|
Post by Dark Cloud on Dec 5, 2009 18:24:46 GMT -6
Yeah, well. Good luck with that grasp of definition, especially since you didn't give it all. Here's what I got from Merriam Webster on the Web.
ain Entry: his·to·ri·an Pronunciation: \hi-ˈstȯr-ē-ən, -ˈstär-\ Function: noun Date: 15th century
1 : a student or writer of history; especially : one who produces a scholarly synthesis 2 : a writer or compiler of a chronicle
This precludes half-assed reading about in an unorganized manner. Being a student has definitions, too. From the same source:
Entry: stu·dent Pronunciation: \ˈstü-dənt, ˈstyü-, chiefly Southern -dənt\ Function: noun Usage: often attributive Etymology: Middle English, from Latin student-, studens, from present participle of studēre to study — more at study Date: 14th century
1 : scholar, learner; especially : one who attends a school 2 : one who studies : an attentive and systematic observer <a student of politics>
There's a difference between being a student and a reader, and between a having an interest in the past and being a historian.
Elevation of terminology can indeed be a sign of something, usually in direct proportion to a sign of lack of substance. If you're a China buff, then you've run across the extensive titles and rankings of people, military and not, that seemed to lose all the time, holding portfolios for which they were totally incompetent. Generallisimo Chaing Kai Chek, for latest example. Supreme War Lord Wilhelm in Europe. The impoverished Balkan nations with leaders calling themselves Czar. How did Napoleon's elevation to Emperor work out? The Holy Roman Empire? Come on, elevation of terminology is a sign of decline and incompetence often enough. Insecurity more, though.
Reno and Benteen were surrounded for about 24 hours from the 25th to the 26th. Less, actually, as the Indians peeled off in the mid afternoon and moved out towards dusk on Monday.
|
|
|
Post by bighornbuff on Dec 5, 2009 19:21:15 GMT -6
Very interesting.
|
|
|
Post by Melani on Dec 7, 2009 15:05:59 GMT -6
1 : a student or writer of history; especially : one who produces a scholarly synthesis 1 : scholar, learner; especially : one who attends a school 2 : one who studies : an attentive and systematic observer <a student of politics> It says, "especially," not "exclusively."
|
|
|
Post by Dark Cloud on Dec 8, 2009 8:44:03 GMT -6
No kidding. Still, the point stands.
|
|
|
Post by First Sergeant on Dec 8, 2009 10:14:20 GMT -6
Okay, you got me. I'm in it for the clothing fetish.. And to understand how someone, of some intelligence, could have screwed up so badly.
|
|
|
Post by wolfgang911 on Dec 10, 2009 15:41:30 GMT -6
still that nice hearty atmosphere over here that makes you feel good and makes you come back relentlessly I studied 2 years of history at the university of amsterdam, found it was boring studying for instance non stop 6 months the greeks in between 600 and 200 BC and bailed out cause the chances of doing on the field archeology, the only thing i was attracted to, they told me was 1 in a 100. a historian can just be as much a nerd who gets it all wrong as any decent amateur who collects information his way. historian is a bit like playing a detective with is open to anyone with a sharp mind who reads a lot of sources and picks out the right pieces. what does teaching the same stuff for years or writing a thesis or 2 make you so special or your theories valid? the domain of history is accessible to anyone with passion : it is not like jazz music or mathematics or whatever real science, only for experts. DC tries to give it a special touch for obscure reasons. he is cynical on any subject from A till Z, but for history prays to the buffs. anyway history is written back and forward differently in any country depending on the political system or the political correct tendency. changes all the time. I believe in the US history or prehistory for that matter stops at 5000 BC in some schools Lucky for you, some many different scientific historians. IMO any one can come up with a good refreshing opinion or idea and does not have to be a professional historian. the reason DC makes such a point about historian and non historian is that it gives him the major argument to crash anybody popping up on any of the LBH sites whenever necessary and then play it out on the verbal capacity in countering or grammatical errors. it is all part of this technique in winning debates. which is silly as I prevail often his original amateur views over respected historical academical views. but that is just an opinion. wolf
|
|
|
Post by crzhrs on Dec 10, 2009 16:12:11 GMT -6
|
|
dcary
Junior Member
Posts: 83
|
Post by dcary on Jan 13, 2010 11:29:42 GMT -6
The appeal of the LBH – at least to me – is quite comparable to interest in the Titanic. Sure, there are mysteries involved – the Californian, the helm orders, how the ship sank, the missing binoculars, etc, etc. But there are also things to admire -- the crisp efficiency of the rescuing Carpathia (was Benteen at the helm?), the remarkable feat it was for the Titanic’s relatively few seamen to get all but two lifeboats away, etc. There are also plenty of characters, very real people, to identify or empathize with, (had he been there, one can easily imagine Reno being accused of dressing in women’s clothing to get away from the sinking ship, as J. Bruce Ismay was in 1912), as well as official inquiries that got a lot of stuff on the record. Custer evidently thought the NAs were caught napping – but the captain of the Titanic was actually asleep during the collision. LBH has plenty of this sort of thing to chew on.
With the Titanic, though, the life-and-death aspects came about accidentally. LBH has a wrenching difference because life or death is the main point of the whole thing, a deadly enterprise from the word go. But besides battle tactics, orders, etc. I find myself empathizing with the cavalry grunts swept up in it, many of whom would probably not have enlisted had other jobs been available in that period and some of whom might never have had anything against the NAs until they put on the blue. I also note the elements of classical tragedy in GAC and his five companies, reminiscent of Beau Geste, the 300 Spartans and the Chanson de Roland. Kind of a romantic, chivalrous note that strikes me as somehow a bit childish.
And I have no trouble whatever empathizing with the NAs fighting, in an approximation of Benteen’s words, for ‘home and hearth and whatever the good lord gives that is worth fighting for.’ It absolutely chills me to think of attacking villages full of women and children.
Everyone knows they’re supposed to be first in the lifeboats, not targets or even collateraly damaged. So much for chivalry!
As to the historian-amateur historian-history buff discussion, I feel that besides the element of systematic study, the first two involve a dedication to considering all evidence and use fair judgment in an attempt to understand what happened and what things it affected. Since the evidence is incomplete, a lot of formal history things usually include a plea for further research or outlines an area where it should be don’t.
Me, I’m a historical beachcomber. No pretensions of any kind to anything more. Full speed ahead.
|
|
|
Post by dandyvic on May 22, 2020 17:31:40 GMT -6
What, to you, is the appeal of studying the LBH battle? For me it is being a part of an event that was so dramatic in all its aspects. Even though we are not actually part of it, as it is already over, we are part of it in a way, just by virtue of studying it and discussing it. Why this battle and not some other one? What other battle provokes such controversy and interest? No one talks the way we do about the Spanish-American War, or even WWI. And the Indian Wars in general, there is not that much talk about it even on this board. But the Little Big Horn has a magical quality to it, somehow. I have followed this site for years and years, yet this is my first post. I have been reluctant to post because I don't want to get enmeshed in one of innumerable 'tempests in a teapot' that go on in all of these forums. So I will start by saying the LBH has such fascination not just for one but many reasons. At it's core is something that happened but that by all reason shouldn't have happened. A mystery. Within that are a multitude of interesting personalities. Custer, his enemies within and without, the aftermath of rage and scandal etc. I consider it similar to the Titanic in those respects. Not surprisingly, I am interested/obsessed with that as well. I read this LBH forum virtually every night, sometimes for hours.
|
|
|
Post by noggy on May 23, 2020 9:09:13 GMT -6
I have followed this site for years and years, yet this is my first post. I have been reluctant to post because I don't want to get enmeshed in one of innumerable 'tempests in a teapot' that go on in all of these forums. Hello and welcome. I felt the same way, do a degree, before joining. But I can`t say this really is the case that much, at least not here. It`s fairly quiet. As you, I read a lot before joining and some 10 years ago things certainly were more heated! I guess the fact that Custer fanboys are in shortage here might be the main reason All the best, Noggy
|
|