|
Post by bullrider on May 29, 2006 12:24:04 GMT -6
June issue on page 52 ( History this month) indicates that Custer,s men begged the Iindians to take them prisoners. I find it ridiculous that this prestigous magazine would print such a falsehood and assume someone has set them straight.
|
|
|
Post by Tricia on May 29, 2006 14:40:03 GMT -6
Here is the offending quote in a mini-article, "130 Years Ago: 'Take Us Prisoner!'"
" ... Although soldiers plead to the Indians to 'take us prisoners,' Custer and some 263 cavalrymen are killed in the Battle of the Little Bighorn; the Indians suffer a loss of at least 60 ..."
Surely they all must have known what treatment awaited an Anglo prisoner! Still, I can't help but think that *some* of the truly desperate and unschooled did--when facing certain death--beg to be taken captive. The certainty shown in this article is its own worst enemy.
Regards, Leyton McLean
|
|
|
Post by elisabeth on May 29, 2006 21:58:41 GMT -6
Isn't that from Red Horse's story? Just off the top of my head, doesn't he say something like "some of the soldiers became foolish, saying 'Sioux, pity us! Take us prisoner!'"
Red Horse on the whole seems pretty sound, so the chances are that a few -- the "truly desperate and unschooled", as you say -- may have done so. But if the article's implying they all did, the Smithsonian really does need taking to task!
|
|
|
Post by Tricia on May 29, 2006 22:44:37 GMT -6
The article does tend to make one think they all asked to be taken captive ... I thought the Smithsonian was a little better than this. Strange, I can't figure out whether the editorial take is PC or not at all ... hmmm.
Regards, Leyton McLean
|
|
|
Post by elisabeth on May 30, 2006 1:34:55 GMT -6
I suppose they could argue that, technically, "soldiers" need be no more than two(!) -- but given the headline, it does look as if the intention is to mislead.
I wonder if this'll become the new myth, overtaking the bunching-and-panic and the mass suicides?
|
|
|
Post by crzhrs on May 30, 2006 6:59:09 GMT -6
I do believe Red Horse made the statement some soldiers wanted to surrender . . . but surely they must have known that would lead to some "special" treatment if that took place.
Then again, how would Red Horse know what the soldiers were saying? . . . did he speak English?
|
|
|
Post by Tricia on May 30, 2006 8:38:17 GMT -6
You make a good point, Crazy ... ! Maybe the soldiers all carried copies of the handy Sioux-English dictionary that fellow brought to Antiques Roadshow a few months back!
|
|
|
Post by crzhrs on May 30, 2006 9:20:52 GMT -6
Possibly the soldiers were laying down their weapons or made some "sign" of giving up, raising the hands or the such.
You would think that most soldiers had it driven into them by NCOs or officers that when fighting Indians you either won or died . . . no giving up, no POWs, no white flags.
|
|