| Author |
 Topic  |
|
joseph wiggs
Brigadier General
Status: offline |
 Posted - March 13 2005 : 9:38:59 PM
|
quote:
Originally posted by Dark Cloud
Well, while robust men "transverse" - a medical procedure? oh, what the hey, it sounds like traverse.... - let's look at the alleged account of Red Horse. It takes a believing mind to think he's talking about the dance of troops currently trotted out for admiration as Custer stays on the offensive, heroically of course.
What is pretty clear to me is by the Sioux he means all the Indians, the camp. Mostly. I think. <my translation queries and assumptions>
"One band of soldiers was in rear of the Sioux. <Custer> When this band of soldiers charged, the Sioux fell back,<left Reno Hill area> and the Sioux and the soldiers <Custer> stood facing each other. Then all the Sioux became brave and charged the soldiers. The Sioux went but a short distance before they separated and surrounded the soldiers. I could see the officers riding in front of the soldiers and hear them shooting. Now the Sioux had many killed. The soldiers killed 136 and wounded 160 Sioux. <Right. Sioux children did numeric drills before bed because exact numbering was essential in Sioux life....> The Sioux killed all these different soldiers in the ravine. <not to the exclusion of the others>
The <Reno> soldiers charged the Sioux camp farthest up the river. A short time after <they had done this> the different soldiers charged the village below.<downriver> While the <these> different soldiers and Sioux were fighting together the Sioux chief <he was elected on the fly but you could tell because his pony had the headphone and antenna> said, "Sioux men, <Sioux women, fetch me a drink, I'm parched, you kids do your homework. Do we have to bring the family to work?>go watch soldiers on the hill and prevent their joining the different soldiers." <Meanwhile, paragraphing be damned, back at Custer> The Sioux men took the clothing off the dead and dressed themselves in it.<The first Re-enactors to dress up as such!! There should be a monument...> Among the soldiers were white men who were not soldiers. The Sioux dressed in the soldiers' and white men's clothing fought the soldiers on the hill. <Okay, everyone was on a hill...what are you talking about?>
<Paragraphing? Hell, let's just invert and go back in time....>The banks of the Little Bighorn river were high, and the Sioux killed many of the soldiers while crossing.<Reno going? Custer arriving?> The soldiers on the hill dug up the ground [i.e., made earth-works], and the soldiers and Sioux fought at long range, sometimes the Sioux charging close up. The fight continued at long range until a Sioux man <A? One Sioux man avoiding the fight happened to be miles north and rode to warn the camp about infantry. The numerous ones who saw Custer by the Rosebud and Crow's Next earlier? Eh. Cavalry, schmalvery....> saw the walking soldiers coming. When the walking soldiers came near the Sioux became afraid and ran away. <knowing they couldn't outrun the infantry without a sixteen hour head start on horseback....>"
Thanks. Clears everything up. Also, this account is devoid of the first person. Was he there for these events?
quote:
The Sioux were already brave enough to fight, the outcome of the battle verifies that conjecture. They didn't suddenly become brave.
Numbers were not essential in the Indian culture. They thought that a need for figures like thousands and above would only be used by a dishonest individual or a white person.
There was never a Sioux chief singled out as the mover and shaker of this battle. Sitting Bull was an influential medicine man that many respected. Soldiers were killed in Deep Ravine as well as Reno's skirmish line and retreat. Red Horse attempted to differentiate between Reno's men and Custer's men; not bad for a savage huh?
The warriors misidentified troopers dressed in buckskin as scouts, I'm surprised you didn't know this.
The mounted warriors were perfectly aware that they could distance themselves from the infantry, what was your point?
Honestly D.c., I really believe you were attempting to be clever and witty in your dissertation. Unfortunately, you failed miserably.
Do you realize that you are the only individual who confused my obvious misuse of the word "transverse" with a medical procedure?
We are incredible lucky to have an infallible word police officer like you, who has never made a mistake, to point out our human failings. What would we do without you? |
  |
|
|
lorenzo G.
Captain
Italy
Status: offline |
Posted - March 14 2005 : 06:31:45 AM
|
Well, I thank you all. The reason for which I propose to you Red Horse account was to see who would consider it usefull for the understanding of the battle and why. This time, readed all conclusions, I must agree with Dc and Larsen. I think much here is missing and much is inverted. Confusion due to the translation or to Red Horse, it doesn't matter. The statements seems packed togheter in hurry (can I say so?)and finally are not of greatest help.
Unfortunately, we have no other witnesses for Custer after MTC than indians if we don't rely on Curley. I think too that archeology, so praised by some author, it's not helping us more than the indians accounts. |
If it is to be my lot to fall in the service of my country and my country's rights I will have no regrets.
Custer |
|
|
|
hunkpapa7
Lieutenant
United Kingdom
Status: offline |
Posted - March 14 2005 : 07:21:54 AM
|
Warlord,
my apoligies,re "Red Cloud"   |
wev'e caught them napping boys
Aye Right ! |
|
|
|
dave
Captain
Australia
Status: offline |
Posted - March 14 2005 : 08:06:32 AM
|
quote:
Originally posted by Anonymous Poster8169
He says that "all" soldiers were killed in a ravine. You helpfully correct him by changing "all" to "some", and then as a further kindness, change "the ravine" to Deep Ravine. On what grounds, I'm not sure; Red Horse might as easily have had in mind the ravine near Keogh's marker, or depending on how loose was the translator's (or his) terminology, Calhoun Coulee itself. Men died in all three places. Trying to narrow it down beyond that seems impossible to me, since his ravine is described so poorly (i.e. vaguely) and inaccurately (all the soldiers were killed there).
I would have thought that Calhoun Coulee would have been ruled out by virtue of Calhoun's men being stationed at or near the summit of the hill - would that be a fair statement?
How many of E company died in Deep Ravine, or in the approaches to Deep Ravine? My assumption was that the only way of making sense from Red Horse's statement was to presume that the band of men who were in the rear of the Sioux, was E company. Who had been recalled, or who had heard shots from the vicinity of LSH and had come to investigate. Thus I was interpreting "all" as simply referring to all the E company troopers - minus any who might have been killed away from the main part of the battlefield.
quote:
I don't know what the story is behind how this interview was put to page, but I also know it contains nothing that helps me figure out what happened to Custer after Martin went away.
I'd argue that we do get some details, such as the fact that Custer hit the second village, and that a Sioux chief ordered them to dress in the dead troopers clothes. Whilst these details might not be very spectacular, they do go someway to confirming statements made by various members of the 7th.
Out of curiousity Larsen, what do you see as the most probable sequence of events between Martini's departure and the action at LSH/Deep Ravine? |
|
|
|
Anonymous Poster8169
Brigadier General
Status: offline |
Posted - March 14 2005 : 8:24:46 PM
|
quote:
Originally posted by dave
I would have thought that Calhoun Coulee would have been ruled out by virtue of Calhoun's men being stationed at or near the summit of the hill - would that be a fair statement?
Well, technically it's ruled out by not being a ravine, though it's probably dangerous to hold these interviews to such levels of precision, especially when it's obvious that something's wrong with the text, as it is with Red Horse.
Red Horse doesn't say where he saw these men, so it's rather speculative to think that Calhoun has anything to do with it. Check out, for example, DC and Wiggs's differing spins on what Red Horse meant by the soldiers "in rear of the Sioux": only one of them sticks in Calhoun. I don't really know what Red Horse meant; it's possible one or the other is right, it's possible neither are. You can't do much with this interview, since it's so void of detail.
quote:
How many of E company died in Deep Ravine, or in the approaches to Deep Ravine? My assumption was that the only way of making sense from Red Horse's statement was to presume that the band of men who were in the rear of the Sioux, was E company. Who had been recalled, or who had heard shots from the vicinity of LSH and had come to investigate. Thus I was interpreting "all" as simply referring to all the E company troopers - minus any who might have been killed away from the main part of the battlefield.
That's certainly one interpretation, and might be true. I can't say it isn't. It doesn't make me any more confident in the value of Red Horse, though, since as it is becoming obvious, this interview is so vague that it can be bent to serve ANY interpretation, once you've decided which words to change the meaning of (as you have to in order to make the account fit in with known facts). That's three different spins on it so far.
quote:
I'd argue that we do get some details, such as the fact that Custer hit the second village, and that a Sioux chief ordered them to dress in the dead troopers clothes. Whilst these details might not be very spectacular, they do go someway to confirming statements made by various members of the 7th.
I didn't notice where he said that Custer hit "the second village," whatever that means (Cheyenne? Minneconjou? Sans Arc?), and I think the idea that the Sioux were ordered by anybody to take off the soldiers' clothes and dress in them to be improbable. It's not like they needed any promptings to do that; it happened whenever the ground was theirs and they had the opportunity, as Fetterman, Elliott, and countless other solitary victims could attest.
quote:
Out of curiousity Larsen, what do you see as the most probable sequence of events between Martini's departure and the action at LSH/Deep Ravine?
I don't have any radical beliefs. Nothing spectacular. I believe pretty much what Fox believes, other than a few issues. I reject, for example, the Ford D excursion; the evidence is pathetic, and I find it rather appalling that this has been accepted so easily by so many. Fox isn't a Michno; he presents his evidence cleanly, and even somebody who isn't that well-versed on the subject shouldn't have any trouble seeing the problems with it. I'm highly dubious of a C Company charge in Calhoun Coulee for the same reason: lack of evidence. It hinges too much on stuff put together by Thomas Marquis in the 1930s, a man whom it's pretty clear would doctor the statements he received in order to suit his particular theories.
I don't think the battle lasted more than an hour. Michno can only claim that it did (I won't say argue, since he presents no evidence) by refusing to deal with the large weight of documentation against; George Herendeen alone utterly discredits him. I think Fox's theory that Custer's withdrawal from the village to Battle Ridge was an "offensive" act to be absurd as well, for reasons that I gave in another thread.
R. Larsen |
|
|
|
joseph wiggs
Brigadier General
Status: offline |
Posted - March 14 2005 : 8:35:00 PM
|
[quote]Originally posted by Anonymous Poster8169
I think you misunderstand my objections. That you can "clarify" some of the statements attributed to him is great for Red Horse, but not terribly useful to the larger goal of trying to understand what took place during the battle. You're hung up on micro issues (how can I turn Red Horse's nonsense into sense?) while I'm trying to judge it from a macro standpoint (how does Red Horse help clarify something about the battle?).
Perspectives are unique entities that exemplify the viewer's individual comprehension of any given situation. For example, a glass of water containing exactly 1/2 of its possible allowance would be viewed by some as half empty, others would see it as half full. To a man not particularly thirsty, such an amount of water would be sufficient to quench one's thirst, to another dying of thirst said amount would hardly be sufficient. In an admittedly convoluted way, I'm trying to make a point.
You perceive the Red Horse statement to be a "Micro" source of information which is hardly sufficient to address the "Macro" issues regarding this affair. You deem me "hung up" on, I assume, insignificant tidbits that do nil towards understanding the "Whole Picture."
I believe that you have missed my point. Perhaps further clarification of my position could be garnered from a pertinent question. What eye witness, "white" testimony do we have regarding events that transpired after Martini glanced over his shoulder and watched Custer and Company descend Cedar Coulée? Please Identify any eye witness "white" testimony regarding Deep Ravine, Calhoun Coulée, Keogh Sector, Custer Ridge, Custer Hill, and Ford "B"?
I know of none. Yet, volume after volume, tome after tome, has been written about these very same events decade after decade until this present day. Events that are critical to understanding the most significant portions of this battle. Where did this information, conjectures, facts, gossip, and general thesis's derive from. Perhaps they were given birth from hundreds of "micro" stories like the one expounded upon by Red Horse.
Stories that were researched, corroborated, confirmed by physical evidence until these vital bits of information became a "Whole Picture." I, for one, am thankful for the efforts of the gatherers of "Micro" data. If not for them our debate regarding this battle would be very limited indeed. |
|
|
|
Anonymous Poster8169
Brigadier General
Status: offline |
Posted - March 14 2005 : 9:42:07 PM
|
quote:
Originally posted by joseph wiggs
You're still not getting my point. From a historian's point of view, Red Horse's story is garbage, pretty much. It has hardly any specifics that allow you to pin it down anywhere. Much of it is clearly false, and a lot of what isn't is dubious anyway. I don't know or care whether this is Red Horse's fault, or his translator's, or his transcriber's; the bottom line is that this story is useless. Maybe an anthropologist would find value in its "perspective"; an historian can't do anything with it.
Do you know what a good Indian account is? It should be one with specifics, such as landmarks ("[such & such] happened at the hill where the monument is"), directions (west, south, etc.), detailed observations (were these men mounted/dismounted, what color were the horses, were they shooting with carbines or revolvers, etc.), sequences (this event happened after this event), and rough observations of time ("I went back to the river with some horses I stole and when I came back the battle was now at [such & such]").
Stuff, in other words, that gives you a basis for comparison. You can set this Indian account against this other Indian account, and see whether the details fit, and you can set both against what was observed by the whites on the field after the fact, and see whether one is consistent with the other.
Details. Something that pins the narrative down. Stuff that is actually fit to compare with other evidence. Evidence, in the case of what the whites preserved, such as body locations, appearance of skirmish lines, appearance of rout, etc.
That an Indian account might have details is in no way proof of accuracy, I shouldn't but probably do have to add; it does, however, give you a basis from which to judge. Those details Red Horse gives, when he gives them at all (all the dead in the ravine, casualty ratios) weaken his credibility pretty badly. Elsewhere he's just vague. His story's useless as corroborative evidence for that reason. Nobody ever learned anything real from a story like Red Horse's, in spite of what you too easily say. With its lack of concrete detail, it tells you only what you want to hear, as is nicely shown by how pliable it's been to so many interpretations in the last few days.
R. Larsen |
|
|
|
Anonymous Poster8169
Brigadier General
Status: offline |
Posted - March 15 2005 : 11:26:15 AM
|
quote:
Originally posted by Warlord
I do not think the things you are detailing such as land marks and directions were included in every indian account.
Never said they were. In fact, I think I was saying the complete opposite.
quote:
Looks to me like a lot depends on who is asking the questions and what questions they ask. Trying to compare different indian accounts with each other is a loser on the face of it to me. Now I have to say I have never interviewed a indian that I can remember right now. But, I have interviewed hundreds, at least, witness's to crimes. If you have ever had several person's witness to a robbery, the first tell's you the suspect was a tall black man with a revolver and the next witness tell's you it was a short white man with a automatic, you would know what I mean!
It's no different in history. Inaccuracies abound in people's memories. One tries to sort them out.
quote:
I really don't think you can draw up a criteria accurately showing what is a credible indian witness or not. You could compare two discriptions of a very narrow experience, but like the liquor store robbery they can be extremely opposite. It is also possible each only saw one man of a two man robbery. I point out eyewitness testimony is only what it is. It is the description as they saw it. Not necessarily what did or did not happen.
Or it's the description as the translator bungled it, or transcriber. Or the Indian was completely truthful, but told his story so poorly that you can't tell. I agree with what you say here, but as I was trying to point out earlier, a lot of Indian accounts you can't do anything at all with, because they're just too vague and screwy. Red Horse is one of them.
quote:
I think determining what the questioner is trying to determine, what the indian is trying to convey and overall tone would be more important than some rather obtuse formula.
I wasn't proscribing a formula.
R. Larsen |
|
|
|
Anonymous Poster8169
Brigadier General
Status: offline |
Posted - March 15 2005 : 7:38:37 PM
|
quote:
Originally posted by Warlord
Larsen: I assume you meant prescribe! I could have been wrong but it sure looks like a formula! If you did not mean it as one, I can accept that. Interviewing is a facinating science and in the old days (turn of the century) it was not developed to the almost artform organizations like the KGB in the past, and Mossad and a few others have done. I do understand what you are saying.
I did mean prescribe, and I see nothing very disputable about what I was saying. An interview such as Red Horse's can be used to support just about any interpretation; Dave, Wiggs, and Dark Cloud have each popped in their own competing versions. It all fits, more or less; that's what happens when you don't tie yourself down to specifics. If an account can support a slew of interpretations, all very different in detail, then obviously it doesn't give real support to any.
This thread reminds me of the Cooke note debates.
R. Larsen
|
|
|
|
joseph wiggs
Brigadier General
Status: offline |
Posted - March 15 2005 : 9:49:30 PM
|
[quote]Originally posted by Anonymous Poster8169
Do you know what a good Indian account is? It should be one with specifics, such as landmarks ("[such & such] happened at the hill where the monument is"), directions (west, south, etc.), detailed observations (were these men mounted/dismounted, what color were the horses, were they shooting with carbines or revolvers, etc.), sequences (this event happened after this event), and rough observations of time ("I went back to the river with some horses I stole and when I came back the battle was now at [such & such]").
Your identification of what a good "Indian Account" should consist of does not exist, has never existed, and will never exist. No Indian account will contain the specifics you have alluded to. The reasons for this unavoidable reality is based upon the cultural and social differences between our two racial groups.
Your definition of what is to be considered good information is strictly a "white" perspective. However, the "white" perspective with all of its "specifics" and "benchmarks" has provided us with minimal information regarding this battle. The information that occurred after Martini's departure from Custer came from where? You have not addressed this "specific" question that was proffered in my last thread. Again Sir, where did the numerous, informative, and critical information regarding incidents not witnessesed by "whites" come from?
May I answer? From the very same, non-specific sources sans bench marks that the native American, Red Horse and others, provided. The same sources that you claim to be insufficient. Who utilized this information to author multifarious accounts of this battle that we enjoy to this day? Historians Larsen, historians who realized that reality must not always be defined by "specifics" but, by a combination of all of the factors that make us human. These historians understand this concept.
I realize that our perceptions regarding this matter are separated by an insurmountable abyss that precludes a future meeting of the minds. However, I appreciated your input and insight into this matter and, enjoy the idea of future disagreements and agreements with you.
P.s., I was very wrong. You and D.c. are two different people. |
|
|
|
joseph wiggs
Brigadier General
Status: offline |
Posted - March 15 2005 : 10:00:15 PM
|
| Paul, you have condensed my convoluted threads into exactly the point I've being trying to make, "Never ignore anything." Even Indian statements! |
|
|
|
Anonymous Poster8169
Brigadier General
Status: offline |
Posted - March 16 2005 : 2:16:39 PM
|
quote:
Originally posted by joseph wiggs
Your identification of what a good "Indian Account" should consist of does not exist, has never existed, and will never exist. No Indian account will contain the specifics you have alluded to.
False, Wiggs. Just picking up the nearest collection at hand ("Lakota Recollections"), and sifting at random, I see the interviews of Flying Hawk, Standing Bear, Two Moons, He Dog, Iron Hawk all include specifics such as I mentioned. I didn't check all of them. Even Red Horse included a few specifics (the ravine in which "all" the soldiers died in, the wacky casualty numbers) which are enough to weaken his account's credibility pretty badly, at least as it stands filtered through his translator. That's why concrete details are good. Anything to pin the narrative down.
quote:
Your definition of what is to be considered good information is strictly a "white" perspective. However, the "white" perspective with all of its "specifics" and "benchmarks" has provided us with minimal information regarding this battle.
No, it's a historical perspective. I don't think there's anything particularly white, black, or brown about it.
quote:
The information that occurred after Martini's departure from Custer came from where? You have not addressed this "specific" question that was proffered in my last thread. Again Sir, where did the numerous, informative, and critical information regarding incidents not witnessesed by "whites" come from?
I said we have the soldiers' observations of the ground after the battle. They noticed skirmish lines on Calhoun Hill, signs of rout elsewhere, and where companies fought (or fled) in the form of body locations.
quote:
May I answer? From the very same, non-specific sources sans bench marks that the native American, Red Horse and others, provided. The same sources that you claim to be insufficient. Who utilized this information to author multifarious accounts of this battle that we enjoy to this day? Historians Larsen, historians who realized that reality must not always be defined by "specifics" but, by a combination of all of the factors that make us human. These historians understand this concept.
You're bloviating, Wiggs. Name these historians. I guarantee you they're either a figment of your imagination, or remarkably bad ones. If they're real I hope they explained this "concept" a lot more concretely than you do. If you're trying to write history you need to deal with specifics in order to get anywhere.
R. Larsen |
|
|
|
Anonymous Poster8169
Brigadier General
Status: offline |
Posted - March 16 2005 : 2:19:23 PM
|
quote:
Originally posted by joseph wiggs
Paul, you have condensed my convoluted threads into exactly the point I've being trying to make, "Never ignore anything." Even Indian statements!
Theodore Goldin rides again!
R. Larsen
|
|
|
|
joseph wiggs
Brigadier General
Status: offline |
Posted - March 16 2005 : 9:58:08 PM
|
I promise you that I'm not trying to be sarcastic but, I could not find the term "bloviaing" in my dictionary. I admit I had to look it up. I don't know if you complemented me or insulted me.
Larsen, its so simple and clear. Please do not, needlessly, stir up the muddy waters and obscure the obvious. Every individual who may have informed us of events that transpired after Martin separated from Custer's command was killed. They died. They are in heaven. They have no means (sans a medium)of telling us what happened after this point. Poor Martini did the best he could but, has been maligned and ridiculed for his efforts.
Who were the "informants" who supplied the information that has enabled a vast array of authors to tabulate, expound upon, and theorize about incidents that were not observed by a living white man.
Ah ha, the plot thickens. Could this information have been derived from the "Red Man?" Heaven forbid. These heathen who are not familiar with "specifics" or "benchmarks" may have articulated facts? Never you say!
Now, let us peer into the many books written by authors who have enjoyed a bit of notoriety and fiscal compensation for their efforts:
Richard Fox-utilizes Indian sketches and testimonies and developed theories based on this information. Much of this information has been corroborated by archeology.
Gregory Michno - utilizes same sources although he arrives at dissimilar conclusions at times.
John Grey- developed a "Time Motion" study regarding incidents that occurred after Martini's reports. Many Indian accounts were utilized by him also.
Walter Camp- He studied Indian languages to include Sioux and the nearly extinct Delaware. (need I say more?)Exactly how many Indian languages do you know Larsen?
E.L. Stewart-refers to numerous Indian accounts to discuss events that occurred after Martin's departure. You know, I could go on and on, but I won't.
For the third and final time Larsen, who supplied the information for all of the books that You and I have read through the years based upon events that occurred after the last "white" man fell? Were did this knowledge come from if not the "Red man?"
To compare my sincere efforts to reach a rational conclusion with the efforts of "Theodore Goldin" is beyond the pale. I expected more of you. I have learned much. |
|
|
|
Anonymous Poster8169
Brigadier General
Status: offline |
Posted - March 16 2005 : 11:29:43 PM
|
quote:
Originally posted by joseph wiggs
I promise you that I'm not trying to be sarcastic but, I could not find the term "bloviaing" in my dictionary. I admit I had to look it up. I don't know if you complemented me or insulted me
To bloviate means to speak verbosely, windily.
quote:
Ah ha, the plot thickens. Could this information have been derived from the "Red Man?" Heaven forbid. These heathen who are not familiar with "specifics" or "benchmarks" may have articulated facts? Never you say!
You do them less than justice. As I noted, and you pointlessly deny, many interviews do contain the kind of specific details that I mentioned. Some of these details fit well with known facts (such as what the whites recorded of the battlefield, after the fact), or with each other. Others, among them those mentioned by Red Horse, do not. No big deal. Same kind of quality differences show up in the white accounts.
quote:
Richard Fox-utilizes Indian sketches and testimonies and developed theories based on this information. Much of this information has been corroborated by archeology.
Show where he said that historical reality is defined not by specifics, but by "a combination of the factors that make us all human". Show also where he explains what the hell that's supposed to mean, since you didn't. Even Fox, who tries to apply Red Horse's story to what he thinks happened in Calhoun Coulee, kvetches about the "lack [of] spatial and temporal clues altogether" in that account, which he concedes makes the whole story unintelligible unless you foist in outside stuff. People here have all done the same and produced quite different versions.
quote:
Gregory Michno - utilizes same sources although he arrives at dissimilar conclusions at times.
Ditto what I said about Fox.
quote:
John Grey- developed a "Time Motion" study regarding incidents that occurred after Martini's reports. Many Indian accounts were utilized by him also.
I'm not sure you've actually read his book. Gray threw up his hands after Curley left. He made no attempt to use anything from the hostiles. It's amusing you cite Gray, since he of all people would clearly have nothing but disgust for the type of historical philosophy you advocate here.
quote:
Walter Camp- He studied Indian languages to include Sioux and the nearly extinct Delaware. (need I say more?)Exactly how many Indian languages do you know Larsen?
None, and I wasn't aware that Camp knew any either, except perhaps sign language or pidgin-talk. He usually mentioned the names of the people doing the translation in his interview notes. Camp was very conscientous to detail in his efforts. Always asking that type of question.
quote:
E.L. Stewart-refers to numerous Indian accounts to discuss events that occurred after Martin's departure. You know, I could go on and on, but I won't.
I'm not seeing any page references from these guys, in which they tell how they finally realized that details have no place in history, and that the proper way to celebrate humanity is to embrace a multitude of perspectives in all their glorious vagueness.
quote:
For the third and final time Larsen, who supplied the information for all of the books that You and I have read through the years based upon events that occurred after the last "white" man fell? Were did this knowledge come from if not the "Red man?"
Every attempt at an account is a combination of white observations and their interviews with Indians. I'm not sure what you think you're arguing against.
quote:
To compare my sincere efforts to reach a rational conclusion with the efforts of "Theodore Goldin" is beyond the pale. I expected more of you. I have learned much.
You didn't get it. If your philosophy is "Never ignore anything", then start stitching Theodore Goldin back into history.
R. Larsen |
|
|
|
joseph wiggs
Brigadier General
Status: offline |
Posted - March 17 2005 : 9:40:18 PM
|
Larsen, your incessant bemoaning and shrill wailing of "you don't get it" begs an unsubstantiated assumption. Your dubious presumption regarding my ability to "get it" can be categorized into several sub-ideologies;
A. You possess some wonderful, lost knowledge about this battle that places you above we mere mortals who lack your "true" understanding as to what actually occurred;
B. You are an authority on all (beyond all doubt)Indian transcripts, oral history, and thoughts and, as a result, you have the authority to determine which transcripts are right and which are wrong. Which are worthy of acceptance and which are not;
C. You are bloviating.
Your reference to Gray's frustration regarding Curley's confusing statement is the height of ludicrous misinformation in the context you utilized. Curley confused a lot of scholars. Your point being what? This targeting of poor Curley has nothing to do with the vast amount of Indian testimonies I have alluded to and perused and studied by scholars. Information such as the following sources utilized by Gray:
Red Bear, Page 296, 298, 301, 302, 303, 328, 351
Red Star, Page 172, 174, 204, 210, 297,
Red Wolf, page 297, 299
Red Foolish Bear, page 225-226,297,, 305
Red Cloud 18, 31, 48, 402
This is just the "R's" Larsen. Out of all of this, you choose to bring up "Curley."
You initiated your comments, regarding Indian testimony, with a definitive assumption that this material lacked "specifics" and "benchmarks." Three times I requested that you explain how information regarding events that occurred AFTER Martini left Custer was discovered. Three times you refused or were unable to respond. After a continuous bombardment of all Indian sources, you now say(by the way) there were some valid information from these sources after all, they weren't all bad. Why the wait before you reached this wondrous and all inspiring conclusion?
This thread has, of course, has reached a point of "negative return." A statement, I believe, used by Wild in his discussion with another "expert" on anything and everything that ever happened between the Native Americans and the U.S. military.
Debate between one who wishes to be be convinced that he is in error about his position and, an individual who is convinced that he is incapable of error becomes resolved and thus not worthy of discussion. |
|
|
|
Anonymous Poster8169
Brigadier General
Status: offline |
Posted - March 18 2005 : 4:33:20 PM
|
quote:
Originally posted by joseph wiggs
Larsen, your incessant bemoaning and shrill wailing of "you don't get it" begs an unsubstantiated assumption.
No, it doesn't beg one. The fact is you didn't get my crack about Goldin; you thought I was calling you another version of him. I actually had something else in mind, which I've explained already.
quote:
A. You possess some wonderful, lost knowledge about this battle that places you above we mere mortals who lack your "true" understanding as to what actually occurred;
I can't answer for your paranoia, Wiggs. I never said or thought that. So far as "lost" knowledge goes, I don't think I've asserted anything I can't cite a reference for, as you have with your historians and their "history is a combination of all the factors that make us human" bosh.
quote:
B. You are an authority on all (beyond all doubt)Indian transcripts, oral history, and thoughts and, as a result, you have the authority to determine which transcripts are right and which are wrong. Which are worthy of acceptance and which are not;
All I've done is point out factual inaccuracies in Red Horse's story as it's preserved for us, and noted the general vagueness otherwise, which makes it pretty difficult to make use of it. Any interpretation of Red Horse's story is apt to reveal more about the interpreter's personal fancies, than they are anything about Red Horse, and I think all the different interpretations put here on this board (all, more or less, acceptable) point to that. Anybody's welcome to challenge me.
quote:
Your reference to Gray's frustration regarding Curley's confusing statement is the height of ludicrous misinformation in the context you utilized.
I made no reference to Gray's "frustration" with Curley's "confusing statement", and cannot understand how you would think so.
quote:
Curley confused a lot of scholars. Your point being what? This targeting of poor Curley has nothing to do with the vast amount of Indian testimonies I have alluded to and perused and studied by scholars.
There's no way a rational person could think I was "targeting" Curley.
quote:
Information such as the following sources utilized by Gray:
Red Bear, Page 296, 298, 301, 302, 303, 328, 351
Red Star, Page 172, 174, 204, 210, 297,
Red Wolf, page 297, 299
Red Foolish Bear, page 225-226,297,, 305
Red Cloud 18, 31, 48, 402
This is just the "R's" Larsen. Out of all of this, you choose to bring up "Curley."
I don't think you got the point- again. All those guys, except Red Cloud, happen to be military scouts like Curley. Red Cloud was not a source at all, just mentioned a few times in the text --- were you really too lazy to look up the page numbers? Red Foolish Bear was also no source, neither was Red Wolf. If these are your research skills, God help you.
Gray, as I said before, threw up his hands after Curley left, and was far more down on Indian accounts (or at least those given by the hostiles) than I am. In his own words:
"It is not possible to reconstruct the fighting action on the Custer field, for no participant with Custer survived to describe it, and accounts from Indian participants reveal little more than their attitudes and fighting tactics. A proper reconstruction requires evidence on who did what, when, and where, on both sides, and all tied properly together, but such evidence is lacking. Pure speculation needs no evidence, but since it merely fills a vacuum with vacuity, it yields no progress. On the other hand, a search for evidence that imposes constraints may at least reduce the possibilities to a finite number.... " (384, "Custer's Last Campaign")
That you would claim this man as a supporter of your view of history is not just false, but contemptible. I don't think you've read his book, beyond looking carelessly at the index.
quote:
You initiated your comments, regarding Indian testimony, with a definitive assumption that this material lacked "specifics" and "benchmarks."
I never said Indian testimony lacked specifics and benchmarks. Some of it does, some of it doesn't. Red Horse is a mix; the specifics he includes tends to discredit his account (something you and others would prefer to ignore) while the rest of his description of Custer's fight is too vague to really be made use of. The most useful Indian accounts will include a good amount of concrete details, something to compare and check with other sources. That is what I started off by saying.
quote:
Three times I requested that you explain how information regarding events that occurred AFTER Martini left Custer was discovered. Three times you refused or were unable to respond.
That isn't true, Wiggs. I answered from the start, and I answered again, and I answer now. What we know about the battle begins with what the whites observed on the field June 27 and 28. That's the number one check against the Indians, and exposes as preposterous, for one, Red Horse's statement about "the ravine" (as written down by hands not his own, at least).
quote:
After a continuous bombardment of all Indian sources, you now say(by the way) there were some valid information from these sources after all, they weren't all bad. Why the wait before you reached this wondrous and all inspiring conclusion?
You speak nothing but absurdity now. Go back and read my first post on the subject, then read on to the last. How is it possible for any person to say what you've just said with a straight face? That you've been thinking I've been trashing all Indian accounts explains a lot, though it doesn't explain how you could think so in the first place.
quote:
This thread has, of course, has reached a point of "negative return." A statement, I believe, used by Wild in his discussion with another "expert" on anything and everything that ever happened between the Native Americans and the U.S. military.
I guess so. Your reading comprehension is horrendous. I could see how you might misconstrue something like the Goldin joke, for which I accept responsibility, but the rest?
quote:
Debate between one who wishes to be be convinced that he is in error about his position and, an individual who is convinced that he is incapable of error becomes resolved and thus not worthy of discussion.
Debate becomes a problem when a guy won't back up any of his assertions. I said before when you put forth your theory of history that the historians you cited in support of you would prove either to be figments of your imagination or remarkably bad ones. Turns out I was right on the first score, as your inability to cite any page references from any of them endorsing your view of history attests. You could have simply said that, instead of wasting bandwidth with this bromide filled with your misreadings.
R. Larsen
|
Edited by - Anonymous Poster8169 on March 18 2005 5:03:09 PM |
|
|
|
joseph wiggs
Brigadier General
Status: offline |
Posted - March 20 2005 : 10:36:12 AM
|
| "All men are apt to have a high conceit of their own understanding, and to be tenacious of the opinions they profess, and yet almost all men are guided by the understandings of others, not by their own." |
|
|
|
joseph wiggs
Brigadier General
Status: offline |
Posted - April 17 2005 : 7:54:16 PM
|
Past discussions regarding the reliability or un-reliability of Indian testimony has certainly been informative as well as entertaining. The debate, regarding the Indian's ability to tell the "truth" was generated at the very moment the first White man asked, "What in the hell happened." The Native American knew, but no one else was listening.
While reviewing Graham's "The Reno Court of Inquiry" I was startled by bits of information that I had previously eschewed as inconsequential until I recalled the, seemingly, antagonistic perspective regarding Indian testimony posted here;Red Horse for example.
I suddenly remembered that there existed obvious contradictions in the "White" testimony as well. For example, one simple question asked by Recorder Lee at the Inquiry resulted in varied responses. When asked to state the distance from the Burning Tipi to Ford "A" the following answers were given:
Scout Girard - 1 and 1/4 mile from the river (p.35);
Lt. Wallace - 2 and 1/2 miles (p.14);
Capt. Moyland - 3 and 1/2 miles (p.69);
Dr. Porter - 1 and 1/2 miles (p.62);
Sgt. Davern - 3 miles (p.13)
Scout Herenden - 3/4 mile (p.21).
Now these statements may be construed as "factual inaccuracies" or the result of an understandable confusion regarding events that took place under extreme stress and a subsequent lapse of memory regarding events that occurred years earlier. Either way, it appears that "White" testimony was incapable of resolving a relatively simple question.
As I have previously stated in an earlier thread, Benteen reported in his official report that he returned to Custer's "Trail" as ordered. At the Inquiry he testified that the movement was made in defiance of orders. I could go on but, I believe, my point has been made. "Factual inaccuracies" permeate all testimony, Red and White. The judicial individual will read all information concerning the battle, exclude nothing as "silly" then derive upon a probable conclusion of fact that is, at a minimum plausible.
|
|
|
|
wILD I
Brigadier General
Ireland
Status: offline |
Posted - April 18 2005 : 10:39:09 AM
|
Many survivors of Pickett's charge when asked to describe the action said they were conscious of very little other than what was happening in their immediate vicinity.Their world was reduced to about 5 square meters.
Going into action a man's sense of time and distance are greatly distorted.Everyone knows the feeling watching their team play out the last 5 mimutes of a game with a one score lead.That 5 minutes seems more like an eternity.
Men don't ride into battle paying particular attention to the landscape or checking their watches with a view to writing accurate reports afterwards. |
|
|
|
Dark Cloud
Brigadier General
USA
Status: offline |
Posted - April 18 2005 : 11:58:07 AM
|
I'm puzzled why you feel the need to defend the alleged Indian recollections from nonexistent attack. There's never been an accusation here that Indian testimony was worse than the soldiers'. That's because we have no Indian testimony, we have second to fifth hand stories that purport to be Indian testimony, most of it having gone through the cliche-o-matic and PC Committee for The Time considerations.
Given the overpowering unimportance of the location of a tomb lodge, the rather amazing thing is how close some came in their recollections years after the fact. |
Dark Cloud
copyright RL MacLeod
darkcloud@darkendeavors.com
www.darkendeavors.com
www.boulderlout.com |
|
|
|
joseph wiggs
Brigadier General
Status: offline |
Posted - May 27 2005 : 10:42:45 PM
|
quote:
Originally posted by Dark Cloud
I'm puzzled why you feel the need to defend the alleged Indian recollections from nonexistent attack. There's never been an accusation here that Indian testimony was worse than the soldiers'. That's because we have no Indian testimony, we have second to fifth hand stories that purport to be Indian testimony, most of it having gone through the cliché-o-matic and PC Committee for The Time considerations.
This is truly a belated response and for this I truly apologize. My first inclination upon discovering this remark (5/27/05) was to simply disregard the thread and to let "sleeping dogs lie" but, I was struck by the sincerity of the poster. A gentleman who, obviously believes that not a single member of this forum has ever voiced doubts, concerns, or ambiguity regarding the veracity of Indian testimony. Thus my inexplicable "need" to defend Indian testimony against "non-existent" attacks would appear to be "puzzling" to the most casual observer. Ergo, I see this moment as a golden opportunity to set the record straight as it were.
Firstly, I only feel a "need" to breath and pay taxes, all else in life is mere commentary;
Secondly, we do possess Indian testimony. Information from Native Americans who participated in this fight and survived. Men and women who witnessed these events and described them in detail to their contemporaries, Red and White. Such information is categorically a first hand, witness account of what occurred. One's personal predilection to the contrary not withstanding.
Lastly, to utilize the term "cliché-o-matic" for "time" considerations is to totally disregard volumes of intensive studies by consummate authors who have given us much information in that specific area. As a result, for those of us who actually read some of these books, we have a very substantial idea as to when critical segments of this battle took place. I sincerely hope that my response has created an atmosphere wherein your state of mental "puzzlement" has been eradicated.
|
|
|
|
Topic |
|
|
|
opinion
