| Author |
 Topic  |
|
hunkpapa7
Lieutenant
United Kingdom
Status: offline |
 Posted - March 21 2005 : 6:46:50 PM
|
The deaths of Custer,Crazy Horse and Sitting Bull,seem to me to be very timely,and convenient for certain parties.
Custer's death at the LBH,although mourned by many at the announcements of the press,was probarbly a god send to others,ie Grants government and others.
Crazy Horse,mainly because of the promises,that could not be made.The bitter rivalry that had fractured the Sioux nation and between certain chiefs who were jealous of his status.
Sitting Bull for the man that he was,and his apathy to anything white.
The last two deaths allowed the government to put up there own chiefs,one of which was Gall and he proved his worth being a real puppet.
Has anyone any thought on this ?
|
wev'e caught them napping boys
Aye Right ! |
|
|
joseph wiggs
Brigadier General
Status: offline |
Posted - March 21 2005 : 7:17:22 PM
|
| Hunk, I think you are right on the money. Both Crazy Horse and Sitting Bull remained "recalcitrant hostiles" in the eyes of the military. As such, their quick demise would find much favor for their part. I am not intimating that both deaths were the direct result of military intervention, I am saying that they did not weep at their deaths. Indian leaders such as Gall were, as you pointed out, mere puppets for the government. Great thread Hunk! |
  |
|
|
frankboddn
Major
USA
Status: offline |
Posted - April 17 2006 : 6:57:07 PM
|
| But speaking of Gall, he lost a wife or two and a couple kids at the LBH, which sent him into a rage, as we've all heard. Does anyone else but me think it really odd how he became such a puppet for the whites? Did he just lose his lust for fighting or for revenge? What happened? |
|
|
|
frankboddn
Major
USA
Status: offline |
Posted - May 02 2006 : 10:59:49 PM
|
| Well, I just got a lot of answers to this question about Gall in the form of two articles in this month's Wild West Magazine. Although he and Sitting Bull were bosom buddies, after their return to the US from Canada, Gall and I think Crow King, were given greater status on the reservation. Gall even was appointed a judge to their justice system, much to the chagrin of Sitting Bull. Many still question Gall's motives, whether it was for the prestige and power on the reservation or if he really finally saw it was fruitless to fight the whites and was doing what he felt was best for his people. I prefer it was the latter. |
|
|
|
prolar
Major
Status: offline |
Posted - May 04 2006 : 10:15:27 PM
|
| Frank, I read the same article. Like you I would like to think that Gall made the most od a bad situation. I do think that he overerplayed his part in LBh. |
|
|
|
joseph wiggs
Brigadier General
Status: offline |
Posted - September 24 2006 : 7:49:59 PM
|
While I have always been a staunch supporter of Indian testimony, I am deeply aware of the pitfalls, ensnarements, and deception (unintentional and intentional) that accompanies such "testimony." Unlike the "white" perspective of battle which is formulated upon decades of tactical deployment in well defined, group movements, the Indian sees battle from the perspective of an individual.
An Indian may relate the actions of one warrior in detail without being able to tell you what other members of the group were doing at the same time. The inability to articulate the actions of one part of a battle does not mean that one is lying about another portion of the same battle. As a result,however, Indian testimony must be corroborated with other evidence and testimony to achieve any plausibility. Thankfully, there existed several individuals in the past, and the present, who did just that.
Did Gall "overplay" his part in the battle;undoubtedly. So did many other of the participants; "White" and "Red". Does the name Lt. De Rudio ring a bell? Much of what Gall did on the day of battle did result from the death of his family. He was enraged beyond human endurance. Later in his life, the realization that further rage would serve no useful purpose prompted him to accept the inevitable.
Like you Prolar, I too think Gall made the most of a bad situation. |
Edited by - joseph wiggs on September 24 2006 7:52:58 PM |
|
|
|
shadymist
Private
Status: offline |
Posted - September 28 2006 : 3:21:20 PM
|
Gall eventually turned tail on Sitting Bull and became a spy for Indian Agent McLaughlin.
In a drawing by a warrior who was at the LBH he deliberately omitted Gall as one of the leading warriors and drew Crazy Horse, Sitting Bull, and several others . . . as as insult for his "defection" |
|
|
|
AZ Ranger
Brigadier General
USA
Status: offline |
Posted - September 30 2006 : 7:53:46 PM
|
| Sometimes learning to adapt to a changing time leaves others behind. |
“ An officer's first duty is to his horses.”
SEMPER FI |
|
|
|
joseph wiggs
Brigadier General
Status: offline |
Posted - September 30 2006 : 8:20:58 PM
|
Welcome shadymist, glad to have you aboard!!!
In the Denver Post, June 23, 1918, Godfrey reported that Gall claimed that Custer was not scalped, "because he was the big chief and we respected him." If, in fact, Gall uttered such an obviously condescending and unsubstantiated statement it did much to belittle his social stature among his brethren and, the "Whites" as well. |
|
|
|
AZ Ranger
Brigadier General
USA
Status: offline |
Posted - October 01 2006 : 1:31:47 PM
|
| But Joe it's Indian Testimony according to your standard. |
“ An officer's first duty is to his horses.”
SEMPER FI |
Edited by - AZ Ranger on October 01 2006 1:32:32 PM |
|
|
|
joseph wiggs
Brigadier General
Status: offline |
Posted - October 01 2006 : 7:05:33 PM
|
AZ, You are absolutely correct. Under my definition Gall's statement is "testimony." I have never stated, alluded to, nor insisted that all Indian testimony was truthful. In fact, I have stressed the opposite view. The validity of Indian testimony (like all testimony) must be viewed with caution, care, and corroboration. The validity of testimony is not a criteria for the definition of the word testimony (one definition being;evidence based on observation or knowledge.) Testimony does not cease to be because it is incorrect, it remains evidence based upon observation although it may be an incorrect observation or conclusion. Yes, you are quite right, Gall's statement does qualify as "testimony." However,based upon the know facts of the battle and what we know of Indian culture, it is a patently false "testimony."
Testimony not under the sanctioned auspices of the Judicial System is an entirely different matter. It is then testimony elevated to a much higher level and, encompassed with strict legal rules and regulations. The Bible (New Testament) is a testimony to the actions of the Savior. it is "testimony" outside the regulation of Law that is believed and followed by millions. |
Edited by - joseph wiggs on October 01 2006 7:10:25 PM |
|
|
|
shadymist
Private
Status: offline |
Posted - October 02 2006 : 09:48:30 AM
|
When Gall spoke to Godfrey he made statments that Godfrey believed true and then "altered" his NARRATIVE, which then added more confusion to what took place during Custer's part of the fight.
Much of Gall's statements are full of contradictions, self-embellishment, and some say, lies.
Whether he was trying to make himself "big" in the eyes of whites to gain power and influence on the res or just bragging just added to the many legends and myths about the LBH. |
|
|
|
joseph wiggs
Brigadier General
Status: offline |
Posted - October 03 2006 : 8:34:15 PM
|
I prefer to see Gall's statements as embellishments rather than outright lies. Regarding his involvement in the battle, here is what we do know: he was there, at some point he engaged the enemy, and he survived to talk about it.
Physically, Gall was an awe inspiring specimen of manhood. At the end, when their way of life was usurped and ridiculed as primitive, the only recourse left to the Indian warrior was to be appreciated as heroic in the minds of the "White eyes". Thus, here was an Indian who was there at the end. A bold warrior who could speak about the "final Moments." One who could appease the desperate desire of American,s to "know" what really happened.
Prompted by an incessant clamor for answers that could explain away this fiasco, Gall simple gave the audience what it so desperately needed. A feasible rational to explain how an elite unit of the military could fall and, be defeated, by primitives. |
|
|
|
shadymist
Private
Status: offline |
Posted - October 04 2006 : 11:15:20 AM
|
No question about Gall's imposing presence. I would not like to have met in any any situation when I would have to face him in battle.
I believe he suffered a major bayonet wound when he was younger, lived, and fully recovered.
There's a great statement in Son of the Morning Star when Connell wrote that Gall must have been like a wolf going through Custer's men (sheep)
Unfortunately many Indians were fully reliant on the white man once on reservations and had to do things to survive that they may not have done as free people. |
|
|
|
prolar
Major
Status: offline |
Posted - October 04 2006 : 11:40:08 AM
|
| Dark Cloud persuaded me not to refer to Indian accounts as testimony, but Joe's definition has merit. I think that Gall arrived late to the battle and didn't play a large part. Still any paticipant's account is worth attention. |
|
|
|
shadymist
Private
Status: offline |
Posted - October 04 2006 : 1:07:50 PM
|
Maybe "statements" would be a better word. Testimony usually involves taking an oath . . . and I doubt any Indians took an oath to tell the truth, the whole truth, and nothing but the truth, unless of course they were on trial.
Yes . . . any statements by Indians regarding the LBH are worth a look . . . just like any made by white survivors. The Indians may have had different reasons for their statements than the soldiers. The loser always needs to come up with "something" to justify the loss. |
|
|
|
AZ Ranger
Brigadier General
USA
Status: offline |
Posted - October 06 2006 : 12:34:46 AM
|
quote:
Testimony does not cease to be because it is incorrect, it remains evidence based upon observation although it may be an incorrect observation or conclusion. Yes, you are quite right,
Joe that is not correct. A judge will not allow false testimony to be considered. |
“ An officer's first duty is to his horses.”
SEMPER FI |
|
|
|
AZ Ranger
Brigadier General
USA
Status: offline |
Posted - October 06 2006 : 12:39:35 AM
|
| Evidence is also determined by the court. It is only evidence if the court allows it. As officers we collect what we believe to be evidence but the court makes the determination. |
“ An officer's first duty is to his horses.”
SEMPER FI |
|
|
|
AZ Ranger
Brigadier General
USA
Status: offline |
Posted - October 06 2006 : 12:42:09 AM
|
Joe explain what is the diference in your own definitions of:
Indian testimony
Indian statement
Indian account
|
“ An officer's first duty is to his horses.”
SEMPER FI |
|
|
|
joseph wiggs
Brigadier General
Status: offline |
Posted - October 07 2006 : 2:56:36 PM
|
AZ, all three can be used interchangeably. Testimony in Court is a statement (either verbal or written) which is submitted to a Court of Law as evidence. As such, this evidence/testimony is subjected to a rigid set of rules and criterion and, subsequently, blessed by a judicial officiator as testimony.
Testimony is also a statement, account or narrative that is corroborated by outside sources as substantially correct. Since 1984, in the aftermath of the great fire on the Big Horn battlefield, much of the past Native American Indian testimony was corroborated by artifacts discovered there. Physical objects that were examined, categorized, and authenticated by men such as Douglass and Fox. Our own Bob Reese participated in recent archaeological digs upon the battle field.
Testimony can also be found in the mythology of various cultures. The Iliad is an example. In other words, testimony that is difficult to corroborate because of a lack of evidence that may or may not be true.
Testimony may also be derived from the Fisherman's conviction that the 5 inch fish he caught in a pond somehow grows into a deep, sea Marlin when he subsequently describes the "catch" to his buddies after a few brews. In other words, testimony may also be bull****.
Testimony is all of these things and more. The credibility/truthfulness of testimony is determined by the factors described. My only point of contention is this,to totally disregard all Indian "testimony" as somehow ludicrous is, in fact, ludicrous. To swear by all native American testimony as absolutely correct would be equally foolish.
Many honorable, dedicated, and trustworthy scholars have committed themselves to unselfish efforts towards the interpretation of the Indian perspective for the benefit of people like you and I. What sense does it make to classify these great men into a category of charlatan when there is no evidence/testimony to support it. Where their incompetents who made a debacle of Indian Testimony? Of Course. Fortunately,their works have not been preserved and handed down. Why, because serious scholars did not take their work as serious.
No one will ever know what exactly occurred at this battle. However, by screening, digesting, and acknowledging all information/testimony as relevant (until proven otherwise) we can go far towards obtaining a credible hypothesis. |
Edited by - joseph wiggs on October 07 2006 3:13:09 PM |
|
|
|
movingrobewoman
Lt. Colonel
USA
Status: offline |
Posted - October 07 2006 : 4:57:33 PM
|
Joe--
You make some very good points here, especially an unwritten prejudice towards the words of Native American. I can't help but think that occurred in the past, as well as by a few unenlightened authors today.
Savage people who killed the brilliant blond Hero ... can't believe them. After all, they were Neolithic folks who didn't have a written language, and they went around killing the Civilised.
When I read Indian eyewitness accounts, I look for other sources that will confirm them--Indian or Anglo.
Later, pal!
|
movingrobe |
|
|
|
joseph wiggs
Brigadier General
Status: offline |
Posted - October 07 2006 : 8:33:44 PM
|
Exactly Tashna Mani. The "Neolithic" mindset of certain individuals is conducive to an arbitrary conclusion that certain people are incapable of a higher level of comprehension. That "savages" have no right to possess such a rich commodity as land because, quite frankly, they don't know what to do with it. As a result, the high technology of the "civilized" mind has left us with a hell on earth saturated with war, pollution, and corruption.
I do not begrudge those who insist that information be substantiated by proof before it is accepted. I wholeheartedly agree. I simply can not understand those (thankfully the minority) who are convinced that individuals with a copper hue to their skin are incapable of a higher level of competence.
Like you, I look for credible information from both the Indian or Anglo. We do so because truth is based upon a wide spectrum of reality. Those who would limit their perception of reality to a suppose ethnic inability to perceive "truth" are permanently embedded in a false error. |
Edited by - joseph wiggs on October 07 2006 8:39:10 PM |
|
|
|
AZ Ranger
Brigadier General
USA
Status: offline |
Posted - October 07 2006 : 11:41:30 PM
|
quote:
AZ, all three can be used interchangeably. Testimony in Court is a statement (either verbal or written) which is submitted to a Court of Law as evidence. As such, this evidence/testimony is subjected to a rigid set of rules and criterion and, subsequently, blessed by a judicial officiator as testimony.
So for the sake of discussion in this thread lets focus on your above statement which states testimony is interchangeable with a statement or account. You even state in writing to this board that a written statement submitted to a Court is called testimony and is blessed by the judge. If you are wrong about court can we trust the rest that you say? Joe are you sure you want to stick with a written statement submitted to a court is called testimony by the court?
Please read the following.
DUHAIME'S ONLINE LEGAL DICTIONARY
Testimony-The verbal presentation of a witness in a judicial
proceeding.
I Don't see written statement
Deposition -The official statement by a witness taken in writing (as
opposed to testimony which where a witnesses give their
perception of the facts verbally). Affidavits are the
most common kind of depositions.
I see as opposed to testimony which where a witnesses gives their perception of the facts verbally
Affidavit -A statement which before being signed, the person signing
takes an oath that the contents are, to the best of their
knowledge, true. It is also signed by a notary or some
other judicial officer that can administer oaths, to the
effect that the person signing the affidavit was under
oath when doing so. These documents carry great weight in
Courts to the extent that judges frequently accept an
affidavit instead of the testimony of the witness.
it states instead of testimony of the witness
I just got through signing an affidavit to be used by the Coconino County Attorneys Office for the Court of Appeals in Arizona. It was also notarized as described. It was not testimony.
Is it your attempt to change this discussion from using words that describe conditions of statements that lead to the Court quote above? If you want to discuss why some don't accept other's statements for whatever reason it could be the topic of a different thread. It could be an interesting discussion.
AZ Ranger
|
“ An officer's first duty is to his horses.”
SEMPER FI |
Edited by - AZ Ranger on October 07 2006 11:55:10 PM |
|
|
|
joseph wiggs
Brigadier General
Status: offline |
Posted - October 08 2006 : 10:43:18 AM
|
AZ, this conversation has reached a critical mass of convoluted mishmash hindered by a refusal to see beyond a specific point. The point being there are several definitions to the word testimony; as evident by Webster's dictionary. The proof you proffer is an example. You quote a LEGAL definition of the word testimony and then suggest that I would attempt to change or twist this explicit, confirmed, and acceptable definition for my own purposes. Why would I do that when it is obvious to the most casual reading of my thread that I absolutely agree?
I too accept this legal testimony. This acceptance is exemplified by my first definition posted above. Is it you contention that the legal definition of the word testimony is the ONLY definition available to the free world?
Are you suggesting the well documented, corroborated testimony by Native Americans should be referred to as something else? How about describing Indian testimony as a childlike dialog that consists of a few "ughs" sprinkled with a dozen or so "Hows" which amount to an undesirable prattle to be disregarded as gibberish?
Your strenuous and, obviously, well intended efforts to restrict the meaning of such a potent word to a solitary platform of perspective is appreciated, if not understandable. I simply do not agree with it. |
Edited by - joseph wiggs on October 08 2006 11:01:44 AM |
|
|
|
AZ Ranger
Brigadier General
USA
Status: offline |
Posted - October 08 2006 : 1:06:32 PM
|
quote:
AZ, all three can be used interchangeably. Testimony in Court is a statement (either verbal or written) which is submitted to a Court of Law as evidence. As such, this evidence/testimony is subjected to a rigid set of rules and criterion and, subsequently, blessed by a judicial officiator as testimony.
Joe the quote above you wrote and I addressed it. You were simply incorrect in your court statement within the quote. You can apply any broader definition you want. If it is to confuse readers than I would not support its use but you can if you like. I prefer to know the context in which a statement was made.
When I went fishing in Mexico, Presa Noveo, we hired camp guards and a translator. I noticed sometimes he did not quite understand what I wanted but spoke anyway. I asked him about the horses in a corral near the lake and they went and got a saddle. I did not want to ride just wanted to know if they were their horses. If someone wrote what the translator said that I said you would call that testimony. I choose not too. I would call it his account of what I said.
Translators could make someone appear to be making a false statement when in reality they may not have made a false statement. It is much better to analyze a persons statements or testimony first hand without someone translating.
That is why I prefer separating testimony, statements, and accounts. It gives the reader a better idea of the context.
AZ Ranger
|
“ An officer's first duty is to his horses.”
SEMPER FI |
|
|
|
AZ Ranger
Brigadier General
USA
Status: offline |
Posted - October 08 2006 : 1:27:03 PM
|
quote:
Are you suggesting the well documented, corroborated testimony by Native Americans should be referred to as something else?
Are you suggesting the well documented, corroborated statements by Native Americans should be referred to as something else?
I would substitute statements or accounts depending on context for the word testimony. Do you really believe that changes the meaning? Of course you could not because of your statement.
quote:
AZ, all three can be used interchangeably.
Native American is your twist on this and not mine and have never stated anything about it. My concern is that we understand the context in which something was recorded in writing.
Translation
First hand statement
Sworn testimony
quote:
How about describing Indian testimony as a childlike dialog that consists of a few "ughs" sprinkled with a dozen or so "Hows" which amount to an undesirable prattle to be disregarded as gibberish?
I believe you are out of line here and should rethink your statement.
AZ Ranger
|
“ An officer's first duty is to his horses.”
SEMPER FI |
Edited by - AZ Ranger on October 08 2006 1:30:01 PM |
|
|
|
Topic |
|
DEATHS OF THE BIG "THREE"
