| Author |
 Topic  |
|
joseph wiggs
Brigadier General
Status: offline |
 Posted - August 02 2004 : 10:44:04 PM
|
| Horned Horse says the smoke and dust was so great that foe could not be distinguished from friend. The horses were wild with fright and uncontrollable. Imagine the horror! |
  |
|
|
movingrobewoman
Lt. Colonel
USA
Status: offline |
Posted - August 03 2004 : 12:47:29 AM
|
quote:
Originally posted by joseph wiggs
Horned Horse says the smoke and dust was so great that foe could not be distinguished from friend. The horses were wild with fright and uncontrollable. Imagine the horror!
I seem to remember some poll here about what was seen on Weir Point and that Michno mentions that what Weir might have viewed from his ridge was the downfall of C troop, who was not at all under the control of TWC--but may have been assigned to HQ ... I'm sooo confused. |
movingrobe |
|
|
|
joseph wiggs
Brigadier General
Status: offline |
Posted - August 03 2004 : 9:54:54 PM
|
| From Weir's point, the Captain viewed a mass of people in the area of Calhoun Hill. Believing this to be the vanguard of Custer's batallion, Weir ordered his men to mount. He order was countered by a near by sergeant who advised that perhaps the Captain should look throught the Sergeant's binoculars first before moving on. Doing so, Weir realized that hte movement he was witnessing were actually Indians firing into the ground, dispatching the wounded of Custer's Command. |
|
|
|
joseph wiggs
Brigadier General
Status: offline |
Posted - August 07 2004 : 10:07:56 PM
|
| Lorenzo G. We miss you buddy, hurry back! |
|
|
|
movingrobewoman
Lt. Colonel
USA
Status: offline |
Posted - August 09 2004 : 11:13:16 AM
|
quote:
Originally posted by joseph wiggs
From Weir's point, the Captain viewed a mass of people in the area of Calhoun Hill. Believing this to be the vanguard of Custer's batallion, Weir ordered his men to mount. He order was countered by a near by sergeant who advised ...
A captain's order was countered by a sergeant? My knowledge becomes quite weak and hopeless once I'm off Last Stand Hill. Weir was also the one who thought what he took to be "white rocks" on LSH, correct? And Weir supposedly had all this "private" information that he was gonna tell LBC ... but died of the melancholies suffered ...
Or on the humourous side, perhaps this was another example of the much-bounced about tale of de Rudio's much bounced-about glasses ...
 |
movingrobe |
|
|
|
joseph wiggs
Brigadier General
Status: offline |
Posted - August 11 2004 : 5:50:18 PM
|
| I happily stand corrected! Certainly a bad choice of words. Let us say, rather, Weir's enthusiasm to respond to the fray was "countered" by the sergeant's realization and, Weir's subsequent agreement, that the landscape contained too many, angry warriors; not troopers. |
|
|
|
joseph wiggs
Brigadier General
Status: offline |
Posted - August 11 2004 : 9:11:25 PM
|
1889
Great Sioux Reservation is further reduced in size by the Dawns Act, non-reservation land is opened to settlers.
1890
Wounded knee Massacre, Pine Ridge South Dakota.
1890 to present
Lakota reduced to chronic conditions of poverty, poor health, and dispair. |
|
|
|
joseph wiggs
Brigadier General
Status: offline |
Posted - August 20 2004 : 9:18:08 PM
|
Hump
" When the Indians charged on the long-haired chief and his men, the long-haired chief became confused, and they retreated slowly, but it was no time at all before the Indians had the long-haired chief and his men surrounded. Then our chiefs gave the 'Hi-yi-yi' yell." |
|
|
|
frankboddn
Major
USA
Status: offline |
Posted - August 21 2004 : 05:25:02 AM
|
Joseph, regarding Hump's quote about the longhaired chief, hadn't cut his hair and wasn't long? I've heard many reports of Indian accounts being unreliable. I got a firsthand taste of Indian oral histories and their unreliability. Three days ago I was with a friend at the Rosebud. There were three people there filming a college documentary about the battle, and there was a young Lakota with them narrating their oral histories. He was about 21-25 years old. He told us that following the battle, Crook limped away to Goose Creek with only 57 men. We said, "You mean 57 casualties?" He said, nope, only 57 left alive. This is what he's putting forth in this documentary. At that point my friend and I just thanked them for the info and walked away. Can't argue with oral histories. |
|
|
|
joseph wiggs
Brigadier General
Status: offline |
Posted - August 21 2004 : 8:56:05 PM
|
| I agree with you. Obviously Hump did not actually see Custer (who's hair was shorn) and, may have been referring to his sobriquet. As to the young Lakota, his rendition can only serve to injure the credibility of other, Native American, statements which do have validity. Thanks Frank for you input, a personal perspective can achieve reasonability only when both sides of the coin are introduced. |
|
|
|
joseph wiggs
Brigadier General
Status: offline |
Posted - August 25 2004 : 4:47:42 PM
|
"The whole history of Indian wars in this country shows that they are generally directly traceable to the action of the Government in moving tribes from the locality where they had become established, and which they are always averse to leaving, for other ground, in the selection of which they had no part."
Gen. Phil Sheridan |
|
|
|
Anonymous Poster8169
Brigadier General
Status: offline |
Posted - August 26 2004 : 3:59:09 PM
|
quote:
Originally posted by joseph wiggs
IAs to the young Lakota, his rendition can only serve to injure the credibility of other, Native American, statements which do have validity.
"Oral history" is just a term used to dignify hearsay. The boy's claims hardly hurt anyone else's; they do show, though, what a joke it is to write history based on hand-me-downs. I was at the Little Bighorn a few days ago, and one of the things that startled me most was how erroneous the touristy small talk was. While on the field or in the museum, I'd hear people next to me describe, confidently, how Custer won his Medal of Honor at Gettysburg, or how the soldiers made their last stand on Wooden Leg Hill, or whatever else the sun had beat into their heads. THAT is oral history.
R. Larsen |
|
|
|
movingrobewoman
Lt. Colonel
USA
Status: offline |
Posted - August 26 2004 : 5:02:50 PM
|
quote:
Originally posted by Anonymous Poster8169
"Oral history" is just a term used to dignify hearsay. The boy's claims hardly hurt anyone else's; they do show, though, what a joke it is to write history based on hand-me-downs.
There is a rather strange idea running about that only oral history (and in the case of LBH, it's usually the NAs) falls prey to mistelling and misinterpretation. As much as I'd like to think that written history is written in some vacuum, it isn't. Even the most respected writer on the subject and his/her narrative is impacted not only by their place in society, their politics and cultural mores. The historian chooses what to include or exclude in their search for the "truth." And it is up to the individual reader or researcher to decide whether it holds merit for their personal applications. Sort of like how some believe Benteen and Goldin and others believe Godfrey et., al., and many others believe the NA testimony without question. |
movingrobe |
|
|
|
Anonymous Poster8169
Brigadier General
Status: offline |
Posted - August 26 2004 : 5:45:13 PM
|
quote:
Originally posted by movingrobewoman
[brThere is a rather strange idea running about that only oral history (and in the case of LBH, it's usually the NAs) falls prey to mistelling and misinterpretation.
Never said that. In fact, I'm on record at this forum for saying the opposite. Still, the difference between eyewitness accounts and hearsay is obvious, and I have no problem saying that one is much more reliable than the other. It's not good to use as a source someone who never saw what they're describing.
R. Larsen
|
|
|
|
joseph wiggs
Brigadier General
Status: offline |
Posted - September 14 2004 : 5:10:43 PM
|
"Beauty is in the eye of the beholder."
Likewise, many "Truths" originate in the mouth of the winner. Virtually every written word is influenced by the cultural mores of the writer. On this very forum, the death of Crazy Horse was viewed as murder by some while the perception of others tended towards justifiable homocide of an escaped prisoner. Althought this incident was written down, by an eyewitness account, the controversy continues. Upon the demise of an actual observer, what he/she observed may devolve into hearsay if the observer failed to transcribe his observations. All information should be analyzed and rated for its value. |
|
|
|
joseph wiggs
Brigadier General
Status: offline |
Posted - September 17 2004 : 12:14:38 PM
|
| ""Ever since the white man had first set foot on the shores of North America, and more especially since the settlers at Jamestown brought the aggressive civilization of the Anglo-saxon into a life-and-death struggle with a savagery so primitive that in many respects it had advanced but little above the level of the Stone Age."" Edgar Stewart |
|
|
|
Anonymous Poster8169
Brigadier General
Status: offline |
Posted - September 17 2004 : 4:32:46 PM
|
quote:
Originally posted by joseph wiggs
""Ever since the white man had first set foot on the shores of North America, and more especially since the settlers at Jamestown brought the aggressive civilization of the Anglo-saxon into a life-and-death struggle with a savagery so primitive that in many respects it had advanced but little above the level of the Stone Age."" Edgar Stewart
Unless you totally butchered the quote (and right now I'm too lazy to check) you've posted to this board a dead white man's claim that the Indians were "so primitive" that they were "little above the level of the Stone Age". "Savagery" in this context works as the thing which the "aggressive civilization" is in conflict with; it's not describing a quality of that civilization.
No doubt you thought so, however --- what else could you have thought if you believed this worthy of posting on the "From the Indian Side" board? Those friendly neighborhood children who edit your posts dropped the ball on this one. Don't punish them too indecently.
R. Larsen
|
|
|
|
joseph wiggs
Brigadier General
Status: offline |
Posted - September 18 2004 : 1:20:26 PM
|
Yes, you are correct, you are too lazy as you would have discovered that the quote is intact. Yet you proceed, as usual, to rip into a subject matter you know absolutely nothing about. Your imbecilic reference to that "dead white man" excludes the reality that the author's comments are based on an analytical study of know facts summerized in a critically acclaimed book.
Your inexplicable comment regarding an attempt, on my part, to describe the "quality" of a civilization is befuddling. As this erroneous concept could not have derived from anything I wrote, could it have found birth in your delusional mind or, are you simply a bonafide jerk? |
|
|
|
joseph wiggs
Brigadier General
Status: offline |
Posted - September 18 2004 : 1:32:12 PM
|
This thread is dedicated to Larsen as his obvious fixation on the Indian perspective is based upon an honest attempt to understand the Native American's true feelings.
"Some White men are jerks."
Chief Joseph A. Wiggs (1/2 Sioux)circa 2004 |
|
|
|
Anonymous Poster8169
Brigadier General
Status: offline |
Posted - September 18 2004 : 6:30:52 PM
|
quote:
Originally posted by joseph wiggs
Your imbecilic reference to that "dead white man" excludes the reality that the author's comments are based on an analytical study of know facts summerized in a critically acclaimed book.
And Stewart calls the Indians Stone Age savages. I assume you agree with him? If so, excellent, though judging from how huffy you got when other people on other threads said the same thing, you have some things in your head to work out. What's odd, though, is why you would post such a quote on the "From the Indian Side" board. I can't see any rational reason to; Stewart was not an Indian, and I didn't catch how his thinking reflected any real Indian viewpoint. What's your logic?
R. Larsen |
|
|
|
joseph wiggs
Brigadier General
Status: offline |
Posted - September 19 2004 : 9:45:41 PM
|
"Stewart was not an Indian."
How did you derive that brillant deduction? Tell the truth, you had some help didn't you? Larsen, I realize that you can not possible fathom how a white man could understand the plight of the Native American during this time in history. However, many people, of various colors, creeds, and nationalities did. Although powerless to stop the immoral removal of women and children from their ancestral homes, they at least, understood the trauma. You see Larsen, you don't have to be an Indian to understand what happened, you just have to be a human being.
Perhaps people of your ilk will never see the "logic" in such a supposition. Hopefully you will, one day, be the minority. Hokehay! |
|
|
|
Anonymous Poster8169
Brigadier General
Status: offline |
Posted - September 20 2004 : 5:50:25 PM
|
quote:
Originally posted by joseph wiggs
Larsen, I realize that you can not possible fathom how a white man could understand the plight of the Native American during this time in history. However, many people, of various colors, creeds, and nationalities did. Although powerless to stop the immoral removal of women and children from their ancestral homes, they at least, understood the trauma. You see Larsen, you don't have to be an Indian to understand what happened, you just have to be a human being.
Perhaps people of your ilk will never see the "logic" in such a supposition. Hopefully you will, one day, be the minority. Hokehay!
How does the Stewart quote reveal his vibrant humanity and sympathy for the Native American's plight? Give me your reasoning, not a PC windstorm.
R. Larsen
(You know, if you just misread Stewart, it's okay to admit that....)
|
|
|
|
joseph wiggs
Brigadier General
Status: offline |
Posted - September 21 2004 : 9:33:19 PM
|
"Long Hair had planned cunningly that Reno should attack in the rear while he rode down and gave battle from the front of the village looking on the river. But the Great Spirit was watching over his red children. He allowed the white Chief (Reno) to strike too soon, and the braves of the Sioux ran over the soldiers and beat them down as corn before the hail."
Mrs. Spotted Horn, (James McLaughlin) |
|
|
|
BJMarkland
Colonel
USA
Status: offline |
Posted - September 22 2004 : 06:29:07 AM
|
quote:
...I realize that you can not possible fathom how a white man could understand the plight of the Native American during this time in history. However, many people, of various colors, creeds, and nationalities did. Although powerless to stop the immoral removal of women and children from their ancestral homes, they at least, understood the trauma. You see Larsen, you don't have to be an Indian to understand what happened, you just have to be a human being.
Wiggs, your sincere emotion would ring truer if you weren't so biased. Looking at it logically, which tribe was the most put-upon? The Teton Sioux or the Crow? We will exclude the Eastern Sioux who were truly defrauded. My vote is for the Crow who were evicted from their "ancestral homes" by the Sioux...who I hazard a guess did not go through a realty company to close the deal.
Indians or, for the PC amongst us, Native Americans had happily been killing each other for years before the white man appeared from stage left. The Iroquois conquered and sometimes, if oral history can be trusted, eradicated entire tribes who would not "toe the line." The Pawnee were not likely to invite the Sioux to their Saturday night festivities and the Apache were continuously at war with others and amongst themselves until "their" lands were appropriated and they united in common cause against the Americans. I seem to remember and will have to double-check but believe that even the Cheyenne and Sioux were at one time bitter enemies.
Was there misconduct on the non-Indian side? Without a doubt. Just read some original writings from military officers, politicians, preachers and you will find numerous examples of perfidy by the Anglos and Hispanics.
May I recommend some sources?
The Brooklyn Eagle (use Keyword "Indian" and rank search by Date)
http://www.brooklynpubliclibrary.org/eagle/
The National Archives (select Research Topics then Native Americans). This link will take you directly to that point. The on-line documents are very diverse.
http://www.archives.gov/research_room/genealogy/research_topics/native_american_records.html
If you live close to a university library or NARA repository, I would suggest going there and researching through the series, "Letters Received by the Office of Indian Affairs", M234. Some pretty heartrending stories there, pro-Indian and anti-Indian. There should be a finding guide at the NARA site which is:
http://www.nara.gov
A good overview of the subject of the American-Indian relationship may be obtained by reading The Indian Frontier of the American West 1846-1890 by Robert M. Utley.
Of course, for in-depth study you may read Hyde, Grinnell and Father Francis Prucha.
Best of wishes,
Billy
P.S. Sheesh, how many do I have to type to make Sergeant??? |
|
|
|
joseph wiggs
Brigadier General
Status: offline |
Posted - September 22 2004 : 10:07:24 PM
|
"Native Americans had happily been killing each other for years."
First of all, thank you for the web sites you posted for me. I will peruse them with a sincere relish. Having said that, I would like to address the above statement by you. Since the murder of Abel by Cain, man has continued to slay his fellow man. This immoral and perpetual practice is usually justified in one fashion or another.
As you are aware, the Almighty is often called in to ensure that the "other side" sufferes grave lossess so that victory is achieved by their opponents. Through all this horrible suffering, death, mayhem, brutality and unspeakable acts of man's inhumanity to man; not once have I read such horror described "Happily killing each other."
I know that you are not suggesting that the Indians danced in collective bliss as they "happily" slaughtered each other? Nor do you believe they they shouted in glee, "Oh mother, I'm so happy. I get to slay my brother at the Pow Wow tomorrow."
Sadly, a few believe that "real" people with souls do not kill with joy, only savages do that; like Indians.
I, sincerely, do not mean to intimate that you are one of those who feel this way. I don't believe that for one moment. However, there are those who harbour such feelings, I think, without realizing it.
My posts here are not intended to incite anger and animosity among the forum. My posts are designed to make us visualize the other "perspective" and, to remember an eternal truth, "what goes around, comes around."
Once again Billy, thanks for all your efforts. I appreciate them. |
|
|
|
Topic |
|
Rain In The Face
