In support of investigating and opening an official inquiry into the Medals of Honor given to the United States soldiers who participated in the Wounded Knee Massacre of 1890.
If enacted, SR701 would not change state laws directly, but it could prompt further discussions and action on how historical military recognition is viewed, particularly in the context of indigenous rights and historical accountability. The resolution seeks to ensure that the acts of genocide committed at Wounded Knee are not obscured by military honors given to the perpetrators. By calling for this inquiry, the resolution aims to hold the U.S. government accountable for its actions against the Lakota people, which could have broader implications on how such historical injustices are addressed at national levels.
Senate Resolution 701 (SR701) addresses the historical injustices related to the Wounded Knee Massacre of 1890, where U.S. soldiers killed hundreds of unarmed Lakota people. The resolution calls for an investigation into the Medals of Honor awarded to soldiers for their actions during this massacre. The resolution emphasizes that the recognition of these soldiers undermines the honor associated with the Medal of Honor and represents an affront to the Great Sioux Nation and the victims of the violence. SR701 aims to initiate a formal inquiry into these awards and seeks support from federal representatives, including South Dakota’s congressional delegation and President Biden.
The general sentiment surrounding SR701 is one of support for justice and recognition of historical wrongs. Advocates of the resolution view it as a necessary step towards rectifying the narrative surrounding the Wounded Knee Massacre and shedding light on the implications of honoring those who committed acts of violence against innocent civilians. However, there may be dissent from those who believe that military honors should not be revoked, reflecting a division in perspectives regarding the interpretation of historical events and how they should be commemorated.
Notable points of contention include the interpretations of honor associated with the Medal of Honor and the broader implications of recognizing historical atrocities. Some may argue that such inquiries could present challenges to existing military honors and complicate contemporary views on heroism and valor. Additionally, the resolution might elicit contentious debates around national identity, the acknowledgment of historical grievances by indigenous communities, and the significant repercussions these dialogues could invoke for both military and indigenous relations.