| Author |
 Topic  |
|
Dark Cloud
Brigadier General
USA
Status: offline |
 Posted - April 15 2006 : 4:17:08 PM
|
I have long smirked about people who discuss Indian 'testimony' about the LBH. This is not because I think Sioux or Cheyenne lie - or are stupid -in greater proportion to anyone else. It's that there is no indication ANY of them spoke English, at least till much later, and that therefore the 'testimony' has been sieved through translaters. Sometimes after that it goes through relatives or tribe for the then-concurrent PC treatment, which is why so many of the accounts sound so awkward at best.
This is acceptable if we have proof or even remote evidence who the translators were, and if they themselves were any good and had been vetted to preclude alternative agendas to accuracy. We really do not, and sometimes, as with Marquis, we're to believe that sign language is as precise as can be.
But there is another problem: the nature of Indian languages themselves, which is VERY different from English not only in vocabulary and grammar but the way the language reflects a different sense of time AND MANNER OF THINKING.
From http://www.sacred-texts.com/earth/fu/fu13.htm
"In the first place, we find that as in those Ural-Altaic languages, so in a like manner in the Sioux or Dakota tongue, there exists that remarkable syntactical structure of sentences which we might call a constant inversion of the mode and order in which we are accustomed to think. Thus, more or less, the people who speak those languages would begin sentences or periods where we end ours, so that our thoughts would really appear in their minds as inverted.
"Those Asiatic languages have, moreover, no prepositions, but only postpositions. So, likewise, has the Dakota tongue.
"The polysynthetic arrangement which prevails throughout the majority of the American-Indian languages is less prominent, and decidedly less intricate, in the Dakota tongue than in those of the other tribes of this continent."
As pointed out, this 'tendency' is less in the Dakota tongue but still exists. I think it vastly important, because I find it hard to believe that many people could be sorta/kinda fluent in both English AND Sioux and/or Cheyenne without serious study. I can't find an example in Dakota but I have found this example of a polysynthetic Native American language sentence and its translation into English. This is in the Iroqouis of the Oneida rendered into English sounds.
g-nagla-sl-i-zak-s.
It is said like one long word, but it is a sentence. Well, German can be like that, featuring real long words, but this is different.
g = this sound carries the meaning of "I" but isn't a mere substitution of one word for another, like farmer for agricola. In fact, in this language "...the entire language forms one word units, with none of its component parts enjoying true separate existence..." as English words do.
nagla = this conveys the meaning of 'living', but again is not its exact counterpart.
sl = a suffix giving nagla the force of a noun
i = verbal prefix meaning zak (which follows)is to be understood as a verb
zak = looking for
s = continued action
(from The World's Chief Languages, Pei,page 36)
It apparently means "I am looking for a village", but by the logic of English speakers, that isn't all that clear.
Note how weak the concept of time specificity is.
Keep this in mind when reading the sometimes intricate verbal tenses of supposed Indian accounts.
And we really should cease calling it testimony.
|
Dark Cloud
copyright RL MacLeod
darkcloud@darkendeavors.com
www.darkendeavors.com
www.boulderlout.com |
|
|
AZ Ranger
Brigadier General
USA
Status: offline |
Posted - April 18 2006 : 12:17:23 AM
|
| But there is another problem: the nature of Indian languages themselves, which is VERY different from English not only in vocabulary and grammar but the way the language reflects a different sense of time AND MANNER OF THINKING. DC Wouldn't any of this be be covered by a good translator as you stated earlier that understood the language. It wouldn't matter how they say it or the word order or manner of thinking if the translator truly understood what was said and provided an accurate translation. Besides how far off could the translator be if they state the Indains stated they killed the troopers like buffalo? Or it didn't last longer than it takes to eat a meal? |
“ An officer's first duty is to his horses.”
SEMPER FI |
  |
|
|
Dark Cloud
Brigadier General
USA
Status: offline |
Posted - April 18 2006 : 10:54:40 AM
|
Yes, it would be covered by a good translator. My problem is that I don't believe most translators were good at all. The ones we know spoke an Indian tongue are the ones where the English is suspect. The examples you give I'd bet were accurate, because there is nothing unlikely or over specific. But just as the translator at the 1886 reunion was obviously a story teller, if the Godfrey-Gall story is true, and just as the Mormon-Polynesian apparently mistranslated Crazy Horse which got him killed, and Black Hawk Speaks rather defies comment, there are others.
The warning signs are:
1. Application of names to geographic locations and individual soldiers
2. compound verbal formations, conditional tense
3. adverbs and gerunds
4. English measurement (miles...)
5. English time.
6. military terminology
Regarding the time issue. If an Indian says something or other happened at midday, what he would mean is midday between dawn and sunset; what a white man means is noon. That can be a difference of hours, but there's no indication the translator/editor is aware of that in some of these stories, and sometimes they say noon and sometimes midday. On June 25, that's a big difference.
If you have The Custer Myth, read the interview with Sitting Bull in Canada with Walsh there. Obviously, at the time they thought they'd really gained something, but reading it today every red light I have goes off. |
Dark Cloud
copyright RL MacLeod
darkcloud@darkendeavors.com
www.darkendeavors.com
www.boulderlout.com |
|
|
|
AZ Ranger
Brigadier General
USA
Status: offline |
Posted - April 28 2006 : 6:12:12 PM
|
| So if Indians included the time to cook their meals with eating it than the time might be longer than estimated in the past? |
“ An officer's first duty is to his horses.”
SEMPER FI |
|
|
|
joseph wiggs
Brigadier General
Status: offline |
Posted - September 09 2006 : 9:22:42 PM
|
I do not propose to attempt to validate the ability or inability of the Aboriginal to make know his "thoughts" to his white counter part. Nor will I be so presumptuous as to assume that I possess the ability to judge the caliber of expertise regarding "translators", one way or the other. However, to assume that all Indian testimony is suspect and that most, if not all, translators were incompetent is beyond the pale.
There were many concerned individuals whose dedication and commitment towards a comprehensive understanding of this battle, founded upon facts not mere speculation, has created a wealth of valid information to the present day inquirer.
For example, Walter Camp's Notes on the Custer Fight is a primary resource of information that is indispensable. Early in life Mr. Camp became interested in native American culture, studying several languages, including Sioux and Delaware.
Major James McLaughlin, a former Indian Agent at Standing Rock published a work "My Friend the Indian" published in 1910. Here, Mrs. Spotted-Horn Bull spoke eloquently and dramatically of the battle. Her story was translated by Mrs. McLaughlin who spoke perfect Sioux.
Louis Bordeaux was the son of James Bordeaux a trader who married a Brule, Sioux wife. He was sent to Hamburg, Iowa to be educated. He became the official interpreter at the Spotted Trail Agency.
Were there unscrupulous individuals who claimed to be bonafied translators who were incompetent and simply desired to be compensated for their alleged talent? Of course there were. However, to disregard all Indian testimony (or any part thereof)because one is not able to check the credentials of all interpreters is anomalous to throwing the baby out with the bath water.
Unfettered by a 9 to 5 job, the necessity to meet deadlines, and getting to appointments on time, the Indian's conception of time did differ from us. I truly envy them for that. This difference does not, however, in any shape or fashion, render these people incapable of rational thought nor does it dictate a natural inability to make their thoughts know to those outside of their race. |
|
|
|
AZ Ranger
Brigadier General
USA
Status: offline |
Posted - September 10 2006 : 10:35:06 PM
|
| Joe what if it is 75 percent correct but we don't know which is the 25 or the 75? |
“ An officer's first duty is to his horses.”
SEMPER FI |
Edited by - AZ Ranger on September 10 2006 10:35:57 PM |
|
|
|
Dark Cloud
Brigadier General
USA
Status: offline |
Posted - September 11 2006 : 12:24:44 PM
|
There is no Indian "testimony," so nobody can consider it suspect. Nobody is throwing the baby out. Good intentions and commitment aren't competence. Assurances of "perfect" Sioux are vetted by what? Convenience and proximity, mostly.
I really think the translation that I provided above should shake all surety in this matter, although the languages aren't exactly syllogistic. Lotta room for interpretation.
I also recall that the Japanese Navy used English in it's audible orders for a long period because of the tense specificity. Can't recall if it lasted through WWII or not. Mostly because they based themselves on the English at that point. |
Dark Cloud
copyright RL MacLeod
darkcloud@darkendeavors.com
www.darkendeavors.com
www.boulderlout.com |
Edited by - Dark Cloud on September 11 2006 12:26:21 PM |
|
|
|
joseph wiggs
Brigadier General
Status: offline |
Posted - September 16 2006 : 10:45:46 PM
|
quote:
Originally posted by Dark Cloud
There is no Indian "testimony,"
Throughout American history there were numerous Indian folk who found it expedient to have a comprehensive command of the English language. It is sometimes referred to as "Assimilation", the desire or requirement to absorb and incorporate the language or culture another. Particularly, when the "other" has conquered and in control of your very existence.
To make such an all encompassing "Carte Blanche" statement that "there is no Indian testimony"is powerful, to say the least. The fact that you, obviously, believe this assumption speaks volumes. I am, however, willing to be convinced that you view has validity. Is it possible that you could submit some research, statements, and/or evidence that your ideology is valid? Oh yes, I asked that same question in an earlier thread didn't I?
Anyhow, there were also many "Whites" who possessed a command of various Indian languages. I have mentioned a few. The ability of one race to comprehend the language of another race is not a unique phenomenon; it's a reality. The inability to recognize the capacity of the Native American to possesses this ability is bizarre, to say the least.
In addition, I know of several people today who read, speak, and comprehend languages not native to them. I would suspect that many members of this forum also are acquainted with people with similar traits. Are you suggesting that only Indians are not capable of this ability? If so, why? Or was it just Indians of that particular decade who did not possess this gift? Believe it or not, people learned to understand each other, through interpretation of foreign languages, a very long time ago; ancient Egyptians, Hebrews, Sumerians,Chinese, Huns,Islam, well you get the picture.
Some Indians were able to speak English before and after this battle, therefore the necessity to "sieve" testimony through translators and relatives were not the only means to reach an comprehensive understanding between diverse groups. Sometimes, believe it or not, they simply spoke to each other.
|
Edited by - joseph wiggs on September 16 2006 11:01:34 PM |
|
|
|
Dark Cloud
Brigadier General
USA
Status: offline |
Posted - September 17 2006 : 2:18:15 PM
|
By definition, testimony is given and taken under oath and recorded in court or by deposition. It is subject to cross exmamination. There are penalties for perjury, and those who give testimony are subject to those sanctions. That's what makes it testimony. There is no Indian testimony about the LBH. There are Indian accounts, which may be all true, and the testimony all false. The term speaks only to the manner the information was obtained.
Having repeatedly said Indians are no more truthful or smarter than whites or anyone else, and no dumber or more dishonest, I don't understand your constant fishing for some ability to pose as a defender against derogatory racist type casting. I haven't done that, and I doubt anyone would choose you as their example or defender if I had.
If you know of an 1876 Indian who spoke English fluent enough to appreciate the predicate tense distinctions offered in the language and not in their own, and who gave valid testimony on the LBH, I'm not aware of it. I gave an example of how entire sentences appear as one word subject to intepretation and very, very different from English, and it would be a very foolish assumption that someone could be kinda sorta adept at English and myriad Indian dialects, but it seems that assumption happened all the time back then. And apparently, still. The one eyed is a god among the blind. |
Dark Cloud
copyright RL MacLeod
darkcloud@darkendeavors.com
www.darkendeavors.com
www.boulderlout.com |
Edited by - Dark Cloud on September 17 2006 2:19:03 PM |
|
|
|
joseph wiggs
Brigadier General
Status: offline |
Posted - September 17 2006 : 9:17:24 PM
|
TESTIMONY: (1)The act of stating, attest ion, disposition, statement, assertion. (2)[evidence] grounds,facts,data. (3) [statement]deposition, affidavit, affirmation.
Webster appears to differ from you by not insisting that testimony must be, "taken under oath and recorded in Court or deposition." For example, an exorbitant amount of testimony is proffered daily in the United Nations. Hundreds of representative from hundred of countries spew a continuous river of accusations, pleas,and condemnations, in foreign languages which are constantly and simultaneous translated that is neither taken under oath or given under the auspices of deposition, yet it is still considered to be "testimony".
Should Indian testimony be corroborated with know facts regarding this battle? Of Course, and it is! A substantial portion, not all, of Indian testimony was later corroborated by White testimony. Book stores and Libraries are over run with books that append Indian testimony throughout.
The renown "Black Elk Speaks" was published in 1932. This book has since been translated into eight languages throughout the United States and Europe. Black Elk was illiterate, he spoke no English. His son, Ben, spent two years at Carlisle. He was one of several interpreters for the author.
Regarding the ability of an Indian of the nineteenth century to understand and utilize the "predicate", you have me there. I known of none. However, three Fourths of the people that I know can not do that either. Perhaps you hang around with a more gentile crowd.
Why must we insist upon applying this yardstick of comprehension upon the Indians and no others. Somehow, the illiterate of this Country find no obstacles in making their wishes known to their contemporaries.
Like the Indian Nations, there are a "myriad" of dialects in this Country also. Have you ever tried to order a cappuccino in Oklahoma? |
|
|
|
Dark Cloud
Brigadier General
USA
Status: offline |
Posted - September 18 2006 : 3:28:38 PM
|
Here it is from Merriam Webster on-line. http://www.m-w.com/dictionary/testimony
testimony
One entry found for testimony.
Main Entry: tes·ti·mo·ny
Pronunciation: 'tes-t&-"mO-nE
Function: noun
Inflected Form(s): plural -nies
Etymology: Middle English testimonie, from Anglo-French, from Late Latin & Latin; Late Latin testimonium Decalogue, from Latin, evidence, witness, from testis witness -- more at TESTAMENT
1 a (1) : the tablets inscribed with the Mosaic law (2) : the ark containing the tablets b : a divine decree attested in the Scriptures
2 a : firsthand authentication of a fact : EVIDENCE b : an outward sign c : a solemn declaration usually made orally by a witness under oath in response to interrogation by a lawyer or authorized public official
3 a : an open acknowledgment b : a public profession of religious experience
By any of these, we have no Indian testimony. We have third parties providing it, so it isn't testimony. Pretty basic.
I insist that testimony has to be defined the same way for everyone.
Black Elk Speaks is fourth or fifth hand from anything Black Elk said. May all be true, but it isn't testimony.
|
Dark Cloud
copyright RL MacLeod
darkcloud@darkendeavors.com
www.darkendeavors.com
www.boulderlout.com |
|
|
|
joseph wiggs
Brigadier General
Status: offline |
Posted - September 22 2006 : 10:19:45 PM
|
The word "testimony" encompasses all that you say it does. Your scholastic efforts to substantiate your perspective is praiseworthy. The power of semantics is best exemplified by those immortal words, "The pen is mightier than the sword." (I hope my quote is correct). Ironically, "testimony" encompasses all that I say it does also.
As the possibility that both of us can not be correct,in our vastly opposed assumptions, one must therefore assume that one of us is correct and the other is blatantly incorrect. After all, two opposing forces obviously can not achieve a mutual conclusion. However, when one realizes and comprehends the enormous power of individual perspective, a logical conclusion occurs. What we "see" in any historical event is based upon our intellectual, cultural, and moral background. How we "judge" others is founded upon these same conjectures.
Thus, there are those of us who believe that comprehensive testimony between "heathens" and Caucasians is impossible. That it is doubtful that the son of an Indian (having learned his ancestral language at the beginning of his life)could then be educated at an American institution allowing him to be proficient in both languages thus, egad, actually possessing the ability to "translate" correctly.
Finally, that hundreds of Indian and Whites were unable to achieve the ability to comprehensively communicate during their many decades of Indian/White interaction, and the incomprehensible denial that all races do not possess a fundamental inability to comprehend each others feelings and desires.
Or, we can simply say,"it ain't necessarily so". that there exists those of us who refuse to believe that comprehensive communication between Indians, Jews, Whites, Arabs, Africans, Hispanics, etc., is so fraught with cultural differences and language barriers that the ability to understand each other is impossible.
The true answer to this immortal question is, without a doubt, locked within our individual hearts and known only to ourselves. |
Edited by - joseph wiggs on September 22 2006 10:30:22 PM |
|
|
|
AZ Ranger
Brigadier General
USA
Status: offline |
Posted - September 23 2006 : 12:36:22 AM
|
Joe I didn't see the word translation in your definition of testimony. And I have never seen the Indian accounts written in anything but English. I have never even seen an account written first hand by an Indian. So by your definition the only person giving testimony is the person writing the statement since they did the act of stating on paper.
Even the number 1 of your definition must occur in courts or judicial processes unless you believe everything that has ever been stated is testimony. If the act of stating without conditions is testimony then it is all right for a person to translate for someone and change the meaning intentionally and still call it testimony.
In court you can not testify for someone else and if you intentionally give false testimony it is a crime.
Joe you have missed the point testimony is evidence. Evidence is only allowable if the judge says so. Hearsay is not testimony. There is nothing being said that Indian accounts are not true they are just not testimony. There are others that take an oath and give false testimony in court and if caught could be subject to penalty.
There is no penalty for giving a false account whether done by the individual or the translator.
|
“ An officer's first duty is to his horses.”
SEMPER FI |
Edited by - AZ Ranger on September 23 2006 12:47:33 AM |
|
|
|
Dark Cloud
Brigadier General
USA
Status: offline |
|
|
joseph wiggs
Brigadier General
Status: offline |
Posted - September 24 2006 : 3:08:27 PM
|
A.Z. Ranger:
"I didn't see the word translation in your definition of testimony."
Without spending an exorbitant amount of time defining and, re-defining the word "testimony" let me say this;it is "evidence" and so many other things also. For example, D.C.'s definition included: "an open acknowledgment" which is, of course, correct. My referral to the book "Black Elk Speaks" clearly states that it was "translated" into eight languages. An earlier thread of mine used the enormous amount of "translations" that occur in the United Nations on a regular basis exemplifies my awareness of the ideology of "translation." In other words, "testimony may be evidence" when utilized under the auspices of the Criminal Justice System. It is not considered evidence when utilized under various other circumstances; like writing a book for example.
You say that you have never see a first hand account written by an Indian. Neither have I. My only issue with Indian testimony is that it is sometimes denigrated, disregarded, or even ridiculed simply because it is Indian Testimony. By the way, that prestigious book I referred to earlier, "Black Elk Speaks" was authored by John G. Neihardt; his Indian name being "Flaming Arrow." Not a first hand account but, rather close wouldn't you say?
You are correct when you said: "I didn't see the word translation in your definition of testimony." You were incorrect, however, in your assertion that the translation was mine. It belongs to Mr. Webster, I merely borrowed it. Finally,my response to this important issue is meant as a counter point to the minority of individuals who have "long smirked" at the idea of Indian testimony being of any value. |
Edited by - joseph wiggs on September 24 2006 3:18:22 PM |
|
|
|
AZ Ranger
Brigadier General
USA
Status: offline |
Posted - September 24 2006 : 6:12:23 PM
|
quote:
however, in your assertion that the translation was mine. It belongs to Mr. Webster,
Mr Webster had no translation. He did have a definition that you chose to apply to translations.
There is a big difference if a statement is available for replay and more than one person hears it and the translation. |
“ An officer's first duty is to his horses.”
SEMPER FI |
|
|
|
joseph wiggs
Brigadier General
Status: offline |
Posted - September 24 2006 : 6:18:36 PM
|
| You're right, I just totally missed the,"point"! |
|
|
|
AZ Ranger
Brigadier General
USA
Status: offline |
Posted - September 26 2006 : 10:07:52 AM
|
When attorneys talk in court it is not testimony.
If testimony means any statements made anytime the word is of no added value to the language. |
“ An officer's first duty is to his horses.”
SEMPER FI |
|
|
|
wILD I
Brigadier General
Ireland
Status: offline |
Posted - September 29 2006 : 10:42:36 AM
|
Joe your defence of Indian testimony is welcome however it is strange that having argued and discussed every aspect of this battle it has never been called into play to support a contention by your good self or any of the other members of the board.
Is Indian testimony on a par with the accepted [and proven ]time line,does it fit the framework of terrain and unit location,does it corrispond with or contradict white eyewitness accounts?
This is the order in which the different sources of evidence have influenced my understanding of the battle.
1/TERRAIN
2/LOCATION OF MARKERS
3/TIME FRAME
4/EYE WITNESS ACCOUNTS [WHITE]
5/MILITARY POTIENTIAL OF FORCES INVOLVED
6/INDIAN TESTIMONY [AWAITING]
Regards |
|
|
|
Dark Cloud
Brigadier General
USA
Status: offline |
|
|
wILD I
Brigadier General
Ireland
Status: offline |
Posted - September 29 2006 : 5:03:49 PM
|
There IS no Indian testimony.
Perhaps not, but can 1500 Indians chase up and down the LBH over two days and leave no forensic footprint?
|
|
|
|
AZ Ranger
Brigadier General
USA
Status: offline |
Posted - September 30 2006 : 7:38:41 PM
|
Wild what is a forensic footprint? A plaster cast made on June 27, 1876?
The discussion of testimony has nothing to with its content or veracity. It is where and how it occurs.
|
“ An officer's first duty is to his horses.”
SEMPER FI |
Edited by - AZ Ranger on September 30 2006 7:46:03 PM |
|
|
|
AZ Ranger
Brigadier General
USA
Status: offline |
Posted - September 30 2006 : 7:44:35 PM
|
quote:
4/EYE WITNESS ACCOUNTS [WHITE]
5/MILITARY POTIENTIAL OF FORCES INVOLVED
6/INDIAN TESTIMONY [AWAITING
Wild in you list if it said translated Indian eye-witness accounts then it would make more sense to me. They could be as accurate and truthful as any white eye-witness account or testimony. |
“ An officer's first duty is to his horses.”
SEMPER FI |
Edited by - AZ Ranger on September 30 2006 7:48:02 PM |
|
|
|
joseph wiggs
Brigadier General
Status: offline |
Posted - October 01 2006 : 12:03:08 PM
|
quote:
Originally posted by Dark Cloud
1. There IS no Indian testimony.
"The quest for answers became especially pronounced in the weeks and months that followed the Little Big Horn debacle, as it became apparent that Indian accounts of the battle held possible explanations for Custer's demise. It was not, however, until late in 1876 and in early 1877 that the first sketchy Indian reports surfaced from among tribesmen turning themselves into agencies. These accounts together with with those rendered in subsequent years through the early 1880's comprise what might accurately be termed "immediate testimony, that is statements given within months or, at the most, a few years of the event.
"whatever the credibility gaps that might have lingered from the existence of the earliest native renderings, within two decades a second wave of Indian reflections appeared, largely inspired and generated by a corps of insightful individuals motivated by the singular purpose of getting at the truth. This body or recollections, whether elicited by professional scholars or by knowledgeable students of the battle, comprises salient reminiscent testimony in the work of such persons as Eli S. Ricker, Walter M. Camp, and George Bird Grinnell. All were qualified and skilled interrogators; all kept detailed records of their duologue."
Richard G. Hardorff "Lakota Recollections of the Custer Fight.'
To insist that Indian "testimony" does not exist and impossible to substantiate because no Indian was capable of speaking English is similar to proclaiming that the works of Plato can not exist nor can they be substantiated because he did not speak English and his works were written in Greek. It also infers that Indians were incapable of learning and speaking a foreign language, but I won't go there.
The same diligent, scrupulous, and detailed research that produced Plato's works were applied to Indian testimony as well by a small group of dedicated individuals who were and are still greatly respected in the scholastic field.
How else can one explain our current knowledge of events in this battle not witnessed by any White man if Indian testimony does not exist? Sgt. Martini was the last "white" man to see Custer's troops alive. How then do we explain the event wherein a firefight occurred between Troops "E' and "F" and Cheyenne warriors at the banks of Medicine trail Coulée well after Martini departed? he certainly made no reference to it. There could have only been two sources, the warriors themselves or the shades of Custer's men. This contact I might add, was corroborated by the recovery of artifacts (bullets, arrow heads, uniform paraphernalia, horse shoes,etc.) discovered there after the great fire of 1984 and subsequently tabulated by Douglass Scott.
The success of an Indian interview was based upon the combined efforts and skills of three individuals; the informant's knowledge and reliability, the translator's degree of language proficiency, and the interrogator's objectivity. As time elapsed and the Indians slowly realized that they would not be punished for their involvement in the battle, they gradually became more reliable and less prone to stating what they believe that, "the white man wanted to hear."
Interviewee's like Camp,Ricker,and Neihardt actually took the time to learn the language and various dialects of the Indian Nations which greatly enhanced their efficiency. Their dedication to research produced volumes of information (Ricker himself produced over 200 notebooks of interviews) that has been shared, cross referenced, and corroborated over and over again by competent scholars and researchers for decades.
During this time did some Indians lie? Yes. Were there incompetent translators? Yes. Does this mean that ALL Indians lied and that ALL translators were incompetent? No.
When one applies the common sense theorem of probability to this bone of contention only one rational conclusion can be derived. Is it possible that all Indian testimony is bogus? yes. Is it pprobable? No.
Neither space nor time allows me to supply further information to support my contention. For those who wish to peruse "Indian Testimony" I recommend the following:
Custer and Company Walter Camp's Notes on the Custer Fight
Cheyenne Memories of the Custer Fight, Richard G. Hardorff
Black Elk Speaks, John G. Neihardt
Trooper's with Custer, E.A. Brininstool
the Arikara narrative, Orin G. Libby |
Edited by - joseph wiggs on October 01 2006 1:15:45 PM |
|
|
|
AZ Ranger
Brigadier General
USA
Status: offline |
Posted - October 01 2006 : 1:14:52 PM
|
Joe you still miss the point. Try reading A WORD TO THE WISE in "The Custer Myth".
I do not believe that Indian testimony and Indian eye-witness account have the same meaning, whether it is used interchangeably by others or not. We have persons write witness statements all the time and it is not testimony. The witness appears in court and the witness verifies they wrote it and it is evidence but not testimony. It is used for the probable cause to accuse someone of a crime. The witness then makes statements in court under oath that become testimony. Hopefully they are same as they wrote in their written statement but sometimes it changes.
It could be an affidavit if sworn to before going to court but that is evidence and not testimony.
AZ Ranger |
“ An officer's first duty is to his horses.”
SEMPER FI |
Edited by - AZ Ranger on October 01 2006 1:25:17 PM |
|
|
|
Dark Cloud
Brigadier General
USA
Status: offline |
Posted - October 01 2006 : 4:25:29 PM
|
Richard G. Hardorff doesn't know what testimony is either. He apparently just made up a phrase, since it's credited to nobody else here. I'm not convinced he did that, given this board still has evidence of Wiggs passing off others' work as his own, fabricating quotes, misreading quotes, and dramatic passages where he says the opposite of what he thought he had. Back when he claimed to have been a soldier, teacher, and in law enforcement, he should have learned. Didn't.
|
Dark Cloud
copyright RL MacLeod
darkcloud@darkendeavors.com
www.darkendeavors.com
www.boulderlout.com |
|
|
|
Topic |
|
|
|
Indian "Testimony"
