| Author |
 Topic  |
|
movingrobewoman
Lt. Colonel
USA
Status: offline |
 Posted - October 01 2006 : 7:39:56 PM
|
| I do think Indian eyewitness accounts should be called exactly that. But the Anglo version of "testimony"--which DC places in a mighty tall ivory tower--doesn't necessarily make a story true. |
movingrobe |
Edited by - movingrobewoman on October 01 2006 7:40:48 PM |
  |
|
|
Dark Cloud
Brigadier General
USA
Status: offline |
Posted - October 01 2006 : 10:38:49 PM
|
And for the 567th time, nobody is claiming testimony is true, only that it's testimony, with severe punishment for lying, and that tamps down the inclination to lie.
This is far from taking the word of someone who recalls what a translator said one Indian said another person who claimed battle vet status told him fifty years previous. I've provided a clear example of the problems translation from Indian languages to English provide, and that granting the best intentions in the world. It would take very little to make a major error. |
Dark Cloud
copyright RL MacLeod
darkcloud@darkendeavors.com
www.darkendeavors.com
www.boulderlout.com |
|
|
|
AZ Ranger
Brigadier General
USA
Status: offline |
Posted - October 02 2006 : 12:09:15 AM
|
Thanks Movingrobe That has been the point all along to call it something other than testimony. A translated eye-witness account or if spoken in English an eye-witness account.
The passage I referred Joe to points to the problem with translated accounts and lead to the death of Crazy Horse. Frank Grouard translated Crazy Horse's spokesman as saying he was ready to go north against the whites when he really said he was ready to go north and assist the whites against the Nez Perces.
AZ Ranger |
“ An officer's first duty is to his horses.”
SEMPER FI |
|
|
|
wILD I
Brigadier General
Ireland
Status: offline |
Posted - October 02 2006 : 06:40:30 AM
|
Wild what is a forensic footprint? A plaster cast made on June 27, 1876?
Is there some sympathetic person on the board with remedial training who might be able to assist AZ in this matter?
I have just had a quick read through my copy of Little Bighorn Remembered The Untold Indian Story of Custer's Last Stand.Well the book remains true to it's subtitle in that the story still remains untold.Other than anecdotal yarns of how warriors took steam baths and doned their Sunday loincloths, Indian verbals shed no light on the battle.
The worst witnesses to a life and death struggle are those who have participated in it.They are concerned with nothing more than what is happening in their immediate vicinity and their only priority is staying alive which distorts their perception of time and distance.
If Custer had survived and given sworn testimony I wager it would have done nothing more that muddy the waters and have caused even more controversy.It is the testimony of the unchanging landscape and the silent witnesses which is the most relyable. |
|
|
|
shadymist
Private
Status: offline |
Posted - October 02 2006 : 2:57:13 PM
|
The issue with Grouard & Crazy Horse may be more of intentional mis-interpretation. Another trader by the name of Bordeoux heard the translation and called Grouard a lair and the two almost went at it.
Remember, reservation chiefs were jealous of the attention CH was getting and spread rumors and lies that CH was going to kill Crooke and lead his warriors on the war path.
There is a new book regarding the CH with excellent sources regarding the the final days of Crazy Horse. Grouard's intentional mis-interpretation is fully covered.
Much of what Indians said may have been lost by the time of translation and/or interpretation. In addition, Indians spoke in metaphors, so words like drunk or suicide could have different meanings. Forget about Indians using seconds, minutes, or hours, and counting was not used as the white man did.
So the best we can do with Indian statements is cross-referencing them and hope something can be made out of it. That's not to say Indians lied but their's was a different culture who saw the world in a different view.
Plus, once on reservations, Indians learned it was better to tell the white man what he wanted to hear rather than the truth , many were afraid of repercussions, and even today elderly descendants are still reluctant to talk to outsiders for fear of punishment about what their ancestors did.
Too bad, because it was the Indians who witnessed what happened. |
|
|
|
wILD I
Brigadier General
Ireland
Status: offline |
Posted - October 02 2006 : 4:08:40 PM
|
Too bad, because it was the Indians who witnessed what happened.
If there was a book of evidence based on Indian testimony it would consist of fragmented nebulous anecdotes secured neither in time or space, of great interest to the cultural scholar but useless to the military historian. |
|
|
|
Smcf
Captain
Status: offline |
Posted - October 03 2006 : 08:53:12 AM
|
Yes - the accepted history of Crayhorse's death stems from as much of the interpreted Indian accounts as that of the numerous white witnesses. The Reno phase of the LBH battle is described in numerous Indian accounts which in no way contradicts the soldiers' stories in any great detail. Ok, you're going to get a bit of embroidery here and there and a bit of storytelling, but these aspects are hardly the sole preserve of the Sioux and Cheyenne. Similarly, is there much in the Indian accounts of the Rosebud battle which really jars? It seems to me that much of the contention ascribed to some Indian "testimony" as it relates to the Custer phase of the battle is more to do with interpretation and the inability of accepting the possibility that the preconcieved order of events might not be the case. For instance, Walter Camp was apparently in the habit of confronting a new witness with a fait accompli, merely asking for verification or minor detail. When the witness came up with a story which contradicted his view, he was apt to either argue the bit, or denounce the witness as unreliable (Michno).
WildI - I don't believe you can be an Historian, military or otherwise unless you are a fervent cultural scholar. |
|
|
|
Dark Cloud
Brigadier General
USA
Status: offline |
Posted - October 03 2006 : 09:30:48 AM
|
"Grouard's intentional mis-interpretation is fully covered." Okay, it's a theory. It's not a fact. Grabber claimed friendship with Sitting Bull, who was NOT an enemy of Crazy Horse, who in turn held SB in regard, we're currently told. SB would be reasonably peeved to think CH murdered by this manner, and may have been, but because one story has holes doesn't mean another is therefore correct ipso facto.
Being a whiz at the continually changing Indian languages and dialects, anchored not to written texts for linguistic stability, would be a full time occupation. It's highly unlikely that the Sioux spoken in Minnesota was consistent with that in the Black Hills, for example. Look at how quickly the Southern and Northern Cheyenne started to differ in language and dress, the Northern becoming very like the Oglala, and this change over about a decade. Look how quick the Sioux concluded they'd been in the Black Hills "forever", which was news to the Crow. Did any of them recall a time before horses?
It's head shaking to see the surety and confidence expressed by people today in the abilities of shadowy folk back then. Strikes me that most of these guys we call 'translators' could ask directions, get basic info from a combination of patois, situationally learned vocab, and sign language, but that highly specific information related to time and past events was a crap shoot. |
Dark Cloud
copyright RL MacLeod
darkcloud@darkendeavors.com
www.darkendeavors.com
www.boulderlout.com |
|
|
|
wILD I
Brigadier General
Ireland
Status: offline |
Posted - October 03 2006 : 3:57:05 PM
|
smcf
I don't believe you can be an Historian, military or otherwise unless you are a fervent cultural scholar.
A good debating point if somewhat off thread.Culture is of course a hugh motivating factor in a tribes/nations response to aggression.And I would say you're right if viewed strategically however here we are trying to come to grips with a tactical enigma and unless that old myth of Indians not fighting at night holds true then I cannot see where a knowledge of culture would be of assistance to us.
|
|
|
|
Smcf
Captain
Status: offline |
Posted - October 05 2006 : 08:42:42 AM
|
What are we to make of the likes of Marquis and others, the results of whose interviews tally substantially with those of earlier translators? Doesn't it all boil down to a matter of trust, or at least trust based on an educated assessment of the authors and their sources? Marquis, culturally understanding the need for Indians to give their story freely and unprompted, may have attibuted utterances from various first hand sources to one Cheyenne for the purposes of adding as much detail as possible to a narrative, but if so, it is debateable whether the story is undermined or indeed enhanced.
A problem I have is the culture of white history makers who find it necessary to dismiss seemingly contradictory eye-witness accounts in favour of unproven assumption, or a single dubious source. Eye witness accounts from Indians and reported physical evidence on 28th is all that is available in any meaningful way. Even when scholars have researched Indian accounts exhaustively, there still seems to remain a propensity to try and fit accounts to a predisposed mindset. An example of an assumption - Michno makes reference to an "obvious trail" down to MTC ford in his Lakota Noon book. He surely must have based his assumption on further assumptions that the Cheyenne village was opposite or just south the ford and the cheyenne accounts of limited action at "the ford" referred to the MTC ford, otherwise why use the word "obvious". None of this demonstrates anything other than logical thinking, but it is still based on a series of assumptions which perhaps subconsiously tally with the accepted "history". A feature of Michno seems to be his distaste of any form of revisionism unless it comes from him - an impression I get, perhaps unfairly. For the sake of argument, however, suppose the ford referred to by the Cheyenne accounts was elsewhere, then what happens to the "obvious trail". Is there a trail referred to by anyone who was there on the 28th? I'd be keen to know. Godfrey remembered one straight across from the trail picked up down Cedar Coulee and followed right over to Calhoun. |
|
|
|
AZ Ranger
Brigadier General
USA
Status: offline |
Posted - October 06 2006 : 12:59:46 AM
|
If I had to separate into categories without regard to be truthful or not and so I could understand the difference I would suggest:
Testimony - taken under oath - Indians none, others some
Statements- recorded in their own words- Indians maybe some, others a lot
Accounts- translations- Indians a lot, others none
I realize accounts don't have to be translated but it would help to distinguish what you are dealing with. |
“ An officer's first duty is to his horses.”
SEMPER FI |
|
|
|
Dark Cloud
Brigadier General
USA
Status: offline |
Posted - October 06 2006 : 5:19:42 PM
|
Smcf,
It does boil down to trust, and we have little to trust. First, we often do not know who translated. Sign language is not the communication of choice for time and related issues, most of the vetting of translators is from people who used them and would have no actual clue themselves, good or bad. Any account taken decades after the event would make it cancerous anyway, but to add translation makes it 'interesting.' Even with all the good intent, people meld stories over the years.
Unless I miss something, you're the one making an assumption. Michno says an obvious trail, not an obvious trail made by men. Buffalo crossing. |
Dark Cloud
copyright RL MacLeod
darkcloud@darkendeavors.com
www.darkendeavors.com
www.boulderlout.com |
|
|
|
joseph wiggs
Brigadier General
Status: offline |
Posted - October 06 2006 : 9:30:27 PM
|
quote:
Originally posted by Smcf
What are we to make of the likes of Marquis and others, the results of whose interviews tally substantially with those of earlier translators? Doesn't it all boil down to a matter of trust, or at least trust based on an educated assessment of the authors and their sources? Marquis, culturally understanding the need for Indians to give their story freely and unprompted, may have attributed utterances from various first hand sources to one Cheyenne for the purposes of adding as much detail as possible to a narrative, but if so, it is debatable whether the story is undermined or indeed enhanced.
The ethics, commitment, integrity, and seekers of the truth exemplified by men such as Marquis, and others, will often be confronted by doubters and naysayers. And so it should be. Truth can not exist without the confrontation of reality. Rational thoughts and honorable commitment towards sane comprehension of the actions of this battle is often besieged by the "authoritative" who do not hesitate to acclaim the inability of aboriginals to speak the "truth."They often allude to the stringent ramifications of Western "testimony."
I, perhaps so do you, recall someone asking, "what is truth."
Ironically, these same individuals ignore, disregard, or refuse to accept testimony from Native Americans regarding incidents that could not be know by the "Whites". Information that has been, subsequently, corroborated by archaeological research. In other words, please explain to the Forum how information came about regarding incidents that occurred after "white" witnesses had transpired. For a certainty, "Western Union" was not in vogue as yet.
Smcf, open mindedness and the ability to appreciate the capabilities of comprehension among minorities is a trait to be appreciated as exemplified by your post. Thank you for your efforts. |
Edited by - joseph wiggs on October 06 2006 9:48:03 PM |
|
|
|
AZ Ranger
Brigadier General
USA
Status: offline |
Posted - October 06 2006 : 10:35:28 PM
|
Joe explain what is the diference in your own definitions of:
Indian testimony
Indian statement
Indian account
|
“ An officer's first duty is to his horses.”
SEMPER FI |
|
|
|
AZ Ranger
Brigadier General
USA
Status: offline |
Posted - October 06 2006 : 10:57:08 PM
|
It would appear that Joe believes that an Indian statement is less truthful than an Indian testimony. He would also have you believe that a translator would never intentionally or unintentionally create an Indian account different from the actual Indian statement done in his native tongue.
I have never heard that there is a greater truthfulness or believability in testimony than in statements and would like to know the source for this idea if any.
Joe would like you to believe that there is some sinister reason for not calling it testimony other than it is not under a sworn condition. |
“ An officer's first duty is to his horses.”
SEMPER FI |
|
|
|
movingrobewoman
Lt. Colonel
USA
Status: offline |
Posted - October 06 2006 : 11:20:08 PM
|
quote:
Originally posted by AZ Ranger
Joe explain what is the diference in your own definitions of:
Indian testimony
Indian statement
Indian account
AZ--
I think Joe is entitled to his opinion, whether we agree or not. Also, as a writer (and Joe is), we are trained to avoid repetition in any narrative, and some of us choose to continue that tradition even when contributing to the informal atmosphere of a forum, like this one. That said, there are also cultural barriers to not accepting what I call "Indian eyewitness accounts."
Speaking from personal experience from the Navajo side of my family (see www.lapahie.com, Henry Chee Dodge), much of our 19th Century history is defined by oral tradition--specifically personal encounters with Kit Carson the man, over his men. Though I recognise these accounts may not be accurate, I still hold great respect towards these stories told to me by my grandfather and great-aunt. As much as I try to approach this subject from my history degree, I can't disallow it ... completely.
Joe, who is of Sioux heritage, may feel the same way towards history as related to his family and tribe. It just comes with the blood and tradition. Therefore, it is not for you or DC to make our definitions when it comes to things Indian.
Just a thought which may be completely wrong. |
movingrobe |
|
|
|
AZ Ranger
Brigadier General
USA
Status: offline |
Posted - October 07 2006 : 12:31:57 AM
|
quote:
Joe, who is of Sioux heritage, may feel the same way towards history as related to his family and tribe. It just comes with the blood and tradition. Therefore, it is not for you or DC to make our definitions when it comes to things Indian.
movingrobe - you are apparently translating what I said incorrectly and have proved my point about accounts.
Where below does it say mine or DC's definition rather I was trying to understand what Joe's definition was for each word and asked him to fill in the definitions.
Joe explain what is the difference in your own definitions of:
Indian testimony
Indian statement
Indian account
|
“ An officer's first duty is to his horses.”
SEMPER FI |
|
|
|
AZ Ranger
Brigadier General
USA
Status: offline |
Posted - October 07 2006 : 01:32:40 AM
|
Movingrobe- I agree we all have a right to our opinions. This discussion has nothing to with an opinion that Indian statements would be more valid if called Indian testimony and someone is trying to suppress the Indian from being heard. That is not my issue and from what I have read of DC's posts I don't see it there also. Tomorrow I will go and ask my Hopi Ranger and Navajo Police officer friends and see if they agree that testimony has a different meaning in Navajo or Hopi. I fully believe that they will agree with me where testimony takes place. In my law enforcement investigations whether from Indians, Whites, Blacks or Hispanics I only get statements and write them down.
You and Joe both may be confused as to what I am saying. Testimony and statements can have the exact same value. A false statement is not improved by being false testimony. A true statement is not enhanced by being true testimony. A truthful Indian statement is better than false soldier testimony.
When someone writes in a book that Custer said something at the campfire such as "the sky is dark tonight" it is not testimony by Custer. It is a statement by Custer. If Custer made statements at his court martial under oath in his defense that would be testimony. Some might say he gave false testimony. Using these as examples the former statement is truth and the testimony is false.
As far as the definition of the word testimony it comes from the Latin word testimonium meaning evidence,witness.In most cases it relates to something between God and man. When I first started working as an officer we put are hand on the Bible and swore an oath to tell the truth. After that we gave testimony in court.
Now we just swear to tell the truth without the Bible. It is still testimony and the consequences are if you lie and the judge catches you go to jail or pay a fine.
I believe you understood me from your previous posts and hope you understand this was never a racial issue with me.
Thanks
AZ Ranger
|
“ An officer's first duty is to his horses.”
SEMPER FI |
|
|
|
movingrobewoman
Lt. Colonel
USA
Status: offline |
Posted - October 07 2006 : 03:29:50 AM
|
AZ--
I am not trying to make this a racial issue, but rather, I am attempting to explain how some forum members--of NA descent--might not have an easy time when it comes to setting aside what we have accepted as oral history, be it LBH or any other event. It's more of a cultural thing, something I will continue to respect, perhaps believe, though I am guessing at experiences that may differ from my own. I simply provided my personal insight.
Of course, Joe might be trying to avoid repetition in his postings. As a writer, I can well understand. It's his call.
Granted, perjury--and its consequences--can loom over and determine the course of testimony, but that is not necessarily a guarantee of *truth*. From what I understand in regards to the RCOI--and I am no expert--there seemed to be plenty of stories that might not have matched--or rather, stretched to the limit--what happened in actuality.
Regards, |
movingrobe |
|
|
|
Dark Cloud
Brigadier General
USA
Status: offline |
|
|
movingrobewoman
Lt. Colonel
USA
Status: offline |
Posted - October 07 2006 : 1:42:21 PM
|
quote:
Originally posted by Dark Cloud
If people want the regard accorded to a skill, it arrives by mastery and execution of the skill, not by statement they have it.
I can agree with that, at least.
Hoka hey. |
movingrobe |
|
|
|
AZ Ranger
Brigadier General
USA
Status: offline |
Posted - October 07 2006 : 2:01:49 PM
|
Movingrobe- You are using the same examples that I would use to show that testimony is no more truthful than statements. At RCOI the civilians testify that Reno was drunk. I do not accept their testimony as truth. If someone wrote down they said exactly it would a statement that I would not except as truth.
I believe Indian statements are as valid any other. I just would not call anyone's statement testimony unless given under the conditions that define testimony.
Regards
AZ Ranger |
“ An officer's first duty is to his horses.”
SEMPER FI |
|
|
|
movingrobewoman
Lt. Colonel
USA
Status: offline |
Posted - October 07 2006 : 4:25:01 PM
|
| I can certainly agree with that definition, AZ, though the term Indian eyewitness accounts is a bit clunky, style-wise. |
movingrobe |
|
|
|
joseph wiggs
Brigadier General
Status: offline |
Posted - October 07 2006 : 9:04:43 PM
|
quote:
Originally posted by wILD I
Wild what is a forensic footprint? A plaster cast made on June 27, 1876?
Is there some sympathetic person on the board with remedial training who might be able to assist AZ in this matter?
Wild, I too purchased the heavy bounded volume of "Little Big Horn Remembered." Seduced by the possibility of, heretofore, unknown "testimony" from the native American I shelled out a substantial amount of money. I won't bore the forum with a description of the contents of the book. Let me just say that this tome is now used by me as an excellent walnut cracker. I have a propensity for walnuts.
Unlike a Plaster of Paris which may capture a footprint in a permanent structure, I believe that your referral to the footprints of thousands of warriors should, at the least, produce substantial forensic evidence is a Primai Facie argument for evidence suitable to Courts of Law or to public discussion. I understood you quite well. |
|
|
|
AZ Ranger
Brigadier General
USA
Status: offline |
Posted - October 08 2006 : 12:11:08 AM
|
| Joe I was being sarcastic and I would think Wild was also. A sense of humor can be tolerated by the board. Right? |
“ An officer's first duty is to his horses.”
SEMPER FI |
|
|
|
Topic |
|
Indian "Testimony"
