|
Gasp!
Aug 11, 2014 16:20:51 GMT -6
Post by quincannon on Aug 11, 2014 16:20:51 GMT -6
All of this liking, loving, loathing and despising of historical figures remind me of blue hairs gossiping about soap operas over the back fence. Yes there is a certain Days of Our Lives, Search For Tomorrow, General Hospital smell to it and it seems that it would only be decent to have periodic advertising breaks for Tide and Ivory Snow.
Objectivity is lost by this divergence into Victorian pop culture, and therefore truth.
IT'S PERFORMANCE, BATTLEFIELD PERFORMANCE, PEOPLE, THAT'S ALL THAT MATTERS.
Mr. Harper could be the second coming of Saints Peter and Paul, waltzing with the Virgin Mother and I would not purchase or read the book after Henk's revelation. I thought, I would disagree with him, but I also thought he would be objective.
In the event that someone does not know what I am addressing here it is. I don't particularly care for any of these people. None of them would be persons I would like to sit and drink a beer with. I evaluate them for what they did or did not do in the course of their duties. Nothing more. Nothing less When an author takes sides, injects personal prejudice into his work that work loses all objectivity. While certain prejudices may be apparent, as seems to be the case here, one is forced to wonder what other prejudices have seeped in that are not so apparent. It is the same with mistakes. Ambrose for instance, regardless of his character flaws made mistake after mistake, after mistake. Most were obvious, but one must then ask the question if you can pick out the obvious with no trouble whatsoever, how many errors of omission and commission slip through unnoticed.
Well done books are devoid of prejudice. They let the reader make up his or her own mind. Anything short of that has no right to see print. That is a shame in this instance as this man obviously by all reports spent a good part of his life devoted to the subject.
|
|
|
Gasp!
Aug 11, 2014 16:43:10 GMT -6
Post by tubman13 on Aug 11, 2014 16:43:10 GMT -6
For what is worth, I enjoyed the read. Concise, to the point, different point of view and nicely documented. The man was not a Benteen fan, maybe to a fault. Still not a bad read, wish he had finished, before he passed as last two chapters were not his, as I understand it.
Regards, Tom
|
|
|
Gasp!
Aug 11, 2014 17:24:47 GMT -6
Post by Dark Cloud on Aug 11, 2014 17:24:47 GMT -6
Okay, need to start by saying my sweeping thumbs down on Harper's book was uninformed as I thought I hadn't known about the appendices as I idiotically said recently. On the contrary, I was told by two or three people by email and/or PM and I either did not remember that or my sclerotic brain is solely watered by one circular vein of blue sludge. It briefly occurred to me that my computer had been hacked for people to insert stuff I didn't remember. I don't err, as you know.
I feel even worse because two or three people had written Harper said something not defamatory about me years back, so now I feel guilt. Stupid and guilty. Only cure is to blame Montrose, Fred, and deflect attention from my error. So many good teachers here for that..... This, because, I just got the appendices, and there's a long weekend's homework in there probably containing all the stuff I was annoyed was no in the first volume. Some very good stuff, among which is support about how tales change. Gibson mentions the Custer talk asking for input and how it sort of depressed the officers, but no mention of the guidon blowing over and all that. Added later. He didn't like Benteen, and his reasons are pretty weak. But as was pointed out in an Amazon review on Harper's book, if Benteen and Custer both wrote a lot of letters, Benteen is somehow guilty of muddying the waters or showing guilt while Custer receives no condemnation, although he fabricated that newspaper article about Reno's scout. Further, Benteen's letters never saw daylight till much later.
It is possible that Harper and Gray were both so annoyed with the nonsense dumped upon Custer leading up to the Little Big Man movie that they adjusted their antenna considerably regarding he and Benteen. But it's entirely possible, and to me likely, that nobody was a villain. They did what had worked for reasons not totally ridiculous and it just didn't work that day. I don't think ANYone looks good, white or red, and that the least incompetent side got the victory. Still, you can see how Custer might have won had certain things not 'happened.' You can probably say that about any battle, I'm guessing.
So, keep it down, would you, I'm going to be up late and you would not like me without sleep and good coffee in the morning. I mean it. Keep it DOWN. Don't make me come down there.......
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Gasp!
Aug 12, 2014 3:12:32 GMT -6
Post by Deleted on Aug 12, 2014 3:12:32 GMT -6
For what is worth, I enjoyed the read. Concise, to the point, different point of view and nicely documented. The man was not a Benteen fan, maybe to a fault. Still not a bad read, wish he had finished, before he passed as last two chapters were not his, as I understand it. Regards, Tom There is nothing wrong with the writing of the book, as far as I've read it. And I believe that Harper did his utmost to do justice to all involved but couldn't keep dislikes and likes under control. If he had, it would have been a far better book. Henk
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Gasp!
Aug 12, 2014 3:20:27 GMT -6
Post by Deleted on Aug 12, 2014 3:20:27 GMT -6
I've no problems with prejudices, if the author admits to have them and is willing to look at his prejudices from a certain distance.
Henk
|
|
|
Gasp!
Aug 12, 2014 7:49:02 GMT -6
Post by quincannon on Aug 12, 2014 7:49:02 GMT -6
Henk: Seeing only what you wish to see is not seeing.
|
|
|
Gasp!
Aug 12, 2014 8:19:53 GMT -6
Post by fred on Aug 12, 2014 8:19:53 GMT -6
Well done books are devoid of prejudice. They let the reader make up his or her own mind. Anything short of that has no right to see print. That is a shame in this instance as this man obviously by all reports spent a good part of his life devoted to the subject. This is one of the best comments I have read on these boards or any other boards. To me, that is the essence of a good book and I have striven mightily to incorporate just such an element into mine. It is also why I pose multiple cases for certain events, then explain why I have chosen as I have. When people read my book, I want them to think, to mull things over in their minds, to understand accounts, to dissect the times, to understand context and how those contexts interact and enter one another. Without accomplishing that, I have accomplished nothing. Best wishes, Fred.
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Gasp!
Aug 12, 2014 8:33:25 GMT -6
Post by Deleted on Aug 12, 2014 8:33:25 GMT -6
Henk: Seeing only what you wish to see is not seeing. Quincannon, You know as well as I do that one is seldom aware of one's prejudices. It's often not a matter of seeing only what one wishes to see but the inability to see anything but what one believes to see. <g> Best regards, Henk
|
|
|
Gasp!
Aug 12, 2014 9:04:23 GMT -6
Post by quincannon on Aug 12, 2014 9:04:23 GMT -6
Henk: I detest sweet potatoes and turnips. It is a prejudice I have had from childhood, and I am well aware of it. For twenty five years, this coming September my wife has tried to convince me that I should try them, give them another chance, but I continue to refuse. In the instance of sweet potatoes the conversation comes up around Thanksgiving every year, and sweet potatoes are on our table in their various forms every last Thursday in November, without fail. Others, our guests eat them. tell me how delicious they are, but I hold fast to my known prejudice.
So it is with all prejudice. The individual is well aware, they, in most cases don't want to admit it. So not being aware is a lie they tell themselves, an excuse. I don't accept excuses. Reasons, yes, but not excuses, and that extends to everyone, including myself.
If you cannot look at a subject, person, or thing, without bias, you are prejudiced in some form or fashion. For instance when I look at the three main characters in this subject matter tale of woe, I see three very flawed men. Personally I don't like any of them and would not choose any for company. If I thought that Custer was the second coming of the Almighty, my tendency would be to overlook his obvious errors, make excuses for any shortcoming of his I could not avoid, and therefore blind myself to the truth. If I set out to tell the tale, bearing that burden of prejudice, my telling of the tale would be skewed, and I would only be telling my version of the truth. The same goes for the other two, or any of the rest. The only thing I can do then is judge them by their actions. If I find through my own research that they made the correct decisions under prevailing circumstance, my personal feelings toward them don't matter at all, It is performance, and that's all that matters. You either perform or you do not. There is no middle ground.
|
|
|
Gasp!
Aug 12, 2014 9:21:55 GMT -6
Post by Yan Taylor on Aug 12, 2014 9:21:55 GMT -6
Authors when writing about individuals should stay neutral, once you start to letting your own thoughts cloud what should be fact then you have lost the plot, I have tried to keep my thoughts on the various Officer from the 7th as straight as possible, as I remember getting my second PM when I first joined this board (my first was a greeting from Chuck) and it was from someone who wanted to remain anonymous, and it mentioned that I should abandon this site as it contains Reno and Benteen sympathizers, well it left me feeling manipulated, because I want to look at this battle without prejudice otherwise you won’t get any truthful answers.
Ian.
|
|
|
Gasp!
Aug 12, 2014 10:18:51 GMT -6
Post by fred on Aug 12, 2014 10:18:51 GMT -6
... I remember getting my second PM when I first joined this board (my first was a greeting from Chuck) and it was from someone who wanted to remain anonymous, and it mentioned that I should abandon this site as it contains Reno and Benteen sympathizers, well it left me feeling manipulated, because I want to look at this battle without prejudice otherwise you won’t get any truthful answers. You see, Ian, this is the major issue I have with people and this event: almost everyone plays favorites and that is not the idea of studying history. Unless you have thrown yourself into a Hollywood fantasyland where your golden-haired hero rides into Valhalla, betrayed by the masses and the Darth Vaders of the world, this is a historical event ending in a mystery. If you are really interested in finding the truth, you need to begin by ridding your mind of all these preconceptions. And in this case, there is absolutely no need to hate anyone in order to love someone else. To me, my timing analyses prove it. Yet, they will sway no one... at least no one who has already set his or her mind in cement. And to be honest, I don't even want people like that to buy this book: all they will do is criticize it, but not constructively. I can accept and deal with constructive criticism, but not criticism that comes ready-equipped with personal conclusions. Best wishes, Fred.
|
|
|
Gasp!
Aug 12, 2014 10:59:55 GMT -6
Post by quincannon on Aug 12, 2014 10:59:55 GMT -6
Don't feel bad Ian. Anna Sophie Mutter was once invited to play the fiddle with Spike Jones and the City Slickers, and she too declined. Understand that she told them that Cocktails For Two and Pass The Biscuits Mirandy was not quite her style. Imagine that, giving up top billing at the Dew Drop Inn in Chugwater, Wyoming for those run down dumps Carnegie Hall and Covent Garden.
PS Please don't post a Spike video and remind me of my misbegotten youth. If you have one of Anna Sophie though, I could use a lift in spirits this afternoon. The one in the gold designer gown would do just fine. Andre Previn you are an idiot.
|
|
|
Gasp!
Aug 12, 2014 16:09:38 GMT -6
Post by Yan Taylor on Aug 12, 2014 16:09:38 GMT -6
Hi you two, I look at the battle in this way, the three main Officers are Custer, Reno and Benteen, now let’s break it down further, now we can get lost in the fact that we view this battle in hindsight, but imagine otherwise;
Custer was under the preconception that the village would scatter as soon as he got near it, and this notion would be still fixed in his head until he reached MTC or even later, so the major mistake he made was not doing a full recce, but maybe in his mind that any recce would be a waste of time, the Indians would not fight and would run.
Reno, now after reading articles by Fred and doing a bit myself, I have come to the conclusion that he did everything right, he acted on what orders he received and moved towards his objective, now I think that he had no alternative but to stop and fight, as he thought that moving further would result in his battalion getting cut up, and he also had a notion that Custer may show up, after that the Indians dictated play.
Benteen also did what he was ordered to do, and after receiving two messengers, both with enthusiastic remarks, he proceeded to where he found Reno. Now after these two met, there had just been a battle, and Reno and three companies got chase to hell, so I would think that these two Officers thought that these hundreds of hostiles hadn’t just vanished into thin air, but were still active somewhere, so caution must be taken, plus Reno’s men would have been a little shook up.
So after this I cannot take sides in a debate with people who want to categorise these Officers into groups just because they feel that they made mistakes, yes mistakes were made that day, but let’s see it from their view point and not in hindsight.
Chuck, all I could find was either a blue or black dress, no gold gown, I could always get you Andre Rieu.
Ian.
|
|
|
Gasp!
Aug 13, 2014 8:25:13 GMT -6
Post by Dark Cloud on Aug 13, 2014 8:25:13 GMT -6
Barbara Tuchman was prejudiced against Germans, go figure. You'd not notice that in Guns of August, but she knew it and announced it in books and was so concerned that she not be unfair she may have overcompensated. Whatever way is chosen to view that, I think it superior to, say, the often clearly prejudiced and sometimes idiotic books about the Civil War in this nation, north and south. Starting with Freeman, southerners have tried to install the belief that slavery was not the issue, but rather states rights. Seems more civilized and all.
But Lee, Davis, Stephens, and tons of those in the Confederate government said the war was about slavery in their own hand. This is often just ignored when presented.
Our Admiral Halsey (there was a British one) hated the Japanese and that permeates all his writing, but nobody could be so dense as to miss it. That alone doesn't negate his writing (his lies don't help) and importance to history.
The point being that prejudice is only dangerously bad when hidden. Or, attempted to be hidden.
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Gasp!
Aug 13, 2014 9:01:59 GMT -6
Post by Deleted on Aug 13, 2014 9:01:59 GMT -6
Quincannon,
There is no better way to discuss a subject than to do so from personal experience - although I was surprised, at first, by the interwovenness in this case of ‘is’ and ‘ought’.
To like or dislike sweet potatoes and turnips in everyday life is a matter of ‘de gustibus et coloribus …’. BLBH-ers are free to dislike Benteen as much as they want, so I believed until I read your “no excuse”. It took me some time before it dawned on me that in certain contexts there is indeed no excuse for likes or dislikes. On Thanksgiving Day likes and dislikes are totally irrelevant in light of the grave responsibility to preserve a centuries-old tradition. In the same sense BLBH-ers have the grave responsibility to preserve a centuries-old historical event by “constructing” (Fox) it as adequately [sic] as possible.
However, sweet potatoes don’t taste different on Thanksgiving Day. Benteen doesn’t suddenly become a nice guy. How to conduct oneself? Good manners help us to keep our faces straight while eating our share of turnips and to compliment the hostess afterwards: we do so without publicly weighing the pros and cons of what we eat. BLBH-ers can also keep their faces straight when reading Benteen’s accounts, letters, reports and testimonies; however, they cannot do so without (in the end) weighing the pros and cons of what he writes.
The BLBH is a set of interrelated causes and effects, not just a set of data. Beyond physics, causes and effects aren’t evident and for everyone to see; for example the effects of Benteen’s actions after receiving Martin’s note. This is one of the reasons why the historical truth remains unknown. As ‘constructions’, historical accounts are based on criteria, methods, principles, values, etc. that are independent of the given data. These pre-judices - literally - are far less obvious than ‘Benteen was a vindictive person’ but do play an essential role.
A quote from your post, as an example: “The only thing I can do then is judge them by their actions. If I find through my own research that they made the correct decisions under prevailing circumstance, my personal feelings toward them don't matter at all, It is performance, and that's all that matters.” This may sound common sensical but when are decisions correct, according to you? What are the criteria on which you base your OK and not-OK? Nothing is more frustrating when I'm reading a book than being confronted with hidden pre-judices. I prefer an outspoken like or dislike by far, however tedious such accounts become after a few pages.
Best regards, Henk
|
|