| T O P I C R E V I E W |
| hunkpapa7 |
Posted - August 10 2005 : 6:28:59 PM
When I read this article,any credence I had in it vanished after reading Black kettle died at Sand Creek.
http://www.helenair.com/articles/2005/06/28/montana_top/a01062805_02.txt |
| 22 L A T E S T R E P L I E S (Newest First) |
| joe wiggs |
Posted - October 30 2011 : 8:30:26 PM
Actually, I have been saying the same thing also for quite sometime. You, I feel, became hung up on the false perception that all testimony had to be conducted in a Court of Law and, under oath. Such testimony is one example. A second example is of the genre I have always attempted to espouse, testimony outside of the courts but, believed to be just as vital, true, and critical to understanding this battle to the native Americans who produced it.
These people were the only true witnesses who could "testify" to what happened. No white man is capable of doing so. Col. Graham, a renown scholar of imminent fairness and equality still fell victim to the incorrect philosophy that Indian "testimony" was a maze of corruptible information that led the reader to conclusions that were false and inconsequential.
Contemporaneous authors such as Fox, Hardorff, Liddic, etc., have come to the realization that Native American accounts are critical to our understanding of what happened. They have written respected volumes verifying this issue to students who are not hammered by personal agendas.
You and Dark Cloud have, for "Lo" these many years, ridiculed and defamed Indian testimony with a viciousness that is simply amazing. Now you suggest that I have come around to your "way" of thinking. Every reader of this forum would find your statement incredulous. The one thing I have never comprehended is the obviously reality that competent, intelligent, informed posters read these comments and have come to their own valued conclusions. Your insistence to the contrary is ignored. Look around AZ, I'm the only one willing to challenge your unfounded conclusions. Ain't that amazing? |
| AZ Ranger |
Posted - October 30 2011 : 2:59:38 PM
quote:
Originally posted by joe wiggs
quote:
Originally posted by AZ Ranger
Joe do you believe that Indian testimony carries more weight than Indian account?
Actually they are the same. Both may be false if the native American involved has knowingly predicated the information on prevarication and personal advantages.
Both may be true if based upon truth. Would you not agree that the same holds true for white testimony and White account?
Absolutely and always have stated that. Glad you come around to that.
My feeling is testimony is distinguished by an oath and cross examination which is different than a straight account. Does not go to truthfulness just how much a person invests of themselves and allows clarification in cross examination. |
| AZ Ranger |
Posted - October 30 2011 : 2:42:34 PM
Wouldn't firsthand be written by the person or transcribed by someone other than the questioner? I don't view Camp as having firsthand knowledge of what was said. He knows what was firsthand from an interpreter which is second hand from the person making the statements. |
| joe wiggs |
Posted - October 30 2011 : 12:02:13 PM
quote:
Originally posted by AZ Ranger
Joe do you know what firsthand means?
First means number one, foremost, before any other. Hand is a little more complicated! The end of a front limb adapted for grasping, promise of marriage, assistance or participation, assist, give,etc.
If you are referring to the colloquialism used in informal conversation it too can mean several things. Not previously used, direct, close, etc. I could not "find hand" in the dictionary so I just winged it! |
| joe wiggs |
Posted - October 30 2011 : 11:51:08 AM
quote:
Originally posted by AZ Ranger
Joe do you believe that Indian testimony carries more weight than Indian account?
Actually they are the same. Both may be false if the native American involved has knowingly predicated the information on prevarication and personal advantages.
Both may be true if based upon truth. Would you not agree that the same holds true for white testimony and White account? |
| joe wiggs |
Posted - October 30 2011 : 11:45:26 AM
quote:
Originally posted by AZ Ranger
So Joe for you testimony, an account, a translation all mean the same and are waste of having different words with different meanings?
"Testimony" and "account" are so similar as to beg mutual meaning. Translation is the act of transliteration of a coded message (sender is of one culture) to be de-coded by the receiver (of a different culture) to accomplish the transmission of an idea (thought)to a mutual satisfaction. |
| joe wiggs |
Posted - October 30 2011 : 11:38:49 AM
quote:
Originally posted by AZ Ranger
Who would you insure with Allstate or Progressive or ?
Neither one, I use "Travelers". My agent says to never, never, never, purchase anything with "Farmers" or "State" in it! As the old adage says, "Your insurance is only as good as your agent! |
| AZ Ranger |
Posted - October 30 2011 : 01:28:30 AM
Joe do you know what firsthand means? |
| AZ Ranger |
Posted - October 30 2011 : 01:26:05 AM
So Joe for you testimony, an account, a translation all mean the same and are waste of having different words with different meanings?
|
| AZ Ranger |
Posted - October 30 2011 : 01:11:27 AM
Joe do you believe that Indian testimony carries more weight than Indian account? |
| AZ Ranger |
Posted - October 30 2011 : 01:08:03 AM
Who would you insure with Allstate or Progressive or ?
|
| joe wiggs |
Posted - October 16 2011 : 5:45:22 PM
Az, I can insure you that for some of the participants in the battle it was a religious experience. While this thought may be beyond your mental facilities, please remember the "Sun Dance" the Sitting bull and other warriors participated in prior to the battle.
They were able to interact with their god who sent Sitting bull a vision of "many soldiers" falling into their camp.
As for your efforts to post Webster's three (3) definitions of the word testimony need i remind you that the meaning of the word may include all or parts thereof of the definition.
For the warriors their testimony was a (2a)"first hand authentication" as they were actually there and survived the battle! Unlike the countless authors and pundits who were not, Lo these many years.
Secondly, as proposed above, the definition also includes 3 and 3ba, an open acknowledgment and public profession of a religious experience,don't forget the "Sun Dance!"
the renown author, Richard hardorff, did not hesitate to use the word "testimony" when describing Indian reports of what occurred in battle. His enumeration of Indian deaths, during this battle,being very low in number (forty or so)caused the equally renown author Utley to reduce his original claim of a "hundred" warriors having being slain during the battle. This occurred despite white testimony profoundly claiming higher, much higher Indian deaths.
|
| AZ Ranger |
Posted - October 10 2011 : 11:37:11 AM
quote:
Originally posted by joe wiggs
Your position of the value (actually the lack thereof)of Native American testimony is imbued in all of your posts regarding this issue and need not be regurgitated here.
Apparently, unaware of the current premise that students of this battle have concluded that evidence by actual "witnesses" (Native Americans)is preferable to evidence based upon conjecture by those who did not witness the battle and survived;"whites!
When cultural "norms" of a race are studied,analyzed,understood,and dissected "kernels" of truth are discovered that lead to "ears" of knowledge.
For example, Kate Big Head refers to a groups of soldiers who fought at the last who stood at the far west of Custer Ridge, "were the monument now stands."
A reader could dismiss that statement as inconsequential as we all know that the "last Stand" occurred at the northern portion of the ridge. True, the magnetic north! Some Indians(not all)who knew nothing of this phenomenon were seeing the West as North, The South as East,etc.
You appear to me to rather spend time choosing to engender the theory that testimony may only be sanctioned in a court of law. A theory, I might add, that is not only incorrect but does nothing to further the investigation of the enigmas of this battle.
There are at least three definitions of the word "Testimony" in Websters. One of which that fits Indian TESTIMONY to a tee. For your further edification, this type of testimony gave us the BIBLE! have a joyous day.
Words do have different meanings so you think they were testifying to their beliefs in a religious context. An account maybe accurate and testimony can be false what's you point. I think you also believe Recon and deserted to be the same.
Here is the online Webster's which one fits a translated version of an Indian account?
plural tes·ti·mo·nies
Definition of TESTIMONY
1a (1) : the tablets inscribed with the Mosaic law (2) : the ark containing the tablets b : a divine decree attested in the Scriptures
2a : firsthand authentication of a fact : evidence b : an outward sign c : a solemn declaration usually made orally by a witness under oath in response to interrogation by a lawyer or authorized public official
3a : an open acknowledgment b : a public profession of religious experience
Let me know which account is firsthand (not translated), included in the mosaic tablets, or a public profession of a religious experience.
|
| joe wiggs |
Posted - October 09 2011 : 11:05:50 AM
Your position of the value (actually the lack thereof)of Native American testimony is imbued in all of your posts regarding this issue and need not be regurgitated here.
Apparently, unaware of the current premise that students of this battle have concluded that evidence by actual "witnesses" (Native Americans)is preferable to evidence based upon conjecture by those who did not witness the battle and survived;"whites!
When cultural "norms" of a race are studied,analyzed,understood,and dissected "kernels" of truth are discovered that lead to "ears" of knowledge.
For example, Kate Big Head refers to a groups of soldiers who fought at the last who stood at the far west of Custer Ridge, "were the monument now stands."
A reader could dismiss that statement as inconsequential as we all know that the "last Stand" occurred at the northern portion of the ridge. True, the magnetic north! Some Indians(not all)who knew nothing of this phenomenon were seeing the West as North, The South as East,etc.
You appear to me to rather spend time choosing to engender the theory that testimony may only be sanctioned in a court of law. A theory, I might add, that is not only incorrect but does nothing to further the investigation of the enigmas of this battle.
There are at least three definitions of the word "Testimony" in Websters. One of which that fits Indian TESTIMONY to a tee. For your further edification, this type of testimony gave us the BIBLE! have a joyous day. |
| AZ Ranger |
Posted - October 03 2011 : 09:14:44 AM
quote:
Originally posted by joe wiggs
It is your pompous and past denigration of the value of American Indian "oral History" that prompted my remarks. It is your continuous, implied de-valuation of a significant and time honored tool of remembering events of the past for the prosperity of the future. It is your ethnocentric conviction that only the Courts of the Land can define "truth".
Regarding your statement that I am promoting the ludicrous idea that an "entire race" of people were interviewed instead of a few is so fraught with incomprehension that I will not dignify the remark with an answer.
PS: Thank you too.
How about sticking with what is actually posted for a start. Please point out in the words I posted that it mentions a race or any other of the BS that you espouse. That would be a good start.
My point is and always has been that I distinguish a difference between account and testimony. It has nothing to do with race or veracity. You seem slow on the uptake on how I use those terms. You believe account and testimony have the same meaning and I do not believe that.
AZ Ranger |
| joe wiggs |
Posted - October 02 2011 : 10:30:26 AM
It is your pompous and past denigration of the value of American Indian "oral History" that prompted my remarks. It is your continuous, implied de-valuation of a significant and time honored tool of remembering events of the past for the prosperity of the future. It is your ethnocentric conviction that only the Courts of the Land can define "truth".
Regarding your statement that I am promoting the ludicrous idea that an "entire race" of people were interviewed instead of a few is so fraught with incomprehension that I will not dignify the remark with an answer.
PS: Thank you too. |
| AZ Ranger |
Posted - October 01 2011 : 8:04:32 PM
quote:
Originally posted by joe wiggs
And what chance does "truth" have if we do not listen to the oral history of those who actually participated in the battle? You speak of truth as if it were a separate entity from the tradition and values of the Native American heritage. As though these worthy souls were incapable of recognizing "truth!"
What virtuous attributes do you possess that would enable you to utter an all encompassing condemnation upon a race of people? Do you have all the answers that enable truth to suddenly spring into existence and correct all past errors?
Condescending attitudes and ethnocentric values of this discourteous magnitude have consistently presented a monumental deterrence of truth from the dawn of civilization until our present times.
Why to go AZ!
Joe since I posted the article that I was referring to. Is it your statement of fact that a whole race of people and not a group of Northern Cheyenne storytellers were interviewed it or is it you typical ignorant comment?
The U.S. troops attacked and killed between 150 and 500 people, mainly women, children and elderly. Many Cheyenne chiefs were also killed, including Black Kettle.
If you believe that statement is true regarding Black please tell me how you draw that conclusion.
Thanks
AZ Ranger |
| joe wiggs |
Posted - September 10 2011 : 8:55:17 PM
And what chance does "truth" have if we do not listen to the oral history of those who actually participated in the battle? You speak of truth as if it were a separate entity from the tradition and values of the Native American heritage. As though these worthy souls were incapable of recognizing "truth!"
What virtuous attributes do you possess that would enable you to utter an all encompassing condemnation upon a race of people? Do you have all the answers that enable truth to suddenly spring into existence and correct all past errors?
Condescending attitudes and ethnocentric values of this discourteous magnitude have consistently presented a monumental deterrence of truth from the dawn of civilization until our present times.
Why to go AZ! |
| AZ Ranger |
Posted - December 18 2005 : 10:11:07 AM
quote:
BILLINGS - A group of Northern Cheyenne storytellers gathered here Friday night to give for the first time an oral account of the killing of Lt. Col. George Custer and the defeat of the 7th U.S. Cavalry at the Battle of Little Bighorn.
"The chiefs said to keep a vow of silence for 100 summers," Rowland said. "One-hundred summers have now passed and we're breaking our silence. This is going to be a first for the Cheyenne people and a breakthrough for Western history."
The U.S. troops attacked and killed between 150 and 500 people, mainly women, children and elderly. Many Cheyenne chiefs were also killed, including Black Kettle. The U.S. troops paraded body parts of the fallen Indians through the streets of Denver and received a hero's welcome.
"We know from history Custer had two wounds," Rowland said, referring to Custer's head wound and the wound to his chest. "When he fell, he wasn't touched by the warriors because he was unclean. He was bad medicine."
"He had two boys with him," Spotted Wolf said. "He went around and made a circle to get to Custer. He went down to his knees. They made a pass at him and said 'He's going down to his knees.' "
Frank Rowland said the Northern Cheyenne are collecting such oral accounts, which they hope to make public later this year.
"This is just a platform to build on," he said. "We have a moral responsibility to tell the truth. This is the Cheyenne truth."
Oral history is important I hope this not the direction that storytellers want to go. Truth is essential.
|
| joseph wiggs |
Posted - August 20 2005 : 9:21:54 PM
The Cheyenne allegation that, "Custer was spotted riding north while the Battle was raging on the field" pretty much sums up the veracity of this group. While there is much debate regarding the exact location of Custer's death and final remains, the fact that his body fell somewhere on Last Stand Hill is pretty much conclusive, as reported by eye witnesses. This assertion belies his "riding north."
I agree that the Indian women wrecked havoc upon the the dying and dead soldiers in retribution for the deaths of their sons, husbands, and brothers. However, any individual or group, who attempts to present evidence claiming the exact circumstances of Custer's death must be suspect. In the heat, billowing dust, and uncontrolled furor of blazing combat; recognizing a single individual was probably impossible. |
| hunkpapa7 |
Posted - August 11 2005 : 8:23:25 PM
Prolar,
we probably made the same judgement at the same time.
Its a pity that so much time has elapsed because frankly they would be the only people who could tell of GAC's movements. |
| prolar |
Posted - August 11 2005 : 3:26:18 PM
Hunkpapa 7: I made the same comment on another forum before I read yours. Didn't mean to steal your thunder. |
|
|
