| Author |
 Topic  |
|
Dark Cloud
Brigadier General
USA
Status: offline |
 Posted - February 10 2005 : 7:01:22 PM
|
| All historians need do is establish what the standards are for everyone to be held to and apply them to the actions of the three ranking officers. If consistent, Custer loses each time, no matter the standards. There's no real winner. |
Dark Cloud
copyright RL MacLeod
darkcloud@darkendeavors.com
www.darkendeavors.com
www.boulderlout.com |
  |
|
|
joseph wiggs
Brigadier General
Status: offline |
Posted - February 10 2005 : 8:07:10 PM
|
| I don't agree that the same standard held against the three ranking officers will result in Custer being a complete loser in every instance. None of them were complete losers. I do agree with you that there were no real winners. |
|
|
|
Dark Cloud
Brigadier General
USA
Status: offline |
Posted - February 10 2005 : 9:56:12 PM
|
By which I mean, pick an accusation against Reno and/or Benteen. If guilty, it's wrong because......whatever. In every case, Custer is guilty of virtually the same thing.
Just picking one out of the hat, here. Benteen did not keep Custer informed properly. That almost writes itself. |
Dark Cloud
copyright RL MacLeod
darkcloud@darkendeavors.com
www.darkendeavors.com
www.boulderlout.com |
|
|
|
joseph wiggs
Brigadier General
Status: offline |
Posted - February 11 2005 : 5:20:01 PM
|
Exactly Paul, the vast majority of the participants were not at the battle due to their own choosing. Even the few enthusiasts involved had their ardor for combat greatly lessen by the horifying results. The majority of wars are as inevitable as man's need to control other men. It has always been that way and, sadly, will always be. The roll call of despots who yearned to rule the world need not be listed here. This war, the Plains Indian War, however, need not have been fought. There were other options available that were simply ignored. If you believe that the Native Americans were incapable of engaging in detente towards a settled peace agreement with Washington, then what I say here is gibberish.
If you believe that they were willingly to settle for peace but, were denied that option due to a consistent, nefarious policy based on greed by the U.S. Government, you may see the point I'm trying to make.
In summation, regardless of the outcome, the military looses. How do you think the headlines of the "Daily Tribune" would have read if thousands of Indian old men, women, and children had been slaughtered by the 7th. on that fateful day? |
Edited by - joseph wiggs on February 11 2005 5:23:48 PM |
|
|
|
joseph wiggs
Brigadier General
Status: offline |
Posted - February 11 2005 : 8:10:26 PM
|
| In fear of raising allegations of our developing a mutual admiration society, once again Paul, kudos to you. Although every member of this forum should be entirely aware that you are your own man and, would never agree just to appease. Having made that point, let me attempt to make another. No citizen should demand that this great Country of ours wallow in shame and self pity for crimes committed in the past. All that is necessary is acknowledgement that these events occurred. Only then may we ensure that the past will not repeat itself. Yes, this forum is a microcosm of the world we live in. It consist of the best, and the worst, life has to offer. I am grateful to be a part of it. |
Edited by - joseph wiggs on February 11 2005 8:15:07 PM |
|
|
|
lorenzo G.
Captain
Italy
Status: offline |
Posted - February 12 2005 : 3:29:26 PM
|
If american country must acknowledge these event occuring, also indian nations must acknowledge her crimes, and they did not, they never did, and never was blamed for it; instead, they hide themselves beyond traditions to cover the most horrible vengeances and violences.
If american Country must acknowledge the events, people accusing America but living in America, and having most of his comforts just because of plains, they would have better to let the States and go to live in Africa or in Europe and from there, goes on with their accusations. I find very unreal the statement about treating indians. Clash of cultures, was not avoidable, and peacefull indians, loving and sweet just hunting their bisons, are Hollywood invention as the white soldier without blame and fear. |
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 |
|
|
|
joseph wiggs
Brigadier General
Status: offline |
Posted - February 12 2005 : 9:18:30 PM
|
You are right Lorenzo, much of what we believed that occurred during this volatile era is the net result of the media's blitz of erroneous information and fantasy. The Indians were not peaceful and benevolent cherubs with golden halo's hovering above their saintly heads, nor where they the painted, demonic fiends who existed only to ravish White women as depicted by some grade "B" movies. They were people like you and I. All groups have evil ones who live among them. To classify an entire group of people as evil, due to the actions of a minority, is not factual.
The Indians lived a nomadic life wherein the concept of selling land was as strange to them as an attempt to sell the sky. They followed the buffalo which supplied them, virtually, with every need they required. Such a life style should not implicate that their ability to utilize conceptual thinking and, rationalization did not exist. It merely means that their values differed from ours.
An unbiased investigation of murder, multilations, rape, and other unspeakable atrocities committed by both sides will reveal that one side was as demonic as the other; further debate regarding that issue is moot.
For a great nation to admit its past mistakes only serves to make that nation greater in the eyes of the world. Admissions of this nature do not, in any way, deminish our stature, it strengthens it and magnifies our positive image world wide. War is sometimes initiated not for lofty reasons of glory, the American way of life, and Mom's apple pie. It is sometimes initiated for the sole reason of greed. A personal theory of mine, Lorenzo, is that when the first prehistoric cave man picked up a large club to defend himself from a saber-tooth tiger, he used that same club to strike his neighbor to confiscate want he had not earned.
The Plains Indian War was initiated by the U.S. Government for the sole reason of greed. Some of us would mask this ignominious tactic with exclamations of: Progress, Manifest Destiny, the Inevitiable, etc., etc., etc. In summation, having a political process where the people maintain the ability of making a great nation accountable for its actions is the essence of who we are and, what this country represents. |
Edited by - joseph wiggs on February 12 2005 9:33:08 PM |
|
|
|
lorenzo G.
Captain
Italy
Status: offline |
Posted - February 13 2005 : 09:35:23 AM
|
I don't agree Joseph with your last paragraph.That's human: we have two positions and, probably, in the past, you would have been against me with an axe to kill me on my stand in Montana.
Was not greed Joseph. I ask you to look more deep to american intentions. You would need to look at Carroll book: "Custer and the battle of Wa****a - the federal view".
You will see that it was not greed at all. And that many times, if not always, the fault was of indian agents.
if the Americans had been really inclined from greed, today indeed the Indians would not exist anymore and they could not afford to have schools, governments, lands, houses, casinos, websites where they can say in total liberty their opinion. Joseph, americans faults have been condemned thousand of times and are today still condemned, publicized to discredit every move USA do. Outside Hollywood, with his beginning pro USA, we have almost just pro indians books that won't consider the american perspective. (Even Fox, mask indian crimes behind traditions). That would mean that if a cannibal kill a little baby to heat him that's right, because his family was there in his land. For me this is a crime not tradition.
Last but not least, I think that is unfair and not respecting correctly the truth of events to shows indians as uncapable to understand what was going on. They knew very well what was happening and they did'nt accept it, and was ready to use war to avoid it. They met a lot of times white men, there was french and english before americans...
You used a couple of times to list white atrocities to show the white men bad faith. I don't make a list too, simply say that you did'nt make a list of the atrocities committed by indians that, only between august and november 1868, they almost inflict to settlers the losses of Sand Creek. And The atrocities were not started after the silly butchery of Chivington, but earlier. I just quote the statement of a Kiowa's Chief, during the peace, a Chief, so can't be said "but he was just a young hot headed". He said: "We will soon come back with more warriors and clean up all this country." |
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 |
|
|
|
Dark Cloud
Brigadier General
USA
Status: offline |
Posted - February 13 2005 : 11:33:44 AM
|
Not arguing your main points, Lorenzo, but best not to trust quotes from the Indians of that period and hesitate to use them as proof.
The vast majority of them did not speak English and it is often third hand at best. That is not to say it is untrue, in fact or intent, but only we cannot be remotely sure of it. Many of the intermediaries between Indians and whites back then had all the seeming attributes of the con man or someone created out of thin air for the 'record' as a supposed objective third party who's just referred to as a translator.
Americans have always insisted The West was different and for over a century Europe and the world agreed, but history and fact are winning out. The Indians were just another bunch of aborigines and as different from each other as they were from the whites. |
Dark Cloud
copyright RL MacLeod
darkcloud@darkendeavors.com
www.darkendeavors.com
www.boulderlout.com |
|
|
|
wILD I
Brigadier General
Ireland
Status: offline |
Posted - February 13 2005 : 12:52:07 PM
|
The Indians were just another bunch of aborigines
Would you like to elaborate on what appears to me to be a racist slur. |
|
|
|
Dark Cloud
Brigadier General
USA
Status: offline |
|
|
wILD I
Brigadier General
Ireland
Status: offline |
Posted - February 13 2005 : 1:12:39 PM
|
Sure. You don't know the meaning of the word "aborigine." It just means the original inhabitants.
Do you know the meaning of the word facetious DC?
We are discussing a people who suffered a holocaust.If we were discussing another race who suffered a holocaust would you refer to them in such disparaging terms "just another bunch of Jews" |
|
|
|
Dark Cloud
Brigadier General
USA
Status: offline |
Posted - February 13 2005 : 1:26:01 PM
|
That doesn't make any sense, Wild, and you were not being facetious. You didn't know the meaning - and still don't, since you're now trying to pretend it's a "disparaging word," which it is not - and rather than apologize you try to shape/shift the argument over to something else.
|
Dark Cloud
copyright RL MacLeod
darkcloud@darkendeavors.com
www.darkendeavors.com
www.boulderlout.com |
|
|
|
wILD I
Brigadier General
Ireland
Status: offline |
Posted - February 13 2005 : 1:37:30 PM
|
That doesn't make any sense, Wild, and you were not being facetious. You didn't know the meaning - and still don't, since you're now trying to pretend it's a "disparaging word," which it is not - and rather than apologize you try to shape/shift the argument over to something else.
You DC were being facetious in suggesting that I did not understand the word aborigine
I have no trouble with that name .It is your description of a people who suffered a holocaust as "just another bunch of".So I ask again in the context of the holocaust would you describe the victims as just another bunch of Jews? |
|
|
|
Dark Cloud
Brigadier General
USA
Status: offline |
Posted - February 13 2005 : 2:00:53 PM
|
There is no such context of Holocaust. And you've twice misattributed qualities to the word "aborigine."
1. having the qualities of a racist slur.
2. that it is a disparaging word.
It is neither. You didn't know the meaning.
You're trying to change the argument into one about the Holocaust and your former lost one on genocide (2x lost). That has no connection to the word 'aborigine.' Aborigines have suffered many consequences of being conquered, some survive and some don't.
Native Americans were/are just another bunch of aborigines, like the Basques are in their lands. The French, English, and Spanish were just another bunch of Empire Builders in the long history of our species. Those aren't slurs in any way. Just fact. |
Dark Cloud
copyright RL MacLeod
darkcloud@darkendeavors.com
www.darkendeavors.com
www.boulderlout.com |
|
|
|
wILD I
Brigadier General
Ireland
Status: offline |
Posted - February 13 2005 : 2:55:53 PM
|
The Indians were just another bunch of aborigines
I ask again would you describe the victims of the holocaust as "just another bunch of Jews"
Would you if you ever visit the LBH again address the Sioux your fellow Americans as "just another bunch of aborigines"?
The Indians were a people who suffered loss of life and destruction on a scale to rival the slaughter of the Jews.To use the terminology you have shows disrespect and indifference to an American tragedy.It is on a par with saying that it was just another bunch of Yanks were killed in the twin towers. |
|
|
|
lorenzo G.
Captain
Italy
Status: offline |
Posted - February 13 2005 : 2:56:27 PM
|
Dark,
that statement and other statements of this kind was made in presence of Romero a mixed blood, that lived for years through Cheyennes (and was stolen by them when child) and knew their language as the one of most of the surrounding tribes. So, at least in that case the statement was true. I know indeed that much problems came from interpreters that had not the right to call themselves this way. That was not the case. |
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 |
|
|
|
joseph wiggs
Brigadier General
Status: offline |
Posted - February 13 2005 : 3:16:06 PM
|
Lorenzo, sometimes difference of opinion is a great motivator for discussion. Difference of opinion is always welcomed when proffered with sincerity. For example, I do not agree with your assumption that "greed" was not the root of American motivation. If I understand you correctly, you base this assumption on the fact that not all Indians were exterminated. Your rationale appears to be that the Americans would not have ceased their war, until the Indians were all dead, if their motivation was based soley on greed. The only fault I find in your premise is that you have assumed that the Indians survival, somehow, negates the primary motivation that started the war. The Indians survived because they stopped fighting! They gave up! They refused to allow their entire race to be exterminated for any cause.
This wise decision is what saved the remainder of their people. Having achieved their purpose, the American Government gathered up thoudands of them, marched them for hundreds of miles to a section of land that no one else in the country wanted and, deposited them. Not yet a state, this section of land was merely a territory. It subsequently became my state of residence; Oklahoma. By the way, this march is called the "Trail of Tears" where many Indian women, children, and old folk died in a march reminiscent of a deplorable World War II incident.
Unfortunately, a great many Americans experienced little sympthy for their sad plight, after all, they were just a, "bunch of Aboriginals." This phrase allows for the free substitution of any race where aboriginal now rests. |
|
|
|
Dark Cloud
Brigadier General
USA
Status: offline |
Posted - February 13 2005 : 3:42:40 PM
|
Certainly. The Sioux are just another bunch of aborigines (although, there may have been earlier people). Like virtually all aborigines, they were clobbered by more advanced civilizations. Just like my family, the MacLeods, was just another feudal clan/tribe for much of its existence and got clobbered by more advanced civilizations.
Your desperate attempt to append your screw up to a larger argument so you can hide in definitional battles won't fly, Wild. Nevertheless, 'No,' I would not describe the victims of "the" Holocaust as "just another bunch of Jews." First, because a sizeable minority were not Jews, second because nothing like the Nazi inflicted genocide had ever occured before or has since to compare it to. Certainly, nothing remotely like it occured here in the Americas. Whereas the Indian holocaust was disease inadvertantly brought, the Jews were sought out and killed just because they were Jews by other people. There is no comparison. |
Dark Cloud
copyright RL MacLeod
darkcloud@darkendeavors.com
www.darkendeavors.com
www.boulderlout.com |
Edited by - Dark Cloud on February 13 2005 3:43:34 PM |
|
|
|
lorenzo G.
Captain
Italy
Status: offline |
Posted - February 13 2005 : 5:52:28 PM
|
I simply don't see your point, Joseph. And Still say that also for the settlers there was ways of tears. I see that you don't count at the same the white deaths as the indians one. And maybe you have to think too that just because they lose, indians, that did'nt mean they was right.
I still think that is superficial and unfair to compare genocide of Jews to indians - unrespectful towards Jews martyrs. The majority of indians died in battle, fighting, in peace or not, while Jews died working, preparing bread, going shopping, so, making a normal citizen peacefull life. They had no rights that the one to be imprisoned and work till the end, and when they was useless or too weak they was killed, elders, children and women too; they was sterylized, studied as animals by crazy germans doctors etc.
Nobody said it was easy for indians, but, surely was not greed that moves americans, otherwise would have been easier kill them all not to give them a way to survive. Jews never had that chance, they just was imprisonned and killed. Not all fotunately.
I still think the faults lies right on the middle, one of that problems, as stated by Ambrose of which you can't say who was right or wrong. |
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 |
|
|
|
wILD I
Brigadier General
Ireland
Status: offline |
Posted - February 13 2005 : 6:13:04 PM
|
By the way, this march is called the "Trail of Tears" where many Indian women, children, and old folk died in a march reminiscent of a deplorable World War II incident.
4000 Died Joe but as DC refers to them they were "just another bunch of aborigines."What a delightful term he uses for slaughtered "clobbered".Makes it sound like one of those Tom and Jerry cartoons.
'No,' I would not describe the victims of "the" Holocaust as "just another bunch of Jews." First, because a sizeable minority were not Jews, second because nothing like the Nazi inflicted genocide had ever occured before or has since to compare it to.So you do recognise that your terminology is not appropriate in certain cases.You have a sliding scale based on the magnitude of the crime.Or would it depend on the perpetrator?In the case of Uncle Sam we can use cartoon language, in the case of the nazis the victims are spoken of with respect.
The Indians were just another bunch of aborigines
They were not "just".They were not a "bunch".They were a people, the ancestors of your fellow countrymen who shared in a human tragedy of biblical proportions and I think it is terrible that an American can describe them as "just another bunch". |
|
|
|
hunkpapa7
Lieutenant
United Kingdom
Status: offline |
Posted - February 13 2005 : 7:08:58 PM
|
Lorenzo,
Its a fallacy to say that most Indians died fighting,disease was the main killer.
What rights did the NA have,they were put in up market concentration camps,children forcibly taken from parents and put in concentration camp like schools[forbidden to speak there own language/hair cut off/white peoples clothes]
Given food not fit for human consumption,the list is endless.
If it wasn't "greed" why were the civilized tribes of the east forcibly dumped in what is now Oklahoma.
When you read the history of every tribe,its the same old story,give up a little land,treaties made,treaties broken,forced out.
The Black Hills expedition was at a time of deep depression in America,and of course"there's gold in them hills" started another big push west.
Was Rome not built on greed,you better believe it was ! |
wev'e caught them napping boys
Aye Right ! |
|
|
|
joseph wiggs
Brigadier General
Status: offline |
Posted - February 13 2005 : 9:04:51 PM
|
Lorenzo, I am disturbed that you would perceive my comments as an approval of the death of one group of people (the Whites) while deploring and bitterly disavowing the deaths of the Native American. Such an attitude would be against everything I've ever believed in; the antithesis of decency. You certainly have the right to opine your feelings but, let take this opportunity to clarify my position. All murders are reprehensible and immoral. The color of one's skin or the religious beliefs one entertains should not be a deciding factor on whether one has the right, or lack thereof, to exist. To make reference to the atrocities perpatrated against one group does not indicate that one is absent of knowledge and emotions regarding the "wrongs" perpatrated against others. I have said repeatedly that horrors were committed on both sides.
Your reference to the Jews not having choice is absolutely correct. The Nazi regime was committed to the ideology of the total eradication of the Jewish people. Nothing, but the interference of the Allies, spared the remaining Jews from the horrible faith of their comrades. Greed did not motivate the Nazi's. God knows what did because I surely do not. Whatever the motivation, it was a powerful one!
In this country, the nomadic like style of the Plains Indians and their aggresive attitude towards those who infringed upon their lands violently clashed with those whose lustful need for gold and rich farm lands could not be quenched unless they had it all. This is American history Lorenzo. I wish it were not so.
Your beliefs and sentiments regarding the historic era we speak of are heartfelt I am sure. You are convinced that you are correct and, I have no problem with that. It is always a good thing to agree to disagree. |
|
|
|
wILD I
Brigadier General
Ireland
Status: offline |
Posted - February 14 2005 : 03:39:45 AM
|
| Just to make a point.Holocaust/genocide is not determined by magnatude.The murder of 6 million Jews is a holocaust.The annilation of a nation of 2000 is a holocaust. |
|
|
|
hunkpapa7
Lieutenant
United Kingdom
Status: offline |
Posted - February 14 2005 : 08:06:18 AM
|
quote:
Originally posted by Warlord
Right: Now a emphasis of the "holocaust" on a Custer site by a supposed Scotchman! Never happened to any other people! Yeah, right!
Warlord,its Scotsman,and proud of it !
Indeed its happened to many others including my country,not on such a big scale,but it happened.And as you will know,there were many Scots on the frontier,and they fought to get what they could,just like everyone else. |
wev'e caught them napping boys
Aye Right ! |
|
|
|
Topic |
|
|
|
Benteen's order
Topic Locked
