A Misplaced Massacre: Struggling over the Memory of Sand Creek
On November 29, 1864, over 150 Native Americans, mostly women, children, and elderly, were slaughtered in one of the most infamous cases of state-sponsored violence in U.S. history. Kelman examines how generations of Americans have struggled with the question of whether the nation’s crimes, as well as its achievements, should be memorialized.
That Pedro had celebrated the 9/11 hijackers, labeling the destruction of the Twin Towers just deserts for a nation responsible for the violence at Sand Creek. Janet Frederick countered that Pedro had only suggested that having experienced the horror of 9/11, white Americans might be able to empathize with the plight of Cheyenne and Arapaho people affected by the massacre. Regardless, as Alexa Roberts prepared to leave at the end of the panel, Chuck Bowen confronted her. He accused Roberts, who.
The tribal council to banish Sonntag from the reservation. When the council failed to act, Brady and several other society men reportedly scooped the doctor into a van, whisked him off Northern Cheyenne land, and informed him that he was not welcome back. Sonntag ignored the warning and pressed charges against Brady. As the historic site readied to open, a judge in Montana considered the case.74 Almost three years before that, at one of the Sand Creek consultation meetings held on the Northern.
To do with Sand Creek,” they stated flatly. Colleen Cometsevah also claimed that the Ridgelys had “no real oral histories because their people weren’t even there.” The Cometsevahs even suggested that the Arapahos had no historical identity distinct from the Cheyennes. The former had always orbited around the latter, the Cometsevahs said. The Arapahos were “pests,” Laird and Colleen Cometsevah charged. These claims infuriated the Ridgelys. And when Laird Cometsevah thundered that the Northern.
Called traitors by the Cometsevahs. By January 2000, they were so angry that they walked out of meetings if they believed the Cometsevahs had insulted them. Coincidentally, Rick Frost decided at that time to update Senator Campbell about the NPS’s preliminary conclusions. Frost’s letter focused on the prospective historic site’s expansive boundaries, skirting the village controversy by noting that the search team had “not yet fully concurred on the precise locations” of some of the massacre’s.
Deeply distrustful of the federal government, the NPS had its work cut out for it.57 Having just finished an eighteen-month sprint, Rick Frost and his colleagues were exhausted. But they had no time to rest. The deadline for their report to Congress loomed only months ahead. With the search team still bitterly divided, Christine Whitacre faced pressure to produce a document that would satisfy all comers—or at least avoid stoking additional conflict. What to do in such a moment? Throw a party, of.