| T O P I C R E V I E W |
| JakeW |
Posted - November 17 2003 : 5:51:52 PM
What a bunch of bull. I have never heard anything of Russel Means, other than he works for Indian Rights. I read this article today on his view of the Little Bighorn Battle. I must ask the question...what's in his peace pipe?
http://www.gicleeprint.net/gallery/artist.asp?artistid=74
Jake |
| 25 L A T E S T R E P L I E S (Newest First) |
| Anonymous Poster8169 |
Posted - June 21 2004 : 10:43:29 PM
Ducking it in old French Garter mottos is still ducking it. Validate your claims.
R. Larsen |
| joseph wiggs |
Posted - June 21 2004 : 10:28:23 PM
'Honi soit qui mal y pense' |
| Anonymous Poster8169 |
Posted - June 19 2004 : 10:07:20 PM
quote:
Originally posted by joseph wiggs
I realize this post in late in arriving. Somehow I forgot to respond. I am very much bewildered by your inability to understand my comments.
I understand them fine. The problem is they're not true.
quote:
Custer views the village from Sharpshooter ridge, the portion of the village that he observes is deserted. Knowing that Reno is charging, he makes an assumption, a valid one I might Add, the warriors are rushing north to meet Reno, the non-combatants are rushing in the OPPOSITE DIRECTION SEEKING SAFETY. It is at that point that he shouted those famous words. He made these observations himself. The elevantion and distance of Sharpshooter ridge enabled him a much better view then the previous one at the bluffs. He could attack now or delay the attack and capture the fleeing villagers, he chose the latter. Still with me? Good!
You claimed that when Custer said "We caught them napping," he was looking at "hundreds" of fleeing old men and women, etc. What is your evidence for that? What is your evidence that he saw anybody fleeing in the village?
quote:
Shortly thereafter, Custer observes the missing women, children, and old men seeking shelter in ravines, woods, or any place of perceived safety. He needed Benteen's additional troops to effect the capture of such a large group, thus he waited. This question was answered in the previous thread.
No it wasn't. You ducked it, and are still ducking it. You're still claiming that he was looking at fleers when he said those words, and for all your bloviating, have provided no evidence that such is true.
R. Larsen
|
| joseph wiggs |
Posted - June 19 2004 : 9:02:53 PM
I realize this post in late in arriving. Somehow I forgot to respond. I am very much bewildered by your inability to understand my comments. Custer views the village from Sharpshooter ridge, the portion of the village that he observes is deserted. Knowing that Reno is charging, he makes an assumption, a valid one I might Add, the warriors are rushing north to meet Reno, the non-combatants are rushing in the OPPOSITE DIRECTION SEEKING SAFETY. It is at that point that he shouted those famous words. He made these observations himself. The elevantion and distance of Sharpshooter ridge enabled him a much better view then the previous one at the bluffs. He could attack now or delay the attack and capture the fleeing villagers, he chose the latter. Still with me? Good!
Shortly thereafter, Custer observes the missing women, children, and old men seeking shelter in ravines, woods, or any place of perceived safety. He needed Benteen's additional troops to effect the capture of such a large group, thus he waited. This question was answered in the previous thread. |
| Anonymous Poster8169 |
Posted - May 24 2004 : 10:45:32 AM
quote:
Originally posted by joseph wiggs
R. larsen, you are correct regarding Sgt. Martini's testimony. Not once did he say that hundreds of women and children were fleeing north away from Reno's charge. Martini, a resent immigrant from Italy with a weak command of the English lanquage and a limited comprehension of military tactics would not possess the knowledge to process the information that lay before him. In other words, a village devoid of warriors was highly unusual and can be best explained as a result of Reno's charge, and their response to that charge.
Where are the "hundreds" of fleeing old men, women and children that Custer supposedly saw when he said "We caught them napping"?
R. Larsen
|
| joseph wiggs |
Posted - May 23 2004 : 9:01:12 PM
R. larsen, you are correct regarding Sgt. Martini's testimony. Not once did he say that hundreds of women and children were fleeing north away from Reno's charge. Martini, a resent immigrant from Italy with a weak command of the English lanquage and a limited comprehension of military tactics would not possess the knowledge to process the information that lay before him. In other words, a village devoid of warriors was highly unusual and can be best explained as a result of Reno's charge, and their response to that charge. A short time later, the General's suspicions were confirmed from atop Weir Point or Sharp Shooter Ridge (the actual point of this observation is vague)when his appearence caused further consternation and mass flight of noncombatants. This exodus was confirmed by Indian statements. |
| Anonymous Poster8169 |
Posted - May 22 2004 : 5:58:55 PM
quote:
Originally posted by joseph wiggs
[brHis view was What he did observe at this point is very telling. Hundreds of Indian old men, women, and children were fleeing north away from the approach of Reno, and no warriors were in sight. They had, obviously, rushed south to meet Reno.
Joseph, how do you know Custer observed this?
Martin, who is in some way or another the source for the "napping" quip, said that at that point the village was quiet: "There were no bucks to be seen; all we could see was some squaws and children playing and a few dogs and ponies" (Graham 290). He testified in almost the exact same words at the Reno Court of Inquiry. He said nothing, nothing at all, of seeing anybody in flight, let alone "hundreds" of old men, women, and whatever else you could fit into the grab bag.
Joseph, just which part of your anatomy did you pull this "telling" sight out of?
R. Larsen
|
| joseph wiggs |
Posted - May 22 2004 : 4:37:52 PM
"We've caught then napping boys!"
Needless to say, we can not know for a fact exactly what General Custer meant when he shouted those immortal words. We can, however, speculate as to what he may have meant. Upon arriving upon the bluffs that Reno would later occupy, Custer's view encompassed the southern portion of the village, in the valley below. His view was obstructed to his south by dense trees and foilage. The same held true in a northern direction which restricked his view of the northern end of the village. These points are important in that they prevent Custer from realizing two critical facts; Reno's current position(now heading toward the southern portion of the village)and, the actual length of the village. What he did observe at this point is very telling. Hundreds of Indian old men, women, and children were fleeing north away from the approach of Reno, and no warriors were in sight. They had, obviously, rushed south to meet Reno. Thus Custer surmised his ability to capture the unprotected, non-combatants which would render the warriors helpless. They would not endanger the safety of thier families by attacking soldiers who held their loved ones hostage. In other words, the plan worked boys, they fell for it. They went for my feint of Reno's charge while we will sweep down into the village and grab up the women and children. Like I said, we can only speculate. |
| lorenzo G. |
Posted - May 07 2004 : 12:08:36 PM
Well I can't really say what I think of Means thoughts, would be too heavy for a public forum. Political reasons, however, would have never to miss the respect of death soldiers .. . |
| Heavyrunner |
Posted - May 06 2004 : 2:53:44 PM
Most of what Russell Means says has political reasoning behind it. He may represent AIM, but he does not represent tribes nor their government. He is not considered a leader in Indian Country. Leaders are elected by their respective tribes. |
| joseph wiggs |
Posted - May 03 2004 : 9:45:29 PM
Immediately after the battle of the Little Big Horn, public opinion demanded than an explanation be found to explain how a group of savage, aboriginals could defeat the elite 7th. Calvary. This ethnocentric attitude is sad, but somewhat understandable when one considers the culture mores of the nineteenth century. Then comes Mr. Means, a product of the twentieth century, an era of enlightenment, man conquering space, education, and the wondrous start of a new Millennium, what says he? "Two hundred and fifty Indians" destroyed Custer's troops piecemeal. To address that ludicrous statement would tend to give it merit, and that I will not do. To all who understand the tragic loss of both troopers and warriors who loss their lives in this epic battle, let us press on for the truth. Let us not be influenced by the egomanic ravings of a celebrity want to be. |
| JakeW |
Posted - January 16 2004 : 12:46:20 AM
Sorry everyone for not to responding to this sooner but I have not been at this computer since early December. I know this reply is about a month overdue, but here goes.
Bad Eagle.....I think ya looked at that quote a little too hard, for a little too long. How did you get a hidden message out of that???
All that quote was meant for was a wee bit of humor. Think of it like this. Custer, one minute hollering out "We've got 'em napping boys" Then, the next minute the bugler is sounding retreat. Famous last words right? No hidden political message here.
This entire thread was not started by me to bash native americans either. It began because I came upon this horrible bag of lies being told about the little bighorn by Russel Means. No more, no less.
I visit this board because I have a keen interest in the little bighorn....not to send out whatever political messages. That is absurd.
I will be back online Sunday evening to reply to any new posts. So until then, I bid farewell.
Jake (who personally finds his quote amusing) |
| Dark Cloud |
Posted - December 27 2003 : 2:31:22 PM
The adaptation of defeated cultures is one of the most fascinating aspects of history. The 'Babylonian' method was to become such suck-ups to authority that they lasted as a city WAY past their highwater mark as a culture. By the time of the Macedonian invasion, the phrase 'Babylonian' sounds like a synonym for 'obsequious.'
The Scots, on the other hand, got whumped every bit as bad as the Native Americans. Worse, in some regards, better in others. But those who joined the British Empire tossed away much of their past and became more British than the British. All of western Canada is named for highland Scots, with whom the natives felt a kindred spirit, since the Scots surely knew what it was like to be defeated by a superior culture that viewed them as dirt. They were thrown off their land, forbidden the clothing and instruments of their culture and sent to America or Australia.
Yet, in America, the winners of our conflicts impose a spiritual superiority on the losers. Our first two wars with England were followed by intense anglophilia, even our defeat of Japan was followed by an huge increase in valuation of all things Oriental, from food to karate. We elevated the Confederates to the point where you'd think Lee won and was our greatest general, and that it really wasn't about slavery.
We cannot admit to ourselves, and the Indians cannot admit, that they were conquered in a war for land rather easily, given the huge amount. What is painfully obvious is that the Indians could have stopped it at several junctures had they been willing to work together which, contrary to New Age rah-rah, was not a criteria for manhood in those so patriarchal and stone age cultures.
It would have been far better if we'd never pretended that Indians are a sovereign people, when they clearly are not. Most of all, it would have been better for the Indians as well, rather than this pretend legal existence. |
| Bad Eagle |
Posted - December 16 2003 : 9:00:05 PM
Who's the actual Native American willing to work for Indians? I missed that. I hope you don't mean Bill Clinton, who claimed his grandmother was part Cherokee...Ha.
Anyway, All thinking Indians are very concerned about what to do for the future. Indeed. We awake from our nap, and the enemy is at the door! It's going to take some quick thinking, fast moving, and strong will to get through this. They want to dissolve the reservations and Indian identity altogether. No more legal status as an Indian. We have a tremendous challenge before us.
Bu the same toekn, for me, self-esteem is not derived from what someone else things of me. The modern Indian leadership (since AIM) has always approached Indian problems with that precise idea that self-esteem IS derived from other people's image and impression of you. Thus, they concentrate on media images, mascots, titles, names, etc. They want respect. They want Indians to be respected.
Obviously there is merit in that, but, it is based on weakness. It is based on the idea that my feelings are dependent on what someone else thinks of me. These leaders teach Indians to be weak, in my opinion.
Our warrior image shows strength. That's why white people like it so much. That's why the world likes it. But the Indian leaders think it is an insult, and denigrating. Lowers "self-esteem."
Anyway, by the same token, it shouldn't matter one way or another to us, whatever our image is. It should be determined by ourselves, from within. No? |
| movingrobewoman |
Posted - December 16 2003 : 10:26:51 AM
I can certainly understand the irony of Custer's last statement (Although I had always heard that was his statement at Was*hita ... but I digress). What I find to be one of the annoying aspects of being a NA in an Anglo world is the easy temptations of today's society that are pulling you away from your upbringing and people. Despite the sacred nature of our lands, who really wants to live in a trailer, often in deplorable conditions, when you can drive 250 miles to Phoenix and live in relative comfort? Is there some kind of plot out there to make life off the Rez so wonderful that we have no choice but to give in to modern life, which lowers our cultural identity as a people and a political entity? I remember the last presidential election with some horror, how the campaign was so thrilled to have an ACTUAL NATIVE AMERICAN willing to work for them--it kind of made me reflect on how unaware we are as a people of our potential power, a power that is lost to our addictions, urban society, and how the issue of gambling seems to be such an easy fix and rarely is ...
I am not napping anymore!
Yatah'eey!
Moving Robe Chick |
| Bad Eagle |
Posted - December 15 2003 : 4:25:28 PM
Well, I really didn't mean to close down the topic with a simple question or two. Irony is the name of the game when talking about Indian country.
Personally, I do think Indians are napping. Our general refusal to become politically involved will one day result in a lot of new laws against Indian sovereignty, for instance. We do have some good Indian leaders, but, as a whole, Indian people aren't active in politics.
In this day and age, I think that's napping. Or worse, burying our heads in the sand, as if we can ignore the threats, and everything is going to be fine.
|
| Anonymous Poster8169 |
Posted - December 12 2003 : 3:43:35 PM
quote:
Originally posted by Bad Eagle
JakeW, I'm curious about your quote, "We've Caught'em Napping Boys!" What exactly do you see as the significance of such a quote, the way you're using it? Indian indifference, disinterest, carelessness?
Today, what shall the meaning of this quote be? Do you feel Indians are napping again, whilst the conservatives plot the dissolution of Indian sovereignty? Or whilst the liberals use Indians to disguise their anti-American, communist agenda? Most Indians invest in neither Rebublican nor Democrat politics, though most that do vote vote Democrat. Sherman Alexi says Indians are red neck conservatives by nature, and the casino enterprise just shows complete assimilation.
Well, quotes are easy to make. Who knows what the person really meant who made the remarks?
Jake probably just finds irony funny.
R. Larsen
|
| Bad Eagle |
Posted - December 11 2003 : 12:47:02 PM
JakeW, I'm curious about your quote, "We've Caught'em Napping Boys!" What exactly do you see as the significance of such a quote, the way you're using it? Indian indifference, disinterest, carelessness?
Today, what shall the meaning of this quote be? Do you feel Indians are napping again, whilst the conservatives plot the dissolution of Indian sovereignty? Or whilst the liberals use Indians to disguise their anti-American, communist agenda? Most Indians invest in neither Rebublican nor Democrat politics, though most that do vote vote Democrat. Sherman Alexi says Indians are red neck conservatives by nature, and the casino enterprise just shows complete assimilation.
Well, quotes are easy to make. Who knows what the person really meant who made the remarks? |
| Wrangler |
Posted - November 22 2003 : 10:08:38 PM
Like most of those who write or speak about the Campaign of 1876, Means is long on opinions and short on footnotes. |
| JakeW |
Posted - November 19 2003 : 09:00:05 AM
No, I did not set up this thread so that we could discuss all of Means' views in politics. The only reason I placed it up here was to give some folks a good laugh. That's deffinately what I got when I stumbled onto the website!
Then I seriously wondered if he had let his little "secret" be publicly known. I think as more was posted, the more I stared in disbelief and disgust at some of things he has come out with....but oh well.
Sorry if this got off topic.....I'll end this thread now. Thanks for all who replied though, I deffinately learned something.
Jake |
| Dark Cloud |
Posted - November 18 2003 : 8:16:28 PM
You can yell at me. I'm well weathered.
I was talking about that screed. Means shows up wherever there's a camera likely to focus on him, agreed. I don't disagree at all with your take on him. I know lawyers who've been on the same legal side as Means and others of AIM who physically recoil at the memory of those guys. I know people who, if anything, think worse of him than you do, who were once friends.
But what I was dreading was a thread dedicated to vivisecting Means point by point. He couldn't possibly believe ninety percent of the crap he says, and it gains gravitas simply by being addressed. He's an elderly punk - not without merit sometimes - but his time and methods are counterproductive now, and gone. Indians often have both key votes and campaign cash, as we've recently seen in California, to which both political parties open their arms and scream "HELLOOOOO Sailor!!!" Who imagined such thirty years ago?
My God, the Wampanoags in Massachusetts where I'm from originally now have casinos on their reservations. I lived there twenty years and never knew they were still around as a tribe, much less owned land. Good on em. Shows what I know. My entire knowledge of them was pretty much encapsulated in the Wamsutta Club we belonged to.
It's ironic, but the wealth generated by gambling has given a substance to many - not all - Indian tribes that has sometimes promoted a more democratic and inclusive tribal government (easier when wealthy). It makes Means and AIM seem very dated to the young. Irrelevant, even.
I think he takes perverse pride in being a pain for pain's sake. Go figure. But as you yourself say, he played a role.
Anyway, thought it a mistake to dwell on it. Yet, here I am...... |
| bhist |
Posted - November 18 2003 : 3:57:57 PM
quote:
Originally posted by Dark Cloud
.
Means will do and say anything to get public opinion on the the plight of his people. And yes, himself, but what politico is absolved of that? Let it go.
I've always laughed at Mean's interpretations of the LBH battle and shrugged it off. I hope I don't sound defensive and I'm not when I say to you, DC that you're wrong here.
Means did not go to the LBH and lead the demonstrations to rouse Custer buffs in order to get media attention. The media did not follow him to LBH in June 1988 to capture the disgust of Custer buffs. They followed him with dreams of documenting another take-over of Wounded Knee as his group did in the 1970s. A man of your intelligence should know this.
You'll notice that the section of the Friends website covering Mean's speech during the memorial dedication discusses his lies about the NPS, not the battle. When the SOB Means perpetuates lies regarding the NPS then I will not go unnoticed.
|
| movingrobewoman |
Posted - November 18 2003 : 3:43:18 PM
I understand what DC is trying to get at. There seems to come to a point in all discussions dedicated to LBH where some people, working under the guise that they are the "experts", "uberbuffs", and "keepers of the Custer faith", become abusive to posters that do not retain their beliefs, their politics, their whatevers. It becomes tiring to see 80% of any thread fall into these petty squabbles of "I know" what really happened at an event NONE of us were alive for, with a Custer we will NEVER know, and against Native Americans, who because they hadn't invented the wheel, deserved their fate. I am aware this also happens with the so-called phobes, but at least their contempt for GAC and his legions of philes is a mite obvious.
I do not admire Russell Means at all--though he has brought NA affairs to the forefront from time to time. I think AIM is anti-Semitic, and Means is a believer in "do as I say, don't do as I do," as his legal problems on the Navajo have recently testified ...
None of us have the knowledge to completely judge what happened that day in June. We may get close, we may not ... but because someone disagrees, is that a reason to pull out the personality stun gun? It just gets really tiring after a while ...
movingrobechick |
| Dark Cloud |
Posted - November 18 2003 : 3:33:58 PM
Goodness, Frank. Again with the tantrum and emoticons. I doubt these guys are the delicate flowers you seem to feel they are to need your protection.
While I'm sure I have many inadequacies, stomping people into the ground wouldn't mean much, and in any case I could do a far better job if so inclined. I'm saying that to the American public, stoic Indians on one side and guys gussied up as soldiers on the other is a slam dunk for Indians no matter the issue between them. It's the image they present. May not be true in Montana, but it is nationally.
Means is playing for attention and the way to win is not to give it to him. Treat him as an amusing eccentric: politely, graciously, 'what an interesting thought!' and he'll go through the roof. If people read his stuff and list and prove wrong all his points, he's still won. And I can see that train abuilding here. Just ignore this. It's what he hates most. |
| frankboddn |
Posted - November 18 2003 : 10:31:12 AM
 black cloud, you sure have it in for middle-aged white guys playing cowboys and Indians, don't you? It tells us a lot about your pathetic life that you have to demean anyone who has a real passion for the subject. Ever been to a renaissance fair? A Civil War reenactment? Older veterans in their uniforms celebrating veterans day or anniversaries of Iwo Jima or D-Day? You must really get a kick out of thd DAR. You insult people to cover up your own inadequacies. You need a new hobby or profession. Maybe a leftwing talkshow host to compete with Bill the bully O'Reilly? Have a nice day. |
|
|
