|
Post by Dark Cloud on Aug 17, 2011 18:01:03 GMT -6
Obviously, I'm not claiming that's what it was, although from the offered info, it could have been.
Again: WHEN did Two Moon give this account so we can judge its virginity and he hasn't melded it to others' stories?
It's 1898, 22 years after the battle. It's Hamlin Garlin in McClure's Magazine. Garlin says Wolf Voice is the translator. Right away: 22 years, 2M to VW to Garlin to editor to reader is four removes from a story 22 years old, which is holy writ as with anyone. Someone helpfully says branches are "squadrons", a term not then in use I don't think. But, that's an assumption by someone NOT THERE. At least it was in parentheses. Often times, such corrections were just made.
Now, the story itself:
Is there nothing in it that sets off alarms with you? What does he mean by three 'branches'? You would think three companies, but for sure? If so, he's discussing Keogh's alleged group, with three companies. Is he? First, WHERE is he recalling seeing this from?
He's coming back from the fighting south of the Hunkpapa camp to the Cheyenne camp, stopping the squaws breaking down their lodges, but not there yet, when he sees the soldiers come over a ridge. FROM THE WEST BANK OF THE LBH he is seeing this, or so he recalls: three branches, ALL of which dismount, and the horses are led back behind the hill, where they cannot be seen, one supposes.
If true, what does this suggest Custer is doing, going on the defense so immediately on open ground?
THEN, the Sioux and Cheyenne attack, apparently the Sioux going up MTC/Deep Coulee on the right and the Cheyenne further north ("Left"). Then somewhere the last alive make a break for it. Only five soldiers on horses then, all killed. Heroic black haired guy with knife on sorrel horse, etc. etc. Oddly, 2M remembers bugles being sounded all the time. Not a common recollection. Perhaps he's heard bugles since and knows there were bugles found. Perhaps he has one of them.
This, as he says, is an old man of dubious memory conflating different events but trying hard. It is absurd to try to wheedle precision of location or sequence out of this. He probably doesn't know if he saw these things or it's part of the story they all melded together over twenty two years. Who can know? It most certainly isn't testimony.
This is in the Custer Myth, page 101 passim. The story of Wooden Leg follows by Thomas Marquis, and WL says on a hill north of the ridge another group of soldiers were surrounded and they killed themselves as others had. 2M somehow missed all that.
|
|
jag
Full Member
Caption: IRAQI PHOTO'S -- (arrow to gun port) LOOK HERE -- SMILE -- WAIT FOR -- FLASH
Posts: 245
|
Post by jag on Aug 17, 2011 18:54:12 GMT -6
Obviously, I'm not claiming that's what it was, although from the offered info, it could have been. Again: WHEN did Two Moon give this account so we can judge its virginity and he hasn't melded it to others' stories? It's 1898, 22 years after the battle. It's Hamlin Garlin in McClure's Magazine. Garlin says Wolf Voice is the translator. Right away: 22 years, 2M to VW to Garlin to editor to reader is four removes from a story 22 years old, which is holy writ as with anyone. Someone helpfully says branches are "squadrons", a term not then in use I don't think. But, that's an assumption by someone NOT THERE. At least it was in parentheses. Often times, such corrections were just made. Now, the story itself: Is there nothing in it that sets off alarms with you? What does he mean by three 'branches'? You would think three companies, but for sure? If so, he's discussing Keogh's alleged group, with three companies. Is he? First, WHERE is he recalling seeing this from? He's coming back from the fighting south of the Hunkpapa camp to the Cheyenne camp, stopping the squaws breaking down their lodges, but not there yet, when he sees the soldiers come over a ridge. FROM THE WEST BANK OF THE LBH he is seeing this, or so he recalls: three branches, ALL of which dismount, and the horses are led back behind the hill, where they cannot be seen, one supposes. If true, what does this suggest Custer is doing, going on the defense so immediately on open ground? THEN, the Sioux and Cheyenne attack, apparently the Sioux going up MTC/Deep Coulee on the right and the Cheyenne further north ("Left"). Then somewhere the last alive make a break for it. Only five soldiers on horses then, all killed. Heroic black haired guy with knife on sorrel horse, etc. etc. Oddly, 2M remembers bugles being sounded all the time. Not a common recollection. Perhaps he's heard bugles since and knows there were bugles found. Perhaps he has one of them. This, as he says, is an old man of dubious memory conflating different events but trying hard. It is absurd to try to wheedle precision of location or sequence out of this. He probably doesn't know if he saw these things or it's part of the story they all melded together over twenty two years. Who can know? It most certainly isn't testimony. This is in the Custer Myth, page 101 passim. The story of Wooden Leg follows by Thomas Marquis, and WL says on a hill north of the ridge another group of soldiers were surrounded and they killed themselves as others had. 2M somehow missed all that. Not arguing those points. I think what you've brought up is a given in many an instance, not just with this Indian but with others as well. My point was; If, and it is a supposition if, his lone story is true, which it could have been, about what he had seen, then why would have Custer have sent anyone to MTCF? That's my point to all of this. Take as many Indian stories as you like, not just his, and they all make Custer look like an idiot if he did that. Almost total reliance of those fancy maneuvers originates from Curly and his friends who survived and lived to tell about it, and even they didn't stick around long enough to know or pay enough attention to what was going on with the troopers, they were more concerned with getting their one shot from the bluffs into the tepees and vamoosing, which is exactly what they did.
|
|
|
Post by Dark Cloud on Aug 17, 2011 19:28:09 GMT -6
Curly's initial stories were probably true as he told to Terry's men on the 26th, and he never initially claimed the nonsense that was attributed to him later. Also later, he discovered he could make a bundle like Martin with a good story among the whites. Who can blame him? I'm not sure the Crow scouts were expected to fight to the death if they could get away. That wasn't part of their deal, was it?
I'm not sure he could see all that much. I'm also not sure that there were a ton of separate Indian accounts that we can now take together. By the time anyone particularly cared, the newspapers and time and other variations had screwed them all around. They weren't initially concerned with truth, just a good story.
I'm at a loss to call dismounting and being shot fancy maneuvers, but whatever.
|
|
jag
Full Member
Caption: IRAQI PHOTO'S -- (arrow to gun port) LOOK HERE -- SMILE -- WAIT FOR -- FLASH
Posts: 245
|
Post by jag on Aug 17, 2011 21:17:04 GMT -6
Curly's initial stories were probably true as he told to Terry's men on the 26th, and he never initially claimed the nonsense that was attributed to him later. Also later, he discovered he could make a bundle like Martin with a good story among the whites. Who can blame him? I'm not sure the Crow scouts were expected to fight to the death if they could get away. That wasn't part of their deal, was it? I'm not sure he could see all that much. I'm also not sure that there were a ton of separate Indian accounts that we can now take together. By the time anyone particularly cared, the newspapers and time and other variations had screwed them all around. They weren't initially concerned with truth, just a good story. I'm at a loss to call dismounting and being shot fancy maneuvers, but whatever. I'm at a loss to call dismounting and being shot fancy maneuvers, but whatever.Noted. And I didn't and wasn't about to. That kind of thing drives me batty.
|
|
|
Post by rosebud on Aug 18, 2011 2:53:57 GMT -6
Dark Cloud
I share your skepticism of the Indian stories of the battle. I am also sure that a few might be true. I just can't be sure which ones that would be.
I would be willing to bet that many of the true story's were tossed in the garbage because they didn't fit with the way the white man wanted the battle to start or end.
A good example is the lack of Indian testimony of Custer's men on Blummer ridge. At that time the White man wanted Custer to be in the bottom of MTC.
|
|
|
Post by Yan Taylor on Aug 18, 2011 3:30:48 GMT -6
I have never before heard the TM, story of events, I have looked on other sites about Indian testimony's of the battle, but I had some advice that they where unreliable, so I stopped, but this story in very interesting, I have enjoyed reading them. P.S. was Gracie there too. Ian.
|
|
|
Post by Dark Cloud on Aug 18, 2011 9:55:41 GMT -6
When people like me say Indian accounts are unreliable, that is NOT a condemnation of the Indians. It's that not only do we NOT have Indian testimony (under oath with penalty for lying, subject to cross examination, re-cross) we do NOT even have mere Indian accounts by the participants.
We only have what third parties assure us are the accounts of participants, and sometimes not even that close. They go through translations, editors, family, all atop the wonders of time, famous for making memories accurate. That does not mean Indians lie or are stupid or are just out to make themselves famous. It means they have all the deleterious qualities of the white man plus the added burdens of language and removes from the participant.
No doubt there is a LOT of truth in there, but there are clear tells that 'helpful' editors and others have contaminated their work. In the Two Moon story, someone is sure 'branches' of soldiers meant 'squadrons'.
Second, let's be real about the west. A LOT of it looks alike, and if you haven't seen it for a while, things meld together and fade. It is to be doubted that Indians have hard wired dioramas of the Greasy Grass that they may have only seen once or twice forty years previous.
Third, when Indians appear to be in print using white man terms to geologic features, red light. When they start chatting up military terminology, red light. When they can tell an officer in buckskin from a scout in buckskin, red light. White men looked pretty much alike to them, understand, not made easier by uniforms.
They don't get "flank" attacks, when they have no flanks understood as such, or answer to war chiefs. They can participate or not, obey or not, so long as they aren't cowards and do things correctly to demonstrate courage. They had zero training in mass tactics, suppressive fire, and had exactly one 'tactic.' Lure the enemy into a trap. Depressingly, its success rate with each other and the Army guaranteed to keep it going. We're quite stupid, it turns out.
When 'quotes' from Indians begin to take on the cadence of the King James version, mass red lights. Indians did not have the varied predicates of western languages and did not sound like Thomas Carlisle or Pitt the Elder addressing Parliament. They have no more concept of what their language sounded like in 1850 than we do, today. What is spoken today is a language terraformed through missionaries to compare to western language. They did not write it down or keep books. The whites did.
They like to think that oral history is a lot better than our thousands of years of evidence everywhere supports. Their concept of time was cyclical, not linear, and so was their religion, their memories, their lives. Just like everyone was, once.
Trying to accurately translate to or from sign language - which was never codified among the Indians - is about as likely as Monty Python's version of Wuthering Heights in semaphore. Semaphore is actually more accurate.
|
|
|
Post by rosebud on Aug 18, 2011 11:23:43 GMT -6
I tend to agree with most of what you wrote. I do think you are a little over the top on some of your criticism.
If you took a person who had never seen a football game to a Bronco game you might hear him describe a play like this.
There was a guy who ran back and stopped, them he threw a ball a long ways to another guy who ran to the end of the field and did a dance and the people went wild.
Now when you repeat this story to someone you would likely say something like this...The QUARTERBACK went back and threw a pass to the Receiver. The Receiver made a touchdown and had a celebration.
Both stories are correct. You just put them into football terms. Coyotes and wolves use a flank attack but they don't know its called a flank attack. As long as the description fits the movement, I have no problem with writers using different terminology. If Indians describe a bunch of soldiers going to a place, I don't care if they change it to a squadron or a company. I still know that soldiers were doing this or that. Not that big of a deal.
Rosebud
|
|
|
Post by Dark Cloud on Aug 18, 2011 11:46:29 GMT -6
It's a very big deal, pretending otherwise is dangerous. Your own example proves it.
"There was a guy who ran back and stopped, them he threw a ball a long ways to another guy who ran to the end of the field and did a dance and the people went wild."
Now when you repeat this story to someone you would likely say something like this...The QUARTERBACK went back and threw a pass to the Receiver. The Receiver made a touchdown and had a celebration.
Unfortunately, what <IF> the account was describing was an interception returned for a touchdown. Receiver or safety, what's the difference?
Everything.
And nomad tribes and all hunters of herd animals use flank attacks. But they don't call it that, but terms relevant to themselves. It's a giveaway that it is not the pristine account claimed, and misinterpretation if not deliberate falsehood. If a supposed journal of ancient mariners contained references to GMT, that would suggest the tale has filtered through someone else who could have made errors.
|
|
|
Post by rosebud on Aug 18, 2011 12:30:08 GMT -6
"There was a guy who ran back and stopped, them he threw a ball a long ways to another guy who turned around and ran toward all the players, he made it all the way to through the players and to the end of the field and did a dance and the people went wild."
One sounds like an interception. I am not sure you will be able to tell the difference. Most will have no problem.
Rosebud
|
|
|
Post by Dark Cloud on Aug 18, 2011 13:49:50 GMT -6
Your second example defeats the purpose of your first. You postulated that a guy who had never seen the game before and knew nothing was describing a play, much like an Indian might describe a maneuver by the 7th, if such occurred.
The example you initially chose to give, which indeed is like someone who had no clue might describe it whether an offense or defense touchdown, has no flaw. The second party who recounts it made assumptions, as permeates Indian accounts by Army, translators and newspapers, and gets it 100% wrong (maybe). Since his only source is the guy unfamiliar with the game, he can't know if his assumption is wrong without cross examining the guy, which may not be possible. In any case, the assumption was made when the tale was first heard.
Of course, at least they speak the same language. If not, chances are their languages have similar tenses and not vastly dissimilar ways of expressing direction and time. None of that is true with Indians and Europeans, which makes it more difficult.
Your new assumption is that your second example is the one that would be definitely given, but the problems with the first didn't occur to you till the problem was suggested. That's EXACTLY the likely process for most of the translations. The Sioux language at the time was of a type where words get their meaning from other nearby words, and sentences are actually one long word. You'd have to be VERY familiar with the idioms and dialects of the specific language group to be accurate. You could not sorta/kinda speak Sioux, which in any case changed constantly as all unwritten languages do.
|
|
|
Post by rosebud on Aug 18, 2011 14:04:18 GMT -6
DC Only you would confuse the two plays as the same. I doubt anyone else would have the same problem that you have.
Now if one was to start describing colors of jerseys it would make it easier. How about if they start using numbers?
So as you can see. Even someone who has no clue about football can give enough information for anyone with half a brain to not only figure out who scored. If they give colors and numbers we could probably tell the team that scored and maybe even the name of the individual that scored the touchdown.
So I can say that your argument doesn't hold water.
So, if Indians describe the movement of men, we might not know the exact company. But if they describe the movement of a bunch of men riding Grey horses? I bet most can get this right. Company C, every one knows that.
Rosebud
|
|
|
Post by Dark Cloud on Aug 18, 2011 15:05:25 GMT -6
No. I'm not confused. I pointed out the difference between the two plays.
You didn't foresee that the description you chose could be either an interception or an offensive touchdown, just like someone who didn't know the game. Nothing in your own chosen words distinguishes between the two. Your second example would have, but that was a corrective. It also assumes the second person thoroughly understands the game, a dangerous assumption.
Your first example illustrates how easy it is for helpful translators and writers to give a totally wrong interpretation. I'm comfy that happened a lot.
Co. C wasn't the white horse troop. That was E. I know you're kidding, but you have to be careful on public boards. These aren't emails between friends, but the basis of newby info. Yantaylor will now be convinced that C is the white horse troop, since anything over two sentences exhausts his lips and he has to lie down. He hasn't read any books yet because the library hasn't sent them, it's raining, there's Blackadder on, and his cat is depressed. Also, it's work. Who wants that?
|
|
|
Post by rosebud on Aug 18, 2011 15:08:32 GMT -6
Co. C wasn't the white horse troop. That was E. I know you're kidding, but you have to be careful on public boards.
Yes, it was a shot in the dark....hit the bulls eye. You found my mistake ....HOW? You just proved my point. Even you are capable of using limited information to come to the CORRECT conclusion.
I was kind of sure you would not let that pass. Got lucky. Or did I? Might not have been that much luck after all. Thanks DC, I knew you could do it if you tried.
Rosebud
|
|
|
Post by Dark Cloud on Aug 18, 2011 15:14:11 GMT -6
Sorry, Rosebud, you've missed the entire point of your own example and you can't blather your way out of it. The white horse troop issue in no way illustrates the points in contention.
Second, your example proved my point; not yours.
Third, using limited information can only come to the correct conclusion by good luck. It's more likely to provide error. And 'limited information' is not the issue about E, anyway. There's lots of info on that, uncontested.
|
|