| Author |
 Topic  |
|
lorenzo G.
Captain
Italy
Status: offline |
 Posted - February 22 2005 : 1:12:17 PM
|
| No proofs, with Libbie or GAC, but, with them, what for other could be just gossip become easy a truth. |
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 - February 22 2005 : 1:35:05 PM
|
What bothers me,was the schooling policy.
the tally of Indians from different tribes at Carlisle Industrial School from 1879-1918 was 10,609
In 1879, Pratt founded the Carlisle Indian Industrial School, which he ruled with an iron hand, his stated philosophy being "Kill the Indian and save the man." Carlisle, and the Indian boarding schools which followed, were set up to break spirits, to destroy traditional extended families and cultures, to obliterate memories and languages, and especially to make the children deny their Indianness, inside and out.
And the vast majority went back to the reservations,which must have been horrendous trying to understand who they were meant to be.
The suicide rate was very high. |
wev'e caught them napping boys
Aye Right ! |
|
|
|
Frank Spencer
Private
Status: offline |
Posted - February 22 2005 : 2:14:05 PM
|
| DC - Genocide is defined as "the deliberate and systematic destruction of a racial, political, or cultural group". If this does not describe what the Natives Indians were subjected too, how would you describe it? |
|
|
|
lorenzo G.
Captain
Italy
Status: offline |
Posted - February 22 2005 : 2:27:52 PM
|
| Was not systematic, was not deliberate. Was not genocide. |
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 |
|
|
|
Frank Spencer
Private
Status: offline |
Posted - February 22 2005 : 2:30:19 PM
|
| Lorenzo - it must be great to go through life with your head in the sand. How you can say the US Governments approach to dealing with the Indians was not systematic and deliberate is beyond believe. |
|
|
|
movingrobewoman
Lt. Colonel
USA
Status: offline |
Posted - February 22 2005 : 2:45:16 PM
|
I vote "cultural" holocaust--especially in the Indian school systems. Nothing the Indians suffered was anything close to that which the Jews did.
Regards, |
movingrobe |
|
|
|
wILD I
Brigadier General
Ireland
Status: offline |
 Posted - February 22 2005 : 3:06:57 PM
|
Nothing the Indians suffered was anything close to that which the Jews did.
They suffered death on a massive scale proportionaly greater than the Jews.They lost everything.The Jews had their Swiss bank accounts.They were, like the Jews corraled in ghettos and concentration camps.The Jews were described as vermin the Indians as varmint.There is one main difference however.The Jews survived as a nation the Indians did not. |
|
|
|
movingrobewoman
Lt. Colonel
USA
Status: offline |
Posted - February 22 2005 : 4:28:27 PM
|
Wild--
This where I have to rely on family experience. Now granted, we're Navajo/Pueblo/Tewa--and as the Indian Wars go, we got off relatively easy. My great-great grandmother died at the hands of Kit Carson during the Long Walk--and yes, Bosque Redondo was a pit. But there is no way I could, in my right mind, compare it to Auschwitz. In my family, if you worked with the Anglos, you survived. If you didn't, you *might* lose a lot. In the case of the Jews, there was no such out. The Nazis weren't looking for cooperation. They were looking for complete and total eradication.
Regards,
|
movingrobe |
|
|
|
joseph wiggs
Brigadier General
Status: offline |
Posted - February 22 2005 : 4:45:34 PM
|
"If the U.S. Government intended to inflict genocide, there was nothing to stop it."
Another unsubstantiated, false, preposterous, and completely erroneous comment from one who has no concept of reality. Are you suggesting that the U.S. Government ceased its policy of aggression because someone had a change of heart? That suddenly, gold and acres of rich farm lands were no longer desirable to fill the coffers of a diminished, post civil war economy.
Perhaps the Archangle Michael landed upon the White house and sang an invocation of blessing, causing politicians to weep in remorse. How about this, the soldiers stopped killing Indians because the Indians surrendered! They gave up. They didn't want to die to the last member of the race.
While the argument rages to and fro, regarding genocide, in some quarters it appears to boil down to an issue of numbers. The horror of war and the misery it causes becomes de-emphasized in one example given ,seemingly, becauses more people were killed in the other instance. Regardless of the heated difference of opinions and,the rancor it generates, D.c.'s belief that genocide did not occur because nothing could have stopped the soldiers if they wanted to do so brings a much needed comic relief. This is certainly not a comical situation as many innocent people, on both sides, lost their lives. However, a more classical and incomprehensible "D.c.ism" one could not find on this forum. "D.c.ism" is a hideous form of semantic mumbo jumbo that is absolutely without merit nor comprehension. This may have been the most idiotic statment I have ever had the displeasure to read but, it "ranks" high;in thought as well as numbers. Please keep in mind, I'm not calling him an idiot, that would be slanderous. |
|
|
|
BJMarkland
Colonel
USA
Status: offline |
Posted - February 22 2005 : 4:45:56 PM
|
quote:
Originally posted by wILD I
Nothing the Indians suffered was anything close to that which the Jews did.
They suffered death on a massive scale proportionaly greater than the Jews.They lost everything.The Jews had their Swiss bank accounts.They were, like the Jews corraled in ghettos and concentration camps.The Jews were described as vermin the Indians as varmint.There is one main difference however.The Jews survived as a nation the Indians did not.
Balderdash!
Wild, I am beginning to believe one of three scenarios in regard to this thread.
One, you are simply being outrageous to evoke response.
Two, you simply have a poor grasp of history and successfully manage to mangle and incorporate bits and pieces of everything heard or read into what you synthesise upon a subjuct, whether relevent to that subject or not.
Third, and most frightening, you actually believe what you are writing. If that is the case, my recommendation would be to throw away your copy of David Irving's book as well as your DVD of "Dances With Wolves" and take several aspirin. Hopefully the effects will fade with time.
Billy |
|
|
|
BJMarkland
Colonel
USA
Status: offline |
Posted - February 22 2005 : 4:56:20 PM
|
Uh, Joe?
You may want to reread your post bud.
quote:
"If the U.S. Government intended to inflict genocide, there was nothing to stop it."
Another unsubstantiated, false, preposterous, and completely erroneous comment from one who has no concept of reality. Are you suggesting that the U.S. Government ceased its policy of aggression because someone had a change of heart? That suddenly, gold and acres of rich farm lands were no longer desirable to fill the coffers of a diminished, post civil war economy.
"the U.S. Government ceased its policy of aggression..."
Aggression does not equate with genocide.
I will agree that the portion of the sentence, "...nothing to stop it" is erroneous. Remember, Sherman in 1867 wanted to wipe the plains with the Sioux and Cheyenne. Congress and Grant were easily successful in stopping the retaliation for Fetterman.
Strangely enough, despite some of the hysterical comments from Eire, the system of checks and balances present within the American-style of government did prevent a more brutal war upon certain Indian tribes, at least for 10 years.
Best of wishes,
Billy |
|
|
|
joseph wiggs
Brigadier General
Status: offline |
Posted - February 22 2005 : 5:11:16 PM
|
Larsen, you make my point exactly. The entire quote in no more than a parody of life. Absolutely nothing devious or obscene can be derived from that paragraph. Yet, D.c's innuendos of improper behavior regarding a clandestine relationship between the two was patently obvious. He made no attempt to identify his "source" as the innocent paragraph we are now discussing. I realize that beauty is in the eye of the beholder, I guess the same can be said regarding smut;some folk see it everywhere.
I realize that rumors regarding Mrs. Custer and Weir predate D.c. I did not accuse him of orignating them. What I accuse him of is embellishing upon unsubstantiated rumors and, enjoying himself while doing so. |
|
|
|
joseph wiggs
Brigadier General
Status: offline |
Posted - February 22 2005 : 5:42:27 PM
|
Billy, what a complex and tangled web we create when attempting to identify suitable words that represent so many forms of horror and death. In this particular instance, I used the word "aggression" to describe a governmental policy that could have led to genocide but, as we all know now, did not for the reasons I proffered. If I've failed to mention it before, I will not do so now. You are absolutely correct when you say that a series of checks and balances saved the Native American from further destruction. A combination of American decency and Native American assimilation to the inevitable spared them from genocide.
D.c. should realize that "Intent" is created when objectives are first established and an effort to bring them to fruitation comes to play. "Intent" may be altered when the circumstances that helped to create it are changed also. The secondary change does not negate the purpose of the original intent, even if it is not played out! |
|
|
|
movingrobewoman
Lt. Colonel
USA
Status: offline |
Posted - February 22 2005 : 6:00:14 PM
|
quote:
Originally posted by Warlord
Joe: I could not have put that any better. I don't know why people are so willing to believe the worst about someone so easily.
The worst? Innuendo? That stuff doesn't approach "worst" by a long shot. The worst is that people STILL believe that Custer was a rampant, crazed, kill-all-the-Indians-within-500-miles kind of maniac who went out and initiated all this murderous garbage on a blood-soaked whim!
Save that moniker for Chivington!
Now I'm making myself angry ... |
movingrobe |
Edited by - movingrobewoman on February 22 2005 6:01:28 PM |
|
|
|
whistlingboy
Lieutenant
USA
Status: offline |
Posted - February 22 2005 : 6:28:09 PM
|
I can't see where I said, you said, Libby was cheating. I certainly did not mean to imply that either, MRW. But taking a quote out of a book, out of context, I feel, can be very dangerous and especially a quote like that which one could easily surmise to mean Libby's opinion of Weir might have had harbored sweet thoughts about him which would have been against the honor of her husband. In fact, they may have not been 'flirtatious' thoughts at all.
As for Mr. Utley, I didn't say he was a bad historian at all. In fact, he is very established and honorable, I'm sure, but, nevertheless, I do find him to be a typical historian. Thanks for the response. |
|
|
|
BJMarkland
Colonel
USA
Status: offline |
Posted - February 22 2005 : 6:44:33 PM
|
quote:
The worst? Innuendo? That stuff doesn't approach "worst" by a long shot. The worst is that people STILL believe that Custer was a rampant, crazed, kill-all-the-Indians-within-500-miles kind of maniac who went out and initiated all this murderous garbage on a blood-soaked whim!
Save that moniker for Chivington!
You know, from what I have been reading, Chivington may have met his match in the "civilized" settlers of Arizona.
Now to begin scanning those telegrams for Hunk and whomever.
Best of wishes,
Billy
|
|
|
|
Dark Cloud
Brigadier General
USA
Status: offline |
Posted - February 22 2005 : 8:35:40 PM
|
Who believes, and what percentage of us, that "Custer was a rampant, crazed, kill-all-the-Indians-within-500-miles kind of maniac who went out and initiated all this murderous garbage on a blood-soaked whim!" That's not even a straw dog. That's simply an idiotic contention provided to excuse those who wish to be seen as defending him for public applause. There was a brief period in the sixties of grotesque exaggeration, long past.
Spencer: "DC - Genocide is defined as "the deliberate and systematic destruction of a racial, political, or cultural group". If this does not describe what the Natives Indians were subjected too, how would you describe it?" As periodic half-assed attempts to punish insubordinate bands for annoying the government, that's how.
What that definition refers to is a group targetted for death - not conversion, not re-education, not lowering their self-esteem, but destruction: death - and there was never such a system nor was there ever popular will for such a result or the system to achieve it. If there had been, Wounded Knee would have consisted of the murder of every Sioux or Indian there. You know: genocide. There would be execution or death centers or designated units to kill them and money and organization allocated to achieve this end. Such things never existed.
Something else, it's a little arty-farty to pretend that accurate oral tradition would have provided Indians today with the history of their people that the Euros writing and anal record keeping have. Oral traditions do reflect types and certain people for a while, but not all that long. Can anyone name the chiefs of the 18th century among the Sioux? The 16th? We seem to know most of their chiefs from the 19th. Huh. A genocidal agenda would have mandated all of that down the memory hole. But it is the US that provides much of the history contemporary Indians honor. Not all of it, but my point is that these are not the cares of a government dedicated to genocide. |
Dark Cloud
copyright RL MacLeod
darkcloud@darkendeavors.com
www.darkendeavors.com
www.boulderlout.com |
Edited by - Dark Cloud on February 22 2005 8:42:04 PM |
|
|
|
joseph wiggs
Brigadier General
Status: offline |
Posted - February 22 2005 : 9:29:18 PM
|
Oh brother, that's it! Folks I give up. To make this horrible and, once again, unsubstantiated allegation that contemporary Indians "honor" American history is beyond the pale. Such an outrageous statement would be comparable to an allegation that Blacks should honor Eli Whitney for developing the "Cotton Gin!"
How many Native Americans did you interview to arrive at this conclusion? My God, do you have any understanding of the meaning of the word, honor?
Come to Oklahoma and tell these "Indians" how grateful they should be for the magnanimous way they were treated by the American government. Tell these people how thankful they should be for being allowed to live and breathe American air. No, don't do that. I don't particularity like you but I would not wish to see you, or anyone else, "Tarred and feathered" and sent out on a rail. Unbelievable!!! |
Edited by - joseph wiggs on February 22 2005 9:35:26 PM |
|
|
|
movingrobewoman
Lt. Colonel
USA
Status: offline |
Posted - February 23 2005 : 12:18:54 AM
|
quote:
Originally posted by Dark Cloud
Who believes, and what percentage of us, that "Custer was a rampant, crazed, kill-all-the-Indians-within-500-miles kind of maniac who went out and initiated all this murderous garbage on a blood-soaked whim!" That's not even a straw dog. That's simply an idiotic contention provided to excuse those who wish to be seen as defending him for public applause. There was a brief period in the sixties of grotesque exaggeration, long past.
I provided a quote reeking of *imagined*, worst-case ridiculousness answering a post reeking of stupidity--but unfortunately for the more "insulated" ones who post here, I must tell you--newsflash--the crazed Custer image seems to still run rampant amongst the proletariat many who choose to accept what Hollywood dishes out to them, rather than to pick up a book and READ it. I have tried to interest many professional collegues in Custer, and the answers I've encountered are that he was nothing less than an "arrogant pig (and that is a direct quote)" at best, a murderer at worst. If this image of Custer is, indeed, a nostalgic "straw dog," it's one of the hardest to break in the annals of American mythology--right up there with Babe the Blue Ox. Does such plebian ignorance frustrate me? Yeah, it does. But sorry, it is out there.
I would vote that assumptions stop being made in regards to one's personal interactions--because this has been part and parcel of my experience. |
movingrobe |
|
|
|
Anonymous Poster8169
Brigadier General
Status: offline |
Posted - February 23 2005 : 01:16:42 AM
|
quote:
Originally posted by whistlingboy
I can't see where I said, you said, Libby was cheating. I certainly did not mean to imply that either, MRW. But taking a quote out of a book, out of context, I feel, can be very dangerous and especially a quote like that which one could easily surmise to mean Libby's opinion of Weir might have had harbored sweet thoughts about him which would have been against the honor of her husband. In fact, they may have not been 'flirtatious' thoughts at all.
My guess is that the letter refers to Weir's alcoholism. His problems with the bottle are well-known, and Custer being a teetotaler probably wasn't too sympathetic. Whatever it is, he says that Libbie's "moral training" should have sniffed it out earlier, so it must have been somewhat serious.
quote:
As for Mr. Utley, I didn't say he was a bad historian at all. In fact, he is very established and honorable, I'm sure, but, nevertheless, I do find him to be a typical historian. Thanks for the response.
He obviously blew it on the Weir matter, since his chapter on sources implies that Benteen's statements quoted on pgs. 107-08 are available in Carroll's edition of the letters, which they are not. I'm wondering now if he was victimized by a doctored version of the 2/12/96 letter. Carroll published them complete about 1975, but they had been circulating among buffs and collectors since the 1930s, and Utley probably first got his copies in that way. If he did, he may have used those in preference to the transcriptions in Carroll's book, and if the copies he received had been tampered with by someone with an ax to grind, or a prurient sense of humor.....
R. Larsen |
|
|
|
lorenzo G.
Captain
Italy
Status: offline |
Posted - February 23 2005 : 01:23:15 AM
|
Frank: same thing I think about you.
That I differ opinion from you did'nt mean I hide my head on sand. I never said West was a easy and bright affair. There was bad and dark both sides, yet. And Government never tryed to kill all the indians. Never they have the intention, as Nazi and (why nobody mention them?)bolsheviks, to cancel every enemy from the face of this world. Or even just who thought different from them.
That's all. |
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 23 2005 : 06:45:06 AM
|
Lorenzo
as Nazi and (why nobody mention them?)bolsheviks,
And Italian fascists.
BJ/DC/69
The Indians were victims of crimes against humanity.These crimes took many forms.Ethnic cleansing,transportation,murder,coercion,corralling ,massacre.It was the intention to destroy them as a functioning tribal nation.These victims you people have no problem describing as "just another bunch of aborigines".However when I suggest that the above list of crimes might just constitute a holocause the mask slips and there is outrage.BJ suggests that the Indians brought it on themselves .DC dismisses them as annoying bands and trys to excuse US policy by stating that the Indians would have committed genocide themselves if only they had the weapons.If the Indians can be dismissed as nothing more than a minor irritant then who cares what happened to them.Same modus opperandi as the nazis who described the Jews as nothing more than rats.Denigrate the victims and the crime does not seem so terrible.
125 years ago it was "just another bunch of aborigines"
Yesterday it was "just another bunch of gooks"
Today it's "just another bunch of ragheads"
Tell me Joe Wiggs that decency is not dead in the US.Tell me it ain't so Joe.
Hunkpapa
"The water there is mine,not yours,and the same with the grass.Even the ground it grows from belongs to me I will not let you have these things" the words of a Dine chief.
There is a line in an Irish poem ---
Be there a man with soul so dead
That never to himself had said
This is my own my native land
And the Dine now say they did not suffer like the Jews??? |
|
|
|
wILD I
Brigadier General
Ireland
Status: offline |
Posted - February 23 2005 : 06:53:25 AM
|
| Apologies Hunkpapa that last section was for Movingrobewoman |
|
|
|
lorenzo G.
Captain
Italy
Status: offline |
Posted - February 23 2005 : 09:52:18 AM
|
Wild,First: My maternal grandfather had put to the wall from the fascists to be shot while the fatherly one regularly came beaten and forced to drink oil till to be sick because was anarchist. Therefore your insinuation and your answer are totally out of place.And you would have better to take a long breath before to speak to your next.
Second, I did'nt mention fascists just because they are included in Nazis: did you know they were allied?
Third: I made that statement about bolsheviks because I hear often genocide and nazi words used as the symble of terror, but rarely a word against the 100 milions of losses (still growing)that bolsheviks gave to humanity with an equal violence and cruelty.
What then? will you call me ****ing catholic? You would be wrong too, because I am not one of them. |
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 23 2005 : 11:01:42 AM
|
Even by your standards, Wild, that's stupid. I distinctly said, and before you, that the Indians underwent a holocaust, but that it was by disease. You try to pretend holocaust and genocide are the same thing. There have been many holocausts that are not genocide, which happens very seldom. Your difficulty is - aside from covering up your embarrassing ignorance of word definitions - you're trying to form a metaphor to the pathos of Irish history to sob over, reading your ghastly Irish poetry (most of the good poets moved to England asap) since the Irish folded pretty quick as well.
The Irish, like the Scots and like the Indians, pandered to the conquering powers, sold each other out, and had no clue what was going on in the world until too late. Generally, they only noted they were one people after being conquered, as is now supposed happened to what became the Hebrews; before that their neighboring clans/tribes/septs were as dung. (It's hysterical listening to AIM talk of Indian brotherhood. Right. Like seeing the Campbells and McDonalds hold hands and sing Kumbayama and pretend was always thus.) They were inferior civilizations, unable to unite to protect their people or their institutions (which, you know, is pretty basic), and what survives to this day of that past life isn't due the heroism of their men and their brilliance in war (Hello? Clueless, ignorant Bozos? YOU LOST BIG TIME...), but the mere convenience of the conquering power. Is all. That applied to the Confederacy here, as well.
Like Italy, like the Sioux, like Scotland, like the Confederacy, Ireland is just another nation that lost (a lot) in war, and because it fluffs the reputations of its conquerors to allow the losers to strut and parade their iffy military giants about, they're allowed to. If the victories hadn't been so complete, it would be dangerous, otherwise.
Rewind all this and start from that perspective, and it makes more sense, having the advantage of being true. |
Dark Cloud
copyright RL MacLeod
darkcloud@darkendeavors.com
www.darkendeavors.com
www.boulderlout.com |
|
|
|
Topic |
|
|
|
Benteen's order
Topic Locked
