| Author |
 Topic  |
|
Heavyrunner
Captain
USA
Status: offline |
 Posted - July 20 2005 : 7:39:38 PM
|
History tells us (actually, the Army tells us) that Custer's remains were recovered and reburied at West Point.
Do you believe this, or do you believe he's still on Last Stand Hill--and why?
My own feeling is that they had no idea, no proof of which remains they removed to West Point. On one of my visits to the battlefield, I brought this up to one of the park rangers. He told me flat out that Custer's remains were right there at LSH with the rest.
|
Bob Bostwick |
|
|
Dark Cloud
Brigadier General
USA
Status: offline |
Posted - July 20 2005 : 8:14:23 PM
|
Actually, a number of individual accounts tell us that as well as the official Army record. But as I was saying in other threads, there were socially accepted realities that we pretend are something else. Like all those mass military cemeteries in Europe that have individual headstones, but the body isn't under it often enough, but in the huge mass grave dug sometime after the battle. That, if the body was found at all.
From the descriptions we have, given that the first body they were sure was Custer's was discarded because of a nametag of a corporal - who is not mentioned as being buried with Custer, or near him - the hair apparently was not such a convincing piece of evidence, was it?
It's all representational, they don't know, they don't want to know at this point, and it's fitting he's mostly where he is more than at West Point. Still, the thought Mrs. Custer rests next to someone she didn't know and below her station, after all the hoo-hah she put folks through, is a soothing thought. |
Dark Cloud
copyright RL MacLeod
darkcloud@darkendeavors.com
www.darkendeavors.com
www.boulderlout.com |
  |
|
|
Benteen
Lt. Colonel
Status: offline |
Posted - July 20 2005 : 10:18:03 PM
|
Well said DC. :)
Hr ~ quote:
On one of my visits to the battlefield, I brought this up to one of the park rangers. He told me flat out that Custer's remains were right there at LSH with the rest.
If it was Neil Magnum? I wouldn't take too much stock in what he says. He often doesn't report actual truth. Don't get me wrong, okay. I think he's a really nice person. But for historical accuracy we could do better. |
|
|
|
Heavyrunner
Captain
USA
Status: offline |
Posted - July 21 2005 : 12:14:59 PM
|
Benteen,
It was some years ago and I have no idea of the Ranger's name. I do recall from the conversation how he went over the events of the recovery and reburial and seemed very knowledgeable about the details. Of course, I and many others have learned not to accept, verbatum, any report offered by the Army. I'm sure the recovery team tried to do their best, but I also recall more than one set of remains in the grave, among other issues.
The researchers here may have more specifics. If so, they might add to this discussion. |
Bob Bostwick |
|
|
|
El Crab
Brigadier General
USA
Status: offline |
Posted - July 21 2005 : 1:21:20 PM
|
He's at my house. We're gonna BBQ later.
Seriously, they might have gotten a bone or two that was actually him, but who knows. Either way, its pretty much GUARANTEED that a majority of his bones are under the monument. When they fetched Custer to take to West Point, they didn't get more than a hatful.
The corporal's blouse was the confusing aspect. When they opened the grave they thought was Custer's, there was a corporal's blouse around the bones. Its possible it was a corporal, but its also possible it was Custer's body, since Sgt. Ryan said several corporals helped bury Custer. And there was apparent care taken in his burial (deepest burial, which is obviously relative) and supposedly some canvas or blankets or something to cover his body in the grave. So I've always wondered if Ryan got it wrong or didn't mention a corporal using an article of clothing to bury Custer. Of course, its a moot point, since they skipped over that grave upon discovering the corporal's blouse. |
I came. I saw. I took 300 pictures. |
|
|
|
wILD I
Brigadier General
Ireland
Status: offline |
Posted - July 21 2005 : 1:38:31 PM
|
It is my understanding that when the original burials took place if a body was recognised then the name was written on paper and inserted in an empty shell case which was driven into a stake marking the site.
There are photographs of some of the original graves with markers some actually stating "unknown".There is one marked Lt Sturgis,another Col Keogh and even the resting place of a trooper by the name of Wild from I coy is marked.
Though just thinking if Keogh's and Sturgis's graves are photographed why not Custer's? |
|
|
|
Heavyrunner
Captain
USA
Status: offline |
Posted - July 21 2005 : 2:55:27 PM
|
Thanks for making the discussion more interesting, fellas..
I've read some of the same reports, accounts, ect., but it was years ago and I don't have citations. So, it's helpful when those of you with research at hand can share some specifics. Thanks, again. |
Bob Bostwick |
|
|
|
Dark Cloud
Brigadier General
USA
Status: offline |
Posted - July 21 2005 : 3:14:00 PM
|
It's worth reflecting upon this. The two Custers were given the best burials with the most protection. Even so, whatever Custer got only left very little of him a year later. That can only mean his body was dug up and chomped, most likely but not necessarily by animals, and dragged about and away. After all, look at the efforts made to cover graves at other battles to prevent desecration by Sioux warriors, like at the Rosebud. It takes a believing mind to think that Sioux or Cheyenne puttering by this handy playground for desecrating enemies would let it pass unmolested. I'm looking at you, Wooden Leg. I suspect entire modern theories about firing lines are based upon these festivities.
And if that happened to those buried safest, what would that mean about the others? It must have been a gruesome sight in 1877.
In any event, it's quite possible most of Custer isn't either under the monument OR at West Point, but being passed down in a family of coyete. |
Dark Cloud
copyright RL MacLeod
darkcloud@darkendeavors.com
www.darkendeavors.com
www.boulderlout.com |
|
|
|
movingrobewoman
Lt. Colonel
USA
Status: offline |
Posted - July 21 2005 : 6:03:59 PM
|
quote:
Originally posted by Heavyrunner
History tells us (actually, the Army tells us) that Custer's remains were recovered and reburied at West Point.
Do you believe this, or do you believe he's still on Last Stand Hill--and why?
My own feeling is that they had no idea, no proof of which remains they removed to West Point. On one of my visits to the battlefield, I brought this up to one of the park rangers. He told me flat out that Custer's remains were right there at LSH with the rest.
On this, I'd have to agree with Dark Cloud--that the majority of GAC (as well as the others)'s remains fell into the food chain. However, I seem to recall that Tom and Armstrong were buried together--at least initially. Or am I completely errant?
Hoka hey! |
movingrobe |
|
|
|
Dark Cloud
Brigadier General
USA
Status: offline |
Posted - July 21 2005 : 9:26:19 PM
|
The Custers were, supposedly, buried together, but if that were so and they were uncovered as such it isn't clear from the reburial stories, is it?
We know that people like Godfrey lied outright after the battle over this sort of trivia. He started out saying there were some mutilated bodies, but some were not. Then, decades later, he started saying all of them except Custer were mutilated. This is highly unlikely, of course, but he's fibbing somewhere in there, bless his heart. He lied, and I have no trouble thinking others did as well, be they Ryan or Bradley, who was killed before he got to the LBH in his writings, leaving only his notes, with whatever cues he made. No harm was meant, and none done, actually.
If Terry and Gibbon told their guys to do the best they could burying the revolting corpses in a day and not to agonize about it, I could understand that. I'm sure they said no such thing, but I do think that was understood, however.
I don't know, nobody knows, but we can reference more modern mass internments and it's not promising that much was done whatever three days after the battle, and being the case, the detailed descriptions and satellite precision is pretty pointless but satisfies the general fussy mentality of those who confuse accumulated detail as fact. And really? What difference does it make? |
Dark Cloud
copyright RL MacLeod
darkcloud@darkendeavors.com
www.darkendeavors.com
www.boulderlout.com |
|
|
|
wILD I
Brigadier General
Ireland
Status: offline |
Posted - July 22 2005 : 3:58:31 PM
|
What difference does it make?
I believe that Uncle Sam has a policy of leaving no soldier behind.Even today the search goes on for fallen comrades in Vietnam.It would take a man better versed in letters than I to explain the difference but it is important. |
|
|
|
Dark Cloud
Brigadier General
USA
Status: offline |
Posted - July 23 2005 : 11:54:14 AM
|
Uncle Sam has many policies, among which are some he actually believes in and acts on, the rest being rah-rah rhetoric to soothe the plantlife. Don't make us laugh. Or cry.
There's a dif between a prisoner and a corpse. We and everyone else have been nudging bodies into the ocean for centuries, so the fascination with this is highly subjective and not to be taken seriously absent immediate family.
The interest in the very small body parts retrieved in Vietnam is mostly due to politicos trying to keep anger about the war alive beyond the now muted grief of actual family, angry at the Army, government, and the Vietnamese. Why decomposing in Vietnam is somehow more degrading than the ocean isn't addressed. Or how the formal burial of substance no more than a finger provides "closure" or "peace" to family thirty years down the pike. Safe bet the dead don't care. That they did not die in vain, and that memories of them are happy would be a show of more respect, I'd think.
Let's be honest. All the hoopla about treating military dead with respect is a form of emotional extortion - not without reason or justice - inflicted on the nation. Understandable, but we sometimes seem to spend more time and money retrieving body parts than we spend on preventing the need either by better diplomacy or better military application of force. And that's VERY Uncle Sam.
It's possible even Ireland has noted this tendency in its own government? |
Dark Cloud
copyright RL MacLeod
darkcloud@darkendeavors.com
www.darkendeavors.com
www.boulderlout.com |
|
|
|
wILD I
Brigadier General
Ireland
Status: offline |
Posted - July 23 2005 : 3:06:39 PM
|
Let's be honest. All the hoopla about treating military dead with respect is a form of emotional extortion - not without reason or justice - inflicted on the nation.
Even the most primitive of societies treat their dead with respect.Families and communities will go through a particular funereal ritual depending on religious belief.Look at the hoopla for departed heads of state or religious leaders.The military don't hold a monopoly on pomp and circumstance.The "infliction "of a military funeral on society seem a very small price to pay for a man's life given in the service of that society.
the rest being rah-rah rhetoric to soothe the plantlife. Don't make us laugh. Or cry.
I think the US has lost 1700 young men and women in Iraq ,it is rather sad to think that there are some who would trivialize their last rites as rah-rah rhetoric.
Why decomposing in Vietnam is somehow more degrading than the ocean isn't addressed
I don't believe that where a soldier lies degrades him but to have him returned to his family can bring some small consolation.
As for burial at sea ,well the sea is neutral.
Or how the formal burial of substance no more than a finger provides "closure" or "peace" to family thirty years down the pike.
Even to this day they are still recovering crashed aircraft from the second world war and in many cases the remains of the crew.And it does bring closure and peace even to the generations who were born after the war.
|
|
|
|
Dark Cloud
Brigadier General
USA
Status: offline |
Posted - July 23 2005 : 9:35:28 PM
|
1. You do this a lot. Here I'm talking about, since you were, a policy of the US, not the funeral games. Services are given and respect shown without the body as well as with. The presence or not of the body makes it no less meaningful, does it? So don't pretend I'm advocating no respect for the dead.
2. Who is trivializing their last rites, which is a specific religious act requiring the body, or confusing it with a funeral? Rote ritual and Taps played by artificial device screams respect to you?
3. The sea is neutral? Huh. Also? It's cheap. No need for a specific vessel to carry the dead home. If the Navy really cared, they'd have had ships for it pre-helicopter. After all: why do they carry them home now if mere money wasn't the issue before? Nelson went home in a cask of Madeira. Some soldiers, at least one at the LBH, are proud to be buried where they fell, according to their family. Some aren't. Sometimes the effort to bring them home is more of a demonstration of family clout, like the size of the daughter's wedding.
4. "And it does bring closure and peace even to the generations who were born after the war." How can that be, since they suffered no hurt to close? How many generations should this go on, do you think, since you're advocating those unborn at the tragedy need closure?
This is a subject that brings out the servile in those whose self image is dependent upon being thought a soldier. I would agree, all reasonable efforts should be made to retrieve the dead, but not at the risk of more dead, or of the mission. And frankly? I'd rather every dime spent retrieving those bodies had gone into the Vet hospitals and dealt with the living. I don't know why a grave in Vietnam is worse than one in France. It's a spot forever American in a foreign land. You know: Rupert Brooke from that country that walloped Ireland year after year without respite or much energy.
If I should die, think only this of me:
That there's some corner of a foreign field
That is forever England.
There shall be
In that rich earth a richer dust concealed;
A dust whom England bore, shaped, made aware,
Gave, once, her flowers to love, her ways to roam,
A body of England's, breathing English air,
Washed by the rivers, blest by suns of home.
That strikes me as a healthy and realistic way to look at the god awful results of war. |
Dark Cloud
copyright RL MacLeod
darkcloud@darkendeavors.com
www.darkendeavors.com
www.boulderlout.com |
|
|
|
joseph wiggs
Brigadier General
Status: offline |
Posted - July 23 2005 : 9:47:06 PM
|
[quote]Originally posted by Dark Cloud
Let's be honest. All the hoopla about treating military dead with respect is a form of emotional extortion - not without reason or justice - inflicted on the nation. Understandable, but we sometimes seem to spend more time and money retrieving body parts than we spend on preventing the need either by better diplomacy or better military application of force. And that's VERY Uncle Sam.
Warlord's dissection of the inexplicable logic that produced this bizarre train of thought is extremely apropos and need not be further substantiated by anything I could add. I am, however, awaiting a response to the extremely credible questions/explanation requested by Paul. It should be interesting. Having said that, I am compelled to make comment on the last paragraph of this remarkable perspective.
Death has always been viewed by mankind as the ultimate mystery. Death is feared by all who live. No matter how strong,rich,or powerful one becomes, he or she must, eventually,die. Thus, death has become respected as the great equalizer by all of us.
Death by combat is especially cruel because it strikes down the creme of society. The vibrant youth of a group. It is the bane of mothers who lose their sons all too soon. Death by combat deprives a great society of it's vast potential. While sometimes necessary, combat is the only act committed by society that is unanimously dreaded by every participant. To infer that the U.S. military, which is comprised and led by the best men and women this Country has to offer, is engaged in "hoopla" every time it attempts to retrieve the men and women who have fallen upon the Field of Honor is beyond the pale. As Wild stated, since time memorial, ancient man treated their dead with respect. I don't know what efforts were taken by the military to recover and honor the remains of those who feel upon the Custer/Indian battlefield. Certainly efforts were hampered by the realities of the situation of that era, but just as certainly the efforts were not a part of a military conspiracy to dupe the public.
|
|
|
|
wILD I
Brigadier General
Ireland
Status: offline |
Posted - July 24 2005 : 05:41:42 AM
|
DC
You stated that treating military dead with respect was emotional extortion inflicted on the nation.Then you use a the term " funeral games".It is plain that the ritual of respect rendered to a soldier who has given his life in the service of his country is abhorrent to you.
So don't pretend I'm advocating no respect for the dead.Well what form of emotionless funerial would not be an infliction on your ever so grateful state?
Who is trivializing their last rites, which is a specific religious act requiring the body, or confusing it with a funeral?A burial is the last rite and you refer to it as hoopla.
Rote ritual and Taps played by artificial device screams respect to you?
"Rote ritual"is there any other sort?You're not suggesting that the US military use a gramophone?
The sea is neutral? Huh. Also? It's cheap. No need for a specific vessel to carry the dead home. If the Navy really cared, they'd have had ships for it pre-helicopter.
A ship could be in action for a month.It would not be good for morale or conditions on the ship to delay funerials.
"And it does bring closure and peace even to the generations who were born after the war." How can that be, since they suffered no hurt to close? How many generations should this go on, do you think, since you're advocating those unborn at the tragedy need closure?
Closure is a consequence of a decent burial not the reason for it.
That country who walloped us without even trying gave a naval funerial with full honours to a crew member of the Mary Rose 400 years after the ship went down with all hands.
That strikes me as a healthy and realistic way to look at the god awful results of war.
Was it not the news coverage of military funerials that contributed to the withdrawal of the US from Vietnam?
|
|
|
|
Dark Cloud
Brigadier General
USA
Status: offline |
Posted - July 24 2005 : 4:30:18 PM
|
1. No, Wild, I did not. What I said was "All the hoopla about treating military dead with respect is a form of emotional extortion - not without reason or justice - inflicted on the nation." See the difference? It's the hoopla, the sentence subject, that is emotional extortion. It's a major and obvious falsehood to say what you have. Nowhere have I ever said or thought "treating military dead with respect was emotional extortion."
2. No, Wild, burial is not always a last rite, given many religions grant it to the temporarily living. And I do not refer to it as hoopla.
3. Yes, they sometimes use artificial music and an artificial horn when they cannot get a real trumpeter, and someone pretends to play it.
4. Oh course, that's correct. But if people were so concerned, bodies could have been transferred for a sail home in preservative. They weren't because it wasn't expected, gross, and stupid. Only money prevented it, though.
5. "Closure is a consequence of a decent burial not the reason for it." That doesn't even rise to the level of New Age Claptrap. Are the descendents of soldiers killed by Americans during our Revolution still seeking closure in England, Ireland, Scotland, Germany and demanding the dust be returned? (Some have, I know....) You have a respectful service. You say goodbye. You honor the memory. Death is often quite sufficient closure. Most who died in Europe and the Pacific in WWII are still there, albeit many were brought to Hawaii. Yes, for the third or fourth time, funerals are different than finding the bodies and don't actually require them. They said a service at the Mary Rose, and nobody demanded they dive and bring up each and every body till Henry VIII was broke.
6. Contributed in Brazilian butterfly mode, yes. What closed the Vietnam War was the fact that after it became our longest, nobody could postulate a military goal, nobody could fathom why we were there, anymore, and nobody saw any reason to continue to prop up South Vietnamese governments by turn venal and incompetent and roundly unloved. To this day, nobody can give a good explanation for it. I understand we were there because the French wouldn't allow the rearmament of Germany unless we bailed them out of SE Asia. But I don't understand why it was excalated to no clear end, and why Presidents lied and blustered to wage a war they didn't want to fight to no clear end.
I'll never understand why McNamara and Westmoreland and those guys - upon whose lies (what Gulf of Tonkin incident??) and idiocies (let's build a jungle fort every night) many were killed to no constructive point - escaped the anger and condemnation that an idiot actress receives. |
Dark Cloud
copyright RL MacLeod
darkcloud@darkendeavors.com
www.darkendeavors.com
www.boulderlout.com |
Edited by - Dark Cloud on July 24 2005 4:35:55 PM |
|
|
|
joseph wiggs
Brigadier General
Status: offline |
Posted - July 24 2005 : 9:56:30 PM
|
Originally I truly planed to ignore D.c.'s response to his thread on U.S. policies to "soothe" plant life as I had a premonition (based on past antics) how it would turn out. Having experienced first hand his "smoking mirror" responses followed by his insatiable need to get in the last word (as witnessed by the exceeding complex exchanges between he and Wild) I was pleasantly unsurprised. A debate with this character is an exercise in futility with perpetual "Zero Returns."
When faced with accountability for the posting of some of the most bizarre threads on this forum he will do one of two things, ignore you or resort to unsubstantiated allegations of moral turpitude. I've also noticed that many members choose to ignore D.c. for the most part. Almost as if they have grown "accustomed to his face." In other words, you can not win with this guy. While others throw up their hands in utter frustration, after a merry-go-round with him, he coils in his dark cave and giggles with sheer delight. You see, D.c. is the essence of negativity. He is negativity incarnate, he thrives upon it. He finds no joy in intellectual conversation unless it is augmented by controversy which he finds exhilarating.
In reality, this forum is a magical talisman of power that affords him in audience to make him feel "good" about himself, only God knows why. How else can you account for the rubbish he comes up with?
For example, D.c., please list the U.S. policies that are designed to "soothe" plant life. Then elaborate upon the scientific study, upon which, you ascertained that plant life requires soothing. D.c.,s response to this question will fall into one, or all three of the following:
A. Wiggs, you are a liar, do you know that.(or a similar comment)
B. Wiggs, if you could read, obviously you can not, you would know that I didn't say that.(or a similar comment)
c. Not respond.
Last, but certainly not least, are you aware that your last two statements "Don't make us laugh. Or Cry" require editing? Your first statement fails to inform the reader of who or what makes us laugh about, what?
The second statement omits the subject,also where is the alternative to "cry" which is indicated by your use of "or?"
You see D.c., I realize and accept my numerous misuse of words, mis-spellings, and other errors because I am human and prone to mistakes. What I resent is you sanctimonious assumption that you do not live in a glass house, you really do.
P.S., Shockingly, I believe that this forum needs a D.c. or someone similar to him. His sheer nastiness promotes others to excel in their threads as they know that they can count on him to attempt to embarrass and harass every accidental and inconsequential error they may make.
|
Edited by - joseph wiggs on July 24 2005 10:05:12 PM |
|
|
|
wILD I
Brigadier General
Ireland
Status: offline |
Posted - July 25 2005 : 12:53:10 PM
|
All the hoopla about treating military dead with respect is a form of emotional extortion - not without reason or justice - inflicted on the nation.
You stated that treating military dead with respect was emotional extortion inflicted on the nation.
See the difference? It's the hoopla, the sentence subject, that is emotional extortion.
Of course and what does hoopla refer to?Treating the military dead with respect and if you had read my post you would have seen that I made this clear----It is plain that the ritual of respect rendered to a soldier who has given his life in the service of his country is abhorrent to you.
No, Wild, burial is not always a last rite, given many religions grant it to the temporarily living. And I do not refer to it as hoopla.
We are all temporarily living DC and I know of no religion who bury their followers alive.
Oh course, that's correct. But if people were so concerned, bodies could have been transferred for a sail home in preservative. They weren't because it wasn't expected, gross, and stupid. Only money prevented it, though.
Not good for morale to have a floating morgue trailing the fleet around.
Are the descendents of soldiers killed by Americans during our Revolution still seeking closure in England, Ireland, Scotland,
I would say the cut off point for emotional closure probably occurs around about the third generation.But then I read of cases of Australian aborigines requesting the British museum for the return of long departed ancestors who had been shiped to England and put on display.
Contributed in Brazilian butterfly mode, yes.
Well if you equate the impact of the deaths of 50000 young Americans to that of the Brazilian butterfly then I 'll take your word for it .You being American and everything.
|
|
|
|
Dark Cloud
Brigadier General
USA
Status: offline |
Posted - July 25 2005 : 2:03:01 PM
|
1. No, Wild. The hoopla of you and La Warlord and others is abhorrent to me. The ritual of military burial - I may have attended far more than you - is not.
2. Last rites are given to the dying. It is not synonomous with burial.
3. In the days under discussion - before the modern navy with helicopters and air transport - after the battle the morgue ship would return home with the others. Why would that be bad for morale, if you claim it as so important? Wouldn't that put everyone at peace? No more grotesque than the activity that put people on it.
4. THE THIRD GENERATION????? You're morbid and bonkers. If they don't know the dead, they have no hurt to close. The future grandchildren of people in their mostly twenties? That's grotesque, and exactly the nauseating sort of hoopla that sets me off. That is the very definition of emotional extortion. "You have to feel genuine emotion for people you never knew from Adam or you're a bad person.....and you must reward me for wearing the same uniform, or one like it, even though I never was in danger whatever."
5. That isn't even clever by Irish standards. It's a reference you didn't get any more than La Warlord. |
Dark Cloud
copyright RL MacLeod
darkcloud@darkendeavors.com
www.darkendeavors.com
www.boulderlout.com |
|
|
|
wILD I
Brigadier General
Ireland
Status: offline |
Posted - July 27 2005 : 1:47:50 PM
|
THE THIRD GENERATION????? You're morbid and bonkers. If they don't know the dead, they have no hurt to close.
Well thank you DC for that piece of intellectual guano.
Why do you assume that the only emotion envolved is grief?Why do you assume that closure only envolves the next of kin?What has time got to do with it? If they don't know the dead, they have no hurt to close.The next time you are in Arlington pay a visit to the tomb of the unknown soldier.Pause awhile maybe the inscription says " When you go home tell them of us and say - for your tomorrow we gave our today." It might just bring closure to your cynicism.
Last rites are given to the dying. It is not synonomous with burial.
On the contrary burial is a rite.
Contributed in Brazilian butterfly mode, yes.
And
It's a reference you didn't get any more than La Warlord.Oh I got it alright DC.Your problem is that in your use of language you sacrifice clarity for impact and slickness both characteristics of guano.
|
Edited by - wILD I on July 27 2005 1:51:48 PM |
|
|
|
AZ Ranger
Brigadier General
USA
Status: offline |
Posted - December 19 2005 : 09:15:21 AM
|
quote:
Are the descendents of soldiers killed by Americans during our Revolution still seeking closure in England, Ireland, Scotland, Germany and demanding the dust be returned?
There is certainly many Indian tribes requesting the return of bones from museum collections. One would believe that they are seeking closure. |
“ An officer's first duty is to his horses.”
SEMPER FI |
|
|
|
Dark Cloud
Brigadier General
USA
Status: offline |
Posted - December 19 2005 : 11:41:08 AM
|
I doubt any of them requested closure. I think they, not surprisingly, have resented being displayed as animals and subhumans and not being given the respect they feel the whites owe.
Also, it's a legal issue and political, Indian bones are considered 'their' property, and like Israel trying to find archaeological proof of their presence in Israel as a people eons ago, Indians want any evidence that their land was stolen in their hands. At one time, let's not forget, blacks were displayed in NORTHERN zoos in exhibits exactly as IF they were animals, and Indians were led in chains as war prisoners in parades. This can rankle in theory and fact, even if Indians did the same thing. |
Dark Cloud
copyright RL MacLeod
darkcloud@darkendeavors.com
www.darkendeavors.com
www.boulderlout.com |
|
|
|
AZ Ranger
Brigadier General
USA
Status: offline |
Posted - December 19 2005 : 3:41:10 PM
|
| I would suggest we need to agree on our definitions of closure. I work with both Hopi and Navajo officers and we have talked about this issue. They want the return of any human remains and won't quit pursuing the issue unto they are returned. To me, they will have closure when the remains are returned. If it also takes a changing in whites attitude regarding respect then it may never be reached. |
“ An officer's first duty is to his horses.”
SEMPER FI |
|
|
|
Dark Cloud
Brigadier General
USA
Status: offline |
Posted - December 19 2005 : 4:53:16 PM
|
The problem is, as in that Washington case a decade ago, that ALL old bones may not be Indian. We can't tell unless we do dna tests. Indians - and whites - were thrown for a loop when it looked as if some old bones AREN'T Indian. But Indians, or at least some of their reps, insist anything pre-1492 is theirs.
And closure is an expression regarding emotional ending: knowledge your loved one is dead, and his remains, if any, are here, and you can face his shade and say in good conscience you did what you could to lay him at peace. With no or notional emotional knowledge of the individual, I don't see why it's closure or anything. |
Dark Cloud
copyright RL MacLeod
darkcloud@darkendeavors.com
www.darkendeavors.com
www.boulderlout.com |
|
|
|
Heavyrunner
Captain
USA
Status: offline |
Posted - December 23 2005 : 12:22:28 PM
|
Admin, D.C., anyone?
Did our discussion disappear due to the Thursday site crash? |
Bob Bostwick |
|
|
|
Topic |
|
|
|
Where is Custer now?
