|
Post by Diane Merkel on Jun 19, 2008 14:29:54 GMT -6
I've always liked Gerard Baker and think he has shown great class when confronted by stupid people, as at the LBHA Conference in Billings in 1995. Here's an excerpt from a nice article about Gerard and his brother: . . . Gerard [Baker] has been with the National Park Service for 30 years and now serves as the superintendent of Mount Rushmore, the first Native American to hold the post. Gerard started working with the National Park Service in entry-level positions but set a goal to become a superintendent of a park by age 40. Just a few months before his 40th birthday, he was named superintendent of Custer Battlefield.
Gerard said he looked forward to answering his first phone call and saying “Superintendent Baker,” but had cold water thrown in his face when the first phone call was from an attorney in Texas who called him a “dirty Indian.”
“There are two ways you can handle that. You can get mad and go to the same place that person is or you can educate,” he said. It took him nearly an hour to educate the man on the other end of the phone, but he did, and continued to handle those types of incidents a few times a week. During his tenure at Custer Battlefield, he changed the name to Little Bighorn and started bringing in Indian interpreters to tell the oral history of the battle with Custer from the perspective of individual Indians.
“We started hearing a brand new perspective,” Gerard explained. He left Little Bighorn with seven death threats to his family and a petition to the U.S. president for his removal. It didn’t deter him from continuing to educate America about Indian culture and history, however. Article: www.thechadronnews.com/articles/2008/06/17/chadron/headlines/news948.txt
|
|
|
Post by biggordie on Jun 19, 2008 16:29:05 GMT -6
Good man, that Baker chap. I found him to be always pleasant,and available to listen to my gripes. All of the Superintendents I encountered were easy to get along with, and very approachable, with one exception who shall remain nameless.
Gordie
|
|
|
Post by Scout on Jun 19, 2008 18:38:55 GMT -6
Well I'm sure Baker is a nice guy but he pissed off a number of people by constantly calling Custer 'stupid.' I would expect more out of a park superintendent. How about a little professionalism. Can you imagine a park ranger at, say, Gettysburg referring to one side as stupid. Very unprofessional. I believe the outgoing super there now also made such comments in the History Channel magazine. I think Gerard's heritage gives him no special privileges in this area.
|
|
|
Post by biggordie on Jun 19, 2008 20:19:24 GMT -6
That's true, Scout; but I gave up a long time ago on getting much of a correct account of the fights from the general run of the Battlefield employees. The first guy I met there in 1958 was very knowledgeable and strictly history-oriented. Since sometime in the sixties, the "interpretation" given at the Battlefield has changed enormously, and one might be forgiven for thinking that all of the changes were not for the better.
I was speaking of Gerard in a strictly personal sense. He was always helpful and accomodating to me - never asked my opinions or volunteered his own. For example, if I wanted to go somewhere that was not "open" to the public, he would simply have me sign a "hold harmless" waiver, and let me proceed at my own peril. Only once of about ten times was my request refused, and then very politely, with reasons given.
Once when I decided on the spur of the moment to stay in the area for a few extra days and wanted to access the Collections [two weeks' notice was generally required], he arranged it for me. I've never forgotten his kindnesses, and have been able to accept the other stuff.
Besides which, my own attitudes toward the events and the participants have changed more than somewhat over those same years.
Gordie
|
|
|
Post by Scout on Jun 20, 2008 7:44:24 GMT -6
I agree with most of what you say Gordie but this has nothing to do with the 'accounts.' Imagine a park super referring to Crazy Horse as stupid. Well. hell, it would make national news wouldn't it? It would be the end of the damn world. There would be senate hearings. Calls of racism and blah, blah, blah. Such public personal opinions shouldn't be dismissed so easy. What's good for the goose is good for the gander. While a nice guy he did show some unprofessional behavior during his tenure at the battlefield. Changing attitudes on the battle has nothing to do with any of this. He also refused to work with the CBHMA, but that's another story. My comments have nothing to do with him on a personal level. Believe it or not I have no dislike of the man.
|
|
|
Post by Dark Cloud on Jun 20, 2008 14:19:58 GMT -6
No, Pickett's Charge WAS stupid, and reality isn't shaken should that term be used. Lee chose an unenthused commander with troops not his own to attack head on an incredibly strong position based upon wishful thinking that their terrible artillery - somehow, this day - would be accurate for a change.
Further, I believe the people at the site don't hesitate to mention that the charge was 'controversial to this day', and certainly there were those instantly in both North and South in print and otherwise who didn't hesitate to call - generally their own - officers idiots or cowards or incompetents after this battle and throughout the war and long after. If the people at the site talking to the public don't mention that, they're being dishonest. It's been pointed out that Lee went to great lengths to not use the word "stupid" in discussing Hood and, I think, Pickett and Bragg and others.
I don't know what context Baker called Custer stupid, but I'd wager it was in relation to attacking such a large village and expecting it to react as much smaller ones had, and not like Kildeer Mt. In other words, for risking all on the assumption Indians would run. If the Indian numbers were less, than complaint can be registered against the recon and execution. I doubt it was a general description of the man as stupid, but in reference to his actions that day. If not, I stand corrected, but he still isn't without reason for issuing that opinion, although it is not mine.
If my guess is correct, Baker did nothing wrong. It's those at Gettysburg who are if what you imply is true. There should be no hesitation calling stupid a charge of doughboys or hussars to near certain death based on whim or whimsy.
John McCain's new commercial about his disdain for those who glorify and romanticize war elbows its way forward, because its an exact likeness of not a few who led us into Iraq, or sent the Virginians forward, or joined the CBHMA, isn't it? I believe so.
|
|
|
Post by Scout on Jun 20, 2008 14:34:47 GMT -6
Blah, blah, blah....
|
|
|
Post by Dark Cloud on Jun 22, 2008 9:08:01 GMT -6
I don't know Baker, or who scout is, but I don't think scout's being honest here.
As I understand it (and I have no first hand knowledge, but have had contact through the decades with those who do), what happened was that after the fiasco of the CBHMA being tossed by the NPS as a cooperating group (which I don't think has happened before or since to any other group anywhere else, telling us much about the skill and wisdom of the CBHMA leadership then), attempts were made to try and smooth things over and work together despite harsh words in the recent past.
Well, at least to create that image with the public through CBHMA newsletters. In reality, it seems to have been a deceptive ploy and buy for time.
I don't think the CBHMA really wanted the field renamed and they didn't want an Indian as Superintendent, especially if he veered from traditional script. The Indian Memorial issue probably cannot be discussed without use of handpuppets. They felt this was submission to Political Correctness rather than Truth, which was the Custerphile's Truth. The PC issue was, and remains, their cover story complaint.
Elements of the CBHMA's leadership formed a committee of some sort with the intent to negotiate issues with Baker, then the Superintendent, and rebuild smoldering bridges. Contrary to what scout says, Baker was open to it and working with anyone - a characteristic for which he is highly liked, and respected - and meetings were arranged.
At the same time, though, letters complaining about Baker were being sent up the line to various government offices in Denver and Washington from members of the CBHMA leadership while the publicly announced committee was dealing with Baker. Not only rather sleazy but, typically, inept. For some odd reason, Baker took offense and was peeved. Further, he expressed his emotions about being deceived and, I'd imagine, the chicken-s dishonest manner in which this had been done.
That was it for the CBHMA regaining their status, closely tied to running the curio shop/bookstore at the battlefield. Where they once had input as to which books, and their opinions, to allow to be sold, and all.
|
|
|
Post by clw on Jun 22, 2008 9:59:47 GMT -6
For an American Indian to undertake the positions of superintendent of the battlefield and Mt. Rushmore is courageous. The fact that he has done it respectfully and honorably is incredible. And if the only thing that can be said against him is that he referred to Custer as stupid.... well draw your own conclusions.
|
|
|
Post by Diane Merkel on Jun 22, 2008 12:52:00 GMT -6
Scout, I know you're not going to like this, but I think DC has it right concerning CBHMA. They killed their Golden Goose -- the book store in the Visitors Center -- and spewed lies about the North Shield Ventures proposal -- making it sound like Wally World -- which could have trumped the current controversy. As soon as Gerard was named, the venom started. The militant CBHMA members hated Booher and they were determined to hate Baker, simply because they were Indians. Nothing to be proud of there.
I've seen "Custer was stupid" comment attributed to another LBBNM employee recently. I'd have to know the context.
|
|
|
Post by rch on Jun 23, 2008 12:18:12 GMT -6
I think the way the NPS ousted the CBMHA was nasty and mean. The NPS got the name change they wanted. They simply objected to the free exercise of speach by people who disagreed with them. I hate the NPS as much as it hates me, and I will never join the Friends of the Little Bighorn, in spite of the credentials of the people who formed it.
rch
|
|
|
Post by Dark Cloud on Jun 24, 2008 9:29:10 GMT -6
If you have any evidence that Jerome Green was somehow wrong in his presentation of the incident within Stricken Field, what is it? Further, there is the opinion that CBHMA had an inflated opinion of its importance and necessity to the field and nation, and treated the NPS to condescending and way-out-of-line correspondence. When the CBHMA realized their opinion was only that, not law to be written, they threw a hissy fit. All of a piece with some posters here, actually.
That's not to say the NPS is peopled by the gods, but that given CBMHA's unique status as the only organization to ever be so canned by the government, there's reason to be confident they overstepped big time. They shouldn't just be viewed as innocents treated "nasty and mean" by the horrid government agency, an agency that deals with Civil War battlefield groups for whom the term "opinionated" seems insufficient.
What went around, came around. Happens.
|
|
|
Post by rch on Jun 24, 2008 10:45:01 GMT -6
How can a citizen's communication with his government be out of line.
I have not read Greene's history. Who does Greene work for? Did he at all attempt to give the views of the other side or did he dismiss us as SOP racists?
What the NPS did was similiar to a bill of attainder in crimminal law. It excercised it's authority against the CBMHA and only the CBMHA. On its face it was mean, nasty, filthy rotten and exactly what can be expected of wiseacre bureaucrats.
rch
|
|
|
Post by Scout on Jun 24, 2008 11:10:26 GMT -6
I would have to agree with rch. This whole problem could have been resolved very easily but Baker refused the chance. A resolution could have been attained. This dc character is probably no member of either organization and has no inside knowledge of went on during that time period. It is he who is being dishonest, which is his personality.
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Jun 24, 2008 11:50:18 GMT -6
I agree with both Scout and rch. The arrogance as I see it, has been on the part of the bureaucrats at the NPS, not the CBHMA. In their hubris, they viewed the CBHMA as little more than a rubberstamp, and when the organization objected to the silly name change supported by the NPS, they were booted off the premises for daring to make their independent views known. We are seeing much the same level of arrogance today with the NPS going full steam ahead with plans for rebuilding their visitors center on sensitive battlefield ground while faced with serious environmental and historical objections from archaeologists, historians and the public at large. Hopefully the suggested lawsuit will stop these arrogant bureaucrats dead in their tracks if all other measures fail to persuade them to cease and desist in their tyrannical ways. They seem to forget that they are public servants, not our public masters.
|
|