|
Post by Melani on May 6, 2006 16:34:27 GMT -6
Diane-- The Wikipedia entry you linked to looked pretty good to me at a quick scan, though I found I was forced to correct the spelling of Keogh's name and his rank as I read . That's the thing about Wikipedia--anybody can edit anything. A while back somebody on the forum referred me to the entry on Keogh, and I told him I was the last one who edited it. So you might say that there would be no debate, just facts, but there really is no control over people changing stuff they don't agree with. What I changed in the Keogh entry were some very positive statements that I personally felt fell into one of those "gray areas" mentioned above, so when I changed them, I phrased it very carefully along the lines of "nobody is really sure if it was this way or that way, but such-and-such is possible." That said, it sounds like fun to me. More available knowledge is always a good thing. Another possibilty would be to make the project a section of this forum. Re: Monaseta--the gray area comes in with the story that she had a second kid later. That may be true, but it probably wasn't Custer's--maybe Tom's. But I wasn't there, I don't know, and I'm not trying to start a debate on this thread.
|
|
|
Post by George Armstrong Custer on May 6, 2006 19:53:23 GMT -6
Q, old sport, I wish you no reproach whatsoever, and I hope you will take what I have to say in the spirit in which I write it.
My take on Diane's eminently worthy project is that she was soliciting volunteers on two levels. One was to provide raw data to complile the proposed database. Secondly was a call for volunteers to monitor the resultant section of the forum. Speaking personally I would be very willing to offer up my contributions (based upon my reading of various sources) to the database. However, I would not feel comfortable in putting my name forward as an authority capable of monitoring and editing the contributions of others on this forum. I am a working historian, but my area of speciality is very far removed from Custer and the LBH - the latter is my boyhood passion to which I endeavor to apply the skills of my trade. I would not, however, presume to rate myself capable of monitoring the input of fellow members of this forum who are far more cognisant of the intricacies of LBH research than am I. Without naming names, I do feel that we have members who are eminently qualified to do just what Diane appeals for assistance in achieving. I think this forum has proven its maturity in the manner in which we dealt with CSS and West (and James, I hope you will as a result be remaining one of us). I therefore commend Diane's vision of what we can achieve on this forum beyond our established debates, and that we contribute individually to a collective resource whose raison d' etre is accuracy.
Ciao, GAC
|
|
|
Post by q on May 6, 2006 22:41:06 GMT -6
Thanks GAC. I guess you certainly put me in my place. Along with Diane. And you are accepting of the fact that I do not qualify, based upon, what? I am most certainly not at this time willing to offer nor contribute my services to anything here. Nor, may I add, do I think that there is anyone here qualified to do the job Diane asked... That - that person isn't biased enough in their beliefs on the subject of the LBH to handle that job the way she would have it done. I don't pretend to know the knowledge you know, nor for that matter what anyone else knows about this subject. Accepting of this as I am. And in the same spirit. I, unlike the many qualified here, can state that the gray area of Monaseetahs' child is one for me that I can state with a certainty is one that - "I don't know." That's what makes it a gray area. I am so happy that we have the expert and may I add proper documentation to now, once and for all, really really know for certain. And now that we do know "the absolute truth" from everyone who really matters and their absolute beliefs must be undeniably correct. Is it any wonder why.... I am considered...."condescending"? I merely offered it as an example And certainly not as a subject for debate. If we were to debate ALL unknowns here on this thread, how far do you think we would possibly get with the project at hand?
I guess we now know what Diane meant when she said... "ALL, WELL, ALMOST ALL." The dense, dumb and ingnorant need not apply. Take heed of the warning for those of you who wish not to be insulted. Oh, don't fret or worry. I'm not going to do what CSS did. I like dispelling myths, and busting lies. Especially lies about the LBH. Evidently lies and myths are more acceptable here than what the truth allows. Even in the face of no proof. We still have our devout beliefs, don't we? Blind faith is one thing, the truth, quite another!
|
|
|
Post by michigander on May 7, 2006 2:41:47 GMT -6
Q, I taste a little bit irony in your referring to monasetah. However, it's simple to know about it. Look at the date of birth of the child and at the date of the encounter between George and her. This is biological. This is impossible. For me, I want add, no problems at all with all the Monasetah matter. I don't consider it a fact of great historical importance. Melani, about the second child, there are no proofs that he was a son of George or Tom. And, there are also other biological reasons for it (at least about George), but, as I am Out of Thread, I stop here.
|
|
|
Post by Melani on May 7, 2006 3:26:03 GMT -6
Right, michigander--there's no proof such a child even existed. But I have heard that story, so to me that's what makes it questionable--other people will have heard it as well, and some will believe it. Certainly the baby born while she was with the Seventh could not possibly have been Custer's.
It seems like the fascination of the whole LBH thing is that so much is uncertain, and people always want to know the "truth." But I doubt that we will ever know what the truth is about many of these issues.
|
|
|
Post by markland on May 7, 2006 4:22:29 GMT -6
Sheesh, and I am the one who is supposed to be cranky, having just turned 50! OK folks, let's check the egos at the door and look at this dispassionately-if anything to do with GAC can be done dispassionately-to see what the proper course of action should be. Personally, I like Ephriam's idea more than the idea of Wikipedia (or however in the Hades it is spelled). But I can go either way and will be glad to volunteer research/look-up assistance as needed. I don't have the background on LBH to be considered an subject-matter expert, and quite honestly, have no desire to be so. Oops, heresy! Everyone calm down and let's work together on this! OK? Be good, Billy
|
|
|
Post by michigander on May 7, 2006 5:26:50 GMT -6
Billy, personally really calm! And of course, let's work togheter. I like Diane's idea, and, much add on Wiki LBH it was myself to have done them. You was recognizing my changes from the english mistakes So tell, was easy to find the guilt I of course am not the right "expert", but I hope others here will contribute to at least try with Diane's idea. Melani, I agree with you. And with Louise Barnett, that says the same thing.
|
|
|
Post by ephriam on May 7, 2006 8:12:19 GMT -6
As I understand Diane's original intent, she would like to see entries for every person engaged at the LBH on June 25, 1876, with a brief biography based on primary sources. I think it is a great idea!
The fact that each entry would be short, not to exceed say 1000 words, would probably eliminate most areas of controversy. For example, to stay within the 1000 word limit on Custer, the issue of Monaseta might not even appear. For individuals for whom full book-length biographies have already been written, the entry would simply refer the reader to the more complete work; perhaps the original author might be invited to write the entry. The great advantage of Diane's idea would be to flesh out the biographies of the thousands of people for whom there is less information available but for whom LBHA members have been digging out details on.
Members could volunteer to be involved in one of three ways: First, they could be a contributor, writing a short biographical essay on a person of their choice; their name would be listed at the end of their entry giving them credit for their work. Second, members could serve as fact-checkers, verifying information and sources submitted by the contributor and offering suggestions about corrections, additions or deletions; they would be recognized at the beginning of the manuscript in the acknowledgements. Third, an editorial team would be established; these individuals would review content and writing style, make minor changes to entries, and ultimately decide what to include or not include if there is a controversy about some portion of an entry. Some individuals may participate in more than one of these roles, contributing entries and fact-checking others' work, for example.
Each biography would need to include some basic details, if known, such as date and place of birth, marriage and death; children if known; summary of military service (if a soldier), name(s) in their native language (for Indians), etc.
One question would be what to do if several individuals wish to contribute on the same individual. Would it be first in line; or would the editorial board accept several entries for the same profile and then decide which is better (or blend them together?)
Since Wiki can be edited continuously, I would recommend either formal publication as mentioned earlier or at least put them up on the LBHA website, linked to the individual's names already on the list of Seventh Cavalry and Indians pages, where Diane has control of the content editing.
I will post two entries, one for a soldier and one for an Indian, as possible templates -- I will put them in the Eye Witness section of the webpage.
Thoughts?
|
|
|
Post by michigander on May 7, 2006 8:30:35 GMT -6
I agree. Good post. The editing was really a problem. I changed some evident mistakes but they were suddenly re-corrected, more times as I changed them. This could happens also with our new posts.
|
|
|
Post by Tricia on May 7, 2006 15:59:20 GMT -6
I think the best place to handle a Monseetah "baby situation" would be in her biographical outline--I am assuming there will be one--and present it as "Cheyenne oral tradition and some Anglo authors maintain that whilst in captivity, she bore a child to a member of the Custer family ... " Or something like that. Footnote the writers who have conducted research on the subject and let it go at that.
I agree it is a minor topic in GAC's life story, but a more important one to the Cheyenne. Personally, I am a believer that she served as more than just a translator, but that's about as far as I feel comfortable taking the matter.
Regards, Leyton McLean
|
|
|
Post by Diane Merkel on May 7, 2006 19:49:56 GMT -6
Ephriam has outlined the project beautifully. I'll check the Witness Interviews board next.
I'm delighted that Billy's on board.
Leyton, I doubt Monaseetah will get an entry because, at this stage, we are only presenting persons who were present at the battle.
q, you never could handle someone disagreeing with you.
|
|
|
Post by Tricia on May 7, 2006 22:23:44 GMT -6
Supposedly, Monaseetah was the face that launched White Cow Bull's "ship" at the LBH. But wouldn't she be notated in Kate Bighead's bio--if there is one?
|
|
|
Post by michigander on May 8, 2006 2:47:10 GMT -6
Monasetah's baby it's gossip, I think not story. And at my humble opinion it need no entry. January 1869: Monasetah had a baby. How could this have a place and even be considered by us? And proposed as an argument even if proofs, biological and historical are all against? Custer knew her just two months previously! So there is no place for: "no I don't think he was his father, maybe he was not the father, it was said, I have seen, I have read..."No, Custer was not the father of this baby. Cannot be. Simple. Custer wrote to Libbie that Monasetah had a baby the January 14, I repeat, just 2 months later he met the girl. I just quote Monaghan: "MAri Sandoz in her magnificently written western books, assumes that Custer fathered a baby by Mo-nah-se-tah. She has generously given me her citations for this assumption, based on records she saw in the National Archives. These records have been moved since she saw them in 1937-38 and a repeated search has failed to reveal them, so it is necessary to rely only on the Sandoz notes concerning their contents. She also states that the Fort Sill Medical Records showed Custer and other officers to have been treated for shypilis, 1868-69 - a commendable caution rather than indictment. In the Fort Hays records, also now missing, she reported a reference to a son born in the stockade to Monasetah, no date. If the child referred to by Custer was born in January, this second baby becomse extraordinary. There can be little question about the january child, for he is also referred to by Benteen as an exemple of how the despised Custer was chuckholded. Until the various documents are found, then, and show more than has been reported from the Sandoz notes, the Custer-Baby stories must be considered indian gossip. It should be remembered, too, that the indian Bureau would not have been averse to circulating tales against the Army." We seems here to forget also, that the marriage between George and Elizabeth, that often talked about having a baby, was instead childless, and Custer had contracted gonorrhea when young.
|
|
|
Post by Diane Merkel on May 8, 2006 7:54:19 GMT -6
Thanks for that, Michigander.
Did anyone other than Connell report the awl in the ears story about what the women did to Custer's body?
|
|
|
Post by George Armstrong Custer on May 8, 2006 8:36:09 GMT -6
Thanks for that, Michigander. Did anyone other than Connell report the awl in the ears story about what the women did to Custer's body? Diane, the original account of the awl incident came from Kate Bighead's account to Dr. Marquis, published in the booklet She Watched Custer's Last Battle. Apart from Connel, Utley also quotes the Bighead account without comment as to his opinion on its veracity in Cavalier In Buckskin. Ciao, GAC
|
|