| T O P I C R E V I E W |
| movingrobewoman |
Posted - April 20 2005 : 11:38:51 PM
Are you a Custerphile or Custerphobe? |
| 25 L A T E S T R E P L I E S (Newest First) |
| wILD I |
Posted - April 29 2005 : 09:56:10 AM
Wild, with no respect intended, BULL****!
BJ
The old low water mark trick still catches them .Of course it's bull****!How could you have taken it seriously?Don't be so tight arsed.Lighten up a bit.
And yes, Dave, but it somehow is important that it's boot on ground, and he doesn't count England in Europe. Or Iceland, for that matter. Isn't that Europe?
There was no front in Western Europe until July 43.
Was Wild counting the Eastern Front as part of Europe cause hundreds of Americans were fighting there in '43 according to Robert Willett's book.
You could be right there WB.I think I read somewhere of Americans enlisting in the German Army.
He used to have some great insightful posts.
Ya get pissed off being insightful all the time.Need to walk on the Wild I side now and again.
|
| whistlingboy |
Posted - April 28 2005 : 8:34:25 PM
Was Wild counting the Eastern Front as part of Europe cause hundreds of Americans were fighting there in '43 according to Robert Willett's book.
|
| BJMarkland |
Posted - April 28 2005 : 8:12:01 PM
Irish Poetry? Oh my God, someone call the Department of Homeland Security!!! We have found the missing WMD from Iraq!
Outtahere,
Billy |
| Dark Cloud |
Posted - April 28 2005 : 7:53:08 PM
Arklandmay, ifway ouyay on'tday opstay e'llhay artstay otingquay
Irishway oetrypay againway, andway I'mway outway ofway
insulinway. Easeplay, onay oremay. Inkthay ofway ethay
ildrenchay. On'tway omebodysay inkthay ofway ethay ildrenchay?
And yes, Dave, but it somehow is important that it's boot on ground, and he doesn't count England in Europe. Or Iceland, for that matter. Isn't that Europe? |
| dave |
Posted - April 28 2005 : 7:47:32 PM
If you include American's serving in the RAF and other British units then there were American's fighting in Europe at least 2 years prior to the Dieppe landing. I seem to recall that there was a Spitfire squadron made up almost exclusively of American volunteers, although I might have my facts muddled somewhat. |
| BJMarkland |
Posted - April 28 2005 : 7:19:13 PM
quote:
Originally posted by wILD I
Errr, you had better reread your history Wild. Fifty-four men of the 1st Ranger Battalion (U.S. Army) accompanied the Canadians on the Dieppe raid August 19, 1942.
Sorry BJ but they got no futher than the low tide water make which is technically not Europe.
Wild, with no respect intended, BULL****! You may get by with some posters with your self-pitying sense of "oh, poor Irish me, kicked in the shins and butt by the British bullies, so therefore America is guilty!" crap but not with me. Rewrite your fictional history on someone else's time.
Now, I realize you are being a troll or just Irish, so I will not procede to breech-slap you anymore.
Please read the Ranger website. Climbing a cliff, leading a force of British Commandoes, and attacking a machine-gun emplacement at the top does not sound like "low-water mark" unless you are referencing Noah's flood. As a matter of fact, I can imagine many Canadian and British readers being fairly well outraged by that statement also.
And if you come back with some gobbley-gook about it being a web site, I promise I will find some official U.S. government or even better, British government documents as supporting evidence...oh, silly me, I forgot you trust neither so therefore they don't count as evidence.
Wild, for someone who normally appears as somewhat reasonable, this fixation that America is the cause of Ireland's being the pile of refuse by the privy door is unreasonable. The only thing I can attribute it to is that your great-grandparents could not afford cash to emmigrate to America so you have been nursing this lovely inferiority complex for many years and here have found a forum to attempt to spread it.
Arrrggghhhhh, what's the use of dealing with closed minds?
Billy |
| Dark Cloud |
Posted - April 28 2005 : 1:04:15 PM
They were based where, however. In England. Europe. |
| wILD I |
Posted - April 28 2005 : 12:53:59 PM
Errr, you had better reread your history Wild. Fifty-four men of the 1st Ranger Battalion (U.S. Army) accompanied the Canadians on the Dieppe raid August 19, 1942.
Sorry BJ but they got no futher than the low tide water make which is technically not Europe. |
| Dark Cloud |
Posted - April 28 2005 : 11:47:42 AM
By all means visit my site, where any discussion about me should be held, not burning up someone else's bandwidth. Feel free Whistlingboy. No more difficult than your past emails to me to post on the forum there.
|
| whistlingboy |
Posted - April 28 2005 : 09:25:52 AM
Dark Cloud: Actually, Warlord and I might disagree on your writing talent but I seriously do think you write quite well 'cause you, for whatever reason, have the ability to stimulate responses and, after all, that is usually the main reason to write something, isn't it? What writer/author of books, pamphlets, thesis's, etc. do not want responses to their endeavors? Have you written any books? |
| BJMarkland |
Posted - April 28 2005 : 06:58:14 AM
quote:
Originally posted by wILD I
I don't understand the 100% reference to American military numbers
From Dec 41 to July 43 there was no US land troops in Combat in Europe
Errr, you had better reread your history Wild. Fifty-four men of the 1st Ranger Battalion (U.S. Army) accompanied the Canadians on the Dieppe raid August 19, 1942. The first American killed in European ground combat, Lt. L.V. Loustalot, was killed after taking over command of a unit of British Commandoes whose captain had been killed.
You might also to take into consideration that Operation Torch occurred on, I believe, Nov. 8, 1942 with quite a contingent of Americans along. Granted, that is not the European landmass but then, the Brits were not exactly too active on that front either beyond Commando raids.
Sources used (do not have a conniption Paul, I am doing something for work and don't have time to quote from books) are:
http://www.rangerfamily.org/Battalion%20Pages/firsta.htm
http://www.dtic.mil/doctrine/jel/jfq_pubs/optorch4.pdf
Best of wishes,
Billy
|
| whistlingboy |
Posted - April 27 2005 : 10:40:23 PM
Warlord: How anybody could have ever mistaken me to be an alter ego of you is really a stretch....your creative imagination is quick....I'm not even the 'i' in your imaginative mind...hehe....quite good and I just bet you have a ton more from where those came from...I'm the one rolling in laughter now....goodnight! |
| whistlingboy |
Posted - April 27 2005 : 7:10:13 PM
Warlord: This board should write a book....in fact, it is practically already written. Everybody's permission could be obtained to use everything in these posts over, let's say, the last year. Each member could write a 'position' paragraph or two if they wanted to, the 'senior' staff could solicit possible title names for the publication, the purpose could be defined and, of course, there isn't enough agreement on the board to have to worry about presenting any conclusions. The manuscript could show just how interesting formulated ideas and their constant rebuttals by a variety of minds on a certain subject can be. Put in a nice hardbound cover with a battlefield background picture to attract Custerites, it could be priced at $25 and amusement for almost anybody. The addiction could be so captivating that sequels would probably have to be forthcoming. Okay, I think I'll go to sleep now. Had to leave you with one more laugh. |
| whistlingboy |
Posted - April 27 2005 : 6:49:04 PM
Warlord: You're too kind. Glad to help your stress with a few laughs this fine day. I think Dark Cloud writes quite well...I'd like to read his 'thesis.'
Movingrobewoman: In Webster's II Dictionary, legend is defined: A story handed down from the past, esp. one that is widely believed but unverifiable.
Your words "...that seems to be anything but truthful?" is what in part makes it a legend, don't you think? You're right that he lived and died in reality but therein lies the mystique. How exactly and where on that battleground did he fall, not to mention in what fashion. These questions and others begging absolute answers by thousands and thousands of students of military battles around the world alone help make this a legend. Your question may be answered when in fact some of the 'airy' facts surrounding Custer are finally verified. Wake me up out of my grave when they are.
Seriously, though, some legends are not as demanding like Geronimo's legend, for example. Davy Crockett at the Alamo has some mystery to it still even though he was an actual Congressman, White Buffalo Calf Woman and others like it are full of mystery and live in the supernatural realm. Some legends are good; some are not so good. Some are clouded in mystery and others are not as hard to grasp. The LBH Last Stand legend has just enough mystery embedded in it to captivate the world's attention. Why? A relatively small battle on a not very complex field of play. Many of us have toured and walked its paths on numerous occassions and pondered the mysteries therein. I'm not sure about the 'disservice' question. If you really want my truest feelings...I really don't think it makes a difference even if the absolute truth was gleaned and told to the world tomorrow. The story would live and the monuments would stand. The hundreds of monuments, parks, statues, buildings, roads, schools, subdivisions, etc. named for the General would not be torn down, cremated, decimated, etc. Most likely, the revelation, when found, would be 'buried' as it well should be. I'm not one who thinks that truth is always the best antidote, especially when its revealing has trauma attached to it. I do understand your position about the legend of LBH however and how your beliefs about the 'untruths' in the story are compromised by the present dogma. Who knows, maybe you, with your passion, will be the one who figures out the puzzle. In the meantime, the 'philes' and the 'phobes' will live on. |
| movingrobewoman |
Posted - April 27 2005 : 2:59:21 PM
quote:
Originally posted by Warlord
Heavyrunner: Nope, I didn't!
Dave: You are right. LWD should start her own thread with questions! She simply does not sound like a post-graduate student. I think she may well be a kid gaming you guys! She cannot and does not write like one. No post graduate student writes the conclusion of their Thesis first! She should title it, "A Little Girl Who need's Help"!!!
Warlord--
I tend to worry about people who call it "just a thesis." In all of my days, I have never met a grad student who has used that particular terminology. Granted, a thesis ain't a dissertation, but it's still a hunk of work and cause for all kinds of worry--and at the same time, should come to some new conclusions!
And in Custeriana, seems coming to some new conclusions, no matter how well researched, is fraught with peril. There might as well be a sign at the outset that says "this way to certain death ..."
Hoka hey!
(BTW--mailing my contest @#@# tomorrow--arrggh) |
| movingrobewoman |
Posted - April 27 2005 : 2:51:47 PM
Whistlingboy and all:
My question is, then, why preserve a legend that seems to be anything but truthful? Custer lived in reality and died there as well ... are believers in the legend (a word that to me, seems connected to "myth")ultimately doing Custer a big disservice?
Once again, I enjoy all the comments!
Hoka hey! |
| Heavyrunner |
Posted - April 27 2005 : 12:10:10 PM
Paul,
My reference to Abe was in light of the Gettysburg Address. Didn't you notice? |
| dave |
Posted - April 27 2005 : 11:46:08 AM
Very eloquent LWD - what about the rest? :)
Just a suggestion, why don't you start a new thread and post all your questions there, rather than scattering them across the forum. Don't worry about the natives, we're occasionally restless, but mostly benign.
We're all guests here, so you have as much right to post as any of us. |
| wILD I |
Posted - April 27 2005 : 11:04:01 AM
and the Sioux probably didn't even get the horse till the mid 1700's.
Try Comanches.
The Spanish expansion north was halted by distinct lack of Spaniards,
When did numbers ever hinder them?
I don't understand the 100% reference to American military numbers
From Dec 41 to July 43 there was no US land troops in Combat in Europe
|
| whistlingboy |
Posted - April 27 2005 : 10:08:59 AM
Dark Cloud: The 'quotes' around words is a nasty habit of mine and I bow to the gentleman from Colorado. I will work on that aspect of my 'game' but it won't be easy. I'm sure you will keep me posted on how I am doing. I will look forward to 'that.' But you, being an excellent writer and thinker know how hard and difficult it is to say 'love' in the same light that everyone shares...at least in writing some emphasis can be used to hopefully help others to perceive how you (the writer) actually may be feeling....yea, I know, it is still a 'shot in the dark.' (sorry).
In a more serious mode, I have to disagree with your words..."Custer's hero status is uncontested".... My problem with that is that many of the ongoing arguments about him is just that...contesting his 'heroism' versus his 'stupidity,' isn't it? I am unable to convey my point that it is the 'legend' of LBH that I am more concerned about and its preservation. It is the legend which I think is more often than not 'uncontested,' however. Am I still in left field? Your metaphoric references might be hitting pay dirt but that's starting to get kind of deep for my education. hehe Thanks for working with me on getting my head cleared on this subject, though. Unless I feel someone is just playing 'devils' advocate or something, I do take my criticisms to heart and will try to abide to help people have a good, stressless, day.
Warlord: It is appalling how the CW and the slave question have become so distorted over time.
'Wet blanket?' Never. You may use a damp one once in a while but never a soaked one...your blanketed information is usually quite pertinent.
|
| movingrobewoman |
Posted - April 26 2005 : 2:32:22 PM
LWD--
I gots no problem in with fence-sitters in Custerland--there are probably more of us then there are of them (either phobes or philes). But a thesis is a big, big deal--uhh, helps you get that lousy degree, ya know? What new about the battle/GAC/whomever have you discovered in your research that will make other folks who study the battle want to read it? What conclusions are you risking your entire scholarly reputation upon (yikes)?
There are more than a few of us who have included other student's thesii (DC would know the plural) in our footnotes! Several of us are probably eager to read your stuff!
Good luck! |
| Heavyrunner |
Posted - April 26 2005 : 1:39:04 PM
Abe Lincoln would love it! |
| Little White Dove |
Posted - April 26 2005 : 1:28:02 PM
Hi everyone:
I just wanted you all to know that I appreciate each and every one's comments and replys. Some have been much more gracious than others. And some have been less than complimentary, but then that's to be expected, I guess.
I always have a difficult time trying to write reports, themes, and especially this thesis! And I usually end up writing the ending first, if that makes any sense. I dont know maybe its just me, oh well.
Any way just to let you know, I am neither pro or con when it comes to this discussion. I have way too much else to worry about than this. It's just a thesis after all, isn't it? I have a rough draft of the ending. And I would love share it with you and to hear your comments about it. I have no title for it at this time. Thankyou all for everything.
---------------------------
Over 225 years have gone by since our forefathers formed a govenment that granted to its people the liberties we have. Freedom of religious belief, one being no better nor less than another. Freedom of equality towards mankind, one being no better nor less than another. Freedom of expression of one's thoughts and beliefs, one being no better nor less than another....
Still, people the world over today engage in a great debate of an issue that is over 125 years old. A debate over Custer's Last Stand, testing their thoughts, beliefs &, conceptions with a dedication to a subject that will forever be. This is but one battle, on a war that spanned the plains. And yet all can agree that no matter which side of the debate you support, that they should rest in peace in the confidence that they gave their lives, that others might live according to their way. Their dedication to their cause was at that time fitting and proper. And so it should be in our best interest to understand, that we cannot honor, we cannot devote nor make perfect their sacrifices, any more nor any less than what was.
Whether one or another died a hero, doesn't change the history that was. The difficult questions will forever be a part of the mystery. The characters forever a part of the intrigue. And people will forever strive to find the wrong questions, and look for the wrong hero's. Terry? Gibbon? Crook? Benteen? Reno? Crazy Horse? Gall? Two Moons? American Horse? Rain in the face? Custer? and many more..... Until people can stand back, take a good look at all of them, can one fully appreciate who the real hero's were. What the real cause was for. Sometimes it isn't those one expects them to be.
The believers will forever believe what they choose.
The skeptical will always queston everything.
The researchers will forever try to understand.
The cynical will always take the path of least resistance, and claim a status above the rest.
But in the end, it's not about what's right or wrong, true or false, fact or fiction, but simply what was, no more, no less.
The brave warriors on both sides of the battle, both those that lived and died with honor and devotion to their cause, is beyond our power to add or take away from, in thought, word or deed. Those that take issue with this, will not for long remember what we say here, but no one can never forget what they did there. It should be for us, to dedicate ourselves to their unfinished work. Which they who fought there with character and high morals, both warriors and soldiers, Americans all, put forth their efforts. A high value for life, liberty and the pusuit of happiness, in a manner of their own choosing.
They left for us a legacy that we should be dedicate ourselves to their great unfinished work. Where from those honored dead we should take increased loyalty and purpose to thier causes for which they gave their lives. One that we can resolve, that those that died, both warrior and soldier, on the windswept hills and valleys of the Little Big Horn, shall not have died in vain! One that can proudly proclaim to all races that, this nation under God, is a government of all the people, by all of the people, and for all of the people.
Thankyou again. Little White Dove.
|
| Dark Cloud |
Posted - April 26 2005 : 10:14:43 AM
Wild,
The Spanish expansion north was halted by distinct lack of Spaniards, desert, and no known gold. They left exploration north mostly to priests, monks, Russians, and the French after initial unprofitable forays. Indians didn't become great horsemen overnight, and the Sioux probably didn't even get the horse till the mid 1700's.
I don't understand the 100% reference to American military numbers.
Whistlingboy,
I don't understand the "need" to put unnecessary "quotation marks" around "words" that don't need them and, in fact, tend to make "sentences" that contain "them" really and unecessarily "silly."
Be that as it may, Custer's hero status is uncontested, so who are you defending him against? It's this need to be seen defending Custer, and applauded for it, even when he's not under attack that defeats your purpose, which I have no doubt is a good hearted one. But it's the Custerphiles, who often find need to explain their own life story - how they discovered Custer, how their military experience (real, imagined, or deliberately fabricated as needed) affects their notions, how their opinions on Custer are as one with political leanings - who periodically come under attack. They are so because they insist that Custer somehow serve as metaphor for themselves, and an attack on one is an attack on the other. That's a role that he didn't seek, to our knowledge, and one that doesn't serve history's accuracy. Having to rephrase observations on Custer to be acceptable to those who lust to be seen as defending his image - which is to say, their own self image - is too often a mutually exclusive endeavor. |
| whistlingboy |
Posted - April 25 2005 : 10:51:32 AM
MRW, it is true that the few months that I have enjoyed writing 'stuff' and, more importantly, enjoyed reading/listening to the 'exchanges' that appear on this particular website, I have 'come across' as a blined Custer 'phile' for those who live and see 'life' as only being 'numbers,' 'labels' and 'categories.' To those who require such references to organize their thoughts and get through life because they know no other way to 'reference' this life and consequently 'judge' their own in terms of others' lives, I am up for deduecement one way or the other. Is this not true? I am not sure how to 'forge' myself towards 'middle' ground in this judgment process by the board unless I make some dastardly comments about GAC which would be just as unfair to make as the seemingly pro-GAC ones I've made. I have been unsuccessful in promoting my position on GAC and have been mis-read, misinterpreted and thus, misrepresented in the unfair labels and innuendos that have followed me. But that is life and thoughts we must all feel. I deserve, hopefully in a respectful way, all of that until I can articulate my truest thoughts. Warlord is no doubt astute in his assumption that I am too 'sensitive.' My sensitivity is, I imagine, a result of my upbringing by my parents who promoted that old adage.....'if you can't say something nice about someone, don't say anything.' It is that socialization process that one has to escape in order to change certain beliefs. I like however, my predicament in life better than a lot of the youngsters of today who come from 'fashionable' predicaments of being raised by one parent or no parents or will soon come from a 'tube.' And I am a 'teacher' in life based only on my '8th' grade education and the critics, who will have to update my file, can justify that anyway they want to to make themselves look better and feel better. I have no problem with that. My folks always told me 'don't look at what you've accomplished; look at what you haven't.' I have thrown away every trophy I have ever won to include my medals (although I have saved the 'recommendations' about them), writing honors, etc. to always focus on the 'next.' It is a personal 'trap' in life of mine. Why should I promote being proud of something I did if it insults others and conjures up 'behind the back' responses of 'big deal' or 'why are you shoving that in my face' or 'so what' etc. Life is cold in the deep crevasses.
Again, where in my 'posts' have I depicted Mr. Custer as a 'saint.' Replete with sins like all of us, I will not dangle him from a 'noose' just because men died in his command. Based on what I know, and I am waiting on someone who knows some little fact about him that I don't know, that I haven't seen written yet, I can choose to be 'in his corner' respectfully, or be 'at his throat' based on what I know. I must afford him the 'benefit of the doubt' as I would like to have that respect, if I were him. Again, the only hero in my life has been my father and 'need' is the wrong word to 'attach' to my views. The General's fame, at that time, was synonymous with the fame of Lindbergh's at his pinnacle of popularity or FDR or The Beatles or anyone who has achieved 'household' name recognition. He was THE national hero and in viewing my perception of GAC know that I am thinking of him in that light....the National hero. I have never insinuated 'great' hero nor 'great' leader. I have never attributed such synonyms to anyone in life as I can recall. My official category placement info: great leader--no; great person--no; great soldier--no; great hero--no; incompetent leader--no; incompetent soldier--no; incompetent person--no. His passion was soldiering, his wife, his command and his life. He led his charges and put his life on the line in full view of his command and every soldier in his command were not being asked to do anything that GAC wasn't sticking his neck out for, first. He did not make all the right decisions in retrospect unlike many of us who make all the 'right' decisions in our life all the time. But for what 'went down' GAC became a national legend and a part of American history and it is the American 'legend' I am trying to protect and keep in tact because I do not want anymore of our "Lenin" statues being pulled over. Once a soldier, always a soldier, maybe. I'm still trying to fend off 'attack.' The Indian nation has every right to make 'heros' out of their participants and should to pass on to their new generations. Again, I grew up in South Dakota among the Sioux nation and have always been appalled at the discrimination shown against them....I am Italian and one of my grandfather's bodyguards came to visit my Dad and us up in Pierre and he had a very dark complexion with no teeth and broken english still, appeared to be an aged Indian. Pierre was 'dry' at the time and Tony walked over the big bridge on the Missouri to Ft. Pierre, which was 'wet,' to get beer and no one would serve him because Indians were not allowed any alcohol. Dad said he was really surprised Tony didn't go on the 'warpath.' In 1968 while up in Alaska, local tribemen were allowed only 3.2 beer and only so much. My point is that, not unlike GAC, I have always liked the Indian nation and in GAC's case, it was his soldiering duty to bring them to their 'knees.' All unwarranted, unsolicited discrimination to all peoples to include geeks, nerds and experts of every race and creed has to be one of the main 'aims' of future generations.
|
|
|
