|
Post by "Hunk" Papa on May 20, 2009 13:47:23 GMT -6
Everyone: Forgive my juvenile behavior. I will end the puerile conduct now and in the future. Crzhrs
Spoken like the gentleman you are and everyone will respect you for it. Hunk
|
|
|
Post by wolfgang911 on May 20, 2009 15:56:34 GMT -6
While I want to call a moratorium on account of Gordie, Wolfie, I can hook you up with David, who also sees the Indian Wars in shades of pure black and white. Diane, any chance we can let David back on here with his own sandbox to argue with Wolfie? Billy eh no thanks markland I have enough to deal with 1 survivor of the 7th, intendant conzclairsky
|
|
|
Post by Diane Merkel on May 20, 2009 19:22:20 GMT -6
Only if I can let Strange be the referee.
|
|
|
Post by markland on May 21, 2009 0:18:48 GMT -6
Only if I can let Strange be the referee. Now that would be funny; the Three Stooges. Sorry, getting a bit jaded. Billy
|
|
|
Post by WY Man on May 21, 2009 0:23:31 GMT -6
Conz, you make a valid point about the bag of (twelve) Shoshone baby hands found by Mackenzie's Indian scouts in Dull Knife's village on November 25, 1876. This gruesome discovery was described in "Mackenzie's Last Fight With the Cheyennes," by John Gregory Bourke, p. 31. Also found in Dull Knife's village were the scalps of two young girls, one a White, and the other a Shoshone, the arm and hand of a Shoshone woman, the scalp of a Shoshone warrior killed in the Rosebud battle, scalp shirts fringed with human hair, (Bourke doesn't say how many,) and a necklace of human fingers.
However, I just want to make a point that Dull Knife's Cheyenne warriors had attacked the Shoshone village on Wind River in October, or early November, 1876, (see "The Shoshones," by Virginia Cole Trenholm and Maurine Carley, p. 260) and had nothing to do with Sitting Bull. At this time, Sitting Bull and his remaining hardcore followers were far away to the northeast, between the Yellowstone and Missouri Rivers, involved in conferences and confrontations with "Bear Coat" Nelson Miles. (see "The Lance and the Shield, The Life and Times of Sitting Bull," by Robert M. Utley, pp. 171-73.)
|
|
|
Post by crzhrs on May 21, 2009 6:20:55 GMT -6
Hunk:
Sometimes a kick in the behind will knock some sense into me . . . or a well-chosen post like yours.
I am offering a toast of Ouzo to Gordie.
|
|
|
Post by crzhrs on May 21, 2009 6:23:40 GMT -6
WY Man: I believe the attack on the Shoshone village resulted in the warriors who did the fighting to force the rest of the village to stay put and celebrate which resulted in the military finding them.
Even Dull Knife didn't have enough authority to go against those warriors.
Just a question: How could anyone tell who the scalps came from? White or Indian?
|
|
|
Post by conz on May 21, 2009 6:59:10 GMT -6
the However, I just want to make a point that Dull Knife's Cheyenne warriors had attacked the Shoshone village on Wind River in October, or early November, 1876, (see "The Shoshones," by Virginia Cole Trenholm and Maurine Carley, p. 260) and had nothing to do with Sitting Bull. At this time, Sitting Bull and his remaining hardcore followers were far away to the northeast, between the Yellowstone and Missouri Rivers, involved in conferences and confrontations with "Bear Coat" Nelson Miles. (see "The Lance and the Shield, The Life and Times of Sitting Bull," by Robert M. Utley, pp. 171-73.) I agree...although I doubt there was much philosophical difference between the behavior of the Cheyenne and the Hunkpapas that the Army was worried about. I don't see that the Army made much distinction between these particular hostile bands...N.Cheyenne, and Sitting Bull's and Crazy Horse's Lakotas. They were all one objective, as an Army objective, in THIS campaign. Does your comment imply that you believe the Hunkpapas had a more western style moral outlook than the Cheyenne did? For that matter, does anyone care to present any differences in moral behavior between the various wild bands on these Plains in 1875/76? Or were they all pretty much the same? Thanks, Clair
|
|
|
Post by "Hunk" Papa on May 21, 2009 13:33:47 GMT -6
Hunk: Sometimes a kick in the behind will knock some sense into me . . . or a well-chosen post like yours. I am offering a toast of Ouzo to Gordie.
I'll join you in a drink to Gordie, just a great shame that we can no longer drink with him. Hunk
|
|
|
Post by "Hunk" Papa on May 21, 2009 16:26:47 GMT -6
1) I apologize, then. I am happy to provide any evidence a questioner requires, if I am able. Simply ask. In some long posts as we have been having, I do have to "drive by" the several points, so if there is one that particularly interests you, I am happy to drill down to the nitty-gritty details. I think those are the most fun discussions. <g> 2) I have plenty of sources. Just ask...I certainly don't expect you to change your mind based upon just my say-so. If you are really interested, I am happy to point you toward sources that support my view that you may have more credibility in. First, though, I would need to know what YOU consider to be "credible" evidence. I just hope it is not "if it says the Army are the good guys, then it CAN'T be credible." Sometimes I think that is how people really judge evidence, eh? 3) I can back up, for days and days and days, EVERYTHING that I state. Just ask. 4) That is what debate is all about. If I refute your evidence, I generally say why. Did you find a case where I did not? If so, I apologize. Show me, and I'll correct that. I'm all about evidence...you just need to ask. 5) I wonder what your definition of "irrefutable evidence" is? That raises red flags. If ALL my sources are faulty, and ALL your sources are gospel, all we can do is share our basis for opinion, and leave it at that. But evenso, it is still a valuable discussion. I think you just need to live with that. 6) You don't really need me to agree with you, or any of your opinions, do you? That is not what we are here for...to agree with each other. In fact, it is much better for learning if we continue to DISAGREE...don't you agree? 7) Pick an argument, and just tell me what you require. I can learn, and will try to be more specific. Keep on me until I provide you with what you want...that is what drives our continued study, I think. 8) That might be a good place to start. I'll try to go back and review that criticism. It could be I was just offering opinion, which is not meant to convince. If I really wanted to convince anyone that it was a lie, or lay out WHY I believe it to be a lie, I'll have to do better than that, to be sure. 9) I don't recall that at all, but if it went down as you percieve, than I let you down, and apologize yet again. I'll go back and review that...I don't remember any mention of Col. Ganoe...I've never heard of him. I do have a book "History of the United States Army" by Weigley...it is one of our Officer bibles, taught at West Point. 10) I fully agree. I think it is all right to start with braggadocio to present your thesis, but eventually you have to back it up with evidence on the details. I know...never mind the opinion of an Army officer...it has to be written in a book. Clair
1) The 'Simply ask' and similar wording I have highlighted here and in other points is just plain arrogance. We should not have to ask and indeed, I will not do so. If you have a source that endorses your point of view, quote it, together with the name of the author, the title of the work from which it comes and page number/s where applicable, just like the rest of us do. It is called courtesy and is far more helpful and convincing than an unsourced opinion that goes on and on ad nauseum. 2) The same comments as in (1) apply here and I have mentioned before, more than once, what I believe qualifies as credible evidence. It is irrelevant to me whether such evidence is pro or anti 'the Army' just so long as it emanates from someone without an axe to grind. 3) Arrogance again. 4) The point is not whether you refute my evidence or any one else's for that matter, because that is what you inevitably do anyway AND you say why. The problem is that the 'why' is almost always yet another version of your standard opinions and is rarely backed up with any evidence worth the name and if there is some, WE DON'T ASK, YOU PROVIDE. 5) Irrefutable evidence? Try Terry's orders to Custer, or his dispatch to Sheridan as examples and most anything committed to paper prior to the battle. I never consider my sources to be gospel, just the best I have available unless or until they are disproved. Your sources however, are rarely cited and are quite often shown to be faulty at which point your usual ploy is to either go off at a tangent to try and muddy the waters or claim that you didn't mean what you said originally. That is called dissembling. 6) I don't need you to agree or disagree with me, I only need you to debate in a reasonable and sensible manner so that we can, if possible, either reach a mutually acceptable solution or agree to disagree. What I and all the other posters don't need is arguing for the sake of arguing. Starting out a debate with disagreement is usual and healthy, but to continue to disagree in the face of strong evidence against your argument, is simply the erosion method. - wearing people out with fanfaronade. You actually gain nothing that way but you do lose the respect of those you treat in that manner. 7) There is no requirement to simply pick an argument, for that is again, just arguing for the sake of it. What drives our continued study is the thirst for knowledge, not mere opinions. 8) We are all aware that you offer opinions and you are right, they don't convince - not anybody about anything. Yes you could and should have done better, but I have not seen any sign that you have re-checked your words and retract them. 9) Neither have I seen any reference to the fact that you have reviewed your original post quoted here and found it too, wanting. 10) You called it but you got the second sentence wrong. The opinion of an Army officer about army matters IN GENERAL is to be respected. The unsubstantiated opinion of an Army officer on history matters, whether military or not, has to be weighed against all the evidence found in records, whether books, reports, private journals or newspapers of the period in question. In that context, we are all on an equal footing because then we are all just a bunch of history students using our intellect to try and interpret what we study. But one thing is unassailable - it is the written record that forms the basis of that study, whether you like it or not. Hunk
|
|
|
Post by clw on May 21, 2009 17:08:04 GMT -6
And that is exactly why arguing with Clair is circular and boring. Fanfaronade is an absolutely fantastic word, Hunk! Gordie would have loved it.
|
|
|
Post by conz on May 21, 2009 18:59:54 GMT -6
Okay...on what of my arguments would you like a fact for which to back it up?
Am I lacking in a fact? I can find one, if you need it, but looking at this thread, I can't tell what argument you require a fact to substantiate my opinion.
What it sounds like to me, is that you need a fact to say "The Indians were wrong, and the Americans were right." And, of course, there are no facts to bear upon such a question...it is all a matter of values, and not of facts at all.
So is there ANY argument on this thread where facts are even relevant?
Why not, instead, talk about VALUES?
Or, if you find discussing values too boring, would you like to argue about a fact? What fact?
Going back to the beginning of this thread, it is about the right or wrong of Indians mutilating their dead enemies.
What "facts," Hunk or clw, are relevant to the argument as to whether that is right or wrong?!
Clair
|
|
|
Post by WY Man on May 21, 2009 21:25:47 GMT -6
I doubt there was much philosophical difference between the behavior of the Cheyenne and the Hunkpapas that the Army was worried about. I don't see that the Army made much distinction between these particular hostile bands...N.Cheyenne, and Sitting Bull's and Crazy Horse's Lakotas. They were all one objective, as an Army objective, in THIS campaign. Clair, when I posted regarding your comment, I was ONLY referring to your statement about Sitting Bull's leadership over the hostile bands, and I was trying to make the point that Dull Knife's Cheyennes were not under Sitting Bull's leadership then. I was not saying anything one way or the other about any philosophical differences between the different tribes, bands, or even U.S. military forces for that matter. I certainly agree with you that the Army commanders during the 1876 campaign didn't make much distinction between the different hostile bands of Sioux, Cheyenne and Arapaho. A hostile is a hostile! How convenient that they were all camped together on 06-25-76! And, likewise, the Indians were about equally concerned with the distinction between different hostile army forces. Different military forces were all around them. Isn't it ironic that the campaign of 1876 is forever remembered as the "Great Sioux War?!!" Does your comment imply that you believe the Hunkpapas had a more western style moral outlook than the Cheyenne did? I don't begin to have any perspective on how the moral outlooks of the Hunkpapa Sioux compared with those of the Northern Cheyenne. I would guess that, like us today, there was considerable variation from individual to individual. And, just like people today, when an individual becomes part of a group, they often assume a "group mentality."
|
|
|
Post by WY Man on May 21, 2009 21:58:13 GMT -6
Just a question: How could anyone tell who the scalps came from? White or Indian? To quote Bourke exactly: "The scalps of two young girls, neither of full age; one a flaxenhaired Caucasian; the other, a Shoshonee." I assume it was obvious that the flaxenhaired scalp came from a Caucasian. And, with the other known Shoshone remains found that day, (the Shoshone warriors recognized the hands of some of their babies, and a scalp was recognized by Shoshone warriors from the ornaments in their friend's hair) the inference was clear; this was a Shoshone scalp. The Cheyennes were carrying Shoshone trophies from a very recent attack on a Shoshone village. Also, a scalp sometimes bore surrounding skin. I'm not saying that happened here. But, that could aid in identification. I have read that sometimes even the ears were carefully removed with the scalp, although I couldn't tell you where I've read that, or who did it.
|
|
|
Post by crzhrs on May 22, 2009 8:35:43 GMT -6
<I don't begin to have any perspective on how the moral outlooks of the Hunkpapa Sioux compared with those of the Northern Cheyenne. I would guess that, like us today, there was considerable variation from individual to individual. And, just like people today, when an individual becomes part of a group, they often assume a "group mentality.">
Spoken like a rational person!
I wholeheartedly agree.
|
|