(Tatanka Yotanka; in English, Sitting Bull; Grand River., 1834 - Fort Yates, id., 1890) Hunkpapa Lakota leader. As a young man he was part of the akicita (secret society) Brave Hearts, and gained fame for his deeds, which made him one of the most important Lakota leaders, strong defender of the ancient customs during the struggle of his people against American colonialism.
Sitting Bull formed cross-tribal alliances in his efforts to resist the process of colonization. Sitting Bull also steadfastly refused to become dependent on aid from the U.S. government.
On June 25th, 1876, Colonel Custer and his forces were wiped out at the battle of Little Big Horn. Sitting Bull did not take part in the battle, but acted as a kind of spiritual leader to those who did, performing the Sun Dance, in which he fasted and sacrificed over 100 pieces of flesh from his arms, a week prior.
In response, the U.S. government sent thousands more soldiers to the area, forcing many of the Lakota to surrender over the next year. Sitting Bull refused to surrender, and in May 1877, he led his band north to Wood Mountain, North-West Territories (now Saskatchewan). He remained there until 1881, when he and most of his band returned to U.S. territory and surrendered to U.S. forces.
In 1890, due to fears that Sitting Bull would use his influence to support the Ghost Dance movement (a movement of indigenous resistance), Indian Service agent James McLaughlin ordered his arrest. Early in the morning of December 15th, 39 police officers and four volunteers approached Sitting Bull's house. The camp awakened and men began to converge at the scene.
When Sitting Bull refused to comply, the police used force on him, enraging members of the village. Catch-the-Bear, a Lakota, shouldered his rifle and shot one of the Indian agents, who reacted by firing his revolver into the chest of Sitting Bull, killing him.
In 1953, his Lakota family exhumed what were believed to be his remains, reburying them near Mobridge, South Dakota, near his birthplace.
Megathreads and spaces to hang out:
- ❤️ Come listen to music and Watch movies with your fellow Hexbears nerd, in Cy.tube
- 💖 Come talk in the New Weekly Queer thread
- 💛 Read and talk about a current topics in the News Megathread
- 💚 Come and talk in the Daily Bloomer Thread
- ⭐️ September Movie Nominations ⭐️
reminders:
- 💚 You nerds can join specific comms to see posts about all sorts of topics
- 💙 Hexbear’s algorithm prioritizes comments over upbears
- 💜 Sorting by new you nerd
- 🌈 If you ever want to make your own megathread, you can reserve a spot here nerd
- 🐶 Join the unofficial Hexbear-adjacent Mastodon instance toots.matapacos.dog
Links To Resources (Aid and Theory):
Aid:
Theory:
You can criticize the spending priorities of the USSR if you want but that’s massively missing the point of the book to the point where I think you should read it.
The methodology of central planning does work, and currently is working is basically the only important point the book makes.
Central planning is agnostic to politics in the same way a lottery is. It’s a mathematical tool for optimizing inputs and outputs towards a desired goal. It doesn’t define what that goal is in any way at all is also a point made in the book that is very accurate so criticizing the book on the basis that you disagree with the goals assigned to central planning by the USSR is just… what are you even talking about?
The book can be summarized as this: (1) a price signal isn’t required to optimize production and in fact leads to inefficiencies, (2) the allocative efficiency achieved by central planning is probably greater than the allocative efficiency achieved by a market system, (3) the mathematics of central planning, the impact of points 1 and 2, means that central planning methods outcompete the mathematics of dynamic market systems within capitalist systems - using Walmart (internally planned) vs Sears (internally competitive markets) as the titular case study.
The rest of the book is providing examples to illustrate the above points.
Central planning is a tool for achieving allocative efficiency. It doesn’t provide goals, it achieves them. So criticizing it on the basis of quibbles with the assigned goals is actually nonsensical and you should read the book.
what are you talking about? why are you giving me a review of my comment where i state that my only way to express my thoughts without being misleading is my own review?
My review of your comment: 1 / 5 stars
well consider it an IOU, I will answer your questions
your description of the book is accurate but if you tell me i didn't read it bc i didn't like it i'm just like ugh
for one, "the rest of the book is just examples" does a LOT OF WORK lol
The reason it feels like you didn’t read it is that your criticism seems to be based on eurocentrism and the spending priorities of the USSR which is extremely tangential to the point of irrelevancy to the argument of the book which is mostly about how linear programming is used successfully and defeats market mechanisms in competitive environments.
It’s vague as fuck and when pressed on this you just say “IOU a review” as though you simply can’t right now while also responding to every reply multiple times which looks like you don’t have a review yet due to not having actually read it.
Eurocentrism is really not tangential to what the book is discussing. I have assigned myself something meaty. I did mention in another comment I'm glad that people are looking for books that debunk the right wing propaganda about central planning. I think the book is not a great example.
To play extremely fast and loose here some of the reasons the book is unsatisfying to me are shared by Graeber's Bullshit Jobs - and I like a lot of Graeber's stuff, I like most of the paper the book is based on
I'm not discarding my implied implications on you all. I'm actually issuing an IOU for the review. If anyone wants to make fun of me for commenting tomorrow having not delivered, well, I'll try to deliver to avoid that, it's fair game.
@420stalin69@hexbear.net my aside about the USSR was related to $72B's reply where he mentioned the book's flimsy takes there, basically just saying "no, I'm going to be even more annoying than that"