minnesota

usdakotawar.org

The 38 hangings were far from the worst of the Dakota genocide. Lincoln’s role was one of reducing cruelty while still punishing those guilty of massacres of civilians. Originally, hundreds of men were going to be hanged, but Lincoln commuted the sentences of all but the worst offenders. Unfortunately, two of the hanged men were innocent, and it’s unclear how the mistake was made. Far worse was the banning of Dakota people from Minnesota and the internment in camps, leading to widespread death by disease, though these were the actions of the Minnesota government.

There are very legitimate criticism to be had of Lincoln, like being the sitting president as one of the states committed genocide, or the appeasement tactics to slaveowners before civil war became inevitable. I do not think this one makes sense to be top of the list, as by all accounts Lincoln was attempting to reduce cruelty where possible and yet still punish mass murderers.

For a bit of additional background, the Dakota war, during the Dakota genocide, was an uprising of some Dakota, attacking anyone of white or “mixed-blood” descent. The state of Minnesota had broken numerous treaties and continued to seize land from the Dakota people, leading some to fight back. However, the massacring of civilians and anyone of non-pure blood is evil, and many Dakota who did not join the rebellion rescued hostages and helped resist wholesale slaughter. The Minnesota government is absolutely at fault for the conditions leading to and the execution of the Dakota genocide, but the rebels chose to commit racially motivated massacres of non-military targets. This does not make the later retaliation justified, but it does explain the hangings.

As for number two, I cannot speak to the other commenter’s beliefs or intentions, though I do not believe women were combatants in the Dakota war.

Note: Some historians object to the term Dakota war, as only a small faction joined the conflict, while a much greater number did not. I’m using the term as the consensus name for the conflict, not out of belief that it is accurate.

I’ve used a variant of melatonin for my online handle in various spaces, your name threw me off for a second. Was like, I’m pretty damn sure I’m not melatonin here.

My tongue is exactly the same with the “D” in “dentist” and “dog.”

Low draw means low power and penetration. For speed shooting or distracting/stunning a target, that would be helpful, but you’re not gonna kill someone unless it’s a very lucky shot. There’s a reason war bows were such high draw weight, and it wasn’t for piercing plate. More power means more energy retained over distance and more energy delivered to the target. If you’re needing to speed shoot in close quarters in a self defense scenario, you’re probably better off using the bow as a club or stabbing them with an arrow directly. Archers usually carried other weapons for that reason.

You. Don’t. Have. To. Use your car! It’s not being taken away! You will have EASIER access to the roads with less people on them. I’m genuinely dumbfounded by your inability to understand this, or your apparent belief that disabled people either don’t live in or don’t use public transportation in places that have great transport. Seriously. You’re fighting ghosts here with how off the mark you are.

I’m not hateful. The bus stop is never more than a short walk away. If you need a car to go 100 feet, then you shouldn’t be living alone. Do you think every disabled person is stupid? I’m not going to choose an apartment up 3 flights of stairs on the other end of the block from the bus stop. I’m going to use the ADA apartment on the ground floor that is a shorter walk to the bus stop than half the parking lot. If I need to get somewhere that I can’t access with public transportation without excessive walking, I’ll drive or get my fiancee to drive me. I’m sorry you think I’m hateful for sharing my own lived experience. That’s on you for lack of comprehension, not me.

Edit: And again, I USE CARS. I will continue to use cars when necessary. An increase in walkable cities and good public transportation means the roads will be more free for those that need them! It’s just an all around win, even if you absolutely need a car for any form of transport for some odd reason (even those that require a wheelchair use public transport over cars in most cities that have good transportation, because the infrastructure is built with us in mind).

Bus. Tram. Subway. Train. And yes, I do drive if necessary. Walkable does not mean walking is mandatory, and a huge part of the push for a decrease in car only infrastructure is the increase in public transportation. The idea isn’t to remove the ability for cars to exist, but to make other forms of transportation accessible and possible, and make reliance on cars a thing of the past. I don’t know why you’ve got it so wrapped up in your head that cars are going to vanish and we will only be walking, as if there aren’t dozens of other forms of transportation accessible for those of us with disabilities. The time I’ve spent living in places with good public transportation is the most independence and self determination I’ve experienced. I’m not lying, you’re just disingenuous, stupid, or misinformed.

What. Effective public transport and less car centric infrastructure is far and away better for those with mobility issues. Walkable areas does not mean the abolishment of cars, it means more effective use of space and transport. Try visiting Austria or the Netherlands. Getting around is far, FAR easier than any city in the US. I have mobility issues, and require a cane to get around if I’m standing for significant periods, and yet the easiest time I had getting around was the time I spent in Vienna after living in different parts of the US for my whole life.