|
Post by Diane Merkel on May 6, 2006 9:37:12 GMT -6
From the Rocky Mountain News, this article touches on the visitor center expansion as well as certain well known area personalities. tinyurl.com/oqk3y
|
|
|
Post by bradandlaurie on Jun 17, 2007 13:54:53 GMT -6
Fascinating article, my wife has always told me about the ongoing controversy about how the battlefield should be managed. I do think it would be the best to get the center off the battlefield but I had no idea how potentially divisive this is!
|
|
|
Post by Diane Merkel on Jun 17, 2007 21:42:43 GMT -6
EVERYTHING to do with the battle is divisive! Someone is always feuding with someone else about something. Some of the old guys remind me of schoolyard bullies who never grew up. My favorite quote from the "leadership" of LBHA: "I eat people like you for lunch!" That had to have come out of a very bad movie. My best advice is to enjoy the articles and books about the battle, and enjoy exchanging info here, but stay away from the politics!
|
|
|
Post by Montana Bab on Jun 18, 2007 1:05:16 GMT -6
Diane, That article was interesting, but it is really hard to stay away from the 'politics' of LBH when this fellow is purporting to set up a museum and name it after Libbie Custer! I agree with Paul Hutton about the placement of the visitor's center on the battlefield, plus the stupidity of making it even larger.
A museum placed in the location that other fellow has in mind is a great idea (my opinion), but why on earth would he name it after the "Woe-be-gone Widow"? What exactly did she do to enhance that battlefield, other than to create a 'myth' about her glory boy? In every sense of the word she was a "Battle ax" in that regard.
I'm surprising myself at how strongly I feel, but it took a very long time for people to realize that there were two sides to this battle, and that it wasn't CUSTER'S Battlefield. I was so happy when at last they named it appropriately--Little Big Horn.
Guess I stuck my foot in there again. But it feels good! Bab
|
|
|
Post by Diane Merkel on Jun 18, 2007 6:43:50 GMT -6
Montana,
Your point is well taken about the proposed museum. As with all things political, follow the money. The Custer name sells. I have a lot of problems with the museum. Why put Libbie's name on a place she never visited? Why put her name on a place that was her worst nightmare? Why put a museum dedicated to (white) women of the west in a place that is not associated with any white women? I suspect we will never see the museum. I suspect Libbie is being used to raise $$$.
I feel the same way about moving Sitting Bull to the battlefield. If they move him there, I suspect he will be like Reno, turning in his grave for all eternity because that's the last place he would want to be!
|
|
|
Post by Montana Bab on Jun 18, 2007 10:08:52 GMT -6
Diane,
I agree with you on the proposed interment of Sitting Bull's remains on that battlefield. It's a subject that I hesitated to address because of the posts here previously, not wanting to offend any of my Native American friends. But in reality, the way Sitting Bull hated the Americans, I can't imagine that he would want to be laid there. And I can't imagine that his family wouldn't know what his feelings were.
I for one, have always wondered what the big deal about Sitting Bull was. I know that he was an honored 'holy man' and had the respect of most of the followers (rightly so), but he was not a chief, and did not take part in the battle, as far as I've been able to discern from Indian accounts. Some say he took part, most say he did not.
My belief is that only those who died on that battlefield should be buried there. The National Cemetary on the grounds is another story....
My buffalo nickel's worth.... Montana
|
|
|
Post by Diane Merkel on Jun 18, 2007 19:29:30 GMT -6
Montana,
Your buffalo nickel goes a LOONNNGGGG way with me!
Diane
|
|
|
Post by Melani on Jun 27, 2007 23:43:19 GMT -6
My belief is that only those who died on that battlefield should be buried there. The National Cemetary on the grounds is another story.... Thing is, the cemetery is already there and they're not going to move it, nor will they be moving the Stone House, which has been there so long it almost qualifies as an artifact itself. I personally have no problem with expanding the Visitor Center in the area that's already developed--no matter what they do, that ground is not going to go back to the way it was the day Custer rode over it. I'm not sure about Sitting Bull. I met his great-grandson, Ernie LaPointe, a couple of days ago. He seems to be the driving force behind moving his grandpa to LBH. Your point about Sitting Bull not wanting to be there is well taken, but on the other hand, it's the place where the Lakota had their greatest victory. I think Ernie's idea is to promote some kind of healing--he wants SB to be away from trafficked areas, where he can be seen, but not touched, so to speak. It looks like he will have along battle ahead to achieve this.
|
|
|
Post by Montana Bab on Jun 28, 2007 0:28:17 GMT -6
Melanie,
That's really interesting that you met Sitting Bull's great-grand-son. I would really like to know more about his reasoning for wanting SB buried there. I had read before (somewhere?, I hate it when I don't write things down!) that SB wanted no part of LBH and certainly did not want to be buried there. That's the only reason I feel he should not be.
I'm very curious to know what healing Ernie La Pointe was referring to. Healing for the Native Americans? I thought that LBH was such a victory for them, they lost so few warriors. I wish someone would give him a format to voice his side of the issue. Or maybe he has, I have not been privy to see it.
I personally wish that Crazy Horse was buried there!
Respectfully, Montana
|
|
|
Post by crzhrs on Jun 28, 2007 6:40:44 GMT -6
CH was buried in a secret location which is still unknown today. And that's the way it should be . . . adds to his mystique and legend.
|
|
|
Post by Tricia on Jun 28, 2007 7:46:54 GMT -6
Montana--
Remember that SB, if re-interred, would be on Crow land; Ernie said he was going to talk to members of the tribe Sunday afternoon. As I didn't see him after that morning, I have no idea how it went. The most important aspect of Ernie's reasoning is that SB was born in the areas around the Elk, now-Yellowstone River in eastern Montana (recalling that the Sioux had once taken this land for themselves) and that South Dakota marks where SB was a hostage ...
Geographics and the idea of Sacred Lands are very important to the Native American mindset--even to me, as part-Indian as I am--and Ernie felt as if a return to SB's home places would be honoring that tradition and his great-grandfather.
That said, I think he's facing an uphill battle.
|
|
|
Post by Treasuredude on Jun 28, 2007 17:39:13 GMT -6
Utley's LANCE AND THE SHIELD -- "I was born on the Missouri River", said Sitting Bull to the first newspaper reporter to gain an interview with him. ( New York Herald Nov. 16, 1877).
There was also a rumor that he was born at a place called Many Caches which is across the river from where he died.
Neither area is close to the Yellowstone.
|
|
|
Post by Tricia on Jun 28, 2007 21:23:59 GMT -6
I'm simply reporting on what Ernie said to the Friends; it's based on his oral tradition.
|
|
|
Post by Melani on Jun 28, 2007 23:03:18 GMT -6
|
|
|
Post by Treasuredude on Jun 29, 2007 6:49:27 GMT -6
I've been to both of the Sitting Bull burial sites (not recently). Granted, both were in a sad state of condition. There are, however, events under way to clean up and protect the site.
If they do decide to go ahead and bury him at LBH, I think they should make an exception to the rule and bury him in the cemetery. I know the article stated a small marker with a fenced in area but that hill is already cluttered with monuments and sidewalks, etc.
|
|