| Author |
 Topic  |
|
movingrobewoman
Lt. Colonel
USA
Status: offline |
 Posted - April 20 2005 : 11:38:51 PM
|
Poll Question:
Are you a Custerphile or Custerphobe?
|
|
movingrobe |
|
|
BJMarkland
Colonel
USA
Status: offline |
Posted - April 21 2005 : 02:28:09 AM
|
MRW, I really don't think GAC was monster nor hero. He was a commander who made the wrong choices; which reached out to bite, mortally, his command.
My thoughts, despite Whistlingboy's need for heroism, is that the attention is being paid to GAC, not the poor troopers who died as a result of his actions. Having paid attention to WB's comments over the past few months, I know that is not what he means to imply, but still, the impression lingers.
Best of wishes,
Billy
|
  |
|
|
movingrobewoman
Lt. Colonel
USA
Status: offline |
Posted - April 21 2005 : 3:59:53 PM
|
One of the reasons I started this thread was to kind of discuss the "real" world one has to accept when people begin to study LBH. I've never seen anything like it--you approach the subject in what some would deem the wrong manner, you get jumped on--whether you're a phile or a phobe. "Hoops of fire" seem to be a part and parcel of Little Bighornia--and learning that curve can be extremely difficult and not pretty to watch.
GAC might be the matinee's initial attraction, but it is the other individuals--whether they survived that day or did not--who keep people around. Both Native American and Anglo.
Hoka hey, y'all ... |
movingrobe |
|
|
|
joseph wiggs
Brigadier General
Status: offline |
Posted - April 21 2005 : 7:55:22 PM
|
I have noticed that the individual(s) who repeatedly utilizes these terms, which are charged with negative connotations, are limited to a minuscule faction. The definitions for these terms are clear and precise:
"Phile" - One who loves or is attracted to."
"Phobe" - One who fears or hate."
To accuse one of 'being attracted' to Custer is certainly not desirable, nor is the accusation that 'I hate' the man. Further, to allege that one is totally unaware of these nefarious suggestions,when using these terms, represents the pinnacle of dishonestly. As I posted before (I apologize for the redundancy) both terms were created to describe two separate, but equally vacuous perspectives, that exemplified two preposterous positions that developed during the heated exchange of "facts" after the battle. As B.J. so astutely remarked, Custer was neither "monster or hero."
Unfortunately, these insidious terms have been used to defame individuals who may think out of the box. To,in turn,place them in an open "box" of stupidity to be ridiculed at leisure.
Fortunately, there appears to be a refreshing current of openness permeating the forum where once the wailing of ghouls screamed throughout the night. |
|
|
|
movingrobewoman
Lt. Colonel
USA
Status: offline |
Posted - April 22 2005 : 1:01:31 PM
|
quote:
Originally posted by joseph wiggs
I have noticed that the individual(s) who repeatedly utilizes these terms, which are charged with negative connotations, are limited to a minuscule faction. The definitions for these terms are clear and precise:
"Phile" - One who loves or is attracted to."
"Phobe" - One who fears or hate."
To accuse one of 'being attracted' to Custer is certainly not desirable, nor is the accusation that 'I hate' the man. Further, to allege that one is totally unaware of these nefarious suggestions,when using these terms, represents the pinnacle of dishonestly. As I posted before (I apologize for the redundancy) both terms were created to describe two separate, but equally vacuous perspectives, that exemplified two preposterous positions that developed during the heated exchange of "facts" after the battle. As B.J. so astutely remarked, Custer was neither "monster or hero."
Unfortunately, these insidious terms have been used to defame individuals who may think out of the box. To,in turn,place them in an open "box" of stupidity to be ridiculed at leisure.
Fortunately, there appears to be a refreshing current of openness permeating the forum where once the wailing of ghouls screamed throughout the night.
I've always admitted that GAC's tragedy (OMG, romanticism gone amok)compels me to read on. But at the same time reading and researching the dude gives me a sense of his human nature--that he was more than that guy on the Budweiser painting.
One thing that I've noticed recently on the boards (elsewhere, well except for DC here) is this tendency by buffs to get all huffy and disregard the psychological elements that contributed to the way Custer lived, commanded, and died--like it's a less important facet of history. Why the heck not?
Yikes, I hope that doesn't make me a phile!
hoka hey! |
movingrobe |
|
|
|
joseph wiggs
Brigadier General
Status: offline |
Posted - April 22 2005 : 9:44:44 PM
|
I could not agree with you more. (duck, they're throwing rocks!)
Whenever contemporaneous mindsets, morality, mores, and socialization are pressed upon characters who existed in the past, confusion reigns supreme. The tactics utilized by Custer were the accepted mode of military practice for combating the Indians. In fact, the entire military structure was ill suited to meet and defeat an enemy who fought in a gorilla-style warfare. During the Civil War (America's only real experience in warfare since the Revolutionary war)it was standard practice for the Blue and Grey to march boldly towards each other. On open fields with no cover they fell by the hundreds. What a waste!
Custer, who had no real experience in Indian warfare, was deemed one of the better qualified individuals to lead the expedition against the Plains Indians. This factor does not say much regarding the depth of experience in fighting Indians enjoyed by the military, does it?.
Secondly, to ignore the political and religious motivations that prompted this war is to be deprived of a fundamental understanding of why it occurred. Manifest Destiny was a powerful promoter and instigator of the infamous adage, "the end justifies the means."
Ironically, the way Custer lived and died was the envy of every Red blooded, American boy of his era. For those who do not believe this, peruse works that colorfully describe the willingness of the many who wished to "avenge" the death of the noble Custer.
Only after the Viet-Nam era, when protesters encouraged U.S. citizens to spit upon the uniforms of soldiers who risked their very lives, did it become fashionable to denigrate those who excelled in battle. Needless to say, Custer's stock( as well as others of his ilk)fell in a direct correlation of the rise of unmitigated disrespect for our armed forces. Today, sadly, we have a fist full of arm-chair generals who could not fight their way out of a wet paper bag telling us what Custer "should" have done. |
|
|
|
movingrobewoman
Lt. Colonel
USA
Status: offline |
Posted - April 23 2005 : 12:10:50 PM
|
Joe--
I do find it quite ironic that GAC was considered one of the best Indian fighters in the army--when he really only waged one successful battle. Everything after that was nothing more than skirmishes (well, until LBH), and in particular, during the Yellowstone expedition, Custer nearly lost it ...
But yeah, I do blame the technical manuals for not adjusting their methodology when presented with this new, guerilla-style enemy. Did the higher-ups in the United States' army not learn one darn thing from Quantrill, Forrest, or Mosby during the ACW?
But though I don't put GAC on a pedestal when it comes to his life or death, I am quite accepting that he was a man of his times. Nothing more or nothing less.
|
movingrobe |
|
|
|
Dark Cloud
Brigadier General
USA
Status: offline |
Posted - April 23 2005 : 12:11:19 PM
|
Guerrilla, Wiggs. Not gorilla. Why are you so demeaning to heroic Native Americans.......... You must hate America....
Your insistence on inflating your language to imply depth doesn't work, Wiggs. You mean to say after/during the Vietnam War, not after the Era (the Era being....?). Of course, many Vets who weren't in combat or Vietnam delight in describing themselves as Viet Era Vets in hopes people will assume that they were in that war's combat and are owed the respect of those who were.
In any case, virtually all the cases of military men being spit upon has been blown out of the water by military investigation and common sense. Here's the work of a Vet on this very subject. http://slate.msn.com/id/1005224/
To spit upon a buff and pissed-off veteran is an invitation to get the crap beaten out of you, justifiably. In any case, of all those who are in the military, few get anywhere near battle, and fewer excel at it. Further, while it's never been fashionable to dis soldiers simply for being soldiers, the military has gone in and out of popularity throughout our history. Wandering groups of Revolutionary soldiers, the greed and extortions of the GAR, the Bonus Army incidents, Shays Rebellion, did little to enthrall the military to the public. This isn't surprising, given that after war a huge bunch of traumatized and unemployed men hit the streets for work, forcing huge social disruptions. At least until the GI Bill. Imagine if we hadn't had that.
Your continuing habit of propping up or inventing straw dogs for you to defend is silly, Wiggs. Nobody doubts Custer was popular as a CW hero. Nobody has said otherwise.
Further, if the military was ill suited to Indian warfare, the Indians were more ill suited to soldier warfare. Given they lost and didn't seem to improve much even with better weapons. But then, weapons aren't everything. In the hands of the untrained, they are as nothing. |
Dark Cloud
copyright RL MacLeod
darkcloud@darkendeavors.com
www.darkendeavors.com
www.boulderlout.com |
|
|
|
joseph wiggs
Brigadier General
Status: offline |
Posted - April 23 2005 : 4:41:35 PM
|
quote:
Originally posted by Dark Cloud
Guerrilla, Wiggs. Not gorilla. Why are you so demeaning to heroic Native Americans.......... You must hate America....
Your insistence on inflating your language to imply depth doesn't work, Wiggs. You mean to say after/during the Vietnam War, not after the Era (the Era being....?). Of course, many Vets who weren't in combat or Vietnam delight in describing themselves as Viet Era Vets in hopes people will assume that they were in that war's combat and are owed the respect of those who were.
In any case, virtually all the cases of military men being spit upon has been blown out of the water by military investigation and common sense. Here's the work of a Vet on this very subject. http://slate.msn.com/id/1005224/
To spit upon a buff and pissed-off veteran is an invitation to get the crap beaten out of you, justifiably. In any case, of all those who are in the military, few get anywhere near battle, and fewer excel at it. Further, while it's never been fashionable to dis soldiers simply for being soldiers, the military has gone in and out of popularity throughout our history. Wandering groups of Revolutionary soldiers, the greed and extortions of the GAR, the Bonus Army incidents, Shays Rebellion, did little to enthrall the military to the public. This isn't surprising, given that after war a huge bunch of traumatized and unemployed men hit the streets for work, forcing huge social disruptions. At least until the GI Bill. Imagine if we hadn't had that.
Your continuing habit of propping up or inventing straw dogs for you to defend is silly, Wiggs. Nobody doubts Custer was popular as a CW hero. Nobody has said otherwise.
Further, if the military was ill suited to Indian warfare, the Indians were more ill suited to soldier warfare. Given they lost and didn't seem to improve much even with better weapons. But then, weapons aren't everything. In the hands of the untrained, they are as nothing.
Dear HE, who knows it all, a slight interjection of reality. As I was one of those individuals who was spat upon by a drugged hippy and his cohorts, your stats. mean absolutely nothing to me. And yes, I managed to beat the hell out of a couple of them before I was vanquished by numbers.
According to you, of course, I and others like me are just exaggerating. As you have never had an opportunity to serve your Country I would imagine you have been spared that indignity. I find it particularly reprehensible that you describe these men who sacrificed much as a "bunch." A word which carries a negative connotation, as you are perfectly aware of;albeit I look forward to your forthcoming denial of that fact. You seem to have a propensity for for placing groups in "bunches" don't you?
You performed a similar Fax pas, recently,when you used the same term to identify Native Americans. Naturally, you slimed your way out of it when Wild brought you to task for it.
Your comment wherein you determined which amount of soldiers get "near" combat and which "excel" at it are to silly to address.
Secondly, according to Webster: Era-A period of time measured from some important event-ergo, the Viet-Nam War.
Last, but certainly not least, I am constantly amazed at the volumes of mis-information you constantly shove down our collective throats. Other than a bizarre fascination for raising the ire of so many, they say little of merit.
P.S I find it a little odd that you would use my name so often in such a relatively short thread. Obsession is so mysterious. |
|
|
|
joseph wiggs
Brigadier General
Status: offline |
Posted - April 23 2005 : 7:59:54 PM
|
And no, "fax pas" does not translate into an "e-mail blunder", insert Faux Pas there.
|
Edited by - joseph wiggs on April 23 2005 8:02:17 PM |
|
|
|
Dark Cloud
Brigadier General
USA
Status: offline |
Posted - April 24 2005 : 1:00:27 PM
|
I don't believe you, as I don't believe previous implications about being a police officer, teacher, etc. If true, I'm surprised. In any case, if you read the reference, this was a formal and ongoing investigation into that particular urban myth by an actual Viet vet with academic backing. Your argument is with him. Here's an idea, get on the phone to Holy Cross and give the author your story and see if he blows it out of the water and you get added to the list by name of fabricators or he vouches for you. Just as UFO abductees tend to be trailer park pot heads and alcoholics, the alleged Viet Vets who claim these stories fall into predictable types as well. Not my theory. His, and so far undamaged. There must be a police report for your fight.....
Bunch carries no negative connotation at all. That's simply moronic.
So give the dates of the Vietnam War. From the first American advisors to the last prisoner release? From first to last shot? Tell us.
It's the US military that provides the studies, Wiggs. For every soldier in Pacific combat in WWII, there were sixteen who never fought in the back. It was twelve to one in Europe. And no, I don't think some guy drafted against his will who was a low ranking slacker in a Weisbaden motor pool deserves the honor due a combat vet in Vietnam, although both are 'Vietnam Era.' Further, most people I've met who have claimed to be Viet Vets weren't. Of the ones who were, most were never in combat. This from other Vets. Of the guys I know who were in combat, few have ever mentioned it and none brag about it in an attempt to impress strangers. |
Dark Cloud
copyright RL MacLeod
darkcloud@darkendeavors.com
www.darkendeavors.com
www.boulderlout.com |
|
|
|
wILD I
Brigadier General
Ireland
Status: offline |
Posted - April 24 2005 : 2:13:35 PM
|
Given they lost and didn't seem to improve much even with better weapons.
Just a cuple of observations on the above.
They did halt the Spanish expansion northwards.And until the advent of the repeating carbine/rifle their skill as mounted archers made them superior horse warriors to the Europeans.
It was twelve to one in Europe.
Well for most of the war in Europe it was nearer to 100%
|
|
|
|
joseph wiggs
Brigadier General
Status: offline |
Posted - April 24 2005 : 3:53:12 PM
|
| I won't beat a dead horse, but for a moment D.c. This is exactly why you are not taken seriously. Having no experience in military service, you wish the forum to to accept academic statistics as a reality, even when that "reality" conflicts with they who actually served. Consequently, you come off as egotistical blowhard sans credentials. |
|
|
|
whistlingboy
Lieutenant
USA
Status: offline |
Posted - April 25 2005 : 10:51:32 AM
|
MRW, it is true that the few months that I have enjoyed writing 'stuff' and, more importantly, enjoyed reading/listening to the 'exchanges' that appear on this particular website, I have 'come across' as a blined Custer 'phile' for those who live and see 'life' as only being 'numbers,' 'labels' and 'categories.' To those who require such references to organize their thoughts and get through life because they know no other way to 'reference' this life and consequently 'judge' their own in terms of others' lives, I am up for deduecement one way or the other. Is this not true? I am not sure how to 'forge' myself towards 'middle' ground in this judgment process by the board unless I make some dastardly comments about GAC which would be just as unfair to make as the seemingly pro-GAC ones I've made. I have been unsuccessful in promoting my position on GAC and have been mis-read, misinterpreted and thus, misrepresented in the unfair labels and innuendos that have followed me. But that is life and thoughts we must all feel. I deserve, hopefully in a respectful way, all of that until I can articulate my truest thoughts. Warlord is no doubt astute in his assumption that I am too 'sensitive.' My sensitivity is, I imagine, a result of my upbringing by my parents who promoted that old adage.....'if you can't say something nice about someone, don't say anything.' It is that socialization process that one has to escape in order to change certain beliefs. I like however, my predicament in life better than a lot of the youngsters of today who come from 'fashionable' predicaments of being raised by one parent or no parents or will soon come from a 'tube.' And I am a 'teacher' in life based only on my '8th' grade education and the critics, who will have to update my file, can justify that anyway they want to to make themselves look better and feel better. I have no problem with that. My folks always told me 'don't look at what you've accomplished; look at what you haven't.' I have thrown away every trophy I have ever won to include my medals (although I have saved the 'recommendations' about them), writing honors, etc. to always focus on the 'next.' It is a personal 'trap' in life of mine. Why should I promote being proud of something I did if it insults others and conjures up 'behind the back' responses of 'big deal' or 'why are you shoving that in my face' or 'so what' etc. Life is cold in the deep crevasses.
Again, where in my 'posts' have I depicted Mr. Custer as a 'saint.' Replete with sins like all of us, I will not dangle him from a 'noose' just because men died in his command. Based on what I know, and I am waiting on someone who knows some little fact about him that I don't know, that I haven't seen written yet, I can choose to be 'in his corner' respectfully, or be 'at his throat' based on what I know. I must afford him the 'benefit of the doubt' as I would like to have that respect, if I were him. Again, the only hero in my life has been my father and 'need' is the wrong word to 'attach' to my views. The General's fame, at that time, was synonymous with the fame of Lindbergh's at his pinnacle of popularity or FDR or The Beatles or anyone who has achieved 'household' name recognition. He was THE national hero and in viewing my perception of GAC know that I am thinking of him in that light....the National hero. I have never insinuated 'great' hero nor 'great' leader. I have never attributed such synonyms to anyone in life as I can recall. My official category placement info: great leader--no; great person--no; great soldier--no; great hero--no; incompetent leader--no; incompetent soldier--no; incompetent person--no. His passion was soldiering, his wife, his command and his life. He led his charges and put his life on the line in full view of his command and every soldier in his command were not being asked to do anything that GAC wasn't sticking his neck out for, first. He did not make all the right decisions in retrospect unlike many of us who make all the 'right' decisions in our life all the time. But for what 'went down' GAC became a national legend and a part of American history and it is the American 'legend' I am trying to protect and keep in tact because I do not want anymore of our "Lenin" statues being pulled over. Once a soldier, always a soldier, maybe. I'm still trying to fend off 'attack.' The Indian nation has every right to make 'heros' out of their participants and should to pass on to their new generations. Again, I grew up in South Dakota among the Sioux nation and have always been appalled at the discrimination shown against them....I am Italian and one of my grandfather's bodyguards came to visit my Dad and us up in Pierre and he had a very dark complexion with no teeth and broken english still, appeared to be an aged Indian. Pierre was 'dry' at the time and Tony walked over the big bridge on the Missouri to Ft. Pierre, which was 'wet,' to get beer and no one would serve him because Indians were not allowed any alcohol. Dad said he was really surprised Tony didn't go on the 'warpath.' In 1968 while up in Alaska, local tribemen were allowed only 3.2 beer and only so much. My point is that, not unlike GAC, I have always liked the Indian nation and in GAC's case, it was his soldiering duty to bring them to their 'knees.' All unwarranted, unsolicited discrimination to all peoples to include geeks, nerds and experts of every race and creed has to be one of the main 'aims' of future generations.
|
|
|
|
Dark Cloud
Brigadier General
USA
Status: offline |
Posted - April 26 2005 : 10:14:43 AM
|
Wild,
The Spanish expansion north was halted by distinct lack of Spaniards, desert, and no known gold. They left exploration north mostly to priests, monks, Russians, and the French after initial unprofitable forays. Indians didn't become great horsemen overnight, and the Sioux probably didn't even get the horse till the mid 1700's.
I don't understand the 100% reference to American military numbers.
Whistlingboy,
I don't understand the "need" to put unnecessary "quotation marks" around "words" that don't need them and, in fact, tend to make "sentences" that contain "them" really and unecessarily "silly."
Be that as it may, Custer's hero status is uncontested, so who are you defending him against? It's this need to be seen defending Custer, and applauded for it, even when he's not under attack that defeats your purpose, which I have no doubt is a good hearted one. But it's the Custerphiles, who often find need to explain their own life story - how they discovered Custer, how their military experience (real, imagined, or deliberately fabricated as needed) affects their notions, how their opinions on Custer are as one with political leanings - who periodically come under attack. They are so because they insist that Custer somehow serve as metaphor for themselves, and an attack on one is an attack on the other. That's a role that he didn't seek, to our knowledge, and one that doesn't serve history's accuracy. Having to rephrase observations on Custer to be acceptable to those who lust to be seen as defending his image - which is to say, their own self image - is too often a mutually exclusive endeavor. |
Dark Cloud
copyright RL MacLeod
darkcloud@darkendeavors.com
www.darkendeavors.com
www.boulderlout.com |
|
|
|
Little White Dove
Private
Status: offline |
Posted - April 26 2005 : 1:28:02 PM
|
Hi everyone:
I just wanted you all to know that I appreciate each and every one's comments and replys. Some have been much more gracious than others. And some have been less than complimentary, but then that's to be expected, I guess.
I always have a difficult time trying to write reports, themes, and especially this thesis! And I usually end up writing the ending first, if that makes any sense. I dont know maybe its just me, oh well.
Any way just to let you know, I am neither pro or con when it comes to this discussion. I have way too much else to worry about than this. It's just a thesis after all, isn't it? I have a rough draft of the ending. And I would love share it with you and to hear your comments about it. I have no title for it at this time. Thankyou all for everything.
---------------------------
Over 225 years have gone by since our forefathers formed a govenment that granted to its people the liberties we have. Freedom of religious belief, one being no better nor less than another. Freedom of equality towards mankind, one being no better nor less than another. Freedom of expression of one's thoughts and beliefs, one being no better nor less than another....
Still, people the world over today engage in a great debate of an issue that is over 125 years old. A debate over Custer's Last Stand, testing their thoughts, beliefs &, conceptions with a dedication to a subject that will forever be. This is but one battle, on a war that spanned the plains. And yet all can agree that no matter which side of the debate you support, that they should rest in peace in the confidence that they gave their lives, that others might live according to their way. Their dedication to their cause was at that time fitting and proper. And so it should be in our best interest to understand, that we cannot honor, we cannot devote nor make perfect their sacrifices, any more nor any less than what was.
Whether one or another died a hero, doesn't change the history that was. The difficult questions will forever be a part of the mystery. The characters forever a part of the intrigue. And people will forever strive to find the wrong questions, and look for the wrong hero's. Terry? Gibbon? Crook? Benteen? Reno? Crazy Horse? Gall? Two Moons? American Horse? Rain in the face? Custer? and many more..... Until people can stand back, take a good look at all of them, can one fully appreciate who the real hero's were. What the real cause was for. Sometimes it isn't those one expects them to be.
The believers will forever believe what they choose.
The skeptical will always queston everything.
The researchers will forever try to understand.
The cynical will always take the path of least resistance, and claim a status above the rest.
But in the end, it's not about what's right or wrong, true or false, fact or fiction, but simply what was, no more, no less.
The brave warriors on both sides of the battle, both those that lived and died with honor and devotion to their cause, is beyond our power to add or take away from, in thought, word or deed. Those that take issue with this, will not for long remember what we say here, but no one can never forget what they did there. It should be for us, to dedicate ourselves to their unfinished work. Which they who fought there with character and high morals, both warriors and soldiers, Americans all, put forth their efforts. A high value for life, liberty and the pusuit of happiness, in a manner of their own choosing.
They left for us a legacy that we should be dedicate ourselves to their great unfinished work. Where from those honored dead we should take increased loyalty and purpose to thier causes for which they gave their lives. One that we can resolve, that those that died, both warrior and soldier, on the windswept hills and valleys of the Little Big Horn, shall not have died in vain! One that can proudly proclaim to all races that, this nation under God, is a government of all the people, by all of the people, and for all of the people.
Thankyou again. Little White Dove.
|
Edited by - Little White Dove on April 26 2005 1:29:39 PM |
|
|
|
Heavyrunner
Captain
USA
Status: offline |
Posted - April 26 2005 : 1:39:04 PM
|
| Abe Lincoln would love it! |
Bob Bostwick |
|
|
|
movingrobewoman
Lt. Colonel
USA
Status: offline |
Posted - April 26 2005 : 2:32:22 PM
|
LWD--
I gots no problem in with fence-sitters in Custerland--there are probably more of us then there are of them (either phobes or philes). But a thesis is a big, big deal--uhh, helps you get that lousy degree, ya know? What new about the battle/GAC/whomever have you discovered in your research that will make other folks who study the battle want to read it? What conclusions are you risking your entire scholarly reputation upon (yikes)?
There are more than a few of us who have included other student's thesii (DC would know the plural) in our footnotes! Several of us are probably eager to read your stuff!
Good luck! |
movingrobe |
Edited by - movingrobewoman on April 26 2005 2:33:46 PM |
|
|
|
whistlingboy
Lieutenant
USA
Status: offline |
Posted - April 27 2005 : 10:08:59 AM
|
Dark Cloud: The 'quotes' around words is a nasty habit of mine and I bow to the gentleman from Colorado. I will work on that aspect of my 'game' but it won't be easy. I'm sure you will keep me posted on how I am doing. I will look forward to 'that.' But you, being an excellent writer and thinker know how hard and difficult it is to say 'love' in the same light that everyone shares...at least in writing some emphasis can be used to hopefully help others to perceive how you (the writer) actually may be feeling....yea, I know, it is still a 'shot in the dark.' (sorry).
In a more serious mode, I have to disagree with your words..."Custer's hero status is uncontested".... My problem with that is that many of the ongoing arguments about him is just that...contesting his 'heroism' versus his 'stupidity,' isn't it? I am unable to convey my point that it is the 'legend' of LBH that I am more concerned about and its preservation. It is the legend which I think is more often than not 'uncontested,' however. Am I still in left field? Your metaphoric references might be hitting pay dirt but that's starting to get kind of deep for my education. hehe Thanks for working with me on getting my head cleared on this subject, though. Unless I feel someone is just playing 'devils' advocate or something, I do take my criticisms to heart and will try to abide to help people have a good, stressless, day.
Warlord: It is appalling how the CW and the slave question have become so distorted over time.
'Wet blanket?' Never. You may use a damp one once in a while but never a soaked one...your blanketed information is usually quite pertinent.
|
|
|
|
wILD I
Brigadier General
Ireland
Status: offline |
Posted - April 27 2005 : 11:04:01 AM
|
and the Sioux probably didn't even get the horse till the mid 1700's.
Try Comanches.
The Spanish expansion north was halted by distinct lack of Spaniards,
When did numbers ever hinder them?
I don't understand the 100% reference to American military numbers
From Dec 41 to July 43 there was no US land troops in Combat in Europe
|
|
|
|
dave
Captain
Australia
Status: offline |
Posted - April 27 2005 : 11:46:08 AM
|
Very eloquent LWD - what about the rest? :)
Just a suggestion, why don't you start a new thread and post all your questions there, rather than scattering them across the forum. Don't worry about the natives, we're occasionally restless, but mostly benign.
We're all guests here, so you have as much right to post as any of us. |
|
|
|
Heavyrunner
Captain
USA
Status: offline |
Posted - April 27 2005 : 12:10:10 PM
|
Paul,
My reference to Abe was in light of the Gettysburg Address. Didn't you notice? |
Bob Bostwick |
|
|
|
movingrobewoman
Lt. Colonel
USA
Status: offline |
Posted - April 27 2005 : 2:51:47 PM
|
Whistlingboy and all:
My question is, then, why preserve a legend that seems to be anything but truthful? Custer lived in reality and died there as well ... are believers in the legend (a word that to me, seems connected to "myth")ultimately doing Custer a big disservice?
Once again, I enjoy all the comments!
Hoka hey! |
movingrobe |
|
|
|
movingrobewoman
Lt. Colonel
USA
Status: offline |
Posted - April 27 2005 : 2:59:21 PM
|
quote:
Originally posted by Warlord
Heavyrunner: Nope, I didn't!
Dave: You are right. LWD should start her own thread with questions! She simply does not sound like a post-graduate student. I think she may well be a kid gaming you guys! She cannot and does not write like one. No post graduate student writes the conclusion of their Thesis first! She should title it, "A Little Girl Who need's Help"!!!
Warlord--
I tend to worry about people who call it "just a thesis." In all of my days, I have never met a grad student who has used that particular terminology. Granted, a thesis ain't a dissertation, but it's still a hunk of work and cause for all kinds of worry--and at the same time, should come to some new conclusions!
And in Custeriana, seems coming to some new conclusions, no matter how well researched, is fraught with peril. There might as well be a sign at the outset that says "this way to certain death ..."
Hoka hey!
(BTW--mailing my contest @#@# tomorrow--arrggh) |
movingrobe |
Edited by - movingrobewoman on April 27 2005 3:00:36 PM |
|
|
|
whistlingboy
Lieutenant
USA
Status: offline |
Posted - April 27 2005 : 6:49:04 PM
|
Warlord: You're too kind. Glad to help your stress with a few laughs this fine day. I think Dark Cloud writes quite well...I'd like to read his 'thesis.'
Movingrobewoman: In Webster's II Dictionary, legend is defined: A story handed down from the past, esp. one that is widely believed but unverifiable.
Your words "...that seems to be anything but truthful?" is what in part makes it a legend, don't you think? You're right that he lived and died in reality but therein lies the mystique. How exactly and where on that battleground did he fall, not to mention in what fashion. These questions and others begging absolute answers by thousands and thousands of students of military battles around the world alone help make this a legend. Your question may be answered when in fact some of the 'airy' facts surrounding Custer are finally verified. Wake me up out of my grave when they are.
Seriously, though, some legends are not as demanding like Geronimo's legend, for example. Davy Crockett at the Alamo has some mystery to it still even though he was an actual Congressman, White Buffalo Calf Woman and others like it are full of mystery and live in the supernatural realm. Some legends are good; some are not so good. Some are clouded in mystery and others are not as hard to grasp. The LBH Last Stand legend has just enough mystery embedded in it to captivate the world's attention. Why? A relatively small battle on a not very complex field of play. Many of us have toured and walked its paths on numerous occassions and pondered the mysteries therein. I'm not sure about the 'disservice' question. If you really want my truest feelings...I really don't think it makes a difference even if the absolute truth was gleaned and told to the world tomorrow. The story would live and the monuments would stand. The hundreds of monuments, parks, statues, buildings, roads, schools, subdivisions, etc. named for the General would not be torn down, cremated, decimated, etc. Most likely, the revelation, when found, would be 'buried' as it well should be. I'm not one who thinks that truth is always the best antidote, especially when its revealing has trauma attached to it. I do understand your position about the legend of LBH however and how your beliefs about the 'untruths' in the story are compromised by the present dogma. Who knows, maybe you, with your passion, will be the one who figures out the puzzle. In the meantime, the 'philes' and the 'phobes' will live on. |
|
|
|
whistlingboy
Lieutenant
USA
Status: offline |
Posted - April 27 2005 : 7:10:13 PM
|
| Warlord: This board should write a book....in fact, it is practically already written. Everybody's permission could be obtained to use everything in these posts over, let's say, the last year. Each member could write a 'position' paragraph or two if they wanted to, the 'senior' staff could solicit possible title names for the publication, the purpose could be defined and, of course, there isn't enough agreement on the board to have to worry about presenting any conclusions. The manuscript could show just how interesting formulated ideas and their constant rebuttals by a variety of minds on a certain subject can be. Put in a nice hardbound cover with a battlefield background picture to attract Custerites, it could be priced at $25 and amusement for almost anybody. The addiction could be so captivating that sequels would probably have to be forthcoming. Okay, I think I'll go to sleep now. Had to leave you with one more laugh. |
|
|
|
Topic |
|
|
|
Phile or Phobe?
