| Author |
 Topic  |
|
BJMarkland
Colonel
USA
Status: offline |
 Posted - March 09 2005 : 02:29:36 AM
|
Paul, if you were any fuller of excrement, you would be a caravan of "honey wagons."
And yes, despite your protests, I do prefer not to curse on the board.
OK, let's waste bandwidth and go over this line-by-line.
quote:
You can get all emotional and start name calling if you want to
Well, I did call you a bully and if someone wishes to look, they will find that I understated the case. I stand by my statement Paul, you attempt to bully people you disagree with.
quote:
he belief, when you are called on something like this and immediatly begin your acronyms for foul cursing instead of using the actual words, places your actions above others is another of several false conclusion's you often operate on. I will give you the fact my language is often much more colorful than yours. If that makes you a better man than I, so be it. Foul language is actually much further beneath you than I. Different lifestyles. Trying to be the judge of this board's moral theme is another problem you seem to often wrestle with.
Paul, I have not the faintest idea what you are speaking of. If I wish to use a synonym, is it foul cursing? However, in the post which you are frothing over, well, I don't think I did. I called a bully a bully. More unsucessful attempted misdirection Paul.
quote:
f I bother you so much, just ignore me. However, I don't think you can. I operate from the other end of a moral scale you see in the opposite direction from my perception.
Two things on the above statement. First, why should I let YOU dictate whom I read or speak to? If you don't have the decency to follow normal/accepted paths for disagreement, why should I leave?
Secondly, it is very obvious that we are on opposite spectrums of the moral path.
quote:
Apparently that holds some facination for you.
No Paul, I keep hoping that the intellect that you have let your emotions overide will triumph. Hopefully, it may, but I no longer care.
quote:
I think if some one is a jerk I call them on it. You think that is bad manners. Sorry, thats the way I am.
I have no problems with calling anyone a jerk. Witness I am calling you one now! However, when you consistently attack the person rather than the argument, that goes overboard.
quote:
Not likely we will change. You are a great researcher, not a humorist or a mediator.
Well, you are wrong twice. I am a good researcher, there are many better. Maybe one day I will earn that right to be called a "great researcher", just not yet. No, I somehow think I can change any preconceptions I have, if, once dealing with a person I understand the person behind the mask. I thought I did you, but, as you witness, I can change.
And so I have a no sense of humor? Who are you to speak of personal shotcomings?
quote:
And BJ, when pushed, I don't just bite, I eat!
Paul, on this last one, I will revert back to my high school days, many years ago, for an appropriate saying:
"Eat me."
With diminishted tolerance, little respect, and hope for your recovery,
Billy
|
Edited by - BJMarkland on March 09 2005 02:35:21 AM |
  |
|
|
wILD I
Brigadier General
Ireland
Status: offline |
Posted - March 09 2005 : 06:53:51 AM
|
 |
|
|
|
whistlingboy
Lieutenant
USA
Status: offline |
Posted - March 09 2005 : 11:29:58 AM
|
It has always fascinated me when a person thinks they are not 'prejudiced.' Prejudice is an ugly 'head' that wears so many 'faces' and lives pervasively throughout the universe. When one 'face' goes up against another 'face,' an environment of uneasiness is forced upon all the other 'faces,' creating an air of uncertainty. The only headway that seems to be getting made on "Benteen's orders,' 'Responsibility..,' etc. appears to be that we all are 'jerks' in the eyes of someone else on this board. These 'sensibilities' we all have are 'tender' and 'raw' under the 'burning' quips that continually 'touch' them. Our backgrounds, upbringing, nationalities, views, we have---our external positions and 'leanings' on all subjects--for whatever reasons, seem to be more in focus and under attack than the true reasons and purposes of this forum. It appears to be a growing problem and a detriment to the purpose.
When I was writing and submitting articles to the different scholarly journals in my field, it was easy to become perturbed when asked to re-write a particular page, etc. because some little 'rule' was not respected or adhered to. A rule to one 'journal' often was not a rule with the next journal. For example, many journals required the use of 'big, scholarly words' in a certain frequency to uphold the posture of the discipline. Others were concerned with graphs and tables and required a certain number to support your ideas; others required long paragraphs and some shorter paragraphs. These idiosyncracies of each of the mediums seemed 'odd' and perturbing at first. The purpose of them, of course, was to control the submissions to a certain conciseness and to a particular regimen respectful of the integrity of the discipline of which that journal was an integral part. Taking another view of someone else's premise was okay if you could present yours in a meaningful way, replete with amenities to support it. No slanderous sounding symbolism attacking the researchers' perceived cognitions was allowed to complicate the purpose of the research.
A person can walk a near perfect life but when he 'stumbles' one time he gets remembered for that mistake. People making 'mistakes' is what sells the newspapers, etc. Why? We look at the imperfections in life, in people and for what reason--to measure our own worth? Are we jealous of others? Are we mad at others because they, in our perceptions, had it 'better' than us? The reasons go on and on...we are all talking about a subject we are not privy to know the 'truth' about concerning what happened on LSH, for example. How can we get seriously 'down' on someone else's opinion about this 'stuff?' Nothing is getting proved here and nothing will at the approach that is being taken---these are not scholarly pursuits---the pursuits followed constitute a forum for personal attack. I was embroiled into the 'stew' when 'opinionated' jibes were thrown against my 'aura' sensitivities, a practice I was new to.
Maybe I am wrong about the intention of this forum embodying a 'scholarly' approach to the many issues on the table. Peace is always better than war but war is more humanistic and the basis of my pessimism on life. Given that, life will always be dynamic and so my 'walk' through IT.
I still see admirable qualities in each person here because I want to; I recognize and respect the differences too. But if you are a scholar and IF I contribute something and 'attack you must', please attack my 'premise' and not my 'jerkness' because that's not going to change, most likely.
For those who think Mr. Custer was an incompetent idiot will, most likely, always adhere to that 'face.' Likewise, the other 'faces' will, most likely, never change either. Whether he died first, last or was the 89th brave heart to die is inconsequential at this point,in time, and that is fact. He died along with his command--fact. As a West Pointer and an officer, "Duty, Honor, Country" were foremost in his mind and his job. Everyone on that knoll, surrounded by hundreds of advancing or soon to be advancing hostiles and realizing their imminent death were heros by the 'luck of the draw.' Custer knew exactly where he was, where he wasn't going to be and what was going to happen and it was his duty and his honor to his regiment and his country to do his job---lead until the end, at least so goes the legend. That will always make me a 'jerk' because I break a cardinal rule in scholarly research--pursuing the truth objectively. However, I have succumbed, because of the volume written on this historical event, to the idea that pristine true facts are forever lost and subjectively choose to remember Mr. Custer as a gallant, officer and a gentleman. This one costly mistake may have tarnished and embarrassed the government but if he would have survived and lost, it might have been worse for him--Grant's animosity toward him was jealously organized. Look what happened to Lt. Gatewood, a true hero in my mind, going into the camp of the renegade, Geronimo, and talking him into surrendering a second time. What credit did he get? They 'pushed him under the rug.' Sent him to 'Siberia' so to speak....he was an embarrassment to what the army couldn't do. To this day, if anyone gets 'bigger' than Washington....well, we know what happens. And in my mind and amid all the conflicting accounts I have read, Mr. Custer had already gotten "too big" for this government of Grant's and was 'dead' from the get go. His gusto, enthusiasm, love of the Army, arrogance (not of character but of duty) mesmerized his ability to possibly see Washington's final solution and he probably wouldn't have cared anyway....he was going to get a chance to 'go back into the field.'
|
|
|
|
movingrobewoman
Lt. Colonel
USA
Status: offline |
Posted - March 09 2005 : 3:40:57 PM
|
quote:
Originally posted by whistlingboy
A person can walk a near perfect life but when he 'stumbles' one time he gets remembered for that mistake. People making 'mistakes' is what sells the newspapers, etc. Why? We look at the imperfections in life, in people and for what reason--to measure our own worth? Are we jealous of others? Are we mad at others because they, in our perceptions, had it 'better' than us? The reasons go on and on...we are all talking about a subject we are not privy to know the 'truth' about concerning what happened on LSH, for example. How can we get seriously 'down' on someone else's opinion about this 'stuff?' Nothing is getting proved here and nothing will at the approach that is being taken---these are not scholarly pursuits---the pursuits followed constitute a forum for personal attack. I was embroiled into the 'stew' when 'opinionated' jibes were thrown against my 'aura' sensitivities, a practice I was new to.
For those who think Mr. Custer was an incompetent idiot will, most likely, always adhere to that 'face.' Likewise, the other 'faces' will, most likely, never change either. Whether he died first, last or was the 89th brave heart to die is inconsequential at this point,in time, and that is fact. He died along with his command--fact. As a West Pointer and an officer, "Duty, Honor, Country" were foremost in his mind and his job. Everyone on that knoll, surrounded by hundreds of advancing or soon to be advancing hostiles and realizing their imminent death were heros by the 'luck of the draw.' Custer knew exactly where he was, where he wasn't going to be and what was going to happen and it was his duty and his honor to his regiment and his country to do his job---lead until the end, at least so goes the legend. That will always make me a 'jerk' because I break a cardinal rule in scholarly research--pursuing the truth objectively. However, I have succumbed, because of the volume written on this historical event, to the idea that pristine true facts are forever lost and subjectively choose to remember Mr. Custer as a gallant, officer and a gentleman. This one costly mistake may have tarnished and embarrassed the government but if he would have survived and lost, it might have been worse for him--Grant's animosity toward him was jealously organized. To this day, if anyone gets 'bigger' than Washington....well, we know what happens. And in my mind and amid all the conflicting accounts I have read, Mr. Custer had already gotten "too big" for this government of Grant's and was 'dead' from the get go. His gusto, enthusiasm, love of the Army, arrogance (not of character but of duty) mesmerized his ability to possibly see Washington's final solution and he probably wouldn't have cared anyway....he was going to get a chance to 'go back into the field.'
Interesting post, WB. There is nothing sorrier than losing a good board to personal differences and attacks. Although my positions might be considered by you to not be sufficently "scholarly," they are just that. Positions. Not life and death issues, correct? To tell my history, I came to this subject with a chip on her part-Indian shoulder. George Armstrong Custer as evil incarnate, a sinister figgure who sacrificed our "innocent" and "utopian" people to his Vlad the Impaler-esque will. Research into the "truth" helps dispell mythology. It certainly did my in my case. Initially fascinated by the inherent tragedy of GAC's life, my studies in this subject has been kind of a personal awakening in other aspects of reality. Them facts. This is where I think Billy makes a very valid point--and we have ultimately more in common, given the narrow definitions of our subject matter, than that what separates us.
Now as for GAC being an incompetent idiot, nope, not me. My biggest problems with him (I can't remember who said this) seem to revolve around his moods during peacetime, whilst cooling his heels ... Lack of an enemy it didn't seem to sit easily with his character--nor was he particularly successful at it. The problems began in 1866 ... and to a lesser extent, mebbe, continued all the way until the Belknap testimony.
But had he gotten too big for Washington--or had he bitten off more than he could ever in this lifetime chew? Perhaps, but then again, given my research into his character, it flows naturally.
In his case, peace seemed to drain Armstrong's life blood ... talk about Vlad the Impaler!
Good, good points.
Regards, |
movingrobe |
|
|
|
wILD I
Brigadier General
Ireland
Status: offline |
Posted - March 10 2005 : 04:20:45 AM
|
George Armstrong Custer as evil incarnate, a sinister figgure who sacrificed our "innocent" and "utopian" people to his Vlad the Impaler-esque will.
MRW
Do you honestly think that had they been innocent and utopian they would have been spared the horrors of conquest.The killings started on Christopher's second trip and continued unabated for the next 400 years.And when these benign impalers had drained the last drop of blood and sweat from their victims they replaced them with Africans.
What was the difference between Cortes and GAC?What GAC was attempting to do at the LBH was no different from what Cortes did at Cholula.
The LBH could have been the last act in the bloody 400 year conquest of the Americas.Hundreds if not thousands of men women and children could have been ridden down and slaughtered if GAC had got it right.
The LBH was not just a moment in time.It was a moment for all time.It was for all downtrodden people.A moment when the tormented turned on their tormentors.A moment when the impalers were impaled.
How ironic that the final curtain in this tragedy falls on the gutted bodies of the victors.
|
|
|
|
El Crab
Brigadier General
USA
Status: offline |
Posted - March 10 2005 : 04:31:08 AM
|
As if the American Indian never fought their neighbors before the white man showed up...
War has been a part of human existence for a very, very long time. The Sioux were hardly the tormented. On June 25th, 1876, they were, on what was previously Crow land, after all... |
I came. I saw. I took 300 pictures. |
|
|
|
wILD I
Brigadier General
Ireland
Status: offline |
Posted - March 10 2005 : 08:34:03 AM
|
It is said that at the time of CC's arrival the Americas contained 1/5 of the world's population.Every possible kind of society existed in this world.From stoneage hunter gatherer tribes to advanced empires,from canibalism to the highest forms of engineering.In human affairs it would have mirrored the "old"world.All human life was here.It was a world.To say that this world was not Utopia and engaged in wars is no excuse for the unprecedented savagery which was inflicted on it.The Europeans engaged in an assault of such magnatude that it amounted to total annihilation.
I have had this arguement with DC and others and have said that I would not use the G word.On reflection it is quiet inadequate to describe the crime.It was not the destruction of a race but the destruction of a world.
|
|
|
|
whistlingboy
Lieutenant
USA
Status: offline |
Posted - March 10 2005 : 10:20:01 AM
|
The scary thing about a medium of communication,like this board, for me, is that no one can 'read' what you feel while they read what you write. It is a feeling we all must grope with and it often proves to be quite challenging. 'What do they mean by that word....what does that word mean in their mind.'..etc.
Movingrobewoman, your response to my 'tantrum' is appreciated for I have this 'thing' about prejudice...it wants to 'live' with all of us in some form or fashion and is a phenomenon that stresses and stretches us to our furthest perimeter at times. Of course, I was not implying that there are no 'scholars' here......the scholarly focus seems to suffer under personal attack at times. There are some very intuitive and imaginative minds on this board that stimulates my interest.
I think I understand what you are saying about his actions 'away from the front-line' so to speak. I certainly think you are entirely right and it really is an insight into the man because he had trouble with his frustrations of being 'left out' of the action. The daily routine of life away from the army was not his 'bag.' But I think this substantiates to me his undying love for his 'mistress,' the army. He just wanted to be a soldier...it was really all he knew. He wasn't passionately interested in the 'normal' life of business at that time and as has been pointed out previously, wasn't intelligent at it; hence, wasn't successful at it. I just didn't think that this lacking influenced him in making wrong leadership decisions in the field nor produced in him any character flaws when it came to leading him regiment into battle. They were struggles for him of a different color.
I have always enjoyed reading your posts on the forum because they may offer a different tangent or subsidiary view to a question. I have learned much from you as I have many of the others. I look forward to learning more too.
Wild I, you are very astute in presenting many of your points and that helps you to be very effective and appreciated for your style; you stimulate by your 'hard nose' positions and corollary data. You are 'pounced' on (in a good way, though) by your style of presentation which is your way. Your 'G' stance is tough and seemingly unswerving and yet, I understand your thinking that way, although I am not absolutely sure of your primary motivation or how you 'read' the intent in 'G.' I don't want to be dogmatic about it; I want to learn the motivation behind the thinking.
I remember your constructive criticism about my paragraphs and I am trying to get better at it, thanks.
|
|
|
|
whistlingboy
Lieutenant
USA
Status: offline |
Posted - March 10 2005 : 11:14:18 AM
|
| An addendum: As I am trying to learn the ways of the board, I have studied by dissection the posts of the members in an attempt to 'find my way' eventually. My cursory view tells me that the 'styles' of writing more than the 'content of the material' presented by the many members, appear to be more likely to create many of the antagonisms that arise. I have tried to assume a more 'middle of the road' approach so far and a respect for the different 'personalities.' |
|
|
|
wILD I
Brigadier General
Ireland
Status: offline |
Posted - March 10 2005 : 1:58:54 PM
|
Whistlingboy you're not Data by any chance?You know Capt Kirk's sidekick.
Your 'G' stance is tough and seemingly unswerving and yet, I understand your thinking that way, although I am not absolutely sure of your primary motivation or how you 'read' the intent in 'G.'The trigger was not to allow the term "just another bunch of aborigines"to go unchallenged.
We have a case here at the moment in the courts where 4 college boys from good homes got into a fight with another college boy.None of them had the intent to murder him but the accumulated blows did result in his death.
400 years of assault by different nations on the Americas resulted in the demise of Indian society.No one nation was guilty Not the Spanish,not the Portuguese,not the Dutch,British,or French.Nor the New nations .In fact the US was only mopping up the last resistance.It was the accumulation of brutality which destroyed that portion of mankind which had developed independently and in isolation.
Custer was the last of the conquistadores.Out on his own with a handful of men,anserable to noone,conquer or die, going for gold and glory.And all turned to dust.And it is good to see that as the final curtin falls it is the Indian who occupys center stage if only for a fleeting moment. |
|
|
|
whistlingboy
Lieutenant
USA
Status: offline |
Posted - March 10 2005 : 5:34:11 PM
|
Wild I: No, however, it was Data's role that I enjoyed the most...interesting remark--a few light years away from his abilities.
I did enjoy the discussions aroused by "just another bunch of aborigines." Even if it was a slip of the tongue, a real possibility, it was only fair that the string of words be addressed.
If coming from a reasoned, pre-meditated mind then the ramifications of parallel substitution could be profound. The different writers have their motivations--to tease, to antagonize, to mildly insult, to have some honest fun, to play Devil's advocate, are truly ignorant of a fact, and on and on and on. This causes the scholarly focus to waver at times but allows for the 'casualness' in the forum. Don't you think we are all handicapped by the fact that we can't see anyone's eyes and facial expressions when they write this stuff? We have to read and assume a certain mood.
Exploration by the many nations over the centuries, for whatever reasons, always put distant 'status quos' at risk. Often, the end results meant subjugation of peoples, destruction of valuable histories and landmarks, the transportation and consequent infusion of new diseases, the raping and theft of valuable resources, etc. The Indians fell prey to the 'age of exploration.' They were at the perimeters of the world's unknown lands enjoying their way of life in their simplistic ways. They were not an ambitious lot but were the 'wall' that European exploration bounced up against. And like you said, Wild I, 400 years of constant assaults by various nations has greatly diminished their effectiveness and their well-being. And I am speaking of all the Indians in all the Americas. The face of 'intent' has often worn a mask but like the four college boys in your story, the accumulated blows to the Indians have resulted in their near-death. The evidence is circumstantial but wreaks of 'plan.' They were just in the way of greedy nations. |
|
|
|
whistlingboy
Lieutenant
USA
Status: offline |
Posted - March 10 2005 : 9:27:37 PM
|
that's cool, Paul. I can't stop laughing. You're a great balance.
|
|
|
|
BJMarkland
Colonel
USA
Status: offline |
Posted - March 11 2005 : 06:26:10 AM
|
For what it is worth, I'm back! Work has been of such intensity that my focus has had to stay with that. Hopefully today I can relax and take a half day off...hmmm, field trip to Leavenworth seems in order if that happens.
OK, to finish off a previous line of thought with Paul:
quote:
Please do not send me any more personal messages begging me to be nice to DC or someone else! You are pathetic!
Errr, never sent you any to be nice to anyone, only requesting you change your approach. Any who doubt that and care to read them, I can forward. As I said, I have no problems with differences of opinion but attack the argument rather than the person. *sigh* It must be the immaturity in me that thinks that is a rational approach.
Oh well, that thread is finished.
Billy
P.S. Paul, I am going to delete unread your PM entitled, "imatur fool!". |
Edited by - BJMarkland on March 11 2005 06:27:12 AM |
|
|
|
BJMarkland
Colonel
USA
Status: offline |
Posted - March 11 2005 : 06:38:28 AM
|
Whistlingboy wrote:
quote:
For those who think Mr. Custer was an incompetent idiot will, most likely, always adhere to that 'face.' Likewise, the other 'faces' will, most likely, never change either.
WB, you bring up something I am wondering more and more about since being on this board and learning more about Custer. That is, "WAS He Competent?" Undoubtedly he was aggressive but exactly how competent tactically was he? I know of one action in the CW which he did the same thing he did at LBH, i.e., split his forces with inadequate recon to find and determine the enemy's strength. Every commander, he fights enough battles, will more than likely make a hash of an operation (see Crook). How well he recovers and his track record prior and afterwards (if still alive) offer more clues to his overall competence.
While that likely is the topic of another thread, could it be reasoned, not knee-jerk, opposition to the hypothesis?
Best of wishes,
Billy |
|
|
|
wILD I
Brigadier General
Ireland
Status: offline |
Posted - March 11 2005 : 10:12:43 AM
|
No, however, it was Data's role that I enjoyed the most...interesting remark--a few light years away from his abilities.Never doubted your abilities Whistlingboy.It was just the deadpan unemotional delivery which reminded me of the Trekker
The Indians fell prey to the 'age of exploration.
"Exploration" is that what it was called?
They were at the perimeters of the world's unknown landsNo.20 million Indians knew where they were.
enjoying their way of life in their simplistic ways.
Heavens above WB ! But they were living in apartment blocks in cities bigger than London or Rome.
They were not an ambitious lot This is very interesting .Perhaps you might explain.
They were just in the way of greedy nations.The word "just" seems to be used here as an excuse.As if to say Well it was just unavoidable. |
|
|
|
movingrobewoman
Lt. Colonel
USA
Status: offline |
Posted - March 11 2005 : 11:45:32 AM
|
quote:
Originally posted by wILD I
George Armstrong Custer as evil incarnate, a sinister figgure who sacrificed our "innocent" and "utopian" people to his Vlad the Impaler-esque will.
MRW
Do you honestly think that had they been innocent and utopian they would have been spared the horrors of conquest.The killings started on Christopher's second trip and continued unabated for the next 400 years.And when these benign impalers had drained the last drop of blood and sweat from their victims they replaced them with Africans.
What was the difference between Cortes and GAC?What GAC was attempting to do at the LBH was no different from what Cortes did at Cholula.
The LBH could have been the last act in the bloody 400 year conquest of the Americas.Hundreds if not thousands of men women and children could have been ridden down and slaughtered if GAC had got it right.
The LBH was not just a moment in time.It was a moment for all time.It was for all downtrodden people.A moment when the tormented turned on their tormentors.A moment when the impalers were impaled.
How ironic that the final curtain in this tragedy falls on the gutted bodies of the victors.
When I used the words "innocent" and "utopian," my tongue was firmly attached to my cheek ... of course, some tribes were more given to warfare than others (say, the Hopi), but if I left the impression that the NAs were living a life not unlike those kids in the Haight-Ashbury during the Summer of Love, I didn't mean it!
That said, I don't think GAC was out to kill all the Indians in the Montana Territory--he was there, following the orders/will of the United States' government, "causing" non-Rez folk back into the fold and elegant quarters provided by the Great White Fathers. Yeah, there were going to be deaths a plenty, but Custer was one lieutenant colonel in a very big system.
Had the Indians offered a "utopia" to the Anglos, it would have made no difference. The conquest was on.
Regards, Wild-- |
movingrobe |
|
|
|
Dark Cloud
Brigadier General
USA
Status: offline |
Posted - March 11 2005 : 11:50:09 AM
|
Native Americans were no more or less ambitious than anyone else, and fall along the same lines. Some Indians lived well in beautiful cities, some lived in nomadic squalor. They produced extremely ambitious chiefs and leaders, were just as greedy as Europeans, just as violent, just as cruel, just as stupid and over-reaching. Their civilizations were not strong enough to adapt and successfully repel invaders of vastly inferior numbers. The Europeans' views on life - conquer and append and bleed of wealth with the help of slaves - were no different than that of the most successful tribes in the Americas. But the Europeans were better at it.
Wild continues to position them as innocent noble savages, and somehow innocent when they slaughtered each other for gold and wealth, but they were far too complex and different among themselves for such simplistic characterizations.
There were any number of times they could have defeated the Europeans and sent them packing. They could not partially because of pandemics but mostly their lust for revenge against each other. Their leaders and the people failed each other in being unable to admit what was happening or subject themselves to military unity, and they got walloped. Same thing happened to greater and lesser degree to Scotland, Ireland, the Confederacy, and in the Arab world: an inability to subject themselves to central control for the common good for any prolonged period. Clive conquered India, in hyperbole, with a butler and four lancers because he could bribe people to kill their neighbors and, in fact, run India more fairly than the Indians had for centuries. That does not speak well of India, let us be frank.
And shorn of the romantic garbage, the history of Native America doesn't speak all that well of it. If the Euros had simply conquered and treated them like the conquered had always been treated, everyone today, including Native Americans, would say 'yeah, sad' but there'd be no issue of the moral superiority by right of being conquered. The Indians lost.
But, we have the issue of Christianity and the saving of souls by commandment, and the sense that these people should be treated better than others were in the past, and we went through the sham of signing treaties and legalisms that have provided as much harm as benefit in the harsh light of history. Until last century, no Indian had a legal right to speak for another by the standards of either side, and these treaties are really legal smoke. |
Dark Cloud
copyright RL MacLeod
darkcloud@darkendeavors.com
www.darkendeavors.com
www.boulderlout.com |
Edited by - Dark Cloud on March 11 2005 12:06:46 PM |
|
|
|
BJMarkland
Colonel
USA
Status: offline |
Posted - March 12 2005 : 12:02:22 AM
|
[quote]Originally posted by Warlord
BJ; Billy just keep that BS coming! I know it makes you feel better.
[/quote
Paul, as usual you are somewhere in left field.
First delineate where I have poised BS? Whether Custer was incompetent was a widely held question.
If you are speaking about our ruckus...it is over as far as I am concerned. If you wish to carry it forward, you are a bigger fool than I ever gave you credit for, which is an enormously long stretch.
Best of wishes,
Billy
|
|
|
|
whistlingboy
Lieutenant
USA
Status: offline |
Posted - March 12 2005 : 2:01:14 PM
|
The Indians fell prey to the 'age of exploration. (WB)
"Exploration" is that what it was called?(W-I)
I think it started out as 'exploration' although it seemed to inveritably turn into 'exploitation.'
No.20 million Indians knew where they were. (W-I)
True that is but before the first 'exploiters' did they have an inkling or have a care whether or not anyone else lived anywhere else on this planet?
enjoying their way of life in their simplistic ways. (WB)
Heavens above WB ! But they were living in apartment blocks in cities bigger than London or Rome.
True again but appeared to be satisfied with their predicament...what would lead you, as a researcher, to believe that they had any other aims or dreams on the future...i.e. 'gee, we're getting too many people, we better plan bigger settlements.' (maybe I am a crazy thinker after all)
They were not an ambitious lot.(WB) This is very interesting .Perhaps you might explain. (W-I)
Good query. I was thinking in the context of 'world exploration.' Seen no evidence of that 'ambition' in the 'writing on the walls' or the 'buffalo skins.'
They were just in the way of greedy nations. (WB) The word "just" seems to be used here as an excuse.As if to say Well it was just unavoidable. (W-I)
Admiring your sensitivity to the word 'just' I assure you I didn't mean to use the word to denote a derogatory situation....one could substitute the word 'merely' I suppose. Nevertheless, to the ambitious nations of the world, they and their lifestyle, for better or worse, were in the way of progress.
Again, Data was steadfast in the show except that one where he got kissed and it looked like the confusion fried his chips, so to speak.
I am guilty of being too cheap with words, DC, cause you are right and I certainly agree with you that Indians were definitely greedy and ambitious within their circles. The back strain of thought in my mind that was making me type phrases like "They were not an ambitious lot but were the 'wall' that European exploration bounced up against."...well, the thought was that the Indians, at least in my way of thinking, were tied more closely to the values of nature; not the vibes of 'materialism.' This alone 'probably' kept them at home. The Europeans sent out exploring 'parties' to track down myths and rumors of great lands and wealth, whether that be land, slaves, jewels, ores, etc.--things that could be brought back and sold to attain wealth--materialism. Their ambitions (Europeans/Easterners) were soon 'to conquer the world as they believed it to be. They built great ships to sail the great waters even though it may have been over a flat edge. AMBITION fueled by materialistic dreams of power......what great Indian is known to have sailed the great oceans with the purpose of conquering another land?
And closer to home, the western tribes--Lakota, Cheyenne, Crow, etc., if they were ambitious could have travelled east to conquer those tribes and take that land. Instead, the ambitious whites of the east in this new Americas marched west in an offensive posture and defeated the 'defensive' Indians. I am not judging what is right or wrong but the two philosophies failed to be compatible---something had to give and something did, right or wrong. 'Live and let live' does not apply in a greedy world, then or now, at least in the long term.
You ask, fairly, Mr. Billy, "WAS He competent?" Graduating in the Class of 1861 one has to assume he received the latest training in military tactics, the influence of Baron Jomini and his text, The Art of War. Mr. Custer's expertise was in small-unit tactics, which also has to be remembered. Also, too, it must be remembered that his field prowess was honed and finessed during the Civil War, garnering him high marks from his men and his superiors. His dedication, his knowledge of field conditions, his courage, honor and gallantry under fire, earned him the respect of his subordinates and superiors alike.
Now to answer your question. My subjective thoughts say 'yes' he was extremely competent regardless of what happened. Besides, couldn't they (Grant administration) have appointed many other commanders to be the 'third arm' of the three prong attack? How did his superiors reconcile his appointment? They had to be competent with him and feel that he was also competent. Wouldn't that follow? Aggressive? Yes. Arrogant? Yes. Good resume? Yes. Do we (superiors) think he can get the job done? Yes. If we can have anyone, Mr. Grant, give us Custer (superiors) Yes. Who has good leadership qualities...Custer. Yes. Did Custer believe in himself? Yes. So much did he believe in himself that it was only glory that was in his mind and not his men or the mission? A ludicrous thought! Incompetent because he graduated last in his class, making one think he might be incompetent? Get real. Was he a soldier? No. Was he a Warrior? Absolutely. Why in my mind? Because while the government can build soldiers, it can't build warriors.....they become loved by their people to the extent that they will sacrifice their lives for them when necessary. Custer was bounded by duty and honor and I am speaking of his personal honor. Freud said it best, 'in times of extreme stress, men look to be led' and Custer had the reputation to lead his men, fearlessly, up in front of them to show them great example. He acted with confidence and most likely, to the end. He probably falls because he is in a 'small-unit tactical' frame of mind against a force he probably assumes will run in his midst even though the 7th Infantry is greatly understrength. Too is often forgotten that even though the 7th had been in the field for over 9 years at the time of the battle, it had only been in one major engagement with the Indians, almost eight years before. But they must have felt that he was one, if not the main competent soldier they had to go up against an Indian force. But who knows, Billy. It was all academic after the fact. The large force of Indians would have most likely whipped Patton, Eisenhower, Bradley, Schwarzkopf and whoever. They definitely would have scalped Grant. I hate hindsight because it 'messes' with one's deductive abilities to exercise objectivity. My final answer....I would have 'sent him in.'
Thanks for your post and query, Billy.
|
|
|
|
Dark Cloud
Brigadier General
USA
Status: offline |
Posted - March 12 2005 : 2:22:12 PM
|
WB, the Incas were as materialistic as it gets, so were the gold ridden Indians in Mexico, and if they hadn't found the need to head East to conquer Europe it's probably because there was still a lot of empty space in the western hemisphere. There was probably never as many people then as there is now in California alone.
The Incas, Aztecs, Mayans and whoever thrived along the Mississippi and built those pyramids and towns of earth were clearly of the mindset vectored on avarice. They accumulated wealth. People acquiring gold aren't as one with nature; they've moved on.
Being technologically inept or behind isn't evidence of superior nature appreciation or closeness - just as chronic defeat in battle isn't evidence for ethical superiority - and in any case Indians wasted lots. They often slaughtered forests, they burned out the land, they cleaned out game and then moved on. |
Dark Cloud
copyright RL MacLeod
darkcloud@darkendeavors.com
www.darkendeavors.com
www.boulderlout.com |
|
|
|
wILD I
Brigadier General
Ireland
Status: offline |
Posted - March 12 2005 : 2:47:03 PM
|
Wild continues to position them as innocent noble savages,
The above is a blatant misrepsentation of my position by DC.All the more surprising as it comes from a man who hounded another contributer up and down the threads on this board over what he perceived to be a lie.
DC will find no mention of the words savage or noble in any of my posts.He will of course find the word cannibal if he cares to look back a post or two.DC is given to loud yahoos if he thinks he has scored a debating point.I wonder will he be man enough to admit his error or is scoring points more important to him than the truth?
There were any number of times they could have defeated the Europeans and sent them packing. They could not partially because of pandemics but mostly their lust for revenge against each other. Their leaders and the people failed each other in being unable to admit what was happening or subject themselves to military unity, and they got walloped.
They were unable to react or organise because they could not write.They had no way of storing or transfering information other than by word of mouth and had no idea what they were facing in the Spaniards.It was initally a failure of technology,Followed closely by a social failure in that the main socities who could have defeated the Spaniards were too centralised.Once the Spaniards had taked out the elite the resistance just crumbled.
Clive conquered India,
By imperialism not by annihilation.And India unlike the Americas had a great defence against colonisation and possible annihilation.Germs and climate.
[i]If the Euros had simply conquered and treated them like the conquered had always been treated, everyone today, including Native Americans, would say 'yeah, sad' but there'd be no issue of the moral superiority by right of being conquered. The Indians lost.[/]Victims are not losers.We are not talking about defeated nations here.We are talking about the obliteration of a significent part of the human race.
The conditions existing in the Americas at the time of the arrival of the Europeans combined with the basest elements of human nature gave us this unprecented human tragedy.
Militarly the Indians were defenceless but not defenceless enough.They might have survived as slaves by being totally docile.Biologically they were defenceless which made them useless as slaves anyway.Nations often avoid annihilation by running,but where could you run to in America?Climate was excellent in many areas similar to the best in Europe. And the isolation from the civilization of Europe ment there were no restraints on the carnage wroght by the Conquistadors.
The Americas resembled a brothal where the Europeans gave vent to their vilest instincts.
The pattern of rape and pillage never abated even with the decline of Spain.What Cortes began Cajamarca continued up to the California gold rush in the 1840s when an estimated 200000[yes 200000] indians were wiped out by immigrants flooding into the state.Most of these indians were casually murdered,like the 30 Yahis trapped in a cave by 4 cowboys.Wounded knee pales in comparison to the horror of the wanton
massacre of 2000 Yahi in a village by 17 settlers.
I hope they don't call on you to write the epitaph of those who "lost" on 9/11 |
|
|
|
joseph wiggs
Brigadier General
Status: offline |
Posted - March 12 2005 : 3:49:30 PM
|
[quote]Originally posted by wILD I
Wild continues to position them as innocent noble savages,
The above is a blatant misrepresentation of my position by DC.All the more surprising as it comes from a man who hounded another contributer up and down the threads on this board over what he perceived to be a lie.
Wild, I took the liberty of checking your posts for the "noble savages" theme D.c. has so explicitly proclaimed. Needless to say at no time did you state, intimate, allege, nor, infer the above. I'm inclined to believe that others who wish to take the time to check, will agree with me; with one obvious exception of course.
As the contributor who was "Hounded up and down the threads" the key to this enigma is why any contributor to the forum would be so treated in the first place? All who wish to participate in this forum, regardless of positioning, should be encouraged to do so. Fortunately, the individuals who received some obvious, albeit inexplicable satisfaction from such odd behavior were minuscule.
As for the other ludicrous comments exemplified by the perspective that the Indians could have beaten the Europeans and sent them packing, your eloquent response will suffice nicely. Please do not wait for an admission of error. Isn't it ironic that when we spend an exorbitant amount of time attempting to appear intelligent, the opposite often occurs? |
|
|
|
Dark Cloud
Brigadier General
USA
Status: offline |
Posted - March 13 2005 : 12:13:36 PM
|
Oh come on. If I'd claimed you used the exact words "noble savage" I'd have put them in quotes. I claim you continue to view them with all the qualities of Rousseau's Noble Savage as the term has been used for the last three hundred years, about, since he coined it. Innocent, noble, put upon, suffering, and doomed. Totally fictional, like Tolkien's Elves with whom characteristics are shared.
Indians did lose, and in that sense they are, rather obviously, losers. If you're going to install a New Age glossary of terminology concurrent with the terms of fact, and bounce between them to attempt to win, you can't. Just like the Irish, Scots, Confederacy, Gnostics, the Indians lost big time in every sense. Except one. Because of the political and cultural climate of the 19th century in America, they were allowed to pretend to sovereignty by the grant of mythical Babylonian ethical and spiritual depths nowhere evident because of bogus and unnecessary (to the Americans) treaties and land grants, something they never granted each other. Their cultures, religions, periodic military prowess, oratory, self image ...... nothing saved them from their own petty concerns and inability to unite against an obviously common foe. By any sense of the word: losers. And again, just like the Irish, Scots, Confederacy, a zillion others.
There's no shame in it. Five hundred years ago people were divided by concerns and supposed distinctions in Europe that make us laugh today. 'His ancestors were Saxon! Ours were Angles. You can't date him.' And LORD! He's a METHODIST!!! Are you crazy, child? What will the children look like???? In three hundred years, we'll be annoyed our children could be guilty of miscegnation with the young of Alpha Centauri. The horror.
There is, however, shame in pretending to a false past. |
Dark Cloud
copyright RL MacLeod
darkcloud@darkendeavors.com
www.darkendeavors.com
www.boulderlout.com |
|
|
|
joseph wiggs
Brigadier General
Status: offline |
Posted - March 13 2005 : 12:49:50 PM
|
addendum:
Wild, I forgot to mention that you did not refer to anyone as a "Liar" regarding this misrepresentation. Your choice not to do so exemplifies the difference between class and classless. |
|
|
|
wILD I
Brigadier General
Ireland
Status: offline |
Posted - March 13 2005 : 1:51:32 PM
|
Thank you for that Joe.
DC
I gave you the opportunity to correct a blatant misrepresentation and you choose not to do so.In fact your last post repeats this inaccuracy.
Our friend Lorenzo in a similar situation apologised and he stands high in my estimation.
Other than that I'm not really interested in your smoke and mirrors. |
|
|
|
Topic |
|
|
|
Benteen's order
Topic Locked
