So, What Do We Call It, Then?

[crzhrs]

Shat:

Obviously Custer didn't know who was camped where . . . but it was just his "luck" that he headed north where the Cheyenne were. And as you stated . . . "when it is time to fight there was none as courageos and aggressive as the cheyennes" . . . and throw in Crazy Horse's Oglalas (most of whom had stayed with him rather than go to reservations) you have "special forces" facing Custer.

The Hunkpapa were the more northern of the Sioux, had less contact with whites and for all purposes were the most "untamed" (in white man's terms) about capitulating to whites.

Any way you put it Custer attacked a village holding probably a majority of all the "hostile" Indians of the Northern Plains who were the most hard-core of Indians, throw in a large force of reservation Indians who may have even more ill-feelings toward whites due to living on agencies and dealing with them . . . and it is no wonder Custer's entire command was taken out.

[Dark Cloud]

This isn't applicable to this thread, or this category. You're answering Custer's Last Chance in Custeriana.

[markland]

It's the lack of desire for specificity that subtracts from any claims of 'trying to figure out what happened.' It's why Gray is hated, because it prevents the sweeping rewrites that people want to apply.

If you cannot call this gaseous and highly suspect specificity of the Indian tales "testimony", it takes away a huge prop of discussion and seriousness. Exactly.

Again, I find it creepy that movies and fiction are entertained as seriously as anything else.

Folks, Indian accounts are merely that, Indian accounts. No more, no less than the magazine articles written by former cavalry officers. None were taken immediately after the battle by "war correspondents" and as DC likes to point out, there are variables in the translation skills of the interpreters; as well as a large amount of hindsight involved in deciphering exactly what was seen by whom and is it tainted by future knowledge, not to mention the differences in time/space that any translations involved.

Use a dictionary for your definitions. Indian accounts of the LBH are not testimonies. The only Indian testimony I am immediately aware of are the cases of the Ponca Indian, whatever his name was; vs. Gen. Crook. There is another one which is niggling the mind, but due to the overdose of Nyquil and Alka-Seltzer Cold Plus, I can not remember it to save my life.

Billy

P.S. Here is one definition of testimony (bold-face is mine):

tes·ti·mo·ny Pronunciation (tst-mn)
n. pl. tes·ti·mo·nies
1.
a. A declaration by a witness under oath, as that given before a court or deliberative body.
b. All such declarations, spoken or written, offered in a legal case or deliberative hearing.
2. Evidence in support of a fact or assertion; proof.
3. A public declaration regarding a religious experience.

[shatonska]

crzhrs said:

Any way you put it Custer attacked a village holding probably a majority of all the "hostile" Indians of the Northern Plains who were the most hard-core of Indians, throw in a large force of reservation Indians who may have even more ill-feelings toward whites due to living on agencies and dealing with them . . . and it is no wonder Custer's entire command was taken out.

that's sure

[AZ Ranger]

Agreed Billy. One difference in an Indian translated account is there is one more chance for error not even made by the person making the statement.

When you think we have come a long ways to prevent misrepresenting what someone really says, I just read a Superior Court transcript produced by a professional transcriber. He spells wildlife as wild life as statements made by the defense attorney big difference. If a modern day court recorder can't get it right why do we think others didn't do the same type of mistakes in the past.

AZ Ranger

[shatonska]

if you compare warriors accounts and rees accounts on the killing of the two rees during reno's retreat you can realize that the accounts match quite well , here we have 3 completely different languages (cheyenne lakota ree ) with 3 interpreters but the result is good ( much better than 3 soldirs watching the same event ), you mut consider that indians were more focused on details because of their way of life , they had only oral history which means better memory

[Tricia]

I can agree with Billy and AZ's assessments when it comes to testimony and account. The point I initially wanted to make was, try as we might, there really isn't this Ivory Tower Of The Truth Via Testimony and as such, it should be recognised by all as we enter into those pesky little matters like the RCOI.

I can easily work within those parameters. At the same time, I'm not tossing NA accounts out with the bathwater.

[AZ Ranger]

Leyton I believe it is the lack of overwhelming evidence , and absolutely consistent testimony and accounts that is the attraction to the this event.

I started much younger believing if it was in a book it was truth. I can now also accept we have what we have and it is interesting because of that. I would also agree that Indian accounts can be as truthful and factual as any other testimony or account.

Although we may never have a theory that is consistent with what happened we can eliminate some theories.

AZ Ranger

[Dark Cloud]

"They had only oral history which means better memory." Because they would need something, they must have, somehow, developed it. Doesn't work that way. That's the definition of wishful thinking.

No, it just means they have oral history, called "stories" in most places. They would need better memory than those without writing, but there's no evidence they, or anyone, have it. There are those who're invested in making you believe that ("We have owned this land - which nobody of course owns but for which you owe us - forever! As proof, Aunt Ethel will recite a poem......")

There are numerous examples of oral history being bonkers and not reflective at all of known fact: cargo cults, for example. Or islanders who incorporated space news in their myths about stars.

[shatonska]

those words only speak for themselves , better memory and better ability of observation , stop ,
anyway accounts have to fit , nothing is sure