| Author |
 Topic  |
|
BJMarkland
Colonel
USA
Status: offline |
 Posted - February 21 2005 : 3:12:46 PM
|
MRW, welcome back and Happy $$ day to you also!
You wrote, "Didn't he boink one female hostage? How abouts lewdly kissing/fondling the daughter of Spotted Tail during the Great Buffalo Hunt of 1872?"
I thought Spotted Tail's only daughter died during the winter of 1866 and that is one of the major reasons he did not participate in Red Cloud's War.
Billy |
  |
|
|
BJMarkland
Colonel
USA
Status: offline |
Posted - February 21 2005 : 3:28:11 PM
|
WILD wrote:
quote:
BJ you do me an injustice.I did not use the word eridicate or the word population.Nor did I use any other word in connection with "population".You see you can wipe out a nation without wiping out the population.And it was the intention of the US to wipe out the Indians as tribes/groups/nations
For crying out loud Wild, read what I wrote for once!!! This is the second time I have pasted it for you to read. To make it easier to read without your glasses, I will bold-face and underline the blessed relevent portion.
OK, now as far as “eradicate”. You did not mention that word specifically, however my contention is that you used every other metaphor to describe the same effect, such as this post from 2/13 14:44:53:
“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.”
And then you go on to compare the Indian's loss of their way of life to the loss of life by the Jewish and other minorities in Hitler's Final Solution?
quote:
The US and the nazis both committed crimes against humanity.The nazis failed while the US succeeded.Both crimes really are beyond quantifying so you are right they cannot be compared.
Wild, you are seriously disturbed if you can, with a straight face, compare the loss of life in WWII or any other cases of genocide/holocaust i.e., the Armenians, Rwandans, the Cambodians with the reservation system. No, I will not defend reservations as a perfect solution but as the Indians did not wish to participate in anything but a zero sum solution, that was the only choice left.
With respect, although rapidly losing patience with your perverseness,
Billy |
|
|
|
movingrobewoman
Lt. Colonel
USA
Status: offline |
Posted - February 21 2005 : 4:37:53 PM
|
Hey, Billy--
Hiya back!
The citation I'm looking for in regards to Spotted Tail and his "daughter" comes from "Touched By Fire," and from what I recall, Barnett used a contemporary newspaper account. I'll provide the quote as soon as I can find my copy in the hovel I call home. Hopefully, I'll have it for ya in a couple of hours (after an exhaustive search of the mess, and having a pile of hardbacks fall on my toe, I have to wait to have my husband help--he's the better searcher of us two).
As I've said before, I'm not too good on the battle stuff (an adult learner)--but I pitch in around here in matters where I feel more confident.
Later! |
movingrobe |
Edited by - movingrobewoman on February 21 2005 5:08:35 PM |
|
|
|
Frank Spencer
Private
Status: offline |
Posted - February 21 2005 : 5:13:15 PM
|
BJ & DC -
Put your glasses on and read this and I quote,
"You are a Jack Ass".
You are just like the majority of the bible-touting Bush-following right-wing republicans. God forbid anyone suggests the US Government was intent on eradicating the Indians. It happened - it's a fact. Just like the Holocaust during WWII or did that not happen either?! |
|
|
|
movingrobewoman
Lt. Colonel
USA
Status: offline |
Posted - February 21 2005 : 5:33:17 PM
|
quote:
Originally posted by Warlord
Now Custer "BOINKED" a female hostage! You aren't married to DC by any chance? Oh I forgot he doen't like girls! Lewedly/kissing/fondling Spotted Tails daughter? All this only makes him a man of his times? Do I detect some anti-male feminism here?
The hostage's name was called, as we all know, Monaseetah (or Meotzi)--and not only does GAC go into rapturous, florid details of her "come-liness," in "My Life On The Plains," but the evidence for a sexual liason has been brought forth by Benteen (who always needs some kind of corroboration, IMHO)and a scout for the Wa****a campaign, Ben Clark. Now I am not one of them that believe she had Armstrong's "little papoose (GAC's words)," but she did share a tent with more than one man (TWC was also a sampler) during the winter of 1868-69. Supposedly, Monaseetah's descendants are coming to the CBHMA seminar this year to talk about their relative/and or white ancestor. But honestly, I don't see what's so feminist about this stuff or what's so shocking about it. IT WAS THE TIMES.
Gambling was a known vice in the frontier army. GAC consistantly tried to swear it off--and in that regard, he was slightly more successful than his brother, Tom. And of course, GAC didn't drink after 1861/2--unless there was an important dignitary visiting his post--and even then, he would only taste the initial toast and switch back to milk or coffee (this is in 'With Custer's Cavalry,' a--look out--primary source, penned by Katherine Gibson Fougera) ...
Regards,
|
movingrobe |
|
|
|
movingrobewoman
Lt. Colonel
USA
Status: offline |
Posted - February 21 2005 : 5:51:54 PM
|
Like I said in an earlier post, any allegation Benteen made against his LTC, in my opine, requires some kind of corroboration. He's the guy responsible for the stories about GAC and Eliza and GAC and the Adams sisters--stories I do not believe. Nor do I particularly care. The Spotted Tail "incident," when GAC kissed and fondled the chief's "daughter" occurred in front of the *entire* hunting party as well as the newspaperman who was covering the star-studded event. Of course, I could further irritate you by mentioning the letter GAC wrote to Libbie whilst she was home in Monroe (either in 1874 or 1875, in "Boots and Saddles"), to "bring a pretty girl" back to the fort ... TO SET UP WITH ONE OF THE OTHER OFFICERS! He and Libbie loved to play Cupid ... I mean, what else are you gonna do in a Dakota winter?
But he always came home to Libbie and his loyalty was always to her. That ain't such a bad guy, just a human one.
Regards, |
movingrobe |
|
|
|
wILD I
Brigadier General
Ireland
Status: offline |
Posted - February 21 2005 : 7:03:04 PM
|
OK, now as far as “eradicate”. You did not mention that word specifically, however my contention is that you used every other metaphor to describe the same effect, such as this post from 2/13 14:44:53:
But not in relation to the Indian "population".You have tied the term "eradication" and its derivatives to population.I have not indicated that at all.Are you now going to use the various derivatives of "population" to further twist my meaning?
Really BJ try to stay calm and pay more attention to what people actually post.Use the actual words posted to make a point and not your derivatives.
And of course best wishes. |
|
|
|
hunkpapa7
Lieutenant
United Kingdom
Status: offline |
Posted - February 21 2005 : 7:05:05 PM
|
Moetzi was a Cheyenne girl who lit GAC's eyes we will call it.
she was captive after W56shi%a
Meotzi[Monahsetah] next appears at the LBH,and is being saught after by White Cow Bull[Oglala],his Cheyenne friends tell him,that she was from the southern Cheyenne band and that because she had a 7 year old son born out of wedlock,no Cheyenne could marry her.
In addition the boys father was said to be that white soldier chief " long hair"
Sons Name was Yellow Bird |
wev'e caught them napping boys
Aye Right ! |
|
|
|
joseph wiggs
Brigadier General
Status: offline |
Posted - February 21 2005 : 8:19:01 PM
|
"The more I see of him (Weir), Little one, the more I am surprised that a woman of your perceptive faculties and moral training could have entertained the opinion of him you have."
There is nothing immoral, disturbing, or particularily unusual regarding this statement. In fact, only the phrase dealing with "moral Training" could possibly send signals of alarm up our collective spines. When one considers the high morality of the nineteenth century, however, such a phrase may simply equate with a woman not wearing all seven of her undergarments or a gentleman coming to dinner sans his ascot.
However this quote, so graciously supplied by you, has nothing in common with the insidious, unsubstantiated, and villainous innuendos splattered about the forum by D.c. I do not recall his comments verbatim, nor am I inclined to research his every thread, but I am certain that memory best serves me when I say his remarks cast Mrs. Custer and Capt. Weir in the worst possible light.
Fortunately, the vast majority os us realize that no documention exist that would substantiate an affair between the two. In addition, the vast majority of us would not be so crass as to suggest such a thing without evidence. The exception to the rule (and every rule has an exception) of course, is D.c.
Never referring to anyone he does not like (another exception, of course, being me) with the usage of a negative adjective, he rather, describes every action, word, and thought of the individual in the most negative manner possible. Then, when called upon to substantiate his wild and erronious claims, he meekly replies, "I never said he was stupid, when did I say that?" Of course he didn't, he just inundates the forum with a flood of false perceptions until many of us throw up our hands in dispair and, quietly exit stage left!
Perhaps this purveyor of super human knowledge who can testify to the feelings of every Native American on this planet, past and present, may be so inclined to repeat his innuendo regarding Mrs. Custer and Weir.
By the way, the term "Libel" does include dead people. It entails any written or printed matter tending to injure a person's reputation unjustly. One's reputation is the only part of us that achieves immortality; hence its critical importance. |
Edited by - joseph wiggs on February 21 2005 8:36:19 PM |
|
|
|
Anonymous Poster8169
Brigadier General
Status: offline |
Posted - February 21 2005 : 10:16:28 PM
|
quote:
Originally posted by wILD I
OK, now as far as “eradicate”. You did not mention that word specifically, however my contention is that you used every other metaphor to describe the same effect, such as this post from 2/13 14:44:53:
But not in relation to the Indian "population".You have tied the term "eradication" and its derivatives to population.I have not indicated that at all.Are you now going to use the various derivatives of "population" to further twist my meaning?
Billy quoted you saying, "The Indians were a people who suffered loss of life and destruction on a scale to rival the slaughter of the Jews". Explain how me changing the sentence to read "The Indian population suffered loss of life and destruction on a scale to rival the slaughter of the Jews" changes your meaning, at all.
quote:
Really BJ try to stay calm and pay more attention to what people actually post.Use the actual words posted to make a point and not your derivatives.
And of course best wishes.
Billy has shown that you use the word "holocaust" eccentrically, and therefore to describe what happened to the Indians as a "holocaust" grossly distorts history. Do you think that the US government, as a matter of policy, sought to eradicate/kill/annihilate/destroy (I use all those words, properly, as synonyms) the Indians? Or if not to the Indians as a whole, did they seek to do it to any one tribe? That is what is commonly understood as a holocaust.
R. Larsen
|
|
|
|
Anonymous Poster8169
Brigadier General
Status: offline |
Posted - February 21 2005 : 10:37:20 PM
|
When someone speaks of "just another [something]" they imply that it happens habitually. Just another car-jacking. Just another murder. Just another war. Just another loss. Just another persecution. It's a very informal way of saying, "This happens a lot."
Habitually, is all it means, strictly. It can be used insultingly by someone who wants to be, but DC said he wasn't using it with that intent, and I think it's clear he only meant it in the sense that it is something that has happened relatively often in history. There are indeed many examples of natives to a region being conquered and over-ruled by a foreign culture. What happened to the Jews in the 1940s is practically without parallel, though.
R. Larsen |
|
|
|
Anonymous Poster8169
Brigadier General
Status: offline |
Posted - February 21 2005 : 11:18:59 PM
|
quote:
Originally posted by joseph wiggs
When one considers the high morality of the nineteenth century, however, such a phrase may simply equate with a woman not wearing all seven of her undergarments or a gentleman coming to dinner sans his ascot.
Your idea of the "high morality" of the nineteenth century is a parody. When did Custer ever imply that somebody was weak on moral grounds for something as trivial as missing a tie?
quote:
Fortunately, the vast majority os us realize that no documention exist that would substantiate an affair between the two. In addition, the vast majority of us would not be so crass as to suggest such a thing without evidence. The exception to the rule (and every rule has an exception) of course, is D.c.
The rumors have been floating around for years, and were not made up by anybody here. Moving Robe mentions Utley on the subject, and Utley takes as his source Benteen, though he doesn't provide any specific references. The "Sources" chapter in the back directs readers to Carroll's edition of the letters for "Benteen's acerbic view". I had no luck finding any of the quotes Utley uses, although in Benteen's letter of Feb. 12, 1896 (pg. 250 of Carroll) does say: "From this point, Custer having received an anonymous letter via the U.P.R.R. that he'd better hustle back and look out for family interest, did so...."
Utley seems to paraphrase part of this on pg. 107 of "Cavalier in Buckskin". "[Benteen] asserted that the dash across Kansas in 1867 ... was prompted by an anonymous letter, written by Lieutenant Charles Brewster at Eliza's urging, that he had better hurry back and 'look after his wife a little closer'." And he goes on with untraceable quotes about Custer domineering Weir.
Obviously, some of that passage is indebted to the sentence in Benteen's 2/12 letter. I don't understand where the rest comes from.
R. Larsen
|
|
|
|
Dark Cloud
Brigadier General
USA
Status: offline |
Posted - February 22 2005 : 01:17:05 AM
|
I'm not where I can get it, but I believe Barnitz is credited in Sklenar with the followup story of Weir on his knees and all that. Weir lost his hair and wore a wig, or something, in the months after. It isn't all from Benteen, and Barnitz is reliable as far as I know, and his story is in his letters to his wife as well. He didn't think much of Custer, either, apparently.
If Benteen were the only one saying this stuff, it would be suspect to say no more. |
Dark Cloud
copyright RL MacLeod
darkcloud@darkendeavors.com
www.darkendeavors.com
www.boulderlout.com |
|
|
|
movingrobewoman
Lt. Colonel
USA
Status: offline |
Posted - February 22 2005 : 08:50:52 AM
|
Warlord--
Since when in the rules (TOS) does it say that ya gotta be any kind of a Republican or Christian to post at this board? Certainly GAC was NOT a member of the GOP--and his *allegiance* to organised religion was useful when needed but of no consequence to him 90% of the time.
Guess that's where Valhalla comes in, eh?
Regards, |
movingrobe |
|
|
|
movingrobewoman
Lt. Colonel
USA
Status: offline |
Posted - February 22 2005 : 09:05:45 AM
|
quote:
Originally posted by hunkpapa7
Moetzi was a Cheyenne girl who lit GAC's eyes we will call it.
she was captive after W56shi%a
Meotzi[Monahsetah] next appears at the LBH,and is being saught after by White Cow Bull[Oglala],his Cheyenne friends tell him,that she was from the southern Cheyenne band and that because she had a 7 year old son born out of wedlock,no Cheyenne could marry her.
In addition the boys father was said to be that white soldier chief " long hair." Sons Name was Yellow Bird
Problem is, Monaseetah was already seven months preggo when she came into the Seventh's control in 1868. There was another pregnancy shortly after the "little papoose"'s birth--and it does appear to have been a part-Anglo kid. Problem is, Monaseetah seemed to be used by some members of HQ as a "general's woman," meaning she was shared by a few of the officers. It seems that if the second pregnancy was by a Custer, it would be Tom's, not Armstrong's. Tom had a record of at least one illegitimate child running about Ohio (born in either late 1866 or more likely, 1867)--and that there seems to be no such issue from GAC's "possible" liasons outside wedlock, and certainly none from his marriage. From what Rod Thomas said at last year's CBHMA, Monaseetah/Meotzi's family have their hunches who the father was (and there was, indeed, more than one candidate), but keep mum on the word.
And I don't take the word of White Cow Bull too seriously ...
Regards, |
movingrobe |
|
|
|
Frank Spencer
Private
Status: offline |
Posted - February 22 2005 : 09:29:38 AM
|
Warlord - the term to eradicate means "to do away with as completely as if by pulling up by the roots". Wouldn't the US policy of the time, which involved removing the native indians or as DC likes to refer to them " just another bunch of aboriginals", fall into this catagory?
Any tribe not willing to conform to the US policy was then subject to the wrath of the US army. BJ almost goes as far as to say the Indians deserved what they got. As he points out in one of his posts, "but as the Indians did not wish to participate in anything but a zero sum solution, that was the only choice left". Sounds a lot like the genocide that went down a few years back in Serbia.
|
|
|
|
whistlingboy
Lieutenant
USA
Status: offline |
Posted - February 22 2005 : 10:04:07 AM
|
MRW, "The more I see of him [Weir], Little one, the more I am surprised that a woman of your perceptive faculties and moral training could have entertained the opinion of him you have."
A line out of a book, out of context, substantiates nothing but only serves to bolster one's opinion and can be used to admonish or adorn someone's character, depending on how you want to support an 'idea', person or thing. What 'opinion?'
When these writers say 'she, MAY have been doing this or that,' 'he MAY have 'boinked' her or his's her' etc. is a tactic that newspaper reporters use today to 'plant' impurities in people's minds about someone without a stitch of evidence...using the words MAY and words like it are always used in place of 'evidence' allowing someone to say something without knowing anything about it.
Utley's ego (IMO-he probably doesn't like me either) gets the best of him a lot (and he's not alone) at times, especially when he does those documentaries. His use of the word MAY is extensive and, of course, when it is something in the 'negative' nerve then I know he would say that 'I MAY have done this or that' and that is unfair. If he and 'documentary celebrities' like him would qualify their statements then it wouldn't hit a discord with me personally. I have respect for Mr. Utley but 'responsibility' should never be compromised and being absolutely 'fair' is a great responsibility.
Since when did an 'armchair historian' bring something original 'to the table?' Their pursuit is 'assemblage,' isn't it? Assembling all the facts together by deciphering through all the rhetoric writers have put on the table for them to chew on. But most of that 'volume' of information is filled with gads of 'may' statements, alleging a possible fact in history. We tend to try to be an expert at the expense of 'others opinions.' But that is the 'now nature' of research; it makes finding the truth nearly impossible but also makes it difficult not to form an opinion or 'join a camp' of particular thought. Don't we all have to 'fight off' persons who say things about us based on 'no evidence?' That is how THE ENQUIRER--number one in circulation in the world--sustains its popularity. Most people don't care if something is a true resource or not---if it is something weird, bad, distasteful, out-of-the realm of reality--it seems to be exciting to them or, at least, the possibility of it happening or that it 'could' have happened, seems to be exciting. An on-going story keeps bringing them back for more.
Possible 'Enquirer' episodes in the General or his beautiful wife's lives adds nothing to finding out what and why certain decisions were made in this battle by him to bring dishonor to his name, as far as I can tell right now.
You do have interesting posts though.
|
|
|
|
BJMarkland
Colonel
USA
Status: offline |
Posted - February 22 2005 : 10:13:50 AM
|
quote:
Originally posted by Warlord
Frank Spencer: You sir, are a discerning person able to instantly identify jackasses!
On the other hand you need to read these guys posts more. Niether BJ nor DC believe in the Bible, neither are Republicans, neither support Bush, neither are right wing Republicans. The reason I mention this, is you are making us right-wing Republicans look even worse by claiming those two guys belong with us.
Eradicating indians is a sometime thing. The American Gov. changes on whimes and with the wind. Down in Texas the Comanches were so beastial and savage the Texas Rangers and Army did, I understand, almost blow them into extinction. And can we ever forget some of the Mexican fiestas the indians were invited to attend with cannons and grape shot surrounding them. Or the Spanish Conquistadores Indian "Torches"! That said, There was never a formal ongoing program to completely exterminate this people. What was in place was a program to displace them so the land could be settled without savage depredations on the populace. Had you been a settler you would have supported it!
*sob* Paul, here I was basking in all the compliments you had fed me over the past few weeks. And now to be thrown out the window.
Paul, bud, you are such a twit! Sheesh, what do you know of my personal beliefs regarding religion or politics? Absolutely nothing, but, in your ongoing effort to "troll" for responses, you decide to attempt to stir the pot.
Well, as I told you privately once before, when you get on my last nerve, I simply put you on time-out, a.k.a., Ignore. Send me a mail or PM when you are ready to try again. At least you and "Spencer" can entertain each other with your witty remarks.
Oh, by the way, for what it is worth from what, in your opinion, can only be a heathen, liberal, bleeding-heart Democrat, I agree with your last paragraph. Funny, I am still trying to reconcile being, to quote Troll Jr., "...majority of the bible-touting Bush-following right-wing republicans..." with your description of me as not "right wing".
Oh well, you have gotten your 2 minutes of response from me. Enjoy time-out.
Billy |
Edited by - BJMarkland on February 22 2005 10:28:47 AM |
|
|
|
Dark Cloud
Brigadier General
USA
Status: offline |
Posted - February 22 2005 : 10:17:07 AM
|
DC doesn't refer to them as just another bunch of aboriginals. DC refers to them as just another bunch of aborigines. Smallish point, except you misquote, very Wiggs/Wild/Warlord like when you try to find something to latch on to. And, it still means original inhabitants.
Further, holocaust and genocide are not the same thing, although since WWII holocaust is used almost exclusively to refer to genocide or near attempts at it. The term 'holocaust' refers to fire and burning out, and because of the Final Solution, it was a meaningful term to apply to that obvious genocide, but it's a much older word and isn't a synonym.
The Native Americans DID suffer a holocaust, but it was unintended disease and unwished for, through nobody's fault. They did not suffer genocide. If the US governement intended to inflict genocide, there was nothing to stop it. It did not so intend, because a large portion of the US had no such wish. The proof is not only in the fact we have lots of actual Indians alive today giving the Bronx Cheer to Ward Churchill, but that simply being an Indian (as Churchill's social climbing ways demonstrates) is both cool and classy in many portions of American society. I don't think being an Armenian has that same sort of clout in Turkey, for example, or think that Turkish children read exhilerating books centuries old about Armenians, nor name military units and operations and states and governments and sports teams after them. That's the difference.
The Native Americans were robbed, murdered, and kept down, and there were certainly those people who, given the chance, would have indeed murdered them all. But Indians for centuries sold each other out and traded with Europeans to get more modern weapons than their enemies with just that intent in mind as well. Actual genocide requires organization and applied resources - like the Nazis - that were beyond Indian abilities. But the Sioux would have wiped out the Pawnee just as the Ojibway would have wiped out the Sioux given the abilities to do so. There was deep hatred between certain tribes at certain times.
There was great effort made to make them Christian and 'civilized,' not for their benefit, but for the admission papers of Euros to heaven themselves. As awful as it was, it does not hold a candle to what the Africans underwent or the genocide victims underwent. |
Dark Cloud
copyright RL MacLeod
darkcloud@darkendeavors.com
www.darkendeavors.com
www.boulderlout.com |
Edited by - Dark Cloud on February 22 2005 10:24:13 AM |
|
|
|
Frank Spencer
Private
Status: offline |
Posted - February 22 2005 : 10:55:20 AM
|
Dark Cloud - your proof that the Indian population did not suffer genocide is that Ward Churchill is alive and well and free to lecture to the youth of American? That Ward Churchill has climbed up the social ladder and is considered classy? Does that mean the Jews did not suffer genocide because there are still Jews around today?? There are also a few classy Jewish people around today, they too are even held in high esteem - isn't "Where's my yarmulke" a Christmas time favorite?
You also say that it did not happen because a "large portion of the US had no such wish". I would guess the same could be said of the average German back in the '40s. I doubt the majority of the German population would have voted in favor of the "Final Solution" had it been put to a referendum. |
|
|
|
Frank Spencer
Private
Status: offline |
Posted - February 22 2005 : 11:01:06 AM
|
DC - did you hear the latest rumblings regarding Ward Churchill? Turns out he may have falsified his applications to UC - and he is in fact not of Indian descent. Sure we will hear more about this - may just be another right wing spin.
Assuming Ward turns out to be a phony, you got any other examples of Indian descendants who have climbed the social ladder and are held in high esteem? |
|
|
|
Dark Cloud
Brigadier General
USA
Status: offline |
Posted - February 22 2005 : 11:31:13 AM
|
I live in Boulder, I'm awash in all that. Churchill is a fraud. You're behind the curve on all this.
It's difficult to say whether you're an actual idiot or merely a dissembler or simply Wild, who does the same thing a lot, because the proof I offer is almost the opposite of what you relate. Churchill isn't my proof, but the numbers of Indians scorching him. He isn't classy, but he sure thinks being an Indian is, and so do a lot of people. The issue isn't whether it is or isn't classy but that numbers of people think so.
You probably would guess, but you'd have trouble proving that about anti-Semitism in Europe and especially in Germany at that time. Given the organized horrors and the people volunteering for such duty throughout, there's reason to believe much of Germany did agree with Hitler. There was nothing to be compared to the societies in the US, religious and otherwise, dedicated to Indians' well being that were dedicated to Gypsy and Jews' wellbeing in Germany back then. |
Dark Cloud
copyright RL MacLeod
darkcloud@darkendeavors.com
www.darkendeavors.com
www.boulderlout.com |
|
|
|
movingrobewoman
Lt. Colonel
USA
Status: offline |
Posted - February 22 2005 : 12:33:19 PM
|
Whistlingboy--
Where the heck did I say Libbie cheated? Yeah, it appears that she'd fall into what I would call "frivolous flirtations," perhaps a fascination from time to time--the only ones I know of are with Weir during the Summer campaign of 1867 (though I do not think that is why GAC went AWOL) and Wild Bill whilst in Hays City. There may have been some warmth towards Tom Custer(I personally think it was more from his side)--but on the part of Libbie, these "relationships" were quite harmless and fun (although not beyond her husband's nagging). I've read enough GAC-LBC letters to know that such back and forth kind of stuff was typical of their fiery relationship--a relationship that definately had, like any other marriage, its ups and downs.
I find it funny that whenever someone doesn't agree with what I would call the "human" side of GAC, especially, there are all kinds of folks that start tearing up the author quoted. So Utley has an "ego"--tell me one writer who doesn't, me included? Since when does that make him a bad historian? So he compiles facts--what historian doesn't?
And BTW, all, there is certainly no intention by me to "destroy" GAC or his memory. He was a human who lived hard, played hard, and loved hard, and at least in one circumstance, outside his marriage ... but probably more ...
Regards, |
movingrobe |
|
|
|
wILD I
Brigadier General
Ireland
Status: offline |
Posted - February 22 2005 : 12:57:46 PM
|
DC refers to them as just another bunch of aborigines.
Apologies for the "aboriginals"nothing intended.
I have visited the States on many occasions and am always impressed by the display of patriotism one finds everywhere.The respect for the trappings of nationhood.The high regard that service men and women are held in.I have visited civil war battle fields and have been struck by the decorum and respect shown by Americans to their history and heritage.
So I'm surprised when Americans use a term of disparagement to describe an intrigal part of their history and society and other Americans will defend that description.Could it be that the Indians were never really considered to be American?
Further, holocaust and genocide are not the same thing,
Well thank you for enlightening us on that point DC.
The main difference of course being that a holocaust can be intentional or unintentional.For example Nagasaki vis a vis the Tsunami.On the other hand genocide is intentional.
So we have a race of people who suffered as you have admitted an unintentional holocaust.Then in conjunction with that desaster they suffer an assult on them as a nation by the US.A further holocaust and this time intentional.The purpose of this assault was to destroy the Indian as a functioning tribal nation.Thus we have two of the main characteristics of genocide.It is not just the murdered who suffer genocide but all members of the group.The US assault on the Indians was genocidal.The fact that this crime was achieved without the total annihilation of every individual is no defence.
Frank with a name like Spencer ya got to be from this side of the pond? |
|
|
|
wILD I
Brigadier General
Ireland
Status: offline |
Posted - February 22 2005 : 1:10:56 PM
|
| Sorry 69 please excuse my bad manners I should have included you in the above post. |
|
|
|
Topic |
|
|
|
Benteen's order
Topic Locked
