|
Post by markland on Jul 19, 2006 19:26:49 GMT -6
Well, as mentioned, some can't entertain it. To discuss it would give it credibility, and that's why they have to start with their (dubious) sureties: there was a last stand, Custer could not have crumbled, and he was on the offensive, at least, when the going got tough. This, in contrast to how Reno is represented. Reno insisted he was on the offensive as well, but is dismissed because he was running for high ground on the opposite side of the river from the camp, with himself in the lead. Whereas, Custer..... Evidence is malleable, and it's really just how it's spun and presented. Americans tend to view the West and its history as unique, which I'd deny, and they want the events to be so as well. They can't view the battle as just another among many in our history. It has to have mystical value for their own needs. Even Benedict Arnold has received better press than Reno. Despite running the risk of losing my pay as "willing stooge" to DC, I have to disagree with a couple of points he made. First, "To discuss it would give it credibility, and that's why they have to start with their (dubious) sureties: there was a last stand, Custer could not have crumbled, and he was on the offensive, at least, when the going got tough." While I do not like GAC, nor respect him as the epitome of a cavalry officer, his history should be sufficient for even the "phobes" to understand that he would not have crumbled, a la "Little Big Man." Reno, on the other hand, I am not sure of. He seems to have occupied staff positions throughout the Civil War and after in the California Indian Wars. I presume I will have to purchase Ron's book to get a better feel for the man than I have from perusing regimental returns of the 1st Cavalry. I am inclined to give Reno the benefit of the doubt, but the manner of his charge to the rear leaves a sour taste in the mouth. And no, I am not being sarcastic when using the phrase "charge to the rear." I seem to recall some Marine general (Chesty Puller?) using almost the same terminology when explaining the Marine withdrawal from the Chosin during the Korean War. Second, "Evidence is malleable, and it's really just how it's spun and presented.' I don't think physical evidence is malleable, however about the presentation and spin I certainly agree with you. That is how lawyers make money. Or statisticians. Since I love this quote, you offered me the perfect occasion to throw it in: "There are three kinds of lies - lies, damned lies and statistics." Third: "Americans tend to view the West and its history as unique, which I'd deny, and they want the events to be so as well. They can't view the battle as just another among many in our history. It has to have mystical value for their own needs." I think many foreigners viewed the West as unique. Otherwise, why the influx of foreign dignitaries throughout the West pre and post-Civil War? Yes, a "positive" spin was put on the Custer-cluster. Unfortunately, we Americans did not have as good a poet as Tennyson write a poem about it. Also, and I think that this escapes many people's attention. It had only been eleven years since the conclusion of the Civil War and twelve years since the horrific slaughter of the Wilderness, Spottsylvania Courthouse, and Cold Harbor-not counting the thousands of deaths which occurred around the Petersburg area. Americans were somewhat jaded by death in combat. "Even Benedict Arnold has received better press than Reno." True but you can actually now say the same thing about GAC. My resignation as official stooge will be in the next blue-ice drop over Boulder. Be good, my Yuengling's are calling me...loudly! Billy
|
|
|
Post by Dark Cloud on Jul 19, 2006 20:06:52 GMT -6
We have a contract, Smithers. Much like the one I have with Guido "The Torpedo" Ripzathroatz. He gets paid more, of course. His work is key to my success. He's my enforcer. He has your email. He needs help with his computer, I told him to call you.
First, I'm saying Custer for Custer's batallion. I don't think Custer himself unravelled, but it's unimportant and unknown and I don't care, and wouldn't blame him, if he had. So, they need a Last Stand, the Custer batallion had to mostly die with military attention to procedure, and Such Gods Do Not Run, so he was on the offensive.
What makes an item evidence is how it's presented. Otherwise, it's just a cartridge case fired from a certain type of carbine. That's all they have, and although there is multiple testimony of soldiers seeing Indians firing into the ground and dead, it's elevated to "evidence." Of what? When?
Whether people did or did not view the West as unique in colonial/historical sense, it wasn't. It bears many similarities to what Britain and other powers were involved in.
Most visiting "dignitaries" were either Euro-trash inbred syphilitic nobility one failed synapse away from a drool cup out for slaughtering slow, dumb - but large - game, or those slavering, accented Marley wannabes looking for mineral or stock wealth. Or land.
Whatever the horrors of the Civil War to us, Europe since the Napoleon years had been nothing but constantly at war with each other or in revolution, and actually for centuries previous. Britain's literature was equally self adoring about its colonial adventures as we were. But except for Karl May and other pulp odds and ends, most of the European adventure media was set where it mattered to them: their own colonies. One screaming heathen is much like another, don't you know. More Port?
|
|
|
Post by rch on Jul 24, 2006 16:04:27 GMT -6
darkcloud
re: Your Jul 18, 4:12 post.
I agree that Custer and Reno were both on the offensive, then went over to the defensive, and then retreated. I just think that Custer did not have to go onto the defensive until he was beyond LSH.
Do I read you correctly? Do you beleive there was only a small group of six or eight around Custer and only few scattered bodies between Custer and the river, with the misplaced markers filling in the empty places? or do you mean that there were to distinct groups of bodies?
I don't see why Custer's body should have been in the center of the group. The defensive line my have been U shaped.
rch
|
|
|
Post by AZ Ranger on Jul 24, 2006 22:30:07 GMT -6
Reno was on the offensive then dismounted and maybe a slight forward offensive on foot but according to him he was on the defensive. If riding toward the village is on the offensive then Custer was but I see very little indication of a offensive attack.
|
|
|
Post by Dark Cloud on Jul 25, 2006 9:00:08 GMT -6
Rch,
1. You may be right.
2. Not quite. But Custer has a small group about him at the top of two vague lines of men, one stretching south along the ridge, the other thicker but pointing down towards the river. Sweeping all the markers into the fenced area, adding 20% spurious, makes it look very different than the view greeting the 7th on the 27th.
3. A Last Stand, as a proactive decision, surggests organization and defensive measures. A U shaped line suggests they weren't surrounded and could have continued in a north or east direction and stayed ahorse and not dismounted or felt a need for a stand.
No clue, but really, if you adjust the markers as I've suggested, it looks very, very different.
AZ,
Reno called it a "charge", not a retreat. Arguably true.
|
|
|
Post by alfuso on Jul 25, 2006 19:03:18 GMT -6
Markland
"Even Benedict Arnold has received better press than Reno."
"True but you can actually now say the same thing about GAC."
I've seen Bedford Forrest get better press than Custer!
alfuso
|
|
|
Post by Dark Cloud on Jul 25, 2006 20:26:17 GMT -6
If true, Forrest WAS the better cavalry leader, though, so it's not surprising.
|
|