|
Post by elisabeth on Jun 10, 2007 12:21:22 GMT -6
Gordie,
Sounds good. I haven't yet read it, but it's on my "must do" list.
Does Rosenberg mention (of course he must) the power of the Centennial? America had a folklore ("Johnny Appleseed" etc) and a history -- but not yet a mythology of its own. Custer's Last Stand gave it that. Walt Whitman's review of the Mulvany painting, cited on another thread, picks up on that rather well, I think: a sense that the nation had come of age.
|
|
|
Post by mwkeogh on Jun 10, 2007 14:14:27 GMT -6
excellent analysis, elisbeth. I could not agree with you more on this ever changing perception of Keogh over the years. The real man was much more difficult to assess.
|
|
|
Post by mwkeogh on Jun 10, 2007 14:47:03 GMT -6
And just to further the discussion, whilst Bill Rini has a right to be a born-and-bred Custerphile in his private actions, I would think that his role as Myles Keogh would prevent that whilst working on the battlefield. In no way am I offering any criticism toward's Bill's fine, fine work. But, Keogh was one of those officers who could travel the divide between the Custer Clan--though never particularly in Armstrong's good graces--and the rest of the regiment. I'm thinking Captain Keogh was much more circumspect in his feelings towards the Boy General, and had he survived, though supportive of the mission, I'm sure he would not have been enthused about the outcome--or his lieutenant colonel. Of course, at that point, he'd be third in regimental command after Reno and Benteen ... and might have made a play for the lead. As the sole survivor of the Last Stand, it would make for a powerful battle for power--should he'd wanted it. Bill, how do you feel about the historian vs. portraying the historical person? This can be a really great conversation. --t. Trish, I happen to agree with your assessment of Myles Keogh and his complex and ever changing relationship to the Boy General. It was not an easy relationship to understand by any measure. You are right to label me a Custerphile in my private views, as I do defend his actions on the field of battle that day and do not believe they were the cause of the disaster, but I have never claimed to represent the thoughts of the actual Keogh....I think that would be a task beyond the capacity of practically all reenactors today (unless of course, you consider those who believe they are reincarnated as their alter-egos. lol.) Keogh was at times a member of the Custer Clan as well as spending a significant amount of time in Custer's doghouse, so to speak. He got along well with both Benteen and Tom Custer, which says a lot about his ability to fit into both factions of the 7th. My own experience portraying Keogh in the field as a reenactor has strangely mirrored the original in his relationship with GAC. Like the original Keogh, my own dealings with a well-known reenactor who portrays George Armstrong Custer has run both hot and cold (currently quite cold. lol.) and like my counterpart, I have currently been banished to the Northern Boundary Survey. About Keogh's ranking in the regiment. There was also Tilman and Merrill ahead of him in seniority, besides Reno and Benteen. But there is no question that Keogh was ambitious had the opportunity to advance arisen.
|
|
|
Post by harpskiddie on Jun 10, 2007 18:02:43 GMT -6
Elisabeth:
The Centennial and Johnny Appleseed are mentioned and he speaks of the scandals of the day and how the nation needed something to ease the national melancholy. Whitman is in there, and Mulvany's painting and the instant epic poetry of the times. It is quite fascinating, but a bit outside my normal reading parameters [it is mostly words and not pictures - although there are a bunch of those too]. I have not read it all, yet.
You'll probably finish it before I do............
Gordie, down by the river, I lost my baby...................................................................
|
|
|
Post by tassiewolf on Jun 10, 2007 18:08:07 GMT -6
Well, well DC you show just what an educated fool can do when he shoots his mouth off about a subject that you have no knowledge or experience, before slinging off about something you know nothing about why don't you think about the folks you are gunna upset with your ill conceived barbs and generalizations. I have passed on your criticisms to some more groups to be used as a learning tool, a view of what the uneducated Rupert's like yourself see us as. We commonly call those that you place us serious living historians amongst, FARBS. These folks have been tarnishing LBH for years which has lead to the changes now going on over there. I for one applaud those that give up their time to demonstrate how things were back then. DC I find your comments bigoted in the extreme and offensive and I call upon the moderator to discipline this egotist. Failing that I will be in Hardin Montana June 2008 and would be more than pleased to meet with you and redress your grievances. But then again I wouldn't expect someone that hides behind words and a dictionary to accept a challenge of any sort. PS: I was just wondering that walk to the blood bank was it to give it or drain it....I doubt that you have given anything but cynicism in your life.
|
|
|
Post by Dark Cloud on Jun 10, 2007 22:31:33 GMT -6
I'm sure you find safety in numbers, tassiewolf, and while of course I should be terrified, I'm well past the age where I would give the remotest damn. It's roughly as emotionally devastating as being challenged to a duel by your hair stylist or paper boy. I don't hide behind anything, having my sites that include my phone number listed with each posting.
I find Ambulant Action Figures ridiculous, you don't, but the fact that people - I'm not alone - laugh at them makes you resort to intimations of violence isn't a compelling argument the laughter isn't deserved. My descriptions are accurate in the main. They're playing dress up and trying to justify it by a higher calling.
Yes, AZ, the Alamo was a last stand, apparently by vote.
Any child can post a photo, CSS, it doesn't make the horrendoplasty that Miles made of the S-A war excusable, his lies justified, his vanity deserved. He literally got away with murder, and his repayment of the Apaches who fought for him ranks among the worst actions of a US officer, ever.
|
|
|
Post by AZ Ranger on Jun 10, 2007 23:27:44 GMT -6
Thanks DC. A stand would be something of choice with the alternative of not getting involved with the enemy. Otherwise as long as you were in the fight and then killed it would be a last stand. For example a skirmish line thrown out to slow the enemy while you retreat becomes a last stand if overrun and everyone killed.
AZ Ranger
|
|
|
Post by Dark Cloud on Jun 10, 2007 23:59:23 GMT -6
I think we disagree somewhat.
A last stand literally only means the last stand you made, whether or not your survived it. Because it served metaphor in literature for willing sacrifice it became capitalized, and a proactive act of fighting till the enemy gave up or you were killed, and wasn't asked of anyone without need. By which, I mean not every most recent - the last previous - stand is a Last Stand. Custer made a final defensive fight, an arguable stand, but I don't think it was a Last Stand, a "rally to me, men, to fight to the last!" Their movement up and over the hill was blocked, the horses shot by enemy or themselves, and they fought where they were stopped, not where they decided to make it. Custer would be in the center, directing traffic, but he was not.
At the Alamo, at least by possible truth, they decided to fight to the last - although hoping for help - rather than leave or surrender while they could. That was a Last Stand and a half. I don't think Custer rises to that level, ironically.
Because it would inflate the fallen by elevating the reasons for what happened, it was called a Last Stand, implying a willing sacrifice. Although different, two different recipients were offered, one as like They Died With Their Boots On (on behalf of nation....), and a lesser one to save Reno. Eh.
|
|
|
Post by wild on Jun 11, 2007 1:10:13 GMT -6
Amusing that a commentator on issues relating to the LBH should pour scorn on re-enactors of the same. Interest in this battle is manafest in litrature,films,art,museums,preservation societies,boards and re-enacting.That an aficionado of one form should mock a member of another is pure unadulterated grumpy old man syndrome to put it at it's mildest.So what if the reenactors are the wrong shape, color or blood group they are contributing to the preservation of a period of history in a far more tangiable way than verbalisation provides here. If 2000 reenactors ever get to charge up LSH I want to be there I dont give a tinkers fart is they are not all red.
|
|
|
Post by AZ Ranger on Jun 11, 2007 7:59:31 GMT -6
Gordie If you don't get a commission from Amazon.com you should. I have enjoyed all your recommendations.
Steve
|
|
|
Post by AZ Ranger on Jun 11, 2007 8:17:40 GMT -6
OK the light bulb is coming on. Last Stand, last stand
Anyway I appreciate reading the comments in this thread. It gives much food for thought. You are dealing with a subject that I have spent very little time thinking about but it is fascinating. I am much more comfortable with horses and firearms but willing to expand to include other topics.
AZ Ranger
|
|
|
Post by harpskiddie on Jun 11, 2007 8:20:34 GMT -6
Steve:
Glad to hear that. As a point of honor, I must say that I have never bought anything on Amazon. On the Net, I limit myself to Ebay, Abebooks and various music sites. That keeps me sufficiently impecunious.
BTW, you're coming up for your battlefield visit, are you not? Have fun - and try to think "horseback" wherever you are wandering. Most people forget that the movements were made over real terrain by men on horses, not by lines drawn on maps. It might give you a somewhat different view of routes, times etc.
Gordie, let the fort that was a mission be an everlasting shrine..........................................................
|
|
|
Post by AZ Ranger on Jun 11, 2007 8:34:51 GMT -6
As far as reenactors to me it is important to have a defined goal of the reenactment. Is the site the exact place where the event took place or adjacent to it. Are the reenactors similar in age and size to the persons they are portraying. I think it is important that people realize how small they were in general if portraying cavalry. Is it a production like a play or is there interaction with the public.
I think an unknown trooper would much better in public interaction then say a Benteen. The questions would focus on the era rather than the person. Yet almost all that I have exposure to are Sgts and Officers. Who portrays private William Andrews?
AZ Ranger
|
|
|
Post by crzhrs on Jun 11, 2007 9:13:16 GMT -6
And does the re-enactment do exactly what took place at the LBH?
|
|
|
Post by harpskiddie on Jun 11, 2007 9:27:01 GMT -6
At Fort Casper, they used to have a couple of troopers, who went about their daily duties, but who would stop to answer questions posed to them about their mounts, unis etc. I never asked if they were employees or volunteers. They certainly were authentic-looking in terms of size, clothing, scruffiness etc., and greatly added to the experience of visiting the site.
Gordie, I hope that the train from Caribou, Maine runs over your new love affair................................
|
|