| T O P I C R E V I E W |
| Dark Cloud |
Posted - July 18 2004 : 09:55:19 AM
This is in reference to Crab's post below, on the 560th page of a thread that's getting too long.
Perhaps at no other losing battle can otherwise sane people look upon a large clump of officers, divorced from their units, gathered about the body of the commander, and ascribe without fail noble motives and deliberate military code adherence and not be laughed at.
After all, officers are supposed to be with their men. Leading their men, actually, and therefore likely to get hit and killed with them.
At no other battle, lost so utterly, would noble motive and deliberate sacrifice be suggested for a man who knew how to spell #1, What's Best For above a column kept updated.
At no other battle is every positive spin given to the officer whose unit died and every negative spin given to those whose units survived, and these by folks wishing for 'the truth.'
Less anyone contend I'm sleazing Custer and the 7th, I've laid out my sloppy theory of what I think was a sloppy battle of short duration and horror and utter collapse.
Of course, annoyingly, there ARE no exact equivilants. But Sedan, the Zulu, and probably a zillion smaller battles in imperial wars don't produce the conflict and need to somehow make this battle of all others unique.
But if most of the officers with Fetterman had been found surrounding him and Brown, with their men's bodies strung out north, I doubt anyone would be suggesting they had assembled to hear the last orders previous to returning to them. Yet, on LSH.....
And if a line of dead soldiers from one unit ended with its officer at the top of a hill at any other battle, who among us would not reasonably conclude that the officer was leading a retreat to high ground and all were killed in line? Who here would actually compose the theory of a 'firing line' to cover the flank of another unit doing much the same thing? Or feel the need to?
I suggested last year on this site that if the commanders of the two units were reversed, and Custer led the charge below and Reno was fumbling for a flank attack as Custer did, with the same results, how would the history be written? Custer would have hit the trees, I think, just as he did at the Yellowstone and for the same reason. Reno would STILL get sneered at for his fiasco while heroic Custer saved his men.
It's not the battle that's as interesting and unique and the fueling motivations that bring this sort of stuff out. To my mind, a lot of poeple have an actual crush on Custer, and it warps their objectivity. |
| 25 L A T E S T R E P L I E S (Newest First) |
| joseph wiggs |
Posted - October 02 2004 : 10:27:24 PM
I realize that you truly believe that you are the grand master of the forum and, as such, your overwhelming desire to dictate who is receiving a rought time and, who is not, is born. It is beyond your limited comprehension that your personal remarks concerning me are inconsequential.
You honestly believe that because a few people grew tired of your crass remarks and, departed from the forum that you possess some delusory power to govern what is to be.
Your resent inane, stupid, and shreaded remarks regarding the Zulu war depicts you as one of the smartest idiots I have ever know.
I say again, I enjoy your comments or I would not be here. However, your remark about Palov's Dog was stunning. I could post the Lord's Prayer and you would leap upon the thread like an insatiable whore looking for a trick. You have followed me around this forum for months as though your very life depended upon it. Sadly, I think it does.
Have you noticed that the more we engage in these taunts the less we hear of the other forum members? Our impoverished diatribes do nothing to enhance the forum. You, of course, do not care. Your ego must be fed. You and Larsen must be one and the same. No two persons could be so alike in vile temperament unless they were created in the same test tube.
I still love you DC, somewhere in that toilet you call a heart beats a turd I'd be proud of.   |
| Dark Cloud |
Posted - September 30 2004 : 10:55:53 PM
You've had a terrible time here, which is why you whine so often, and try to wrap others around you to pretend you're one of many so persecuted. It's only you.
And you respond like Palov's dog, as you do in this latest post, gussied up by emoticons. You seem to have missed some key elements of postings that proved too tiring for you to read. One contributor wondered about your lobotomy, and it wasn't Larsen or I. Go figure. |
| joseph wiggs |
Posted - September 30 2004 : 9:45:40 PM
I have never had a "rough" time here. I have enjoyed every moment of my interaction with the fellow forum members. What a pompous comment by you to assume otherwise. My refusal to respond to your unreasonable, confusing, and unwarranted demands is perfectly normal. Do you honestly believe that the wild and unfounded accusations that you and DC banter about bother me? Understand this, you two are the aberations of this forum. Your incredulous, meretricious behavior is worth the price to pay to be able to exchange thoughts with the many other, adult members of this forum. From these fine people I have learned so much about this topic of interest. From you two I have only seen how not to act. |
| Anonymous Poster8169 |
Posted - September 28 2004 : 4:22:13 PM
quote:
Originally posted by movingrobewoman
I have always maintained that this board is probably the most scholarly and demanding forums in Custeriana. But the discussions are diminished when other posters seek only to question the passion in one's posts and/or any/all sources included within.
It's demanding because people are expected to back up their claims with evidence. Shouldn't be a problem if you're not lazy; if you're the type who prefers to pontificate rather than prove you'll have a rough time here.
R. Larsen
|
| movingrobewoman |
Posted - September 28 2004 : 12:58:28 AM
Joe--
Agreed--rank at this place means nuttin'--unless one has no life except to post. That is not necessarily a bad thing. I have always maintained that this board is probably the most scholarly and demanding forums in Custeriana. But the discussions are diminished when other posters seek only to question the passion in one's posts and/or any/all sources included within. And from that desecrate not only the post but the person who entered it.
For example, I believe 90% of what Van De Water writes ... and should my great-great grandfather might have lived to tell the tale, his interpretation of the Lakota (in the 1850s) might not have been 'peaceful,' but rather self-seeking. I ask all to be fair to both the Native American side of the Little Bighorn and that of the Seventh Cavalry.
Regards and hokahey! |
| joseph wiggs |
Posted - September 27 2004 : 10:48:43 PM
Larsen, I appreciate your efforts to enhace my "rank"
but, unlike you, rank means absolutely nothing to me. Rich spare me Larsen's request. The comradeship of all the wonderful people who post on this forum is my award. This, believe it or not, includes Larsen and Dc. |
| Anonymous Poster8169 |
Posted - September 27 2004 : 6:29:44 PM
quote:
Originally posted by joseph wiggs
Stay tuned for further revelations of wisdom.
Oh joy, more spamming.
Can't Rich just up Wiggs to Commander-in-Chief so we can all be spared his avalanche of witless rank-padding posts?
R. Larsen |
| joseph wiggs |
Posted - September 26 2004 : 10:20:08 PM
I have been very fortunate to discover a heretofore, undiscovered, cache of documents authored by the famous sage, Confucius:
"If one ceases to feed the hungry skunk, he will soon drop his odious redolence elsewhere."
Stay tuned for further revelations of wisdom.  |
| Anonymous Poster8169 |
Posted - September 25 2004 : 12:37:19 AM
quote:
Originally posted by movingrobewoman
Unfortunately, Larson is so caught up in haughty exacting lawyerisms, he neglected to make the most important point--that in this circumstance, Joe, "goal" was prolly not the most fortunate of word choices--in this case, he's taking AWAY from the discussion, rather than ADDING to it.
Wiggs asked whether it was possible the soldiers were chasing the Indian women so they could whore them out. I didn't think his question, phrased so daintily, deserved anything else but ridicule. There was more wrong with it than one mere word: the whole substance was cracked.
R. Larsen
|
| Dark Cloud |
Posted - September 24 2004 : 10:18:59 PM
Again, much of what you say is untrue. That some, including myself, shred you with regularity is in no way an indication of how others are treated. You can't hide within fictional multitudes, Wiggs. It's just you. You're the only one who lies. |
| joseph wiggs |
Posted - September 24 2004 : 8:49:57 PM
I have long ago discarded Larsen's comments as the rattling of a little boy, long lost in a man's world.
Movingrobewoman is quite correct when she suggests a more appropriate term may have been used other than "goal" to define the ulterior motives of some of the troopers, certainly not all of them. A politically correct term such as "side benefit" may have made the message more palatable to the sensitive.
Although, I must say, semantics were of a minor concern to the victims who suffered this injustice. I am certain that there are some who feel that my perceptions are biased, there are a few who may feel I over indulge in "Purple Prose", there may even be a small faction (I hope)that wish I would get of the forum and stay off.
Right or wrong, I appreciate those members who allow me the opportunity to express my perceptions. I thank Movingrobewoman for her thoughtful suggestion. Markland, too, shared his opinion of the "Indian Perspective" with me. BHist, also, offered sound advice which I appreciate. To these wonderful people who are willing to agree to disagree with maturity and consideration concerning topics of discussion, I say thank you again for giving me the oppoutunity to do so.
As for the insignificant, miniscule clique of individuals who are so consumed with the need to taunt, smear, and depreciate the thoughts of others, diminishing the significance of this forum; I offer my sympathy. |
| movingrobewoman |
Posted - September 24 2004 : 2:55:54 PM
quote:
Originally posted by joseph wiggs
Is it possible that a third goal, ensconed in the souls of certain troopers, was to engage in the immoral sampling of the more captivating Indian belles? Such dispicable acts occurred many times before.
Joe:
Rather than using the word "goal" in this circumstance, I would employ the term "side benefit." For a cavalry unit out and about in the wilds of the Dakota/Montana territories, a little illicit, although not technically illicit from the point of view of the Anglo (funny how those Victorian mores didn't apply in the real world) mindset (or ours at the time, either), noogie with a female hostage would be exactly that.
A nice side benefit. But I, crusty old "historical fiction" writer that I am, don't think Custer drove his battalion towards MTC or Ford D thinking: "Well, I haven't gotten any in weeks ..." He was out to accomplish the mission given to him by Terry, or the one many of us think he was assuming--chasing Glory or whatever drove him.
Unfortunately, Larson is so caught up in haughty exacting lawyerisms, he neglected to make the most important point--that in this circumstance, Joe, "goal" was prolly not the most fortunate of word choices--in this case, he's taking AWAY from the discussion, rather than ADDING to it.
LBH is a passionate subject for many of us, especially the Native peoples (of which you are one and I am not) that were both immediately and forever affected by it. It is hard NOT to keep that passion aside--and I can't fault you that.
Hokahey! |
| Anonymous Poster8169 |
Posted - September 24 2004 : 08:13:35 AM
quote:
Originally posted by joseph wiggs
Is it possible that a third goal, ensconed in the souls of certain troopers, was to engage in the immoral sampling of the more captivating Indian belles?
Kids, I'm disappointed. The next time ol' man Wiggs suckers you into his house with chocolate to proof-read another pile of his posts you need to put the rag down on this kind of pseudo-Victorian heavy breathing. This is so dainty it would have made even Little Nell wretch.
R. Larsen
|
| joseph wiggs |
Posted - September 22 2004 : 9:07:30 PM
Undoubtedly, Custer's primary goal was to bring the recalcitrant Indians to bay for immediate transfer to reservations. A secondary goal was to achieve this mission with a minimum lost of life. The warriors would not have endangered the captured women and children by a continued force of issues.
Is it possible that a third goal, ensconed in the souls of certain troopers, was to engage in the immoral sampling of the more captivating Indian belles? Such dispicable acts occurred many times before. |
| movingrobewoman |
Posted - September 22 2004 : 4:03:57 PM
Whoa, Billy ... take a few deep breaths and step away from the screen ...
I agree with you--GAC's sex life doesn't bear any importance at all to the unfolding of the debacle at LBH.
There HAS always been a question (in my mind), however, whether GAC sought to take women hostages either at MTC or Ford D and once in custody, then enjoy the benefits (both martial and physical)they COULD offer. Of course, GAC was probably going for, if that is what was in his mind, children and older males, as well--to be used as a tool to get the "hostiles" back to the Rez, or simply his own survival, if he knew that his battalion was sunk.
Hostages seemed to offer certain conveniences on both sides of the Indian Wars.
Regards,
(I became a sargent yesterday ... unfortunately, the Post Adjutant informs me that according to the Lt. Colonel, I have not yet qualified for housing) |
| BJMarkland |
Posted - September 22 2004 : 05:31:09 AM
Err, guys, we have wandered drastically off-topic. The pros & cons of the FBI are better discussed elsewhere. Custer's love life, or lack thereof, really has no point here either unless we can prove that he and his men were the victims of an angry husband/father and assorted kinfolks.
Best of wishes,
Billy
P.S. Wiggs, don't forget to clean up after yourself. |
| joseph wiggs |
Posted - September 21 2004 : 10:06:52 PM
Excuse me while I regurgitate. |
| alfuso |
Posted - September 21 2004 : 3:49:36 PM
quote:
Originally posted by Dark Cloud
But.....was Custer a man of 'Victorian mores?' Even Victoria wasn't a woman of 'Victorian mores.' She apparently loved sex with Albert, who was the real prude in the bed.
Virtually nobody was, in fact, a Victorian. It's a false image, like Potemkin villages. Men rutted with impunity, homosexual behavior was rife in Europe's militaries, and prostitution was like it's always been: prominent and there. Middle class women were frustrated and ignored and left with their kids all day.
Custer apparently shared affections with any numbers of women in the field and not. These stories don't all come from Benteen. A lovely but pregnant young woman would soon be a compliant and lovely young woman in custody. I have no clue if any of that is true about the two of them, but we can be sure that if Custer wanted her, he'd have her with minimum intrigue and not burdened with guilt or sense of sin.
I was refering mostly to how pregnant women were generally perceived.
I just can't see him humping one. Pregnant women then usually sequestered themselves when they became "gravid" (I daresay, MRW). So, perhaps seeing an obviously well-along young woman, out in the open, so to speak, was a massive turn-on.
I just don't see it, myself.
A lovely and pregnant young woman would soon be a lovely young mother in custody. And she sure does seem to have gotten round the camp. Of course, when you are the Main Man's Main Squeeze, life is good;
as good a reason as any and could be milked for a lot of favors.
|
| alfuso |
Posted - September 21 2004 : 3:41:05 PM
quote:
Originally posted by movingrobewoman
Alfuso--
I'd suggest you learn a little about the meaning of "tongue in cheek" BEFORE you are forced to live the consequences of "foot in mouth."
Regards,
Sorry, deear, I can't understand you when you talk with your mouth full of your foot...
|
| Dark Cloud |
Posted - September 20 2004 : 6:33:46 PM
McVeigh was our Taliban recruit equivilent: young, bored, not seeing much future, might as well kill some people, of whom a few might/sorta/could be construed as responsible in a vague associative way for the things that annoyed him in theory.
Palestinians taking it in the chops from Israel? Kill some Kenyans. Islam not receiving the respect it's due? Kill 3000 Americans. They see no flaw in the logic.
It's quite real to suggest that if any of these guys had had a girlfriend - ever - they might not be so pointlessly and counterproductively violent.
Killing Randy Weaver's kid and wife was awful, and all those kids and parents held against their weak and confused will at Waco burned alive was awful. Nothing for it but to kill a bunch of kindergarten children and utterly innocent Oklahoma office workers to make his .......point. |
| wILD I |
Posted - September 20 2004 : 4:41:20 PM
Interesting DC thanks.
And Timmy McV paid them back?
|
| Dark Cloud |
Posted - September 20 2004 : 12:49:13 PM
Wounded Knee was combat utilizing the 7th Cavalry, a unit wisely chosen as likely to exercise restraint fifteen years after these same Sioux slaughtered killed about two hundred and fifty of them, a hope bolstered by the Regiment still employing many of the same officers and men from LBH.
The 7th was simply dying to open up and return the favor, and to everyone's surprise - in self defense, of course - they did, probably killed more of their own than the Indians during the effort.
Waco involved the ATF and later the FBI, both of whom crowned themselves on international television as incompetent poseurs. They borrowed armored vehicles and advice, but I'm not aware they used the military itself, nor are they referred to as among our military units (armed forces), but supposedly restrained by the shackles of police procedure and civilian law. To this day, I have not heard a convincing explanation as to what they thought they were doing, given they had bugged the compound and could hear everything. Ruby Ridge was another high point for law enforcement.
The FBI has been full of itself for so long that they are often dangerous and incompetent. They're simply too big to be good at everything or, perhaps, anything. Setting aside the pros and cons of white separatist militia criminals (RR) or deranged patriarchal statuatory rapists (Koresh at minimum) armed to the teeth, these operations were just hamfisted and badly done. There were no medical or fire units at Waco brought up till way too late, and a genuine lack of minimal imagination for worst case scenario which, given the children, was very, very bad and very, very real.
My personal suspicion is that they - meaning Director Freeh - took advantage of a new administration to try and score a big propoganda coup at Waco to compensate for RR's dead infant and mother, show up the ATF, and again make a bid for the FBI to control all law enforcement. They still try this, and have teams all over the world while so many things here are bolluxed. Even among those like myself who thought the effort was needed, the level of competence is so low it really defies much comment. |
| wILD I |
Posted - September 20 2004 : 06:30:47 AM
Ok
[but it was a massacre of men,women and children carried out by the armed forces of the US] |
| Dark Cloud |
Posted - September 19 2004 : 3:48:25 PM
No. |
| wILD I |
Posted - September 19 2004 : 2:43:28 PM
Totally off topic but would Waco rank alongside Wounded Knee ? |
|
|
