| T O P I C R E V I E W |
| Dark Cloud |
Posted - March 26 2005 : 2:24:20 PM
This, I doubt, will enthrall many or any of you, but worth a shot.
I’ve tried pointing out that several of the Custer scenes in popular memory (primarily the presentation of the corpse, a ‘last stand’, he is the last to die, the saber, his wave to Reno…) are, coincidently or not, recognition scenes that appeal to memories of other, loftier deaths of fact or fiction. It’s my shared theory that, especially in the Victorian Era and later through WWI and Mallory on Everest and the all the polar expeditions, familiar religious or heroic secular templates are applied to actual events, and that this can, intentionally or not, provide historic error.
This was utilized by the press, obviously, because they generally could have no clue about details for weeks and felt the need to say something, anything. They could rewrite old myths and insert new names.
I think it’s more than possible these templates were utilized by soldiers and other participants of the battle or after describing the various scenes because they felt it was their duty to do so and - because they were caught on a historical cusp with media and technology - what started out as an attempt at civil etiquette caught them in controversy they had zero desire and no expectation to visit again and again.
This applies as well to the presentations of the Sioux, where it remains in the contentions that there were leaders comparable to the soldier’s sense, and that Gall was such a leader (Wild still refers to this, and it’s been proven wrong, last I read), and that feudal ideals of nobility and heroism motivated both sides. Rain’s contention that Moving Robe fought as a warrior, the supposed mass knowledge of disaster at the moment it happened in all the Indians in the West, all that sort of stuff has roots in European myth and legend as well.
So. What, if any, recognition scenes are suggested to you, and does that wobble your theories or affect them when considering “testimony?” |
| 25 L A T E S T R E P L I E S (Newest First) |
| Dark Cloud |
Posted - February 15 2006 : 11:08:12 AM
Exactly. That's a perfect, and timely, example of how this worked. There were roles and everyone understood them. Nobody screamed "You can't HANDLE the truth...." but that was the subtext. And ironically to us, this was not perceived as a lie or delusional: it was assumed the truth was suspected if not known, and it was play that had to be performed, a cleansing ritual. What happened at the LBH was that Benteen and Reno got caught in media res as the templates were changing, at least in the U.S.
It really is necessary to read the popular and the then still-read and memorized classic lit of the time, and you can see so much of Custerland is so clearly derived from it, which makes a lot suspicious when you try to overlay CSI precision to it a century or more later. These are all death scenes of Saints and Grail heroes, Roland and Percival with the elevated prose and text of KJ's Bible. |
| wILD I |
Posted - February 15 2006 : 10:27:12 AM
Did we mention the most distressful and unfortunate demise of Louis Napoleon?Vern mentioned the incident on another thread and I just thought we could add it to our collection.
Louis while out with a small escort drawing and painting was jumped by an number of the locals.The escort being aware of what would happen if you had the misfortune to become aquainted with the Zulu bolted leaving master Louis to his fate.
Louis was however recognised by these savages as being like our hero Custer of a superior species and thus spared him the mutilation that was visited upon his comrades.When the rescue party recovered his body they noticed how calm and peaceful his features were.At least that is what the War Department told his mammy. |
| Dark Cloud |
Posted - December 07 2005 : 6:02:17 PM
ON the LBHA forum, they've discovered a newspaper clipping from Scotland about the battle. Read in reflection of this thread. Note the author right off tries to implant the Light Brigade motif with "Custer's 600" and the descriptions of line behind line falling till at the end, with a picked group of Finalists, Custer is killed, etc. etc. He doesn't mean, or expect his audience to care, there were actually lines behind lines as if a square. It's a literary template, and he's shifting the LBH into it.
It's this misunderstood and unappreciated series of literary recognition scenes that so many Custerphiles take literally, but that wasn't the intent. |
| Dark Cloud |
Posted - August 17 2005 : 03:00:11 AM
For those who claim this entire line of thinking balderdash, please read A Soldier's Faith by OW Holmes, Jr., three times wounded and decorated vet of the CW, son of the great poet, and Associate Justice of the Supreme Court. From the speech:
From the beginning, to us, children of the North, life has seemed a place hung about by dark mists, out of which comes the pale shine of dragon's scales and the cry of fighting men, and the sound of swords. Beowolf, Milton, Durer, Rembrandt, Schopenhauer, Turner, Tennyson, from the first war song of the race to the stall-fed poetry of modern English drawing rooms, all have had the same vision, and all have had a glimpse of a light to be followed. "The end of wordly life awaits us all. Let him who may, gain honor ere death. That is best for a warrior when he is dead." So spoke Beowolf a thousand years ago.
This is not Walt Whitman or some la di dah interior decorator. This is a multitime decorated soldier who loved being one, and was good at it. His credentials are impeccable.
The full speech: http://harvardregiment.org/holmesfa2.htm
The scenes of the literary classics are the ones people like Holmes yearned to reenact, and they are the ones that framed the debate about Custer. The Last Stand, the brothers in death, the unblemished corpse, the Lone Survivor, these were well known literary traditions, not CSI truths, and it's a bit much to seriously believe these terrific scenes took place on LSH and vicinity in actuality. When you've read these classics and note their presence in the Custer tales, you need to adjust a large keg of salt on your shoulder and become a bit more cancerous in your thinking. |
| Dark Cloud |
Posted - June 08 2005 : 4:14:51 PM
1. "If you know of an instance please let me know. Every facet of the event is subject to speculation." I gave you one: the Last Stand....
2. Benteen's story doesn't conflict with a last stand, which is not a racial thing given it appears in several European stories and histories, of which I gave you a recent example to LBH.
3. "Anything processed by memory is fiction." Example? The number of Titanic survivors - over half - who assured the world the ship went down whole. Good hearts and loving family does not equal truth. NO Indian panicked and ran? Unlikely, being human. Plus, their stories conflict. And what indications we have of their stories is far, often quite far, from first hand.
4. I never said people were trained to believe in a cause, although that happens during every single war. When something new and vaguely traumatic happens, people think of it along the lines they were taught to think of similar, sorta, issues. Back then, there wasn't a whole lot of variation available, and stronger common frames of reference. They read poetry - a lot - and they sang the same songs without change for years and Cooper's books were still considered accurate and valid even if novels....till Twain.
5. I know you think it sounds impressive, but convenient, uplifting stories are not the essence of humanity, itself undefined. The Norse legends, which motivated Europe for years, were anything but, given the good guy gods know they will lose to the evil giants and then hell breaks out until the One remakes all things. You're going to die a violent, bloody death soon to no actual purpose, kids. Nighty night, see you at breakfast.
6. Wiggs, I didn't say that. Do you realize I didn't say that? How can I then be correct for something I didn't say, don't understand, and so probably don't agree with?
7. No, it's a mess. A mass of contradictory and befuddling information highly unlikely to be true in any great detail since it all too conveniently reflected then current popular literature and the classics. If the media wrote about Iraq using scenes and dialogue precis from Revenge of the Sith, wouldn't we have a right to be suspicious? Well, why don't you about the LBH? Because you'd be hard put to name a popular book of the decade in which Custer died. We have Google - don't look them up and list them - but read some AND the classics like Jack (Hinton?), the Guardsman which was a favorite of Keogh and Custer, their Star Wars. I haven't, and likely won't, but I'd bet you can find indications of it in Custer's writings. This is the stuff that affects what was written as much as how. |
| joseph wiggs |
Posted - June 07 2005 : 10:57:10 PM
quote:
Originally posted by Dark Cloud
The story of the LBH is rife with likely fiction, or at least unprovable stories that have become accepted as fact. For all anyone knows, when the cavalry got to the top of LSH the men and horses were shot by the Indians and fell in a clump, and the whole image of soldiers shooting their mounts didn't happen and an organized stand is a myth. Custer's horse, by one account, was seen dead as if shot running.
I truly can not think of one "unprovable" story regarding this battle that has been accepted, by anyone of genuine sense, as fact. Many authors, students of the battle, and regular Joe's have come up with various scenarios, but none of them have claimed their theories to be "fact." If you know of an instance please let me know. Every facet of the event is subject to speculation.
D.c.
There is an obvious and sometimes admitted need for a Last Stand, but there's no actual evidence for one above other possible scenarios.
Every serious student of this battle has come to the absolute realization that the "Last Stand" credo has long been discovered to be a non-existent scenario that was created by a public need to glorify the unanticipated demise of "white" troops by "Red" savages in the nineteenth century. The battle, according to Benteen, was a complete rout from start to finish. I agree with him.
D.c.
There is absolutely NO first hand evidence from the Indians. This doesn't mean that they lied or fabricated, but none wrote down their views, or spoke English themselves and gave interviews right after, and we don't know the translators, or their competencies.
Despite your insistence that we do not know the identity of translators and their worth;we do. It is common knowledge that many translators were incompetent, inept, and irresponsible. However, due to the superior investigative techniques of numerous investigators in the battle, we know that there were translators who were honorable, certified, and honest individuals who possessed the intellect and knowledge to speak the truth. There are no absolutes in life (other than dieing) every translator of this era could not be AABSOLUTELY corrupt or ignorant. Every Indian warrior who died in that battle had a first hand accounted about his death committed to memory by those who loved him and mourned his passing.
D.c.
Periodically we're assured so and so translated and he's believable, but there is no standard for that claim.
I have always been stunned by the egomania of contemporaneous man who insist that historical personages be held to and made accountable to the standards of today. Arbitrary standards that did not even exist in the past.
D.c.
Things, like songs, remained popular then far longer than now, for obvious reasons, and so when LBH happened at our Centennial and only six years after the heavily covered Franco-Prussian War and the Battle of the Last Cartridge at Sedan, and only eleven after the end of our Civil War plus all the British colonial wars in Africa, there were ways people were trained to think about such things and expected them to appear within certain forms. This is a strong tradition. When Jessica Lynch was captured, we were actually told she had fought to the last bullet, etc. etc. Garbage offered as fact and the media played it. That was Davy Crockett Redux.
People are not trained to believe in a cause. The very term "train" deprives every man, woman, and child of their inherent dignity to "Be." Why usurp a desire to see the best in any scenario with the unproven allegation that all was false. Lynch's capture and subsequent, unanticipated,escape was a blessing felt throughout the free world. The true or unsubstituted exploits of any soldier's actions in combat pales against the reality of death. You chose Lynch as an example, why not address the decision of a football player who willingly shunned wealth for glory?
D.c.
The King Arthur stories with the Galahad updates and the Grail, Roland, all chivalry tales, were read a lot back then. And poetry was read a lot. People thought differently and reacted differently, and I strongly believe you have to have a sense of that to understand how LBH was received and processed. Convenient, uplifting stories became fact by repetition. That departure scene of Mrs. Custer is a good example, and so convenient to the then well known Sitting Bull dream sequence, itself merely alleged.
"Convenient, uplifting stories", are the essence of humanity. I can remember tender tales that sooth the savage beast that sustained me in times of trails and tribulations. as comforting as they were, I did not regard them as fact. Over and over again, I can still hear the melodious refrain of these tale and yet, I still do not regard them as facts.
D.c.If you cynically scrape away all the blather about LBH and see its presentation within the contexts of how such things were presented, real doubt about the surety of some of these tales - and that's all they are, really - takes hold.
If you cynically perform any act, the negative scrapings of all that is negative remains. On this point you are absolutely correct.
D.c.
Look at the very different stories about the condition of the bodies. A clue to the likelihood that different templates were being tried out by different people at different times and sometimes it was attempted to hammer it all into a cohesive if unlikely form - as they were forced to by the unexpected Inquest - but then other stories emerged and it all fell apart and left us with rather a mess. Or the proximity of the Custer bodies to each other, or where they were buried, or why some claim Custer was killed with Keogh and was found with him.
The"mess" is in the eye of the beholder. We see that wish we desire to see, nothing more, nothing less.r
|
| Dark Cloud |
Posted - June 07 2005 : 12:19:50 PM
The story of the LBH is rife with likely fiction, or at least unproveable stories that have become accepted as fact. For all anyone knows, when the cavalry got to the top of LSH the men and horses were shot by the Indians and fell in a clump, and the whole image of soldiers shooting their mounts didn't happen and an organized stand is a myth. Custer's horse, by one account, was seen dead as if shot running.
There is an obvious and sometimes admitted need for a Last Stand, but there's no actual evidence for one above other possible scenarios.
There is absolutely NO first hand evidence from the Indians. This doesn't mean that they lied or fabricated, but none wrote down their views, or spoke English themselves and gave interviews right after, and we don't know the translators, or their competencies. Periodically we're assured so and so translated and he's believable, but there is no standard for that claim.
Things, like songs, remained popular then far longer than now, for obvious reasons, and so when LBH happened at our Centennial and only six years after the heavily covered Franco-Prussian War and the Battle of the Last Cartridge at Sedan, and only eleven after the end of our Civil War plus all the British colonial wars in Africa, there were ways people were trained to think about such things and expected them to appear within certain forms. This is a strong tradition. When Jessica Lynch was captured, we were actually told she had fought to the last bullet, etc. etc. Garbage offered as fact and the media played it. That was Davy Crockett Redux.
The King Arthur stories with the Galahad updates and the Grail, Roland, all chivalry tales, were read a lot back then. And poetry was read a lot. People thought differently and reacted differently, and I strongly believe you have to have a sense of that to undertand how LBH was received and processed. Convenient, uplifting stories became fact by repetition. That departure scene of Mrs. Custer is a good example, and so convenient to the then well known Sitting Bull dream sequence, itself merely alleged.
If you cynically scrape away all the blather about LBH and see its presentation within the contexts of how such things were presented, real doubt about the surety of some of these tales - and that's all they are, really - takes hold.
Look at the very different stories about the condition of the bodies. A clue to the liklihood that different templates were being tried out by different people at different times and sometimes it was attempted to hammer it all into a cohesive if unlikely form - as they were forced to by the unexpected Inquest - but then other stories emerged and it all fell apart and left us with rather a mess. Or the proximity of the Custer bodies to each other, or where they were buried, or why some claim Custer was killed with Keogh and was found with him. |
| joseph wiggs |
Posted - June 06 2005 : 9:41:40 PM
quote:
Originally posted by Dark Cloud
Don't know who you're pretending to be today, Wiggs - we've been through soldier, cop, teacher, etc. - but your ignorance of European literature is almost total. You would have to be fairly dense not to recognize that the tale of the LBH is rife with scenes from works of fiction and folk 'history' that would have been well known to the officers and media and the public at large at that time and many years after.
Just read the Song of Roland for a start. It's tough going by today's standards, but you'd be shocked at the number of references to it are found in the Custer story, and I would think that would make anyone suspicious. Start with the concept of the Last Stand itself. Why would that be assumed by the officers walking the field? There's no particular evidence for it, or more for Custer than Calhoun. But it sorta/kinda fit the templates easily enough.
D.c., the last time I read, discussed, and debated any issue regarding this battle, I was under the false impression that it was an historical fact. You cam imagine my confusion when I read your statement, "You would have to be fairly dense not to recognize that the TALE of the LBH is rife..."
Realizing that I could be in error, I checked the dictionary to be certain. For your edification: Tale - 1 a story;narrative 2 idle or malicious gossip 3 a fiction;lie. Deferring to you, under which category does the TALE of the Little Big Horn fall?
I won't dispute my being "dense" when it comes to a great and wonderful saga as The Song of Roland. Truly a masterpiece in literature. By the way if I remember correctly,unlike the BLBH, was this narrative not a TALE? A story of a stalwart defender of the Christians against the Saracens in the Charlemagne LEGENDS [/b] who was killed at Roncesvalles in 778 A.D. This wonderful story was required reading in the 7th grade for me.
Hero's have always existed and will continue to exist because mankind needs Heroes. This is the only constant in the continuum of life. A heroic act of one era serves as a reminder to those who follow, how great is the gift when one man gives his life for another. There are no templates, rules, nor schematic diagrams that can be traced from one era to another. Only in retrospect, when all is said and done, does man remember and compare exploits and, determine who his personal hero will be.
" They may be called Heroes, in as much as they have derived their purpose and their vocation, not from the REGULAR COURSE OF THINGS, sanctioned by the existing order; but from a concealed fount, from that inner spirit, still hidden beneath the surface, which impinges on the outer world as on a shell and bursts it to pieces."
Last, but certainly not least, my days of pretending, sadly, ceased a long time ago. They ceased to be when I was forced to face the harsh reality that there exist among us men of moral deficiency who are incapable of being true men. As a result, our society becomes increasingly void of individuals who comprehend the magnitude of unsubstantiated bias against one's fellow man. As Paul stated, we have posted our credentials, post yours. |
| Dark Cloud |
Posted - June 06 2005 : 12:17:16 PM
Don't know who you're pretending to be today, Wiggs - we've been through soldier, cop, teacher, etc. - but your ignorance of European literature is almost total. You would have to be fairly dense not to recognize that the tale of the LBH is rife with scenes from works of fiction and folk 'history' that would have been well known to the officers and media and the public at large at that time and many years after.
Just read the Song of Roland for a start. It's tough going by today's standards, but you'd be shocked at the number of references to it are found in the Custer story, and I would think that would make anyone suspicious. Start with the concept of the Last Stand itself. Why would that be assumed by the officers walking the field? There's no particular evidence for it, or more for Custer than Calhoun. But it sorta/kinda fit the templates easily enough. |
| joseph wiggs |
Posted - June 05 2005 : 4:25:58 PM
quote:
Originally posted by Dark Cloud
This is EXACTLY the sort of stuff that infected the LBH early on. Simple exaggerations with no ill intent to catch partly the truth and impart the importance to it that the teller feels it needs and the reader will want and accept. In what story does mist rise from the ground about soldiers that Wild may have been referencing? Anyone know? This is a recognition scene.
Whether someone saw "visions", mist rising, or paranormal phenomenon as Custer's command marched towards its fate has absolutely nothing to do with the price of tea in China. Statements such as these have no adverse effects on how the actual battle unfolded. They do not confuse, mis-direct, nor confound the students of this battle. Every historic event of note is straddled with such statements, some of which are in fact true. The vast majority of readers possess sufficient reasonableness to discern "political license" from know fact or reasonableness. Under the correct climatic conditions, the described phenomenon is very possible. So is the formation of mist.
Besides, it is virtually impossible to have recorded, historical events handed down for prosperity and, they not be influenced by they that do so;its human nature.
"This is EXACTLY the kind of stuff that effects" every incident of note from the genesis of history to the present day. Has always been that way and, will continue to do so. Let it rain, let it be misty, and let there be pictures in the sky. Hoka hey! |
| Dark Cloud |
Posted - May 16 2005 : 12:10:16 PM
Wild has provided much impetus for this thread. He isn't content to just have a reflection - a mirage - in the cloud above, which at least could have been true by known scientific occurence. He has to have a "mist" rising up from the ground "engulfing" the command. As if riding away on the clouds.
That's not what was seen or said, but Wild periodically finds the need to elevate the prosaic into something more glamorous. Many others do as well.
This is EXACTLY the sort of stuff that infected the LBH early on. Simple exaggerations with no ill intent to catch partly the truth and impart the importance to it that the teller feels it needs and the reader will want and accept. In what story does mist rise from the ground about soldiers that Wild may have been referencing? Anyone know? This is a recognition scene.
Anyway, Mrs. Custer mentioned the reflection had them upside down, I think. |
| alfuso |
Posted - May 15 2005 : 8:33:24 PM
Actually it was Libbie who wrote, some years later, of seeing the regiment mirrored somehow in the clouds above them. So that there were two regiments ridinga way.
She seems to have been the only one to see this as it's never been coroborated (that I know of) from a separate source.
garry7quote:
Originally posted by wILD I
I read somewhere that as Custer and the 7th departed on their ill fated excursion his campfollowers noticed that a mist seemed to rise up out of the ground engulfing the command.It was as if they rode away into the clouds.
|
| BJMarkland |
Posted - May 05 2005 : 6:44:10 PM
"Even if there were fewer modern weapons present at a critical battle their effect can be overwhelming because the advantage confered is geometric not linear."
No, not only at a critical battle but within the battle at a pivotal point. Regarding Gettysburg, you have failed to prove that the Spencer was even used against the charge made by Pickett on July 3. The presence of the Spencer didn't stop Sheridan from getting a very bloody nose at Trevilian Station in 1864 with a numerically greater force. And most, if not all, of his cavalry were by then armed with it. Unlike Hampton's cavalry.
"People reading this should understand Billy is not really wanting to discuss the quantitative effects of repeaters in the American civil war!"
For once you got something right. I am still awaiting for your proof "that as a matter of practical combat, the Spencer stopped Pickett's Charge." Once you prove that or concede the point, I will be glad to talk about force projection via firepower.
"What he wants to do is attack me and try to prove he is right and I am wrong, he thinks that will make him feel like a man!"
Paul, if proving you are wrong would be the only criteria for a man, I am Superman, because you are mostly wrong. But, since I have a more complete feeling of self-worth, without you even crossing my mind, than you could ever know, let's just leave it as you are wrong.
"I don't know! It is interesting to see him parade his personality problems across the board! TWIST AND SHOUT!!!"
"I know you cannot grasp this. Also I do not care. I do find it pleasurable to take apart an immature, unscrupulous (I know you are fond of acronym's), here's one for you!) lying, twisting S.O.B.!"
Exactly whom is parading his personality problems across the stage of this board did you say?
OK, let's see where we are at. In typical form, you have tried to froth, rant and rave to browbeat someone who disagrees with you. Then you start throwing up education. That is followed by the person's lack of experience in various forms of combat. Then you pull out the lack of integrity card followed by snide comments about sexual preferences. So what does that leave us? Oh, a visit by your infamous invisible psychiatrist to talk about how morally deficient and how the person must be suffering from some mental/personal issues.
Later,
Billy
|
| BJMarkland |
Posted - May 05 2005 : 1:08:44 PM
Don't have time for a line by line dissection of your purple prose Paulie, just one question.
"But all in all your phony PM's your strange cyclical rage thing:"
What phony PMs are you dreaming about?
|
| BJMarkland |
Posted - May 05 2005 : 06:41:21 AM
" Billy: After your selective and misleading citations I would not accept anything you posted to be close to a fact!"
Good, the feeling is mutual.
Actually, that one was pretty selective as I had to get the steaks on and only found my keyword search by trial and error. I will get the data for 1861-1862, 1862-1863 posted also. So far I have been unable to find the 1863-1864 data so may have to look at some microfilm from the Secretary of War's annual report to extract that.
And you are arguing a case built of straw considering you were pretty "selective" in arguing the initial post and only going into the "offended defender of research for posterity" routine after I had, again, disagreed with your position re: the Spencer's role in stopping Pickett's Charge.
Later,
Billy
P.S. I may at some later date read past the first sentence of your prior posting, I just don't feel like putting up with your BS at this time while at work.
|
| BJMarkland |
Posted - May 04 2005 : 7:58:09 PM
"Should those who want to ignore me, like BJ has probably suggested to you via his back messaging, in attempts to gang up on one person, or if it is your own idea, great! Saves me effort answering low intellect and inconsequential postings!"
As usual, ranting about things you don't know anything about. As far as I know, I have never spoken or written to Wild other than on message postings.
Just an idea that you can make serious money on Paulie. Since you huff & puff so well, you should go and put on a theatrical version of the 3 Little Pigs. I am sure your impression of the big, bad wolf will win you a Tony! I can see it now, you huffing and puffing and ranting. A little drooling, as you do when you talk dirty to us on the board, will definitely earn it for you!
Later,
Billy |
| BJMarkland |
Posted - May 04 2005 : 7:43:47 PM
"3. Exagerating the inconsequential? Some moron claiming there were "few repeaters in our civil war until the very end"! Sounds like your grasp of the consequential versus the inconsequential is inconsequential!"
Paulie, there were relatively few repeating carbines / rifles when compared to the number of Springfield rifled muskets.
Your figure, which I have to accept, is something like 213,000 total Spencers sold by Spencer Firearms Co. Add to that something like 16,000 Henry rifles and a few thousand Ballards.
Maximum we can figure is 300,000 repeaters. Compare that to the numbers of Sharp's carbines, Springfields, and other single-shot carbines issued per year. The Federal arsenals at the start the fiscal year for 1865 had this amount of rifles, muskets and carbines in the arsenals:
Muskets & Rifles...........1,167,405
Carbines......................22,616
From 7/01/1864 thru 6/30/1865 the Federal government purchased or manufactured the following:
Muskets and rifles.......426,571
Carbines.................142,201
Of the above quantities, they issued the following:
Muskets and rifles.........398,404
Carbines...................098,051
And were left with the differences in the arsenals at the end of the war of:
M & R................1,195.572
Carbines................65,766
The figures above are from A.B. Dyer, Chief of Ordnance, dated 10/20/1865 from his annual report.
So you see, the total amount of repeaters is equivalent to about three-quarter of a year's supply of rifles/muskets. The preceding is based upon the war ending in April, 1865.
If anyone needs the source, I will be glad to furnish that information. Just PM me and I will get back to you.
Best of wishes,
Billy
|
| movingrobewoman |
Posted - May 04 2005 : 6:15:07 PM
quote:
Originally posted by Warlord
Movingrobewoman: How are you doing? Well I hope.
Now that you mention it, I don't seem to recall any painting or art showing Lame White Man being cut down or Gall's family shredded by .45-55 slugs in front of Reno's men! Nor have I seen any portraits of Sitting Bull as He watched Terry's forces approach. Certainly nothing about Wounded Knee I can recall. Of course, I am not deep in the art world.
It does seem kind of one sided though, doesn't it?
I am sure there is some Custer/LBH art out there that doesn't render NAs as an angry mob of faceless barbarians, wearing buffalo horns. If not, there has got to be some type of market for this. Of course, there is the Crazy Horse monument ...
But what's all this when compared to the legendary Custer, cut down--through absolutely NO FAULT--NO FAULT of his own--at the prime of his life, with two brothers, a brother-in-law, a nephew, and a best friend in tow, often depicted as the only guy at the end ... leaving his "little durl" as a poor widow (literally)?
Hehehe ... |
| wILD I |
Posted - May 04 2005 : 03:31:03 AM
The most vexing single element in any debate is a refusal to be honest.A refusal,that is, to base one's arguments ,in good faith,on demonstrable facts and to draw conclusions from those facts in a fairminded and logical manner.Warlord far too often relies upon factual distortions to butress his arguements.He exaggerates the inconsequetial and dismisses the consequential and more often than not he relies upon barrack room vulgarity with which abuse contributers.
The above posting of his was so blatantly untruthful that I at first thought he was just mistaken and so gave him the benifit of the doubt and the opportunity to correct it.But no he describes me as a BS'er.
We have a good board here but if we pander to the likes of him we will ruin it.It is my intention to ignore him and I suggest the rest of you good people do the same. |
| wILD I |
Posted - May 03 2005 : 4:44:16 PM
If any smallarms weapon had a significant influence on the outcome of the battle it was the Sharpes carbine and that in the hands of Bufords troops who fought a brillant classic dragoon delaying action which deprived Lee of Cemetery Ridge.
The above is from a post of mine outlining the vital role of the Sharps carbine at Gettysburg.
He next carried the argumentation that repeating rifles and inferred Sharps (more advanced technological weapons) had no effect on Gettysburg
The above is posted by Warlord.I make no comment.[yet again] |
| Dark Cloud |
Posted - May 03 2005 : 1:27:55 PM
As long as people want to hear and read it, I'm there, Warlord. Approaching a quarter century with one radio show. As for Boulder being a sewer, you should chat with Col. Brown at "Soldier of Fortune." He certainly seems to like it, and has lived here for decades, and headquartered his magazine here.
Any new people are probably here because of Connell, a book you haven't read and an author you didn't recognize. It's not quite as distinct as a forum on Samuel Johnson and not knowing who Boswell was, but it's close. Quite stupid, Warlord.
"Gee, if I was not much of a soldier, what does that make your hero fairytale writer? Was he much of a soldier in WW1, my fine feathered troll?" Yes, he fought at the Somme. An actual warrior in battle under fire. Who are you to question an actual soldier, Warlord?
"Actually DC your writing style is terrible. If you wrote in an english class like this, you would be laughed out of class!" As long as it's profitable, I'll muddle along, Warlord.
I probably am a coward, cheerfully admitted, but then I pretend to nothing I am not. I certainly don't envy soldiers, I don't pretend to have served, I don't pretend to have been in war, and I don't pretend to combat experience. Oh course, as 4f from first draft card, it played no role in my life at all. I do live with it.
Someone else's use or misuse doesn't affect me. It was used correctly.
And what role did you play, Warlord, in the numerous and increasing revelations of child abuse by Catholic clergy and the extensive cover up? Does that illustrate the respect and humility you say Catholics have? At least you now admit pieta is a word. That's progress. You still use your own vast ignorance as the benchmark, and that's embarrassing. It's like saying that if something is beyond your understanding, there must be a God.
Tolkien was a South African transplant and a devout practicing Catholic. How embarrassing for you. He wrote about creating a mythical pre-Christian Europe. The stories are compendiums of Northern European myth, hardly invented by Tolkien, nor did he claim it. You've clearly never read him. There are no fairies, of any sort, in his works. He was quite proud of his service in WWI and kept close to those who served with him. He wasn't anti-war whatsoever, and if you'd read the books you'd know it. It's an actual holy war described in Lord of the Rings, a war of sacrifice that has to be fought.
He headed entire departments at two universities and taught to his retirement, and this work ethic mandated his limited published output. He was a world authority on ancient languages, and his Elvish languages are derived from the Celtic and Norse. His invented languages work - neither non-sensical nor mere code substitution. They have grammar rules and extensive vocabularies. If you had clue one about any of this, you'd know the felt the need to create an extensive backstory to his writings, one of the many reasons he's so widely read and regarded. His format was subcreation of already existing tales. He only became rich and able to leave teaching in his last years.
That you'd propose I write like Tolkien is pretty lame, Warlord. No similarity at all, but thank you. I could do far worse.
Your summation, even though punctuated with your inevitable scream indicator, is neither true nor sensical. And Warlord, so long as I get paid, I'll continue as I do. Your opinion, which carries no value to me, on whether I'm educated or not isn't compelling since you're clearly not.
Now I'll let you go back to pretending to military authority and explain how weapons that weren't there stopped Pickett's charge. |
| movingrobewoman |
Posted - May 03 2005 : 11:04:54 AM
quote:
Originally posted by Dark Cloud
My observation is solely that the written and verbal descriptions of those who saw Custer's corpse recall well known renderings of pieta scenes, and add to suspicion about their accuracy even above uncorrupted flesh. I know of no art outside that one battlefield pamphlet that actually seems to depict Custer in that manner. Could be, but I don't know of it.
And my observation is that bad art of a dying Custer further perpetuates those myths that were first established in the written sources you have mentioned. Actually, I think the Von Schmidt painting is one of the better--at least Custer is crawling around with no visible smile upon his pearly lips. And I see no dark gessoing of the painting to make it more palatable to those who prefer a more heroic presentation of the death scene.
I am also quite concerned with how Native Americans are portrayed in such works--they seem a group of faceless, angry masses.
For an example of bad myth gone amok, check out the front of Wayne Sarf's book. Looks like the kind of thing you can hang next to your velvet Elvis tapestry.
Regards, |
| Dark Cloud |
Posted - May 02 2005 : 7:17:41 PM
My observation is solely that the written and verbal descriptions of those who saw Custer's corpse recall well known renderings of pieta scenes, and add to suspicion about their accuracy even above uncorrupted flesh. I know of no art outside that one battlefield pamphlet that actually seems to depict Custer in that manner. Could be, but I don't know of it. |
| movingrobewoman |
Posted - May 02 2005 : 6:26:43 PM
All--
As it seems we are using standard psuedo-heroic literary devices in regards to presentation of Custer's demise and his corpse, let's not forget the multitude of badly done art that furthers these myths ... on people's walls! The Vatican Pieta is often used, without question, as accepted and believeable-realistic iconography in several visual representations of a dying Custer, usually with Brother Tom as the Virgin Mary's figure--and of course, the end of the battalion on LSH--always represented in manners similar to either Gericault or Delacroix (I do have a copy of the infamous Budweiser print--but it's kept well out of public view, right next to our picture of Sgt. Pepper)--both Romantics.
Just a note from the art side of the argument ...
Hoka hey! |
| Dark Cloud |
Posted - May 02 2005 : 5:27:55 PM
Everybody here has heard of Evan Connell, Warlord, since he wrote the book that has probably sold more copies than all the rest on Custer put together: Son of the Morning Star. Nothing of all the laughable idiocies you've posted, which is an extensive list, illustrates better your ignorance both of the battle, the writings on the battle, and your reading ability, since you thought it said O'Connell, and even then it should have tripped a wire of recognition. It's why I've never believed, and others have apparently come to agree, that such an idiot was much of a soldier, or anything beyond a cubicle filler.
My writing is only stilted and mysterious to the ignorant and unread, like yourself and Wiggs. But you don't read much outside gun trivia, so you wouldn't know. As I don't believe kids with the time to memorize baseball card stats were great athletes, I don't believe your late blooming desperation to be an authority on something suggests a martial past of note, much less merit.
"Drudge" was not misused by me. Barnitz' description of Godfrey is the definition.
You probably didn't run across pieta, but that doesn't mean anything, given the numerous glaring holes in your education. I'm not Catholic and have known ever since seventh grade and we read about Leonardo and his contemporaries.
I doubt you've read Tolkien - you certainly wouldn't understand it (most really don't, so you're not alone)- who was a world authority on ancient languages, the Eddas, and Beowulf. Nor could you write a reference showing where he cheerfully utilized his sources in his books, although generations of English Lit majors can and do and provided much of the enthusiasm which made him the best selling author he is, voted the most influential or important (I forget and don't care) of the 20th century in England. It's too bad, because the Victorian world of Custer (and of Tolkien's early years) so clearly informed the writing and descriptions of incidents in that period, including the Last Stand. It certainly influenced Sir John Franklin's nephew, the poet laureate of the British Empire.
The fungo bats through my generation were very narrow and specifically for that activity in infield practice, unsuitably thin for game use. Baseball players would know that. They're not required, but they existed in number. It's possible they no longer use them. I still don't give a flying fungo bat what you think about it, whatever passes as synapse and thought with you. But as I've said months ago, you're clearly used to that. |
|
|
