|
Post by sonofacavalryman on Dec 14, 2006 21:31:37 GMT -6
The Army has a long-standing tradition of using American Indian names, such as terms, tribes and chiefs for its helicopters. In the case of the Lakota aircraft, the linkage is between the Lakota legacy as stalwart defenders of their homeland and the nature of the aircraft's intended domestic missions.
"We're pleased that you honor our tribe by naming this helicopter Lakota. You are not only honoring our past, you are recognizing that we are still here, joint partners in the heritage of the promise of America." RedCloud told the audience.
The fielding of the LUH is part of an ongoing Army-level effort to transform its aviation capability through the deliberate reinvestment of funds from the canceled 2004 Comanche program.
The Army National Guard will receive the majority of the 322 new aircraft. Initial aircraft will be sent to the National Training Center, Fort Irwin, Calif. for medical evacuation missions in January 2007. The UH-72A Lakotas will replace UH-60 Black Hawks, which will be transferred to the National Guard for operational missions.
"The Lakota heralds a new beginning for our Army and for our communities across every state," said Cody. "It is our nation's responsibility and the Army's duty to provide our National Guard Soldiers with the tools they need to respond fully and rapidly to homeland security missions and national disasters.
"This exceptional platform will fly for years to come in America's skies. It is an aircraft we needed and we are proud to see it take flight," he said.
|
|
|
Post by Realbird on Feb 8, 2007 19:30:58 GMT -6
In the era of this battle, it was a common practice for the troopers to refer to Indians, any Indians as "John." I wonder why?
|
|
|
Post by harpskiddie on Feb 8, 2007 20:58:05 GMT -6
Realbird:
And Indians generically were called "Lo" as in "Lo, The Noble Redman Stands....." I don't know where the "John" came from, except that it was a very common name among Anglos.
Gordie
|
|
|
Post by elisabeth on Feb 10, 2007 12:28:19 GMT -6
It may be one of those entirely random things, like "Fritz" as the generic name for Germans in WW1. But there do seem to be a lot of Indian characters in colonial history known by the name of "Indian John". Googling produces one who killed a colonist in the early days of the Virginia settlement; several chiefs; and one of the Reverend Parris' two servants at the time of the Salem witch trials. Plus Chingachgook-or-however-it's-spelled in the Fenimore Cooper novels has "John" as an alias. So could it have come from one or all of those?
Another source that's sometimes quoted for "Lo" is "Lo! the poor Indian" from Alexander Pope's Essay on Man, which appealed especially to those frontier hands who were fed up with the pleadings of the eastern humanitarians to treat "the poor Indian" more humanely. It's understandable enough, I suppose, after a few months or years of scooping up and burying mutilated corpses of their victims ... but I do find, myself, rightly or wrongly, that I worry a bit about those who use it, when so many serving frontier officers didn't. It's so plainly intended to dehumanise and diminish that it seems like a bit of a touchstone as far as character's concerned. Especially when it gets into heavy-footed jocularity such as "Mr. and Mrs. Lo and all the little Los".
Of course it wasn't just soldiers; the newspapers had a lot of fun referring to Sitting Bull as "Slightly Recumbent Gentleman Cow". But that's just newspapers, they didn't know any better. Interesting that the serious guys, like Benteen for instance, could pursue the war to the hilt while still seeing the Indians' point of view -- no belittling required.
|
|
|
Post by Melani on Feb 11, 2007 18:42:02 GMT -6
Well, it wasn't exactly a politically correct era! White people at that time generally had the attitude of looking down on anybody darker than themselves, as in, "white man's burden," etc. Hopefully some of the ones who didn't use such terminology had learned to respect Indians as worthy and dangerous opponents. The most successful Indian fighters learned as much as possible about the guys they were fighting.
|
|
|
Post by chadron21 on Feb 11, 2007 22:57:56 GMT -6
A helicopter is an honor but a sports team is a disgrace?
|
|
|
Post by Dark Cloud on Feb 11, 2007 23:09:36 GMT -6
I can understand annoyance with the 'Redskins', but not tribal names, and it's not meant as a disgrace, surely.
I'd also think the Prester John myth might have had something to do with the assumption of "John" as an Indian name. Or something. PJ was supposed the Christian King of India, and his kingdom kept getting further away as the explorers eliminated lands from that probability, and just maybe at your hour of need if you invoked that name, it might save you. Given you had nada to lose.
|
|
|
Post by crzhrs on Feb 12, 2007 14:32:30 GMT -6
I suppose we have to be an Indian or other minority to know what it's like when a dominant race uses their names . . . regardless of the intentions.
|
|
|
Post by chadron21 on Feb 12, 2007 18:57:08 GMT -6
Fighting Sioux and Fighting Irish. One group is offended the other is proud. Both sound like proud names to me.
|
|
|
Post by crzhrs on Feb 13, 2007 8:07:43 GMT -6
Again . . . we need to look at those who may feel offended with the use of "names" by the dominant race.
As White people we can "assume" anything we want about different races (and we have wrongly assumed many things in the past) but that doesn't make it right for those who feel offended.
|
|
|
Post by clw on Feb 13, 2007 8:55:08 GMT -6
Fighting Sioux and Fighting Irish. One group is offended the other is proud. Both sound like proud names to me. The Irish made the decision for themselves and have every right to be proud of the tag they chose. The Sioux didn't have a say in the matter. The issue of NDN names for sports teams just needs to be viewed with empathy for those to whom the name belongs. Our Seminoles here in Florida have no problem whatsoever with their name being used. They even support it in direct opposition to AIM. If it's OK with them, it's certainly OK with me. But if other tribes are offended, I think it's their right to be heard. In many Indian cultures, to use a name that doesn't belong to you is offensive -- names are earned within the culture. We could do a better job of respecting these cultural viewpoints.
|
|
|
Post by Dark Cloud on Feb 13, 2007 8:58:07 GMT -6
But when you can manipulate this to benefit, there arises a class whose reason to exist is to be perpetually offended and accept compensation for it.
They weren't offended when they called each other horrible names, Sioux meaning 'snake' apparently in Ojibway/Chippewah. I'd find it hard to believe that a tribe where the average Joe might be called in seriousness "Rectum" or "Afraid of His Horses" or "crazy" would be terribly offended if Oglala High School referred to its football team as The Fighting Lakota, and/or "warriors" for short.
|
|
|
Post by markland on Feb 13, 2007 10:23:05 GMT -6
ALL
Take the arguments to another location on the board.
Thanks,
Billy
|
|
|
Post by crzhrs on Feb 13, 2007 14:00:23 GMT -6
<"We're pleased that you honor our tribe by naming this helicopter Lakota. You are not only honoring our past, you are recognizing that we are still here, joint partners in the heritage of the promise of America." RedCloud told the audience . . . "The Lakota heralds a new beginning for our Army and for our communities across every state," said Cody.>
Ah . . . what Red Cloud & Cody are you talking about ?
|
|
|
Post by clw on Feb 13, 2007 14:15:46 GMT -6
|
|