| Author |
 Topic  |
|
lorenzo G.
Captain
Italy
Status: offline |
 Posted - January 22 2005 : 2:17:37 PM
|
Okay Dark,
I will re-read Leckie book and then we'll talk again. I had it from Usa university bibliotheque so I must order it again. But, really I can't remember what you claim. Can you tell me please the pages so I will go there directly? Thanks. |
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 - January 22 2005 : 3:00:24 PM
|
| Yes, I could...... But I'd be happier if you used the index and re-read it before you reopen this issue. Your image of the Custers really isn't remotely factual, Lorenzo. And no, being romantic in inclination yourself is no excuse. These were world-class social climbers of the first water, and image trumped reality all through Mrs. Custer's life. If you're writing a book you need to start with the cold, hard items. Like those letters as she presented them and the letters as they are. |
Dark Cloud
copyright RL MacLeod
darkcloud@darkendeavors.com
www.darkendeavors.com
www.boulderlout.com |
|
|
|
lorenzo G.
Captain
Italy
Status: offline |
Posted - January 22 2005 : 5:12:28 PM
|
Dark,ok. But, I have read a lot of books about the subject and they disagree with your view. Also If they was'nt pro-Custer,nobody pushed until to say that Libbie falsified her letters. For what I have seen myself, this never happened. The image I have of Custer, Dark, is not a naive image of two saints, neither a romantic dream. I know their flaws, but I'm so bored, so tired about lot of trash, the so called "new books" that wants to discredit America via Custer. They call themselves new, pretending to have the TRUTH for the first time, but they are instead gossip and the same old story (this happens, as you might know, also with the indians-side books, in which the forewords seems to be photocopy of a matrix: how much times I've readed the pompous words: "for the first time in this book will be revealed the truth about the tribe etc. and the tragic insights of indian wars etc etc.")Finally, is not the first time that documents are exhibited as true but are false, in full good faith, as happened with the presumed last message of Custer to Reno ("Reno, for God sake etc.")I just don't know, I will give you my answer when the book will be here. If my view is too pink I can easily state that maybe yours is too much spiced with hate: probably, the truth lies in the middle.
However thanks. |
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 - January 22 2005 : 7:41:59 PM
|
No, Lorenzo, I don't think it does. Handy, feel-good assumptions like that mandate philes and phobes to take extreme positions so they can say that in affected reasonable summation and hopefully overbloviate the "middle" closer to their position.
It's not like the phobes are from Mars and the philes from Venus, it's rather like Compton and Alpha Centauri. If the many books you've read include those on the level of Margaret Leighton, it's a false premise. All books exclusively based upon the agenda of Libbie Custer - and there are lots of them - are essentially just that one distorted view of Libbie Custer's because the authors did no independent - or any - research and just rewrote her books. And she's demonstrably fibbing in some areas.
Frost is a Custerphile, but he doesn't distort. Leckie is neither, but sympathetic to Libbie's situation and clearly admires her, as I do. She bent the Army and nation to her will for, yes, her own interests and also because she honestly wanted her husband appreciated. Say the first part of that sentence again; hard not to admire her.
But what she did is only what Mrs. Alexander Hamilton did, and Robert Falcon Scott's wife (who apparently was unfaithful to her husband with his rivals previous to his death), ended up doing as well, in imitation of John Franklin's widow. They had to play a role and play it well to provide for themselves and their husbands' reputation.
But because they achieved their goals doesn't mean their view is true and unassailable. Or that they even really expected anyone to believe them. It was often just a blatent dare for anyone to say otherwise and distress a media savvy widow because, as was mentioned, one didn't argue with women in public spats, and especially widows, who'd wear mourning for years or decades, such was their heartbreak. PHfft! It was a shadow play, is all. Beats working what they were allowed, back then. |
Dark Cloud
copyright RL MacLeod
darkcloud@darkendeavors.com
www.darkendeavors.com
www.boulderlout.com |
|
|
|
joseph wiggs
Brigadier General
Status: offline |
Posted - January 22 2005 : 9:16:42 PM
|
Isn't that interesting Lorenzo, after someone insisted over,and over,and over,and over,and over,and over,and over,and over again that "probe" and "philes" merely mean that you either "like" Custer or you "don't" like Custer the rules have suddenly changed?
After having it drummed in our heads that negative connotations associated with those adjectives were all in my imagination I'm now reading of their now "extreme" meanings. I don't intent to be facetious nor do I wish to antagonize anyone but, I'm confused.
The current meaning apparently is :
"Handy, feel good assumptions like that mandate philes and phobes to take extreme positions so they can say that in affected reasonable summation and hopefully overbloviate the "middle" closer to their position."
Are you as confused as I am Lorenzo? Those philes and phobes certainly sound devious to me. By the way,I have no idea what "overbloviate" means, wish I could help you there. |
|
|
|
Topic |
|
|
|
On Custer
